If the claim of what it can do is supported by evidence, the reactions would be different.
Still anecdote. Unfortunately for those people, anecdote isn't equal to proof. But if they went through verification process that confirmed their anecdotal observation, then it would be something more than just anecdote.
I only state that which corrects the misunderstanding of others that has been expressed in this thread. I try and avoid woolly language since that evidently causes confusion - possibly deliberately so. I am not aware that I have obfuscated anything?
Most...
Most DIY folks do not have access to $100K worth of precision measurement gear which is required to provide verification of an actual difference heard in listening tests.
Take, for example, low close in phase noise, say below 10 Hz. I believe a ~$30K analyzer is necessary for that. While I would love to have such a device, where I could measure the phase noise right on the PCB at the DAC input pins, i cannot afford such a thing.
Does this mean that without this verification I "cannot" talk about my experiences of the audible effects of lower close in phase noise, using the XO's specification for such?
If everything is "required" to have been verified through rigorous scientific measurement, then these forums are gong to be pretty sparse of content.
Most DIY folks do not have access to $100K worth of precision measurement gear which is required to provide verification of an actual difference heard in listening tests.
Take, for example, low close in phase noise, say below 10 Hz. I believe a ~$30K analyzer is necessary for that. While I would love to have such a device, where I could measure the phase noise right on the PCB at the DAC input pins, i cannot afford such a thing.
Does this mean that without this verification I "cannot" talk about my experiences of the audible effects of lower close in phase noise, using the XO's specification for such?
If everything is "required" to have been verified through rigorous scientific measurement, then these forums are gong to be pretty sparse of content.
There is nothing that prevents anyone reporting their subjective observations, just one must be prepared to accept that they might be completely unfounded - especially when a subject conducts their own experiments. Please keep in mind too, there are contributors making claims in this forum concerning their findings in spite of glaringly obvious distortions in their monitoring systems of which hitherto it appears they have been blissfully unaware: It does not endow readers with a great deal of confidence, but experimental rigour is applicable no matter how much money you have.
I am not sure that anyone has ever mentioned phase noise below 10Hz? If you mean phase response deviations (my guess is you do not), then there are many cheaper ways conducting sufficient experiments if you are able to replay audio via a PC, for example. Some of my other posts in this forum relate to my own findings of phase response deviations that are not predicted to be audible according to accepted models of hearing: There is even one well-respected contributor that disagrees with me too, so still plenty of scope therefore for experimenters here to conduct their own experiments!
sorry...
"I am not sure that anyone has ever mentioned phase noise below 10Hz"
I was referring back to some of my much earlier comments regarding the phase noise of crystal oscillators and the audible effects of such. More specifically to the view that low close in phase noise of crystal oscillators is desirable and audible, and worthy of pursuing in DAC development.
"I am not sure that anyone has ever mentioned phase noise below 10Hz"
I was referring back to some of my much earlier comments regarding the phase noise of crystal oscillators and the audible effects of such. More specifically to the view that low close in phase noise of crystal oscillators is desirable and audible, and worthy of pursuing in DAC development.
But what is the consequence in the final output? Why can you not measure that? I remember audible pattern jitter arising from poor PLL designs in AES3/SPDIF interfaces and the like, but that was evident in measurements - although listening directly to the PLL control signal was enlightening!
Whilst I appreciate the prompt to watch Peter Sellers again, I have watched the clip and am left at a loss to explain its significance here. Please explain for those of us that need contributions to be somewhat less obfuscating...
to...
To stay on topic, I am saying that it is fine with me when people post their impressions of various changes based on listening. As long as one does not claim a "fact" based on their listening impressions, if they just say: this is what I hear with this change; it is counterproductive to challenge their impressions, and take a thread completely off topic.
Everybody here is intelligent enough to be able to interpret the listening impressions of others appropriately without resorting to challenging them every time someone posts an opinion.
While a discussion of the validity of listening impressions is a valid topic of its own, and very worthy of debate in its own thread, IMO, this should not be invoked every single time someone posts a listening impression, as it is off topic. This is audio, it is fun, we are not developing life saving (or killing) drugs here, we do not need a DIY audio Police Force to "save us from ourselves"
To stay on topic, I am saying that it is fine with me when people post their impressions of various changes based on listening. As long as one does not claim a "fact" based on their listening impressions, if they just say: this is what I hear with this change; it is counterproductive to challenge their impressions, and take a thread completely off topic.
Everybody here is intelligent enough to be able to interpret the listening impressions of others appropriately without resorting to challenging them every time someone posts an opinion.
While a discussion of the validity of listening impressions is a valid topic of its own, and very worthy of debate in its own thread, IMO, this should not be invoked every single time someone posts a listening impression, as it is off topic. This is audio, it is fun, we are not developing life saving (or killing) drugs here, we do not need a DIY audio Police Force to "save us from ourselves"
Hey...
I have trained pretty hard, for work (in audio), to learn skills to be able to trust my listening impressions. This does not mean that my impressions are infallible though and I do many comparisons, over time, always investigating whether or not the impressions are valid or not.
In other words, i have my methods, which i trust.
But this should not even matter as to posting any impressions one has, as the reader always has the capability to decide for themselves if they care to take another's listening impressions with a "grain of salt". As long as listening impressions are stated as such, there is no issue, and they need not be challenged at every turn as doing so interrupts thread continuity.
I have trained pretty hard, for work (in audio), to learn skills to be able to trust my listening impressions. This does not mean that my impressions are infallible though and I do many comparisons, over time, always investigating whether or not the impressions are valid or not.
In other words, i have my methods, which i trust.
But this should not even matter as to posting any impressions one has, as the reader always has the capability to decide for themselves if they care to take another's listening impressions with a "grain of salt". As long as listening impressions are stated as such, there is no issue, and they need not be challenged at every turn as doing so interrupts thread continuity.
It will be encouraging and may give one extra confidence, but it is still the subjective preference of three people. It does not have to convince others, but also there's IMHO no need for further proof. Any member is allowed to speak of such an experience and should not be attacked for it by other members. It would not also not be alright to expect others to take one's experiences as a proven fact.
I know what Bybees are, and I admit to have strong reservations when seeing such products. That also means that I am biased here, and maybe John Curl has had some experiences that made him think otherwise. It certainly doesn't make him a fool or a charlatan. It is just in the nature of our hobby that we will have very different ideas on the outset and very different experiences when listening. Is doesn't make those others villains or madmen...
Yes, such a statement would invite a polite comment with some sound relativism in it. I would not reach for a flamethrower because even here the person could have made his statement in a state of exuberance and without malice.
Hi again, Diyiggy. Unfortunately, I do not design digital products very often. I rely on Markw4 for any updates on: power supplies, oscillators, or even perhaps, voltage references for DIGITAL. I recommended that you listen to him, instead of me, for answers in that area of audio.
Now, I might be able to productively comment on case size differences of both active and passive components in audio. It is usually better to have LARGER case sizes than very small ones, to minimize any thermal modulation that could be generated. How important this is, is not known to me, but it seems obvious that it can and does happen. You are right, TO-92 is easier to heatsink than most surface mount devices, and TO-5 is better than TO-92, and so it goes! We have to work with what we can buy, but I will always buy TO-5 over TO-92, etc, etc for thermal reasons. Don't worry too deeply about this problem, there are many others to address, but only Markw4 is sufficiently up-to-date to be able to actually help in this area.
Now, I might be able to productively comment on case size differences of both active and passive components in audio. It is usually better to have LARGER case sizes than very small ones, to minimize any thermal modulation that could be generated. How important this is, is not known to me, but it seems obvious that it can and does happen. You are right, TO-92 is easier to heatsink than most surface mount devices, and TO-5 is better than TO-92, and so it goes! We have to work with what we can buy, but I will always buy TO-5 over TO-92, etc, etc for thermal reasons. Don't worry too deeply about this problem, there are many others to address, but only Markw4 is sufficiently up-to-date to be able to actually help in this area.
As this forum can be viewed by the general public, there are non-member readers out there. Don't forget the influences on them.
So it's below the belt in your view, OK. Will you respect others with different view or will you be suggesting that we should not target some stranger online with suspicion or disdain?
Live and let live, no?
Is there someone who does that about everything?
Evenharmonics, you are right that your view is just as legitimate as anyone’s, and when you prefer stricter methods to improve in audio, that is absolutely fine. With live and let live, it’s important to let others follow their methods and others should let you follow yours. The right is there for constructive contributions, not a license to flame everything that goes against your principles.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.