That's not going to happen. I was never asked and I don't have such a pair and if somebody had asked first, that would have been nice.
As for Stuart's impartiality, I have seen no proof of it (see, I can play that game as well) and my confidence in him took an almighty drop yesterday when he accused me of something he is just as guilty, making money from doing audio. IF he won't be honest to himself, if SY considers what I do as dishonest when doing the same... that pretty much shuts the door.
He sells his services. He makes money from his website !!!
So his honesty is now questioned in my mind.
Add to that his extreme agreesiveness to which I find myself constantly in a defensive position, saying additional things that other people join in and pick on out of context, and I get the feeling I am being approached by a lynch mob?
What did I do that was so wrong - not even in a science forum, that I agree would be different, but this is just DIY where things should be aired freely and DIY is about shared experiences. I have shared... and in fact shared things that have been helpful to pay bills, no sin in that, in fact the opposite, because it shows what I have shared as valuable.
If this later leads to something that others can weigh in and find a way to explain observations made by serious people, then what is the harm, in fact that is ALL GOOD. I don't see anybody here who is anti-science, not a single person. If you want to see a real attack on science, look at global warming where the evidence is overwhelmingly one way. Even 'climate change' is a made-up wording because it is less alarming for what it really is, global warming.
But right here? Nobody has been conned, nobody is doing anything illegal or dishonest, not even Stuart wanting to write his article - no objection whatsoever.
But this I entreat you all is D... I...Y... it is NOT a science forum.
Will it lead to publishing facts of a more scientific nature? Is there one person here who would reject that? What is the problem?
So why all this confected outrage?
There has not been expressed a single rational reason for it... and "I hate audio commercialism" just doesn't cut it. Even Stuart must see the banality of that, considering what he does for a living.
Or is this really just about feeding your own egos? You know, I honestly think so. There are some monstrous big egos here - prancing about and making their presence felt, and as Ken has pointed out, generally at my expense.
I think John Lennon got it right: All You Need is Love !!!
Go ahead now with your tests, it is now entirely in your hands - the rest of us can now take a critical look at how you go about it. Nothing wrong about that too.
The time for lazy criticism is over.
Cheers, Joe
PS: The real DIY'ers will soon report their findings, of that I am confident.
Last edited:
Seems that this is no different than any other snake oil -- no measurements offered by the developer and no controlled listening tests. Claims of positive effect are supported only by anecdotes.
Yet, we're asked to take this seriously.... more seriously than even the developer has.
Whatever happened to credibility? Why should anyone spend their own time to prove or disprove Joe's claims if he won't?
Yet, we're asked to take this seriously.... more seriously than even the developer has.
Whatever happened to credibility? Why should anyone spend their own time to prove or disprove Joe's claims if he won't?
Why would you say that, when you offer no evidence of your own and no device to test?
Maybe careful who you call lazy.
Hi Joe,
If you read what SY has posted more carefully, he has only questioned the lack of testing and some hard figures. This is DIY, exactly. You should have the ability to make these tests on your own.
I agree that you probably should have worked harder to get some repeatable metrics before you offered these changes for sale. Just as a point for your own defense should your claims ever be questioned. I would have.
I had a look at your web site. For the money you are asking for these "upgrades", there darn well should have been some kind of responsible testing done. I think that once your services exceed a certain amount, you ought to be capable of performing tests to prove, if nothing else, that your work is performing to specification. When I service some equipment, I normally take before and after measurements to assure myself I didn't cause damage or a drop in performance.
There is one glaring error on your site. You don't understand clocks, do you? A SAW device isn't as stable as more run of the mill crystals. Aside from a GPS locked crystal oscillator being close to a specific frequency, you wouldn't use that for a audio reproduction system clock either! The most stable frequency source is an oven controlled crystal, period. The GPS locking process introduces jitter, and SAW devices are at least as bad as that. If you want to be taken as an honest, knowledgeable person, remove the incorrect stuff off your site and turn down requests to perform that "modification". Then learn about the technology you are playing with and offer real improvements at fair prices.
BTW, SAW stands for Surface Acoustic Wave - like an FM IF filter if you will. Not stable compared to crystals, but more like a ceramic resonator.
No this isn't your DAC "improvement", but it is on your site and you do advertise to make this change for a lot of money. If you don't understand the science, you are in no position to make claims such as performance improvements.
I would like to think you are on to something with your DAC filtering - and you may be. But you made the claims and you need to stand up for yourself with real experimental information. This doesn't mean a few people who say it sounds better will cut it. Find out what is happening and prove it. Do it in a responsible way and disclose your results.
-Chris
If you read what SY has posted more carefully, he has only questioned the lack of testing and some hard figures. This is DIY, exactly. You should have the ability to make these tests on your own.
I agree that you probably should have worked harder to get some repeatable metrics before you offered these changes for sale. Just as a point for your own defense should your claims ever be questioned. I would have.
I had a look at your web site. For the money you are asking for these "upgrades", there darn well should have been some kind of responsible testing done. I think that once your services exceed a certain amount, you ought to be capable of performing tests to prove, if nothing else, that your work is performing to specification. When I service some equipment, I normally take before and after measurements to assure myself I didn't cause damage or a drop in performance.
There is one glaring error on your site. You don't understand clocks, do you? A SAW device isn't as stable as more run of the mill crystals. Aside from a GPS locked crystal oscillator being close to a specific frequency, you wouldn't use that for a audio reproduction system clock either! The most stable frequency source is an oven controlled crystal, period. The GPS locking process introduces jitter, and SAW devices are at least as bad as that. If you want to be taken as an honest, knowledgeable person, remove the incorrect stuff off your site and turn down requests to perform that "modification". Then learn about the technology you are playing with and offer real improvements at fair prices.
BTW, SAW stands for Surface Acoustic Wave - like an FM IF filter if you will. Not stable compared to crystals, but more like a ceramic resonator.
No this isn't your DAC "improvement", but it is on your site and you do advertise to make this change for a lot of money. If you don't understand the science, you are in no position to make claims such as performance improvements.
I would like to think you are on to something with your DAC filtering - and you may be. But you made the claims and you need to stand up for yourself with real experimental information. This doesn't mean a few people who say it sounds better will cut it. Find out what is happening and prove it. Do it in a responsible way and disclose your results.
-Chris
Maybe careful who you call lazy.
Because this is DIY - simple as that. I didn't mean to offend anybody, but the lazy comment should be taken in the correct context. I presented observations, I am supported by others who have made the same observations. Nothing else is required to present this as a participatory subject with an invitation to do just that, participate. Classic DIY.
Please keep this in mind: Nobody has refuted the accuracy of those observations. Doubted? Yes, but not refuted.
This is not scientific inquiry, it is just DIY.
And please, let us not impose new rules that are unprecedented. Nowhere have I seen where anybody has been asked to supply equipment and ship half across the world, that 'requirement' is unheard of on www.diyaudio.com or any other DIY forum. I supplied eight possible scenarios that can be easily tested - took weeks to prepare - is that not enough?
So DIY it is - let's get on with it. Nobody should be forced to do anything. But as Ken Newton has repeatedly pointed out, if in doubt about it, it is a rather trivial thing to do, just a few easily sourced resistors and caps. That's the way to go.
Cheers, Joe
BTW, I am preparing another DIY thread about using high frequency bias in tube output transformers - again, it will have the same form factor and nobody should doubt my sincerity in presenting it. Again, full details on suggestions on how to implement it - and yes, like here, actual working schematics - and posting schematics has become too rare these days.
Can someone enlighten me as to why people are insisting on carrying out a DBT test when we know that the test would not allow the differences between compressed MP3 v CD to be shown up.
A DBT was done to see what could be got away with, according to the test there is no difference between MP3 and CD.
It is like measuring a high impedance circuit with a 1000 ohm per volt multimeter.
Are you all interested in a race to the bottom or do you want good sounding stuff to build.
A DBT was done to see what could be got away with, according to the test there is no difference between MP3 and CD.
It is like measuring a high impedance circuit with a 1000 ohm per volt multimeter.
Are you all interested in a race to the bottom or do you want good sounding stuff to build.
There is a rule in this forum so as every single member in a discussion thread/forum should be clean from any kind of private involving in a business, should not sale/buy anything whatsoever, to prove so his own "integrity"/"purity", qualifying so himself for the ongoing discussions?
Come on man! What is going on here?
Why every single time this discussion here have to be tied to Joe`s private site and his business? What is the clue in this?
Can`t we definitely go out of this obsession and continue further with the discussion and analyses of this cap/filtering subject?
Why Joe and only Joe have to find himself some DAC devices and send it out for testing? There was presented in details how this filter configuration should be set it up in different circuit configurations. It rest only for those who doubt about such functionality to try themselves and do the tests one may want/need on his own.
Joe, do not claimed anything at all in this. He made some observations about this particular filtering method (which was used before and is not his invention at all). He pointed out and made known his observations to all of us. Some of us have already tried it and confirmed the same observations. I never ever experienced a negation of this effect, from someone who implemented it by himself. Nobody who tryied it and said: no nothing at all, no any effect, only bad parameter figures.
All those who deny the effect of implementing this filtering are doing this only by theoretical basis, by suppositions/appreciations. And then further accuse Joe for charlatanry, hidden marketing, advertising of his business, and so on. There is not just stupid and crazy all this?
What advertising potential it may have in fact this thread? Is this thread read it by mass readers out there? Just think and be rational...
Again, let`s try to go further in analysing this filtering method, and focus on the subject, rather than on collateral aspects of all kind of sorts. It is that difficult?
This thread is not about Joe, SY, or someone else as persons engaged here in discussions. There is not here the subject about peronal integrity of one or another, we may not conduct any inquery about one private person or another. We supposedly have a completely different discussion subject: Practical Implementations of Alternative Post-DAC Filtering.
Come on man! What is going on here?
Why every single time this discussion here have to be tied to Joe`s private site and his business? What is the clue in this?
Can`t we definitely go out of this obsession and continue further with the discussion and analyses of this cap/filtering subject?
Why Joe and only Joe have to find himself some DAC devices and send it out for testing? There was presented in details how this filter configuration should be set it up in different circuit configurations. It rest only for those who doubt about such functionality to try themselves and do the tests one may want/need on his own.
Joe, do not claimed anything at all in this. He made some observations about this particular filtering method (which was used before and is not his invention at all). He pointed out and made known his observations to all of us. Some of us have already tried it and confirmed the same observations. I never ever experienced a negation of this effect, from someone who implemented it by himself. Nobody who tryied it and said: no nothing at all, no any effect, only bad parameter figures.
All those who deny the effect of implementing this filtering are doing this only by theoretical basis, by suppositions/appreciations. And then further accuse Joe for charlatanry, hidden marketing, advertising of his business, and so on. There is not just stupid and crazy all this?
What advertising potential it may have in fact this thread? Is this thread read it by mass readers out there? Just think and be rational...
Again, let`s try to go further in analysing this filtering method, and focus on the subject, rather than on collateral aspects of all kind of sorts. It is that difficult?
This thread is not about Joe, SY, or someone else as persons engaged here in discussions. There is not here the subject about peronal integrity of one or another, we may not conduct any inquery about one private person or another. We supposedly have a completely different discussion subject: Practical Implementations of Alternative Post-DAC Filtering.
Last edited:
That's a fair enough question to ask.
Right now listening to Elisabeth Westenholz playing Nielsen's Chaconne 1916... amazing!
-
Nonsense, and I know that first-hand, having been the "subject" in just such a test (and having no problem putting the MP3 rates in order). Where do these urban legends get started?
It is difficult to refute an anecdote. It would be necessary to prove that either the person concerned never did what he said he did, or didn't hear what he thought he heard. The former involves proving a negative; the latter involves getting inside someone's head and examining his subjective experiences.Joe Rasmussen said:
Then why get so worked up about it? Why accept others attaching your name to an alleged effect and seek payment for it from commercial users?
Lots of people make mistaken claims for how circuits work - the internet is full of this. Normally a correction and explanation is sufficient; they then go away enlightened. Some do not and persist in their misunderstanding. I and others do not feel the need to build a circuit in order to point out how it works - that is not how science works: the whole point of circuit theory is that it is possible to say how a circuit works without building it.
Yesterday I was going to say something like "I think I smell the sound of goalposts being hoisted on their own petard". Shipping problems have turned into supply problems, a desire to do other tests alongside DBT have turned into a desire to avoid DBT, doubts about the experimenter now seem to be turning into refusal to support the experiment. If this is DIY, as Joe keeps saying, then a DIY experiment (without Joe's involvement) is possible - but why should we bother? He is the ones making the claims.
Nobody ask or force anybody to bother. It is a self involving into this. So, no bothering, no involving.
If one bother and become/get interested into this subject or want to find out more, then keep going... DIY, publish/discuss the results, contribute with something, as it was already done it. The final conclusion it will come out by itself, after all this process will come to an end. It is that simple...
But do not analyse persons/individuals involved in the discussions... Such should not be the meaning here.
If one bother and become/get interested into this subject or want to find out more, then keep going... DIY, publish/discuss the results, contribute with something, as it was already done it. The final conclusion it will come out by itself, after all this process will come to an end. It is that simple...
But do not analyse persons/individuals involved in the discussions... Such should not be the meaning here.
Last edited:
So can we get back to discussing how the circuit functions - this seems to be the one topic which most people are reluctant to address. Proper listening tests now seem to be fading off the agenda again. Can we drop this insistence by Joe and his followers that doubters build it and listen - that would prove nothing at all, apart from demonstrating that a filter may be audible. We know that filters may be audible. The issue is the mechanism.Coris said:
One interesting point Joe makes is regarding 0.33F supercaps across supply lines.
Joe recommends supercaps with 40 to 100 ohms ESR .
Presumably these are acting as damping networks across the supplies.
Joe, what is the subjective effect of adding supercaps to otherwise unmodified DAC/reconstruction filter stage ?.
Also, what is the subjective effect of the 1uF DAC shunt cap without the addition of power supply supercaps ?.
Dan.
Joe recommends supercaps with 40 to 100 ohms ESR .
Presumably these are acting as damping networks across the supplies.
Joe, what is the subjective effect of adding supercaps to otherwise unmodified DAC/reconstruction filter stage ?.
Also, what is the subjective effect of the 1uF DAC shunt cap without the addition of power supply supercaps ?.
Dan.
I don't see your point at all.
I have decided to share it for free - and you have a problem with that?
You make no sense. You can take it or leave it - so what business is it to others what I do with the info presented. And what you describe as 'commercial users' are actually very good friends of mine who come back and back. It's more like a club. Surprise, I have a LOT of friends.
You really have no basis to complain and to use your own words "why get so worked up about it?" Right on!
Remember, whenever you are pointing a finger at somebody, the other three fingers are pointing back at yourself. Figure that one out.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Cheers, Joe
-
I personally do not reject the idea about listening tests. It could be fortunate if such should be done. The problem is, as I can see, that this task is not a very easy one to fulfil, mostly because the logistic reasons. Then it may be the testing approach in itself. It can be enough discussions about the procedure to be used... So for the moment it may be quite complicated to proceed to this step. It is not practically easy to do it.
Another aspect about listening tests, is in a part, that this is already done by those who experienced this filtering. Therefore I further support the idea of do it yourself regarding this approach. I accept of course that some ones may already know theoretically how this circuit works. To experience the results in the audio signal is a little bit different (to not say very different...).
There is a simple principle or strategy in this DIY concept here: as many will experience the effect, as many the interpretations and idea may come out. Then some main lines it can be shaped about how it works in fact, what happen actually, and it may explain the improvements, which are enough obvious for those who have experienced it in real.
I'm curious of your position and supporting reasoning on the following questions.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that a scientific listening test produced a negative result. Would you then still feel that an engagement in the search for a physical circuit causation to be of any relevance? If so, why?
Now, let's instead assume that the listening test result was positive. How then should that positive result affect the search for a physical circuit causation, and why?
If there's a discernable difference in the sound, then there will be a significant difference in measurements. The measurement results allow one to pin down mechanism.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.