That would be the logical thing, but arguing on the internet seems to be a popular human pastime these days.
Maybe some (like Sterophile) reviewers do know, but the magazines I read or read, hardly ever explain why there's more bass or other things going on, as can be the case with the extra resistor, tubes etc. I really think most don't know, or even understand, because they don't know what the figures mean, yet they do tell tales.
In a way, they're right, because high Rout may generate the perception they describe. On the other hand, that character might not translate to a customers' speaker that way, so it's rather a guess how it plays out. More if's.
Regarding Andrea's claim of low phase noise, what do you think: is it impossible, of low probability or does e.g. other research point to significant enhancements when using a ultra low phase noise clock?
Most clocks really do have high lf noise, and afaik they seem to be in the frequency range to be more harmfull (more audible than just plain jitter floor levels suggests).
I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, so I'm letting my curiosity have a go with whatever he comes up with and see if I can get some life out of it. But for all I know, it's the lower/higher output impedance or level that's just a better match in my dac. Those sort of thing bother me even more when trying things.
Anyway, goodnight!
Pure BS a resistor rise only the Qts by Qes is not will sound like a tube .....you will make happy only an open baffle speaker !I still have is best amp
In my case I have 100 more important things in my system before I even start to think about clock phase noise. I don't think there is anything significant to gain but happy to be proven wrong.
Very much so.
What i fail to understand is when someone offers an insight, has an idea or states to be convinced of something etc etc, some people go about that as if they are the ones having to get paid for it when all one can do is respect the effort and find out for themselves. If one wants to have this double blind tested why is that a prerequisite for acceptance of the idea and the work put in the product that's easy to buy as well as technically proven top of the line, all of which is personal interest?
It's not as we have been paying taxes snd can demand for returns, can we?
Since when do people owe someone else's opinion or conviction and do people have to proof this conviction otherwise the mob shows up?
Should one have a conviction, develop a product and double blind test this otherwise the online day is full of reckoning?
We're living in the days of the lies, me and my colleague said a year or 2 back, it was about politics and multi media.
There was an addition to that last year. It's been something, still is. Let's not add more.
It's a passionate hobby here at DIYAudio.com. I like that, strong opinions, great insights, lots of science and beliefs, some specifics, but let's leave the personal remarks out of this, can we?
I understand. And here, there's about 100 things (audio and more..) to finish as well. Will get back to you when I think I have something, might take a while but I see that's no problem ;-)
Sounds like confirmation bias fodder.
How did he 'prove' it was not a rare outlier case? Did he 'prove' it for any arbitrary tube and sold state amp combination? If not, then how is it proof of anything more than some outlier case may exist?
If somebody listens to some clocks blind and can tell a difference, will you accept that as 'proof' of anything?
Honestly, I think you like Carver's result so you consider it more significant than it really is.
Last edited:
You have to wonder how much of this vague 'peer-reviewed research', that often seems to treated as proof, is made up of weak examples like this.
That's what listening impression is worth to someone else. But for some reason you had an urge to share it with others. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/331363-ak4499eq-dac-92.html#post6540735
So, waiting for you to post amp measurements is considered I can't do that? 🙄
Wrong way to compare if objectivity is to be achieved. It has to be done in the same location and comparison needs to be made within a few seconds of each other to compensate for our short aural memory span.
You make up a scenario of listening impressions that has practically no details of what or how you are listening, it is literally worthless, real impressions with detail can have value.
It could be considered you cant do it, or if you prefer being stubborn and childish by drawing things out for no reason when you have more than enough to make a start.
It could be considered you cant do it, or if you prefer being stubborn and childish by drawing things out for no reason when you have more than enough to make a start.
Last edited:
Value to whom? When listening impression is expressed on a live performance, that's one thing. When it comes to sound reproduction, the judging criteria is on how faithfully it is reproduced.
Value to someone who finds value in other's listening impressions
For me to get any value from listening impression's I need a common reference, impressions of something I've also heard.
For me to get any value from listening impression's I need a common reference, impressions of something I've also heard.
Last edited:
red herring time
This stuff just gets more and more ridiculous. These aficionados of sound reproduction, I take it they spend their time marvelling at Lissajous curves.
This stuff just gets more and more ridiculous. These aficionados of sound reproduction, I take it they spend their time marvelling at Lissajous curves.That is the crux of this matter. Someone posting a listening impression from his room which I doubt you or anyone has a replica of, is going to provide something relatable? As I've said, it's too bad that we can't just plug a wire and share it like spec numbers and measurement graphs.
Yes it will, the point of the reference is more to do with understanding the person's ears than their system.
Last edited:
In this very same thread you told asked someone not to criticize the F1 before hearing it (which includes the design architecture) but somehow you don’t feel the need to hold yourself to the same standard with Soekris’ product? Because you were spouting off for a loooooooooooong time before you ever listened to it.
The trolling is old
If you read that right, I shared it because I was asked.
You don't need amp measurements to predict the sound characteristics of the DACs, so you are not able to do what you claimed.
Not a big surprise, it was clear from the start.
That's not how this works you've provided measurements that match a correlation with your listening experience but there's no proof you actually heard what you think you heard.
I've made digital audio products with the most inexpensive and basic of oscillators and thought they sounded amazing. My own conclusions are that you don't need oscillators with exceptionally low close in phase noise for audio nirvana. Jitter measurements were worse than that of other products using much better oscillators but it still sounded amazing.
So there you have it my observation says the exact opposite of yours. My conclusion? You're wrong. Why? My ears heard the opposite it so it must be true.
It helps keeping in mind that "proof" isn't possible, it is always a matter of probabilities.
Afair there was a specific thread started in the lounge for discussions about the never ending (at least it seems so) debate, to avoid thread-jacking of this kind.