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

[KaffiMann]

Still no example of "it is entirely possible to get results from a set of measurements that are unobtainable in normal usage scenarios." to cite?

Please, don't.
5th element got it, plenty of companies "beefing up" their product specs via controlled environment testing. I do not know how many examples and over how many different science fields to limit myself to. Your post was so idealistic yet open for interpretation it's no problem finding tons of well documented material that can match. Sure, numbers can't tell a lie, but it depends on how you got the numbers.

 

[Evenharmonics]

Sure, numbers can't tell a lie, but it depends on how you got the numbers.

That would be dependent on the operator, not the measurement itself as I've already noted.

 

[Evenharmonics]

Usually when someone starts to make personal attacks it's because they don't have anything useful to say.

Luckily we're not participating in a university course, so your opinion on the quality of what I've written means nothing.



I don't have any problems with people making subjective comments as an afterthought. What I have a problem with are people making subjective comments with a level of authority that implies what they are saying cannot possibly be at fault. Then these subjective comments are given as advice that's supposed to be followed in order to help influence someone else's purchase.

When your subjective impressions are going to affect someone's wallet, this is where proof absolutely should be given to validate those subjective impressions.

If an objectivist came into a thread and started to give advice that was incorrect, regarding technical specifications for example, others would quickly show them to be in error. The same should hold true for subjective comments. If you cannot prove your subjective comments to be reliable by the methods in which they were acquired then they should be disregarded, or better, not made in the first place.

It's one thing when someone buys a hi-fi magazine. They are doing this because they want to read subjective reviews and expect them. When someone comes to a forum such as this and asks what's supposed to be a technical question, but then gets given some subjective nonsense from some ardent believer it's entirely misleading and can actually be harmful. Harmful not only to the person's purchasing decision but also to the direction their education goes at the start of their interest in making their own equipment.

Putting all the subjectivists on ignore does nothing to combat this problem it actually makes it worse.

Another good one.

 

[syn08]

Look for example, how much the pain sciences have improved in last ten years since they started taking their methodologies(most notably the inclusion of the multi factorial approach) more seriously.

A simple question for you: If I would claim I can hear the grass growing in my back yard, would you challenge my claim, or take it as yet another data point in subjectively investigating the hearing abilities of humans?

Such a super human hearing ability can be numerically quantified. Then in exact sciences, there are mathematically rigurous methods to eliminate alleged gross errors from a set of data. Such a data point will likely be eliminated; engineers sometimes take the shortcut and, based on experience and general engineering principles discard such data without much of a rigurous analysis.

So when a certain member claims, without any evidence, that a 7805 regulator sounds better than a modern low noise high bandwidth LDO, in a certain circuit, me, as an engineer, don't need any further data analysis to reject the claim and call it BS. If you (or anybody else) feel an urge to more or less Socratically discuss, dissect, analyze, etc... such claims then myself I can only conclude you have way too much time in your hands (or not, and then you may have an agenda and/or an axe to grind). For any competent scientist/engineer life is too short to take this path, we have to deliver and lip service is not a good deliverable. Except in the High End Audio business, of course.

 

[syn08]

When your subjective impressions are going to affect someone's wallet, this is where proof absolutely should be given to validate those subjective impressions.

Well, I may disagree with this; I personally have no mercy for the wallets of those able to pay $500,000 for a pair of Wavac monoblock amplifiers with 10% distortions. In fact, I strongly believe the High End Audio industry has currently some sort of sanitizing role on the market: like a hyena, it stinks, but is doing in fact a very useful job in the jungle: recycling the resources, cleaning the environment of otherwise toxic waste and feeding peers in the process.

I protest of any commercial agenda strictly on a DIYAudio forum, in particular when it is disguised under a shallow crust of engineering, only intended to add some credibility in front of the less knowledgeable innocents. Otherwise, if one wants to rip Jeff Bezon by claiming he will hear 500,000 angels singing in his living room, no problem with me.

 

[Markw4]

Ovidiu, can't believe you are going back to the grass growing analogy again. Just more debate tactics. Settles nothing.

 

[scottjoplin]

I have to admire the efficiency of planet10's dot painting 🙂

 

[KaffiMann]

That would be dependent on the operator, not the measurement itself as I've already noted.

Oh, please stop, there was nothing that specific in that one post I responded to.
You're so quick to hammer down everyone else for every single little thing, suck it up.

Matt (ScottJ, so many Matts here now)
Hah!
Dot painted DAC's are next on the list!

 

[TNT]

Well, I may disagree with this; I personally have no mercy for the wallets of those able to pay $500,000 for a pair of Wavac monoblock amplifiers with 10% distortions. In fact, I strongly believe the High End Audio industry has currently some sort of sanitizing role on the market: like a hyena, it stinks, but is doing in fact a very useful job in the jungle: recycling the resources, cleaning the environment of otherwise toxic waste and feeding peers in the process.

I protest of any commercial agenda strictly on a DIYAudio forum, in particular when it is disguised under a shallow crust of engineering, only intended to add some credibility in front of the less knowledgeable innocents. Otherwise, if one wants to rip Jeff Bezon by claiming he will hear 500,000 angels singing in his living room, no problem with me.

I somehow agree with you - those who buy things for really silly money I have no pity for (all are not fooled!), it's more actually around say USD x000 USD that I think is the problem. Wholeheartedly agreed on the commercial aspects.

//

 

[Evenharmonics]

Oh, please stop, there was nothing that specific in that one post I responded to.
You're so quick to hammer down everyone else for every single little thing, suck it up.

Quick to hammer down, like the examples quoted below?
"I really like how predictive you are."
"And here you are again with your one-trick pony."

You've made an erroneous claim about measurement and when challenged, you back out of it.

 

[syn08]

Ovidiu, can't believe you are going back to the grass growing analogy again. Just more debate tactics. Settles nothing.

Yes, and to the 7805 BS.

 

[Markw4]

Yes, and to the 7805 BS.

If I was trying to make money, I should have kept quiet about that. Better in that case to tell everyone, use LT3045 it measures much better!!!

I'm out of here again. Bye.

 

[scottjoplin]

At least we all know what measures better means, as opposed to sounds better.

 

[KaffiMann]

Quick to hammer down, like the examples quoted below?

Okay, lets have a look at your posts so far in this thread:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/search.php?searchid=22364968&pp=25

Here's a quick recap, I'm not even getting halfway through your posts.

Likely because he is in DAC business. 😉

Accusing people for having a so called "Agenda" almost the first thing that happens.

[special=Sorry you seem to have taken offense.

Its not that only I have knowledge, but I do have a working AK4499 evaluation board. The board was sent free of cost to me by AKM direct from Japan a few months before evaluation boards were available to the general public for purchase. They wanted feedback from a few people around the world, in this case from Jam and me. ]%[/special]

For that reason I have spent a lot of time with AK4499 and learned about how to make it sound better than AKM could apparently do. Not that I am free to say everything I know, but I can say quite a bit without disclosing any proprietary information.

You seem to prefer to do it your way which is all I was asking about in the first place. That being the case I will stop bothering you from here on out.

Good day, sir.

What kind of method do you use for DAC sound evaluation?

Sowing doubt about measurement techniques, sowing doubt about skill.

[special=I actually work for a company which has purchased sorted NDK clocks in the past, and am fairly aware of the process, the equipment required to make close in phase noise measurements, and who can provide this service.
I have also participated in listening tests which correlated listening results directly with phase noise plots of various XOs, those tests left me with the overall impression that the lower the close in phase noise, the better.
It is still possible for manufacturers to purchase sorted clocks, or they could purchase the necessary gear and do it themselves. Although few high end audio companies may have the engineering budget for such purchases.

Or, they could develop their own XOs as Ayre has done in partnership with Morion, they use a proprietary, SC cut crystal (typically used in an OCXO) without the oven.]%[/special]

Of course just having a good XO does not guarantee good performance at the point where it matters (the clock pin on the DAC chip, and re-clock flip flop if used). There are a myriad details which all matter in the end: PCB layout, clock power supplies and decoupling elements, RF levels in the vicinity of clock PCB traces.

Suffice it to say, for me, i like the NDK SDA series. One can do a little better for a LOT more money, but the increase in cost basically skyrockets with some of the ovenized, SC cut crystals.

Where it matters being the audible sound quality, if it doesn't make audible difference, there is no point spending more money.

Going the other way, claiming that measurements can be ignored above some unspecified point.

If DACs available on the consumer market these days made audible difference in music listening due to phase noise, I would be surprised.

Again changing direction, claiming that audible tests are not adequate.

You can pick the best one that you've experienced and compare side by side music listening with store bought DAC (including built in disc player or receiver) with bias controlled, I would be surprised if you hear a difference.

Seems to be some...

Meaning that it's unlikely audible. I've seen the results of objective DAC listening comparisons over the years and they have been consistently inaudible even between expensive DAC and cheap DAC.

Broken record?

OK, so the listening tests you did were subjective ones. That's what I was wondering about. Thanks for the clarification.

In my view that was clear to see to begin with, still somehow feels some kind of need to keep hammering some mysterious point...

By the way, have you done an objective listening test? If you have not done such test but just believe that the difference is audible, indeed you are just moving forward in ignorance, as your belief is based on subjective listening test.

Calling people ignorant, and still, seemingly not even slightly interested in the AK4499 or the technical discussion.

No audible difference that I brought up was the objective listening test results which you can look up online. There are many. It's not "nothing more than total speculation based on ignorance".

Clearly trying to avoid quoting sources. Perfectly okay to make claims without backing them up.

Its not a mirror when it doesn't reflect what he said. That's why its a reading comprehension issue.

I wrote "a "mirror"".

As for your contribution on DAC sound comparison goes... 😕

Abraxalito chimes in trying to make you aware of some misunderstanding you must've done. As a thank you, you're immediately attacking his skills, whereas I've seen absolutely NO demonstration of skills from you.

[special=Could you please cite these these tests ( of "objective DAC listening comparisons")?]%[/special]
I'm always interested to learn about well planned and executed listening experiments.

But not when someone posts subjective test results, right?

What kind of reply is this? He's more or less asking you to define what would be important aspects to incorporate in a more thorough investigation. Now would be a good opportunity to actually just point to something, but apparently it's too difficult.

Thanks man, just trying to share. I have learned tons from other members, so if i have anything to offer which might be of interest, I am happy to contribute.
I am not interested in just repeating myself over and over, LOL, so no more responses from me on that "other stuff", life is too short to dragged into that nonsense.

[special=Getting back to AKM 4499, does anyone who is playing with the chip have anymore info on the direct DSD path, I am a little curious about the FIR filter at the input, can that be done on a single bit stream (is it treating the single bit stream as "analog" and just filtering it?) it appears it can from the block diagram? I am really only interested in the chip in the direct DSD mode in terms of oversampling in software to DSD 256 (I see from the data sheet that chip performance degrades at DSD 512). Looking at the rolloff of that FIR filter at DSD 256 it appears it would be entirely inaudible anyway (-0.3 dB @ 80 kHz).]%[/special]

I'm not trying to stop you from posting what you want. I was trying to get more info on what you posted and appreciated when you did clarify things.

What you labeled as nonsense happens to deal with audible traits of DAC. That is the core subject in audio electronics. Just because it doesn't suit your feelings doesn't mean it's nonsense. Keep reading about it and one day you may get the bigger picture and spend your (precious) time and money into audio components that really matter.

I do not know what to expect from you anymore at this point, could well be a tin-foil hat wearing individual for all I know. All over the place, belittling people that clearly have more insight, are helpful, more polite, and to top it off telling off people that keep to thread topic!

Sometimes I am, but most often not.
Btw, it seems that the citations of the DAC listening tests you've mentioned wasn't included; could you please add the citations?

I already have on other threads, especially the ones you participate in.

Jakob is trying again, and you immediately bounce back with a classic "deflection" move, real classy. And smart too!

@evenharmonics. I find your tone disrespectful. You have no idea of my level of experience, but from your comments I do have an idea of yours. If this forum had an "ignore" feature, this is the time I would engage it for your posts, I have nothing to learn from you and all you are doing is wasting my time. i will not read any of your posts anymore, and will make no further responses to you.
Additionally, if it is your opinion that DACs do not make a difference to sound quality, it is quite unclear to me what you are doing in a thread about a relatively new, interesting, DAC chip, the only conclusion I can draw is that you have a lot of time on your hands, and like to hear yourself talk. I do not, and need to get back to work making audio products.

I was in your shoes once. I've wasted lots of time and money on audio components that have no audible benefit but made me think that they do (thanks to internet shills and snake oil vendors). Then I saw the bigger picture (thanks to objective listening tests) and rerouted whatever time and money I have left on speakers and room acoustics where it really matters for audible sound quality.

Barrows is protesting openly now, and rightfully so I think. You just drop the hammer and go get the sledge to fix stuff. Objective tests now. You still have not contributed to thread topic.

Can't comment as I've obviously missed it; could you please repost it?

That's a problem for you to deal with. Try the search function.

He didn't get the hint, so you drop "classy" deflection in favor of "rude" deflection.

So you don't have anything

Have you tried the search function?

Seems some people are a bit slow, I don't think it was Joseph or Jakob.

I was in your shoes once.

No, you were never in his shoes.

Sonore

No wonder.

He did get me though, by revealing his test method which is unusual for those who are in his shoes.

Someone makes the mistake of throwing you a bone. Ridicule, still not a single contribution to topic.

Barrows clarify things:

Sonore is a DEALER for Iconoclast Cables, they are their own company, if you do not like Iconoclast, whatever, that is up to you.

Sonore does sell a couple of branded cables made to our specs by Cardas, which are normally bundled with products for customers, if you do not like that, again, whatever.

I have nothing to do with any of this, I am a CONSULTANT with Sonore for product development, and I build Sonore's top level, Signature Series products. If you do not like that, whatever.

I like working in high end audio, if you do not like that, again, whatever.

"And then, of course, your findings about clocks and DACs are as valuable as these cables, thank you."

The above is faulty logic.

None of his has anything to do with the AKM 4499 DAC chip, remember that folks, does anyone have anything more to share about the DAC chip this thread is about?

Syn08 attempts to achieve an "Evenharmonics" level of usefulness:

You are right, whatever.

Matt, (ScottJ) is trying to point out a flaw in the argumentation, Naaling is making noise:

Once again!! How can others replicate you tests, if you won't describe your methodology??

Why would you want to replicate his tests, wouldn't it make more sense to do your own?

If i make up my own test, them I'm answering a different question.

I don't understand that TBH

As a scientist I'm totally confused by this reluctance to discuss methodology.

Probably because it's not to any particular scientific standard

It's not sinking in. Sorry Matt!

Isn't it a problem for everyone who reads your post now but has missed your post(s) about the DAC listening tests?
Presumably a lot of members.
Using the search function is fine, but what are the appropriate search terms to find your posts about the DAC listening test which gave the results that were talking about?

Doing your audio business work again, Jakob. 🙄

Hmmmm, I wonder, why does this seem so familiar? (Pssst! Up-top again!)

The truth is that I suspect that his methodology is so full of holes that there really isn't any point replicating it or discussung his observations.

Of course he can be as unscientific as he likes, but he shouldn't expect people to simply believe what he says. Any open mided person will question, and if he is not prepared to deal with those questions in an open and honest manner, his credibility will suffer accordingly. People on this forum have the right to question, and in doing so they are not being ignorant.

In the absence of evidence that he has such expectations (i'm seeing none) this is a straw man.

Somehow, calling those ignorant because they don't believe his claims and challenged him, aren't visible to you, eh.

What? If there's ONE person that should get penalized for calling people "ignorant" in this thread... I would seriously reconsider at least 15 times before posting that comment.

Okay, okay, I'm gonna stop there. In my view the evidence is clearly overwhelming. It's just too much. So far you've posted 48 times in this thread, and not a single one of them where actually helpful or on topic.

Are you absolutely certain you want to point your index finger towards anyone else, claiming they are "hammering down" anyone else more than you are?

You've made an erroneous claim about measurement and when challenged, you back out of it.

Oh, I see!
So one *could* actually say that I pulled one of those moves, whatchacallit, "Evenharmonics"?

But wait a minute, was I actually wrong in my reply? Let's recap:

Measurement is objective. Measuring devices don't have feelings like human beings. What human beings do with measurements may be subjective but not the measurement itself.

That would depend on the surrounding circumstances of the measurements, it is entirely possible to get results from a set of measurements that are unobtainable in normal usage scenarios.

Okay, "Measurement is objective", sure, I guess? But can you actually do a measurement without people involved? Who dictate the terms of the measurement? Who makes the sensors? Who calibrate the sensors? Who made the cables or plugs, and to which specification standard? The point of measurement? Who did the connection, adjust for losses, allow for temperature variations, insert a huge list of other parameters. Or, like I so eloquently put it; "The surrounding circumstances".

And I do wonder, are most lab tests done more realistically in favor of end-user environments? Or are they usually done to favor better specification to increase sales for the manufacturer? Nuances, nuances.

I am a great fan of objective measurements, think they're absolutely AWESOME! Really!
But it is really hard to sift through information properly, to actually get to the important gleaming bits of results. It is a very complex piece of processing and calculation, making something like a DAC.
Have you ever made your own circuit board layout for any kind of modern DAC, soldered the chip, surrounding components, perihperals, tried out different PSU's... And then inbetween changing lots of various components trying various amounts of cable twist etc, actually measured the results of your creation?

Is it even possible to do, proper, actual, objective measurements?

 

[chris719]

Is it even possible to do, proper, actual, objective measurements?

Wow, just wow.

As an aside, your 8000 line posts about nothing don't really help the discussion or the readability of this thread.

 

[KaffiMann]

All I wanted to do was to read a thread about the AK4499. Had no desire to pollute the topic until...
I did attempt to put in some humour there, I'm not saying a single bad word about you Chris.

Edit:
Actually, there's more on-topic info in my previous post than in the last 20 or so pages. (Thanks to Barrows)

 

[Evenharmonics]

and not a single one of them where actually helpful or on topic.

You mean helpful to you personally? If not, how would you know who it is helpful to without surveying everyone? FYI, I wasn't posting to be helpful to you. As I've suggested multiple times, use ignore function on those whom you don't want to read.

Wow, just wow.

As an aside, your 8000 line posts about nothing don't really help the discussion or the readability of this thread.

Oh, come on, Chris, how can you exaggerate his action like that when he only used 7800. 😛

 

[N101N]

More questions:
What is the unit of quality? Why is it so hard to accept that quality is not definable and not analyzable? Who is to be fooled?
¤
Measurements can be used to prove that the low cost-high distortion CMOS technique gives great psychic satisfaction.

Is it even possible to do, proper, actual, objective measurements?

No.

 

[Jakob2]

To my recollection, Evenharmonics never claimed anything, he "just" questions everything 🙂 - maybe thats how i "get away" with it?

//

Nope. 😉

This was the post with claims I was referring to:

Meaning that it's unlikely audible. I've seen the results of objective DAC listening comparisons over the years and they have been consistently inaudible even between expensive DAC and cheap DAC.

Given the wording there must have been quite a few of these "objective DAC listening comparisons" and so I asked for the citations.
Kaffiman already put tremendous effort in compiling the "weaseling around" but left out the last (could be the best of the series):

It would be much more effective if you'd just tell the members/readers what search terms to use to find the DAC listening tests you were talking about. 😉

Up to now using the forum search I couldn't find your posts with citations of these tests......

and the direct answer:

Lets see the screenshot of that.

 

[TNT]

Okay, lets have a look at your posts so far in this thread:

I think you might have a future in sports commentary.

//