If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?

Jump to Latest
#181
That's not how I do it. I choose the best chip for the job besides it's end audio specifications. Such as package type, available audio processing, sample rate flexibility, end solution size/complexity and power consumption etc. If there are several devices that fit the bill I'll see which ones are readily available and go with the one with the best audio performance, providing it's at a price I'm willing to pay.
 
#182
chris719 said:
I know you didn't ask me, but my perspective is that we essentially reached good enough for electronics a long time ago. I personally don't think you need anything better than -80 dB distortion in most cases. Maybe some people in some situations can do better, so a little overkill never hurts.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm already at or below the -80dB level with my own DAC design, I'm going to experiment with reducing it below that to see if I hear any improvement. Perhaps I'll post about the results on my own thread, no need to distract this one any further.
 
#183
abraxalito said:
Any evidence for this claim of 'misrepresentation' ?



Yes, did you see my response in post #170 ?



Disagree it was an answer, it was a response yes.



Disagree that it implies intolerance of those people who he described as ignorant. If he'd used 'ignorant' as a pejorative then I'd say you had a point, but as you yourself have admitted, @barrows used the term descriptively.
Click to expand...

What was he describing??
I think you will find that if you answer that question honestly, then there can be no doubt that he was using it as a pejorative!
 
#186
abraxalito said:
The evidence of the behaviour of many of the objectivists. There's dogma being preached but its only 'do as we say, not as we do' because the proponents of the religion don't adhere to their own preaching. There's a word for this and its often found amongst religious adherents - hypocrisy.

Of course objectivists like yourself claim not to be religious and the subjectivists are the 'true believers' (in all kinds of snake oil) but that's just a propaganda claim as your actions speak loudest.
Click to expand...

Rubbish!

Refusing to accept claims without evidence is most definately not dogma!!

My presence in this debate is not because people made claims about what they heard. It is because, when asked to provide evidence to support those claims they became evasive and dismissive.

Any claim is only as good as the evidence provided. If no evidence is provided, then the claim is useless!
 
#194
abraxalito said:
He was describing the behaviour of those who pontificate without doing the experiment themselves. You weren't able to get that?

So he is describing the people who question and disagree with him? My point exactly!

How could others do the experiment for themselves, if he won't tell them how he did it?
Can't you see that this is the crux of the problem?
One of the most important aspects of any scientific study, is to describe methodology in detail, so others can replicate it.


As if constant repetition of a falsehood makes it so?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know. I think that is your expertise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom