My excuses are:
1. I thought the recent discussion was mainly about ABX and perceiving a difference only.
2. I've heard it's quite good but haven't seen gorillas in the mist.
3. I don't have as good a memory as you and can't remember everything you write.
My redemption: I remember some of it now......
This is also Floyd Toole's point, although he made his mainly pertaining to speakers. Since it is impossible to have exactly the same flaws, we need to strive having flawless speakers both in the studio and in the home. Flawless here means in order of importance: flat on axis FR, smooth and falling power response, and reasonably low distortion.
The upstream components are in this context of little concern since they have reached the point of development where by ear, the good ones have become indistinguishable. Your point actually where you mentioned that the difference between a master tape an a digital copy is hard to notice, if at all.
Of course, everybody, including sound engineers and technical managers of studios, try to get the most "objective" speaker as possible. What some call a reference.
The question is to know what it is.
By example, when you says "flat on axis FR", if you mean with no major accident, I agree.
If you mean horizontal, I do not.
On my experiences, the most natural speakers (I hate those sparkling 'HIFI' speakers) need often, (often as a precaution) a slowly descending response curve. Not to forget that records are monitored in highly damped cabins, compared with brighter customers living rooms where, usually they listen to music.
My Kef are flat, horizontal. Caricatural.
There is other things that matters a lot. I insist on the consistency of the directivity between the several ways (often neglected) as well as the linearity of the group delay (neglected as well).
This is one thing to call a car Nova and expect it to sell good in S.America, but here
in .de Mola is short for "Morgenlatte", aka "morning erection", a state one used to wake up in
x0 years ago 🙂 (should i have rot-13-ed that?).
Then the text gets a completely new meaning:
- if God or our banker had mercy on us
- the only way to reproduce at home...
- as the one used during the creation process
(there are some more)
hide & run
Gerhard
Last edited:
Not so easy to achieve...
Firstly, which system? The big-built-in-the-corner-wall Westlake's or the little Yamaha NS-10? I must admid I'm a fan of neither of those, or their derivatives. Even if someone offered them to me for free, including transport, I'd politely decline.
Secondly, at what volume level? A local rock group I used to do live sound for, handed me their first album (yes, vinyl) and it was a BIG disappointment: the sound was flat, lifeless, boring; and I was familiar with the studio, they know their stuff. Until one day, I plugged it into my PA system and turned it up, and that totally transformed it: the live sound I knew so well was back! It's only a matter of the varying frequency response of the ears, and their compression at higher volume, but listening at 90-100dB in a cramped European appartment is not realistic.
Has anyone seen a review of a Mola-Mola DAC, definitely not of the simple is better design school? Visible in their pic is a board with a sea of 8-legs, I could imagine some kind of discrete multi-bit, segmented, whatever, type DAC (I really am guessing). The question is the claim of "unmeasurable" distortion. It is hard to believe that you can stuff boards with off the shelf SMT components and get -140dB performance out of the gate, that means some form of initial calibration or adjustment. So how do you adjust something without making a measurement? Stationarity to that level (thermal, mechanical, etc.) is also hard to believe.
Secondly Samuel has demonstrated -180dB measurements are possible and several other techniques yield better than -140dB.
Secondly Samuel has demonstrated -180dB measurements are possible and several other techniques yield better than -140dB.
No review, but according to the blog and PDF it's a 7th order PWM noise shaper implemented in a SHARC with 1-bit 100 MHz output, followed by a FIR DAC and analog LPF.
I'd love to see some real measurements. I'd be very skeptical if Bruno didn't have a track record of delivering on his claims.
OK I didn't look hard enough, still I don't consider -140dB unmeasurable. You can't plug it into an AP and make a graphic that everyone seems to want to see.
It’s only you that could help me, by posting a test plan for verifying a subjective audio experience of your choice. A scientific test plan that would meet your quality criteria.
That, instead of endlessly bickering at other people attempts, deflecting, obfuscating, theorizing, cultivating straw mans, circular logic, etc... with the only purpose of turning down or discouraging any “no peeking” tests attempts.
Until, you have to live with zero credibility from anybody but the “peeking no objection” fan club. On all public forums you are trying to carry on your mission.
Wink.
Last edited:
I agree. I think he’s claiming 140 dB SNR and < -150 dB distortion. I guess he doesn’t consider it worth his time to get a test setup that can verify it.
If i can go below -120db measurement setup i can claim anything...Nobody saw the North Pole before me...I was there!
To be fair he has, my problem is I want to see an example of an acceptable test plan that was actually carried out. IMO both "sides" are equally guilty and virtually everything posted here is anecdotal opinions of little or no value i.e. counting votes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.