Mark4 is the self-proclaimed DAC expert on the forum. As long as everyone knows this it will be fine.
//
//
You shot yourself in the foot.
You just proved that the ES9018 measures crap, under certain conditions (hump distortions). As of if this is audible, zero proof. It may or may not be audible, depending again of a set of unknown circumstances, and that would be an interesting information that you don't have, and apparently don't intend to find out more about.
It is the masurement that led to a method of avoiding the hump distortions in the ES9018, nothing related to audibility.
Who says that's the hump distortion? Hasn't been proven that's it. Looks somewhat random to me, might not even show up on an FFT, or might not fully show up. Might be audible to some. Not proven, especially since ESS was smart enough to muzzle people from talking about with their NDA. Who would dare write an AES paper about it?
Also, I haven't seen any historical time-line of how hump distortion came to be looked for. The pic I posted was supposed to be ESS confidential until Scott Wurcer decided he could share it. I don't think they wanted to make it public. In fact that problem may have been fixed in later ESS dacs, the hump may be a different problem. Many people have said that ES9028/38 sounds better than the earlier ESS dacs. Could be fixing that problem was part of the reason why.
There are still lots of things we don't know and or that haven't been proven.
Last edited:
Was looking allright there for a few pages, now it's gone south again.
Now would be a good time to close the thread IMO.
Better to have a bit of opinion and bias together with a few informational and/or technological tidbits than this bickering and running about like a flock of headless hens.
Now would be a good time to close the thread IMO.
Better to have a bit of opinion and bias together with a few informational and/or technological tidbits than this bickering and running about like a flock of headless hens.
So you think it would be possible to miss those artifacts, at those levels, on a FFT? You just burned your last drop of technical credibility.
Those artifacts appear precisely around multiples of the base frequency; the +/- symmetrical deltas are probably because of intermodulation in the notch filter (of unspecified origin).
Absolutely, but your by-the-ear methodology doesn't help a iota. It's only confusing the matter, introduces new unknown variables and spreading uncontrolled pseudo-facts.
Last edited:
This is from Jakob's bag of semantic tricks; so because "expectation bias" is completely unscientific (which is false, BTW) you and your brother in arms are entitled to propagate any gross misrepresentation, correct?
True for experimenters, as we all have seen. If you claim it applies to listeners you will need to provide proof. The same level of proof you always demand from others will do (like proving you can see grass grow
).Now you sound just like JN with his phantom 'carrier'
If you claim it shows up on an FFT, please post proof. Or, you could clearly state that you are expressing a personal opinion. Same as you would like to have from others.
Last edited:
Unbelievable, so you claim that -20dB (0.1V) harmonic artifacts may not show up in a FFT. Are you for real, this is as much as asking for proof about the tomorrow sunrise.
You claim that good honest people can't hear what they plainly hear, and demand absurd proof from them. How do you like it?
Oh, come on, TNT, how can you misrepresent him like that. 🙁 If you'd said something like "... is affiliated with audio business and desires to be seen as DAC expert" then you would've gotten more positive response from him.
Well forgive me for being a human being with feelings. But then again I have explained why I'm happy with my system and others would be happy with theirs. Because they measure the way we set out for them to measure.
Being content when something does what they wanted it to do is fairly normal. Especially when it didn't do what it was supposed to do without a few design revisions.
In general, it would be foolish to believe that "Snake oil" merchants haven't entered this debate on an open forum and are being honest.
Specific to your comment. I have no doubt you hear what you hear. That doesn't mean its actually there.
Last edited:
Richard Feynman:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"
Knowledge is not absolute. All we can do is share experience. I'm grateful to those who do, and thankful, but I will put it in my personal context with respect. Everyone has a different viewpoint, we need to remember that with humility when things get heated.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"
Knowledge is not absolute. All we can do is share experience. I'm grateful to those who do, and thankful, but I will put it in my personal context with respect. Everyone has a different viewpoint, we need to remember that with humility when things get heated.
I get the need for proper measurements and all. But if we measured every single little thing we're doing to meet scientific large volume samples to strive for as-objective-as-possible criteria, we'd never get anything done at all.
Measure all you like, just because it comes up on one measurement done in a specific way does not make it objective.
We're all human beings, I do not understand why it is a problem to say something like:
Clearly: Writing about an experience that perhaps happened quite a few years ago, not a single sheet of paper available as a reference.
Insert nitpicking ad nauseum etc.
I did not see any exclamation marks on Barrows posts? On the other hand, I think this post is a quite loud accusation. And on what basis could it be?
And then the completely pointless back and forth thing with Evenharmonics and a clearly agitated Naaling, why do you even bother?
It just goes on, and on, and on, and on...
More people enter the fray to add either a bit off common sense, or petrol to the bonfire. Hardly any more noteworthy contributions to the thread about AK4399 because of all the *******' NOISE.
John W has a good post:
And 3 whole pages of peace follows this post, remarkable.
Then he posts a positive experience about some new parts:
And then it goes without saying, the noise comes back for a bit...
John W tries to explain, clearly stating the conditions surrounding his experience:
It's no use, now here comes tirade of shouting and completely pointless opinionated drivel, much like this example:
I did manage to find 1 positive post from Naaling:
I was tired of all the nonsense, and I wanted it to stop:
People clearly took offense at my wish to keep to topic, after a short but heated discussion we get 1 whole page of peace.
Meanwhile, John W clings to topic:
We then get almost 1 whole page of nice discussion.
I have not seen any more polite replies or contributions to topic since post #308:
Except Simon Dart's post above mine ofcourse, which is an attempt at cooling things down gently. Post 398.
So thats 90 posts that in my opinion are more or less pointless, please do not start arguing about that as well. Or do any of you think something good has come out of those 90 posts?
Measure all you like, just because it comes up on one measurement done in a specific way does not make it objective.
We're all human beings, I do not understand why it is a problem to say something like:
Clearly: Writing about an experience that perhaps happened quite a few years ago, not a single sheet of paper available as a reference.
Insert nitpicking ad nauseum etc.
I did not see any exclamation marks on Barrows posts? On the other hand, I think this post is a quite loud accusation. And on what basis could it be?
And then the completely pointless back and forth thing with Evenharmonics and a clearly agitated Naaling, why do you even bother?
It just goes on, and on, and on, and on...
More people enter the fray to add either a bit off common sense, or petrol to the bonfire. Hardly any more noteworthy contributions to the thread about AK4399 because of all the *******' NOISE.
John W has a good post:
And 3 whole pages of peace follows this post, remarkable.
Then he posts a positive experience about some new parts:
And then it goes without saying, the noise comes back for a bit...
John W tries to explain, clearly stating the conditions surrounding his experience:
It's no use, now here comes tirade of shouting and completely pointless opinionated drivel, much like this example:
I did manage to find 1 positive post from Naaling:
I was tired of all the nonsense, and I wanted it to stop:
People clearly took offense at my wish to keep to topic, after a short but heated discussion we get 1 whole page of peace.
Meanwhile, John W clings to topic:
We then get almost 1 whole page of nice discussion.
I have not seen any more polite replies or contributions to topic since post #308:
Except Simon Dart's post above mine ofcourse, which is an attempt at cooling things down gently. Post 398.
So thats 90 posts that in my opinion are more or less pointless, please do not start arguing about that as well. Or do any of you think something good has come out of those 90 posts?
This sort of philosophical nonsense has been going on for ages. Read Thomas Khun in the 1960's. Its an extension of ancient Greek sophistry - How can we be sure reality is real?
It is refuted by one simple fact. Science works!
So, Naaling.
You're replying to a post where the author is very gently asking people to meet eachother with a bit of humility and mutual respect.
I am not objecting against the scientific method, but I am objecting to your choice of words.
Please, just try with a modicum of respect and humility. People will be more likely to meet you the same way.
You're replying to a post where the author is very gently asking people to meet eachother with a bit of humility and mutual respect.
I am not objecting against the scientific method, but I am objecting to your choice of words.
Please, just try with a modicum of respect and humility. People will be more likely to meet you the same way.