Well, there might be more than one reason - fine... But on should ponder the Q - I did.
//
Would you mind sharing how your DAC comparison was set up? How the switching was done between devices under test, how the levels were matched, how many trials were done...etc. Thanks in advance.
EH, you certainly have more patience than me trawling through long posts for gems like that "huge sonic differences etc etc...." 😉
Would a huge virus be considered a 'gem,' since viri are all very small compared to, say, elephants?
Any evidence for this claim of 'misrepresentation' ?
Yes, did you see my response in post #170 ?
Disagree it was an answer, it was a response yes.
Disagree that it implies intolerance of those people who he described as ignorant. If he'd used 'ignorant' as a pejorative then I'd say you had a point, but as you yourself have admitted, @barrows used the term descriptively.
I'm sorry but I cannot let this slide.
Objectivism isn't a religion it's the exact opposite of one. The comparison, assessment and categorisation of a systems performance based on scientific method and measurements alone.
Subjectivism on the other hand involves a plethora of all the usual human traits, susceptibilities and failings to come to its conclusions. Principally a belief system in itself where one believes their aural skills to be infallible. This despite the scientific evidence proving that our perception is predominantly influenced by our state of mind and preconceptions. Not to mention the fact that our aural memory is particularly bad being incredibly inaccurate beyond only extremely short periods of time. Basically you can't use your own hearing to come to any reliable conclusions unless strict standards are adhered to when making direct comparisons between two pieces of equipment. This is why we ask for test conditions to be explained when someone presents subjective impressions because without those strict standards in place anyone's subjective impressions are largely meaningless except to say the system wasn't broken.
Now tell me why you think objectivism is a religion? The only thing you could possibly say is because we believe the measurements to actually mean something. That's fine except that those scientific methods and measurement systems have been required, over hundreds of years, to develop the world we live in today.
Maybe you argue well I don't think the measurements explain everything we hear. This is again something you are choosing to believe in, again a religious concept, without scientific basis. Although it is scientifically accurate to say - the measurements don't explain everything we hear for we know our own perception is influenced by a great many things outside of the sound that the system may actually be producing.
Sure all us objectivists have different sound systems. One likes valves and optimises around them, one likes class D and optimises around them and the other only likes class A. We all use the same methods to achieve the level of technical performance we are happy with and then we think our systems sound amazing. Why? Because we are happy with them. And that happiness we know translate into satisfaction when actually listening to said systems.
The evidence of the behaviour of many of the objectivists. There's dogma being preached but its only 'do as we say, not as we do' because the proponents of the religion don't adhere to their own preaching. There's a word for this and its often found amongst religious adherents - hypocrisy.
Of course objectivists like yourself claim not to be religious and the subjectivists are the 'true believers' (in all kinds of snake oil) but that's just a propaganda claim as your actions speak loudest.
It's not worth the time. He's just going to go on forever in circles and pick at the semantics of your argument rather than the crux of it all.
Let me know when you have real evidence. You'll never have any, though.
In this instance I agree. Any evidence I present will be simply dismissed as 'not real evidence'.
Never underestimate the power of denial.😎
If it makes you feel better to think this way then carry on. I just measure what I make until it measures like it should then listen to it happily.
I know. None of them ever do and around and around we go with insignificant minutiae as if picking apart the stuff that doesn't matter makes what I've said moot.
I'm happy for you. How do you go about deciding how a DAC (just to take one example) should measure? Should it have -90dB, -110dB or -130dB THD+N for example? I don't have any answer to that one myself other than by listening so I'd appreciate learning about your development process.
The manufacturers specify the level of performance a device is supposed to be capable of. This is what I aim for. Ie get it working how it's supposed to work.
That's pre-supposing a DAC chip has already been chosen. But my question was how to go about choosing the target measurements, the choice of chip will then follow on from that.
I usually pick the chip with the best performance for the job whilst also being practical for the application.
How to decide the target numbers a particular job is going to need is my question. Is OK if you don't want to answer, just my curiosity 🙂
I know you didn't ask me, but my perspective is that we essentially reached good enough for electronics a long time ago. I personally don't think you need anything better than -80 dB distortion in most cases. Maybe some people in some situations can do better, so a little overkill never hurts.
So, I'd pick the DAC based on other criteria like features, cost, power consumption, availability, lifecycle status, and quality of documentation or support.
Why would I use an AK4499? Either for measurement purposes or just for the fun of building something that is extreme overkill.