Its what I said. Imaging is affected and mono channel analysis is insufficient. Don't claim to know why. Haven't tried to measure why. Doesn't matter since I am not trying to do research and not wanting to build 1,000,000 dacs. I am prototyping one dac. I only care about what listeners can hear at this point.
You are telling us that such test was never part of your DAC sound evaluations so far. Got it.
Level matched double blind listening comparisons of DACs showed that most of them (expensive or cheap) sounded indistinguishable. There are outliers but not common at all. Those outliers are even less these days.
I design dacs for a living.
We use AP, spectrum analizers and more.
Thd+n is not synonymous to sound quality. We know this since the 50. Some correlation between sound quality and higher harmonics seems to exist. They (h) should be weighted.
I used lots of clocks on my designs. Generally speaking, clocks with lower phase noise, sound better. Do we have a graph showing a correlation between Sq and phase noise?
I will show this graph if you show me a definition of sound quality.
While many people here gave strong opinions, one way or another, my personal vue is that i tend to belive those that did the ground work. Andrea has no beef, and plenty of experience in correlating the above.
Andrea, keep up the great work.
We use AP, spectrum analizers and more.
Thd+n is not synonymous to sound quality. We know this since the 50. Some correlation between sound quality and higher harmonics seems to exist. They (h) should be weighted.
I used lots of clocks on my designs. Generally speaking, clocks with lower phase noise, sound better. Do we have a graph showing a correlation between Sq and phase noise?
I will show this graph if you show me a definition of sound quality.
While many people here gave strong opinions, one way or another, my personal vue is that i tend to belive those that did the ground work. Andrea has no beef, and plenty of experience in correlating the above.
Andrea, keep up the great work.
I am very glad you dropped any attempts to explain your subjective findings in engineering terms. To me, it is not those sharing their subjective impressions that are annoying (although many could use "IMO" more often than they do) but those attempting to fabricate their own version of physics and attempting to push it down the throats of the innocent.
You are now exactly where you should be from the very beginning, and you won't have me as an opponent there.
No I do not.
Neither do I know the meaning of life, yet I enjoy living, meaning of art, yet I get strong feelings in its presence. Are you suggesting I should stop both until someone answers the " why"?
Music is a feeling. Andrea will not prove the correlation between phase noise and that feeling getting better in a mathematical sense.
Yet, it's clear to me who is right.
Neither do I know the meaning of life, yet I enjoy living, meaning of art, yet I get strong feelings in its presence. Are you suggesting I should stop both until someone answers the " why"?
Music is a feeling. Andrea will not prove the correlation between phase noise and that feeling getting better in a mathematical sense.
Yet, it's clear to me who is right.
The problem is, now you have admitted to being 'in the trade' where a good story is 80% of the sale so that will taint the interpretation of your posts to some.
And this just dropped your credibility further. You been taking lessons from John Curl?
Thanks. I was just hoping one of the people who are saying a similar thing might be able to shed some light.
JC is the Orson Welles of high end audio. You cannot fail with him as a teacher. In particular when playing the Falstaff role.
Last edited:
it's better to admit it than not.
Most honest people here don't necessarily want to take their words for granted, they will often prefer to «show the way».
But as i said all this is witch hunt to SEEK CHAOS AND POLARIZATION by pushing a single-side ideology and then waiting for the other side to show up , as i said. It is a sort of psy-op. Nobody noticed SYN08 sound sjust like HAL9000 here?
if numbers (the way we measure) were everything my 100$ d10s DAC i could resell for 10 000$ at least.
Hell, you better shut down 95% of audio industry if subjective listening is not to be accounted for.
Sorry, that already happened. I'll let you guess why, although I am suspecting you already know.
Sincerely,
HAL9000
I am reminded of possibly the last honest audio review I read sometime late 80s when they asked John Crabbe to review the new QUAD CD player and he ended 'as a music lover i would be equally happy with the QUAD'. This was after he had retired and handed the reigns of hifi news to John Atkinson.
Where has the "Happy to be proven wrong" gone, is the audio business such a disapointment?
High-end audio revenues would be a rounding error to the mainstream.
It's just a bunch of looney tunes.
It's very simple.
On one hand we have a group of people opposing the possibility that phase noise correlates with sound quality. They ask for proof and graphs and yet we have no definition of what sound quality is. It's not that they researched the subject extensively, they just opose the idea since there is no proof..
In the other hand, we have Andrea. Since 2014 he has been, almost obsessively, researching xtals, oscillators and phase noise.
He researched, designed and tested all types of oscillators architectures. All types of xtal cuts. Logic noise. How best to square it.
He got so good that his latest graphs on phase noise are the best on the planet. Check his thread. It's all there. His latest clocks compete with devices costing 20.000 usd.Not bad for a hobbyist. He build his clocks and tested on multiple dacs and reclockers. Fifopi, r2r dacs and I forgot a few.
His message stayed on track. On all tested devices, his ultra low phase noise
clocks, brought sound improvements in listening sessions. No graphs included.
Like I said, simple.
On one hand we have a group of people opposing the possibility that phase noise correlates with sound quality. They ask for proof and graphs and yet we have no definition of what sound quality is. It's not that they researched the subject extensively, they just opose the idea since there is no proof..
In the other hand, we have Andrea. Since 2014 he has been, almost obsessively, researching xtals, oscillators and phase noise.
He researched, designed and tested all types of oscillators architectures. All types of xtal cuts. Logic noise. How best to square it.
He got so good that his latest graphs on phase noise are the best on the planet. Check his thread. It's all there. His latest clocks compete with devices costing 20.000 usd.Not bad for a hobbyist. He build his clocks and tested on multiple dacs and reclockers. Fifopi, r2r dacs and I forgot a few.
His message stayed on track. On all tested devices, his ultra low phase noise
clocks, brought sound improvements in listening sessions. No graphs included.
Like I said, simple.