I trust mark4w. I am interested in his opinions and findings. I have learned more from Mark4w than any other source about DACs. If you like his work, this is the thread for you. If you are going to waste our time with arguments please stop. It’s very difficult to extract meaningful info. Maybe the mods can clean this thread up and limit it to info that is moving forward. When they’re done they should delete this post too. Thanks
+1 on all the above.
I never used the report button in 2 decades on various forums (I left them long before), but I won't get a few ones spoil my joy here! Nor will I leave because of them.
So for the first time in my life I reported and I sincerly hope that button is not in vain and some posters here get at least a warning from the moderator... and an immediate ban if carrying on. Ignoting them is not an option if they don't stick to the rules, moderator to tell.
Back to topic hopefully
Claude
I never used the report button in 2 decades on various forums (I left them long before), but I won't get a few ones spoil my joy here! Nor will I leave because of them.
So for the first time in my life I reported and I sincerly hope that button is not in vain and some posters here get at least a warning from the moderator... and an immediate ban if carrying on. Ignoting them is not an option if they don't stick to the rules, moderator to tell.
Back to topic hopefully
Claude
Lets put an end to this rediculous moaning!
All of the arguements on this thread are the result of what others have said about the AK4499 DAC or related products.
They are therefore relevant, whether you like it or not.
If its not what you want to discuss, then too bad. Its not your thread!
If you call trusting someone's subjective impressions 'learning' you have a very different definition of learning than I do.
Yes, I do learn from subjective impressions a lot. Absorbing all sorts of information, and than gradually shifting through it, is much more rewarding than policing and censoring others...
I stand corrected.
Apparently both the deaf and hearing camps enjoy nothing more than to argue with each other over utter nonsense. And the ignoring feature is quite helpless as all the opinions i would rather not read appear as quotes.
An entirely destroyed thread 😡
This forum is open to public so it's up to the posters.
I don't find it difficult.
No need to as there already are different forums for those, i.e. Audio Asylum which prohibits (official forum rule) the mention of DBT.
Yes. They may have a different noise floor. A different SID. A different behaviour after strong transients (hysteresis, for instance). Things which are not measured by the single number of THD. And that can be measured.
Apparently I'm on his ignore list but I have no idea why, I can only think he has a very thin skin 😉
Do you mean over engineering? BTW, over engineering has its place so don't take my question the wrong way.
Have you found out what kind of listening comparison it was derived from? You don't have to answer if you think my question is not relevant to the subject you brought up.
Might not be a negative considering how stupid the eval board looks. Not talking about sound quality or anything. It seems like it was designed with someone that had 3/4ths of a clue.
Perception delivers an irreducible image of the material world without qualification. Knowledge proceeds from qualities through the action of intellect (consciousness). Properties are inherent in qualities. While neurophysiologically very different, what perception and consciousness have in common is unreliability.
Mathematical representation has no connection to neither the material world nor qualities. None whatsoever. These circumstances are irreconcilable with the flippant expression "scientifically proven objective truth". Both technical and mathematical measurements of quality belong in the garbage bin.
The development of conversion technique towards a lower intrinsic impedance is deplorable from a distortion point of view.
Mathematical representation has no connection to neither the material world nor qualities. None whatsoever. These circumstances are irreconcilable with the flippant expression "scientifically proven objective truth". Both technical and mathematical measurements of quality belong in the garbage bin.
The development of conversion technique towards a lower intrinsic impedance is deplorable from a distortion point of view.
Although all very interesting to read, it think it is probably better for us all to refrain from any further theoretical and philosophical assessments on these matters within the individual threads.
I therefore propose that we should add a special sticky thread where all the arguments on hearing versus measurements and all its inherent philosophical views are thoroughly discussed, so that all other threads will be clean of such debates and will entirely focus on the subject of the OP.
Would this be a good idea? If someone writes an opinion (or even a claim) that is not acceptable to the science police, then the agents can refrain from attacking the person within the original thread, and instead vent their anger within the specially designed special sticky thread… This could keep all sides happy!
Do you really think you are in a position to dictate what can and cannot be discussed here?
Last edited:
That may be so if you are talking about sound production such as live music performance but not when it comes to sound reproduction.
🙄 This right after posting
It would be interesting if there was some explanation of such audible differences, but I won't hold my breath.
DAC's as tone controls
I would say: It's not entirely impossible that we do not yet have enough measurement tools or methods, to completely dismiss such opinions on perceived sound.
Better to allow for the possibility than to completely dismiss it flat out, could well be there's some correlation between the perceived "sound" and some other measurement under certain conditions. Most measurements are made in very limited scenarios, IE sine with fixed tone, multi-tone or sweep. If it was possible to single out distortion figures and other measurements, using something like pink-noise mixed with low frequency square waves, could be that we'd get very different, much more meaningful numbers.
The measurement gear, the methods, the equipment you're measuring, it's all more or less optimalized for measuring with sine, especially 1khz. So in most cases you'll get good performance when you measure just that.
But I'm not saying that, because I want to hear more about the 4499, no more discussion on methodology and subjective vs objective please.
Better to allow for the possibility than to completely dismiss it flat out, could well be there's some correlation between the perceived "sound" and some other measurement under certain conditions. Most measurements are made in very limited scenarios, IE sine with fixed tone, multi-tone or sweep. If it was possible to single out distortion figures and other measurements, using something like pink-noise mixed with low frequency square waves, could be that we'd get very different, much more meaningful numbers.
The measurement gear, the methods, the equipment you're measuring, it's all more or less optimalized for measuring with sine, especially 1khz. So in most cases you'll get good performance when you measure just that.
But I'm not saying that, because I want to hear more about the 4499, no more discussion on methodology and subjective vs objective please.
Last edited:
Then buy one a listen to it, why waste your time reading what people type about their perceptions here?