It was an ordinary comparison, confirmed by all other people who have done the same test in different audio setup.
"Unfortunately contemporary measurement devices fail to explain what we are hearing."
It was not enough clear?
You always forget to read carefully: around -127dB @10Hz offset is ok because it was tested and measured, BOTH.
150dB @10Hz offset has been measured but not yet tested.
So:
I don't know
YOU DON'T KNOW
(your speculations apart)
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Nothing here matters until one of the cliques makes a new discovery and elevates it to the root of all audio evil. It's hard to be a guru or sell your current/future products when the previous goalposts have been reached, that's why they constantly move and we now need absurd -127 dB @ 10 Hz or better close-in phase noise and to let generic XOs warm up for 3 days. What a joke.
Nothing here matters until one of the cliques makes a new discovery and elevates it to the root of all audio evil. It's hard to be a guru or sell your current/future products when the previous goalposts have been reached, that's why they constantly move and we now need absurd -127 dB @ 10 Hz or better close-in phase noise and to let generic XOs warm up for 3 days. What a joke.
Last edited:
Firstly the DACs.
This is what I have found:
- Naim CD3
Naim CD 3.5 CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com
- Audio Note DAC4
Audio Note CD-4.1x CD player Measurements | Stereophile.com
- Soekris DAM1021
Soekris DAM1021 R2R DAC Measurements | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
- Buffalo III
http://mr.ieero.com/pub/Twisted_Pear_Audio_Buffalo_III_DAC/
Now I wait to know your predictions on the sound characteristics of the devices starting from the measurements.
I am really curious.
If you're argument is based solely on what you heard then yeah he'll dispute what you're saying. Why? Because you have no proof that you actually heard what you say you heard. And until you post this proof anything you say afterwards is completely meaningless.
Here the absurd is compounded even further by the complete dismissal of measurements in one area but then somehow deemed of the utmost in another.
Ah.. now I remember who are you...
You are the one who claim the Silabs Si514/Si570
"It's not that bad and likely more than good enough for audio"
Reference DAC Module - Discrete R-2R Sign Magnitude 24 bit 384 Khz
Surely, just like this
Implementing a true FIFO buffer with low phase noise clock on the Soekris DAM1021 DAC
I remeber, you’re the authority!
AK4499EQ - Best DAC ever
Now all is clear.
No, it didn't fail. As for sound measuring devices not explaining our brain activities, that's equivalent to blaming a house cat for not sniffing out drug smuggling at the security check point and blaming a bloodhound for not catching mice. Well, they are both domesticated animals and therefore they must be same, right?
Ah, the usual subjective audition. I've done that too and the results were about the same as all other people who have done it, subjective results.
Please, read carefully:
measurements and listening sessions, both and coincident.
AK4499EQ - Best DAC ever
Even through controlled listening tests how is someone supposed to prove what they heard over the internet? they could easily just lie so creating an argument about it is pointless from the get-go.
If I told you that in the past I did some controlled blind testing of a couple DACs that were measured as being 'audibly transparent' and was able to tell them apart quite easily, would you believe me?
How do you prove or disprove results of an interaction that takes place in the head ?
No, it didn't fail. As for sound measuring devices not explaining our brain activities, that's equivalent to blaming a house cat for not sniffing out drug smuggling at the security check point and blaming a bloodhound for not catching mice. Well, they are both domesticated animals and therefore they must be same, right?
Ah, the usual subjective audition. I've done that too and the results were about the same as all other people who have done it, subjective results.
Please, see post #1057, subjective results confirmed by measurements.
And now please let me know how you elaborate your predictions based on the measurements.
Last edited: