I saw a remark in another thread:-
Nobody's more of an objectivity thug than I.
qusp's point is particularly with reference to non-commercial activity, but I'm interested in talking about commercial activity.
There's no doubt in my mind that some commercial enterprise in the audio market is verging on, if not actually fraudulent. Anything that can be done to discredit the perpetrators is OK in my book.
I'm concerned, at the same time, that skilled individuals with an entrepreneurial bent are finding themselves faced with an increased investment barrier to entry into the market, to the detriment of us all.
RocketScientist (the nwavguy) is fortunate in being in the position of being able to blow $10,000 (or thereabouts) on a Prism dScope with no commercial return. He's now made it virtually impossible, however, for anyone without a similar sum to invest (invest, not blow) to enter into the headphone amplifier market, and looks set to undermine the market in DACs in a similar fashion.
In some cases the objects of his attentions have done themselves no favours; AMB is a case in point. AMB should have responded to criticism in a constructive manner and should have shown some intention to invest some of his profits in improved test facilities. Schitt can afford to buy advertising on Head-Fi and have more than one employee, to my mind this makes them well able to afford appropriate test gear. Simply becoming defensive or even going on the attack is only evidence that they are not acting in good faith.
Head-Fi discredited themselves by their partisan support for advertisers. Why do they have no independent objective test facilities, but instead produce a continuous flow of subjective assessments?
Having said all this, perhaps a less confrontational approach from RocketScientist would prove more effective and less destructive of honest entrepreneurial activity. Perhaps an open offer to review equipment privately with a view to improvement before committing to sales would be effective in bringing about the generally higher objective standards I, for one, would like to see without one-man startups with no more than design facilities and the resources to produce a few prototypes being squeezed out of the marketplace.
Another alternative might be the improvement of low-cost test facilities such as RMAA, which would benefit those purely DIY developers mentioned by qusp. A set of recommendations on how to obtain good results based on comparative measurements with the Prism or AP test sets would help. If it is possible to produce a low-cost DAC exceeding the measurement floor of the dScope then home-computer based measurement exceeding the threshold of audibility cannot be far away if it is not already possible.
We all benefit from a diverse marketplace. Good as the O2 and ODAC may be, I don't want to see the only choices available being these or offerings from the big players such as Grado or Fostex.
Nobody's more of an objectivity thug than I.
qusp's point is particularly with reference to non-commercial activity, but I'm interested in talking about commercial activity.
There's no doubt in my mind that some commercial enterprise in the audio market is verging on, if not actually fraudulent. Anything that can be done to discredit the perpetrators is OK in my book.
I'm concerned, at the same time, that skilled individuals with an entrepreneurial bent are finding themselves faced with an increased investment barrier to entry into the market, to the detriment of us all.
RocketScientist (the nwavguy) is fortunate in being in the position of being able to blow $10,000 (or thereabouts) on a Prism dScope with no commercial return. He's now made it virtually impossible, however, for anyone without a similar sum to invest (invest, not blow) to enter into the headphone amplifier market, and looks set to undermine the market in DACs in a similar fashion.
In some cases the objects of his attentions have done themselves no favours; AMB is a case in point. AMB should have responded to criticism in a constructive manner and should have shown some intention to invest some of his profits in improved test facilities. Schitt can afford to buy advertising on Head-Fi and have more than one employee, to my mind this makes them well able to afford appropriate test gear. Simply becoming defensive or even going on the attack is only evidence that they are not acting in good faith.
Head-Fi discredited themselves by their partisan support for advertisers. Why do they have no independent objective test facilities, but instead produce a continuous flow of subjective assessments?
Having said all this, perhaps a less confrontational approach from RocketScientist would prove more effective and less destructive of honest entrepreneurial activity. Perhaps an open offer to review equipment privately with a view to improvement before committing to sales would be effective in bringing about the generally higher objective standards I, for one, would like to see without one-man startups with no more than design facilities and the resources to produce a few prototypes being squeezed out of the marketplace.
Another alternative might be the improvement of low-cost test facilities such as RMAA, which would benefit those purely DIY developers mentioned by qusp. A set of recommendations on how to obtain good results based on comparative measurements with the Prism or AP test sets would help. If it is possible to produce a low-cost DAC exceeding the measurement floor of the dScope then home-computer based measurement exceeding the threshold of audibility cannot be far away if it is not already possible.
We all benefit from a diverse marketplace. Good as the O2 and ODAC may be, I don't want to see the only choices available being these or offerings from the big players such as Grado or Fostex.
Having the home computer with measurement accuracy better than labs when I was first a tech, I can clearly say: we don't know what to measure. Not completely, and we don't really understand the ramifications of what we do measure. It helps, but does not tell the full story.
This leaves us with some reliance on subjective tests. Unfortunately, what clues make you believe what you hear is music, what clues I need, and what clues my wife with her super sensitive hearing need are different. So every evaluation needs to end with "my opinion, your mileage may vary." Reviews are only of use when you have heard enough of the equipment a given reviewer has written up to see if what you hear correlates with their reviews. Not an easy task.
Nothing seems to shelter us from hype and corporate sway in reviews. I pre-screen with my ears, and then pass the final judgement to the wife.
If I want to be upset with anyone, it is how there are no places left for me to go and hear stuff for myself. HT and portability markets with a couple of go, go, go generations have shrunk the true high fidelity market. There is only one high end store left within 100 miles of my house and when I was there, the salesman was a snake oil pusher. How many of us are left who come home after work and put on music to just listen? Small market. I don't have a HT and don't have an iPod, IPad or any "i". I am in the small minority. Yes, a dinosaur. O2, got to check that one out.
This leaves us with some reliance on subjective tests. Unfortunately, what clues make you believe what you hear is music, what clues I need, and what clues my wife with her super sensitive hearing need are different. So every evaluation needs to end with "my opinion, your mileage may vary." Reviews are only of use when you have heard enough of the equipment a given reviewer has written up to see if what you hear correlates with their reviews. Not an easy task.
Nothing seems to shelter us from hype and corporate sway in reviews. I pre-screen with my ears, and then pass the final judgement to the wife.
If I want to be upset with anyone, it is how there are no places left for me to go and hear stuff for myself. HT and portability markets with a couple of go, go, go generations have shrunk the true high fidelity market. There is only one high end store left within 100 miles of my house and when I was there, the salesman was a snake oil pusher. How many of us are left who come home after work and put on music to just listen? Small market. I don't have a HT and don't have an iPod, IPad or any "i". I am in the small minority. Yes, a dinosaur. O2, got to check that one out.
It is not necesarelly a money barrier.
I have blown $250 on a sound card with AKM AK5394 ADC (THD+N -110dB). If I buy some $100 software I think I can do the same audio measurements like the $10K tool from above.
As for new enterpises... fads are coming and going, only the sound remains the same.
I have blown $250 on a sound card with AKM AK5394 ADC (THD+N -110dB). If I buy some $100 software I think I can do the same audio measurements like the $10K tool from above.
As for new enterpises... fads are coming and going, only the sound remains the same.
Last edited:
OK, I admit that I haven't been in the market for commercial audio gear for a looooong time nor in a hifi shop for a whole lot longer (maybe 25 or 30 years), so I may not be au courant on what it takes to do the marketing. Are you saying that unless someone has a particular piece of test equipment, they can't sell headphone amps?
As someone interested in making a killing in the DAC market myself I don't agree. There's not just one market for these devices, there's segmentation. I am by no means deterred by NwAvGuy's entry into the DAC market - the total market pie size increases by his contributions raising awareness of DAC issues to the populace. Go NwAvGuy, go I say.
Actually, quite the opposite. His confrontational style is making it easier for the honest entrepreneurs, not more difficult. The more he hypes his own offering the bigger the crash when his objectivist stance is revealed for the sham it actually is
Pride has always come before a fall.The same feeling I had with the DAC on the other thread (Octave snake-oil smells)The more he hypes his own offering the bigger the crash when his objectivist stance is revealed for the sham it actually is
.
I don't see how you can say his "objectivist stance" is a sham - his extensive writings give pretty good evidence of what/why he believes
if you are attacking the validity of his version of "objectivism" in audio product design there is no need to phrase it as a personal attack on his honesty/integrity
I agree that you can't see it - you're an objectivist yourself jcx are you not? If you could see it then you'd become subjectivist.
What he presents from what I've read is not so much evidence, as belief. He believes the Benchmark DAC is transparent (subjectively). I have no such belief.
I make no attack on his person whatsoever. I merely state that I see his stance is not totally honest. Total honesty is extremely rare amongst humans, my observations are not judgments on his person.
Perhaps you are considering that I'm remarking on his dishonesty as conscious dishonesty - no, I'm not claiming that he's consciously dishonest. He's dishonest in the sense that he's inconsistent, not that he's trying to cheat anyone. His dishonesty is self-deception as far as I can make out. Its the dishonesty of relying on untested assumptions, not the dishonesty of chicanery.
Does any of that help you understand better? If not, further questions in pursuit of clarification welcomed.
Does any of that help you understand better? If not, further questions in pursuit of clarification welcomed.
choosing different weighting of the available evidence than you do for "audio quality" isn't necessarily "inconsistent" - care to give an few examples of his unconscious dishonesty/inconsistent claims/beliefs?
Lots of "us" don't see a problem with insisting on DBT protocols for assuring that hearing alone is the sense being used to determine “audibility” - doesn't have to be ABX, careful perceptual testing can include training, scoring for different "focus", knowing the compared products, only the Blinding, level matching of the experimental trials is non-negotiable
Lots of "us" don't see a problem with insisting on DBT protocols for assuring that hearing alone is the sense being used to determine “audibility” - doesn't have to be ABX, careful perceptual testing can include training, scoring for different "focus", knowing the compared products, only the Blinding, level matching of the experimental trials is non-negotiable
Last edited:
Choosing 'objective' measures of audio quality is dishonest - audio is subjectively perceived. Of course if evidence that the chosen 'objective' measures correlate well with perceived quality then the dishonesty is mitigated.
From his blog, a first example where he's not supporting his claim with evidence, as a proclaimed 'objectivist' would, to maintain consistency:
When you know your audio gear is genuinely transparent it opens a worry-free window into the music that’s uniquely satisfying.
How does he know his audio gear is 'genuinely transparent' ? Answer - he compared it in blind testing with the Benchmark DAC. Which leads to the question - how does he know that's 'genuinely transparent'. If he's done rigorous testing for that then he doesn't tell us about it. Curious minds want to know.
<edit> I myself see no problem with DBT testing either. Problems do arise in the implementation of those tests, keeping them truly impartial though. No disagreement in principle from me however.
Last edited:
Abrax, I'm puzzled why you take issue with such a statement; is it because it is from a self-proclaimed (or so I understand) objectivist?
Surely you know that this is the type of statements streaming incessantly from the proclaimed subjectivists. Actually this statement is one of the better ones coming out of that direction.
And besides that, the statement doesn't say that his stuff IS transparent - he 'only' says that IF you know it is, it would be uniquely satisfying (whatever that is). You may not agree with it (I don't) but to stamp it as dishonest/inconsistent seems extreme for you.
jan
If you read further down his blog, he is claiming that both his ODAC and the DAC1 are audibly transparent.
And, while I suffer from expectation bias just like everyone else, I’ve run a second blind listening test and can report the O2+ODAC held its own against the $1600 Benchmark DAC1. They both are audibly transparent.
If such a claim were to come from a subjectivist then it would not be inconsistent not to offer any 'objective' verification for this. However for an objectivist to be consistent, they would offer it.
And, while I suffer from expectation bias just like everyone else, I’ve run a second blind listening test and can report the O2+ODAC held its own against the $1600 Benchmark DAC1. They both are audibly transparent.
If such a claim were to come from a subjectivist then it would not be inconsistent not to offer any 'objective' verification for this. However for an objectivist to be consistent, they would offer it.
I read down his comments a bit this one might be of interest - link
Basically my understing of his logic is that both ODAC and DAC1 meet the criteria set out before his tests. The DAC1 measures better than ODAC. Under some blind tests he has run (details as yet pretty much unknown from what I have read) it is not possible to reliably tell the two apart. This seems to be his criteria for audible transparency.
I'd be interested to hear what people's opinions are on that as a valid test for transparency.
I'd say that it's evidence tending to suggest transparency, and that if you had 3 DACs all indistinguishable that would more strongly suggest transparency, and so on, as the number of indistinguishable pieces of apparatus increases so the likelihood that they are NOT transparent but all identically flawed decreases.
OK, I hope so. I'd like to see some comparison tests though with details of the test conditions.
No, SY. What I'm saying is that anyone wishing to sell headphone amps now needs to be able to measure their offering to the same calibrated standard or stand in danger of coming under attack if the equipment doesn't measure up in objective terms. I'm not saying either that this is entirely a bad thing, but what I am saying is that otherwise honest developers now face a cost barrier that they previously did not. Whereas they might previously in good faith have designed a piece of equipment for which they quoted a specification based on good practice and on the datasheets for the devices or on simulations and thus gained a toehold in the market, this is now a business plan which looks less attractive.
Perhaps a more charitable approach to improving standards in the marketplace would be to offer a free or low-cost design review service, which would probably attract less hostility from individuals who find their incomes under attack by somebody who is obviously not hurting for money himself. Anyone declining such assistance then becomes fair game.
Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.