Yes, it is tempting! A pity that there is no review yet... A bonus fir the HXMelody is that these opamps are easy to swap.
Don't know of any peer reviewed studies on the subject, otherwise you would probably already know all about it.
No the bass thing is universal IMO because it defies logic in the strongest way. Someone here even claimed he could see his woofers have more excursion when op-amp rolling.
Ok understood. So, what You all are listening to?
I warn You that in case a different answer from 'Iphone', mp3, I will insist on questioning Your credibility, and rigorous objectivity.
I warn You that in case a different answer from 'Iphone', mp3, I will insist on questioning Your credibility, and rigorous objectivity.
That would be an ill fated idea. But as they say, "There's a sucker born every minute".
Which sound people can hear but cannot be measured? This question has been asked many times but still no answer other than speculations and more claims.
You want to dictate what others say?
You also want to dictate what others say?
You didn't read or understand my post, 1khz test tones may not be the "ultimate" representation of what end users wish to push through their DACs. Is it even remotely possible that a complex music signal might present a different load? Can you prove otherwise?
Nope, I want everyone that are actually interested in the AK4499 to express themselves freely, and be able to post whatever measurements and opinions they want about thread topic, without being disturbed by certain people with a certain agenda.
Why do you jump on me when I'm asking politely?
Are you trying to dictate what other people say, how they express themselves, what kinds of measurements, products or circuit boards they link to?
Broken record again?
Yes, someone knows. No it isn't in a peer reviewed published study that I know of (doesn't mean there isn't one). And, Yes, I am intentionally neglecting Fletcher-Munson effect.
I would be happy to discuss with you by PM.
Last edited:
Oh, so that's completely different to what you're doing, how?
I can agree with some of this, except that 1khz is not exactly the most demanding signal, which was my point. And you're still not providing evidence to the contrary.
Lucky for me, there's only 1 person here that seem to be having the kind of agenda I don't agree with. Very annoying, but not a problem. And opposed to you, I think that opinionated BS is something one just has to filter out somehow. Everyone has an opinion, including you. So please stop forcing your non-constructive opinions on everyone else. Seems to most of us, you just like to argue.
What?😕
Why are you mentioning the AK4499? I thought you where allergic to topic?
Edit:
I see others are mentioning the BT thread, I tried to steer clear of that, so I'll just bow out of this pointless discussion as well.
Last edited:
Apart from one discussion on cabling on Gearslutz, I have not experienced such a tedious quarrel between groups with different views… The Passlabs forum is generally quite cooperative and people respect the views of others.
Of course you have people who are willing to only consider things that can immediately be checked by measurement and who will not only question but dismiss on forehand anything that cannot be (or has not been) checked by measurements. It is their good right to think and act like that.
Then on the opposite you have people who are not at all interested in measurements, and they get exalted by all the hyper-expensive stuff that audiophiles crave for.
I think that many good engineers in Audio have grown to live somewhere in the middle. They value measurements enormously, but they accept that their ears can sometimes tell them to try things that are not immediately verifiable with the measuring instruments at their disposal. Yes, that does open the door to some pitfalls that others would call psychoacoustic delusions, but when you’re in this game for a long time, you find ways of not stumbling too often in the traps, and you learn to navigate through this web of subjective experiences versus objective figures. For these people the rewards for trying out undocumented territory are bigger than the mistakes that can accompany such endeavours. Curiosity is the driving force for them.
For me, I find that path difficult but rewarding. If all that counts is getting the best THD etc. we would have stopped developing and building new stuff a long time ago, because we would have already reached nirvana.
Music is about emotions, and our ears and brain are very strange instruments. To play them well, we have to cope with a lot of variables; some straightforward, others not so.
I have no problem with respecting people on either side of the aforementioned spectrum. I can learn from all of them. Sometimes their findings will be diametrical to mine, but that doesn’t make me regarding them as morons. If someone tells of his empirical findings, there may well be a chance I can benefit from it, so why would I immediately attack him? Even if his findings are the opposite of what I have experienced, why would I take offence?
Why can’t we just try to show some respect to people with another view or method? If we don’t, we get threads like these, full of aggressive interrogation, belittling and extreme frustration.
That would kill a forum that can have an enormous stimulus to the audio community, and isn’t it love for audio and music that brings people together here?
Of course you have people who are willing to only consider things that can immediately be checked by measurement and who will not only question but dismiss on forehand anything that cannot be (or has not been) checked by measurements. It is their good right to think and act like that.
Then on the opposite you have people who are not at all interested in measurements, and they get exalted by all the hyper-expensive stuff that audiophiles crave for.
I think that many good engineers in Audio have grown to live somewhere in the middle. They value measurements enormously, but they accept that their ears can sometimes tell them to try things that are not immediately verifiable with the measuring instruments at their disposal. Yes, that does open the door to some pitfalls that others would call psychoacoustic delusions, but when you’re in this game for a long time, you find ways of not stumbling too often in the traps, and you learn to navigate through this web of subjective experiences versus objective figures. For these people the rewards for trying out undocumented territory are bigger than the mistakes that can accompany such endeavours. Curiosity is the driving force for them.
For me, I find that path difficult but rewarding. If all that counts is getting the best THD etc. we would have stopped developing and building new stuff a long time ago, because we would have already reached nirvana.
Music is about emotions, and our ears and brain are very strange instruments. To play them well, we have to cope with a lot of variables; some straightforward, others not so.
I have no problem with respecting people on either side of the aforementioned spectrum. I can learn from all of them. Sometimes their findings will be diametrical to mine, but that doesn’t make me regarding them as morons. If someone tells of his empirical findings, there may well be a chance I can benefit from it, so why would I immediately attack him? Even if his findings are the opposite of what I have experienced, why would I take offence?
Why can’t we just try to show some respect to people with another view or method? If we don’t, we get threads like these, full of aggressive interrogation, belittling and extreme frustration.
That would kill a forum that can have an enormous stimulus to the audio community, and isn’t it love for audio and music that brings people together here?
It is difficult to express sound quality using measurement, because too many things must be measure.
Of course, but in blind audition, can you tell which it have higher THD or higher S/N ratio, or higher slew rate, etc?
That's ok, I didn't mention peer reviewed published research, it's only a discussion about what may cause it.
Jacob has created a complex, convoluted, pseudo scientific arguement aimed at proving something that never needed proving in the first place.
Double blind testing cannot be used to prove no difference. Not because of flaws in methodology, as Jacob suggests, but because it wasn't designed to do that in the first place.
Double blind testing is used to reject the null hypothesis. i.e. to "prove" that there is a difference. Therefore, it is a tool to be used by people who make subjective observations to validate their results. Used in this way, there can be no question that these people don't know what they are listening for.
When I pointed this out to Jacob and challenged him to consider DBT in that context, he fell silent. Obviously it didn't suit his agenda!
From personal experience I can tell you that it is quite disconcerting to have something you thought you could hear clearly, simply vanish under DBT. If it can happen to me, then I have no reason to believe that it can't happen to you.
Last edited:
Naaling, obviously you have grossly misunderstood something that I've written and it would be nice if you'd stop confusing your misunderstanding with my actual point of view.
First, it is not what "Jacob suggests" as "he" doesn't suggest that at all and second your assertion is not completely wrong, but misleading. Although it is theoretically impossible to show _no_ difference (because in tests dealing with humans, there is nearly always a difference, mainly dependent on the sample size if showing up, but it is a matter of relevance) since at least 20 years people are testing for similarity/equivalence, which means testing if a difference (if any existent) is below a specific degree. /1/
I felt silent for two reasons, first because I'll open a new thread in the lounge about these questions as it is OT in this one and because some other things were more important due to the looming shut down in germany .
Or you simply did not know enough about sensory tests to do a sound experiment and fooled yourself. Just a hypothesis, but you shouldn't dismiss it. 😉
/1/ Jian Bi; Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurements: Sensometrics in Sensory Evaluation, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 98 - 137
Good systematic presentation of the various methods; including the controversy about this test approach in the statistical and sensory literature.
Last edited:
This may be relevant if I was trying to validate someone elses observations, but not when validating my own, unless you are trying to claim that listening is reliable for initial observations, but not for validating those observations!
Hmmm.... I don't understand the fascination with output stages not well matched to the dac chip, and more or less ignoring most of the other stuff needed to get the best out of a dac chip. Is that just a diyaudio thing, or are most audio forums skewed in the same way?