So have a lot of us. The foil hat crowd of kooks have been around for a long time, much of the stuff on that site is so wrong that, well you know. Mark, MM, Dick do you really want to throw your hat in with the RFI/EMI government conspiracy crowd of raving loonies?
Last edited:
Ah, a famous snake oil salesman. That makes it OK.
Honestly, anyone who buys from this guy might as well just participate in a Nigerian scam. They both probably know the same amount about RF.
Exactly.
Already I would like to distance myself from the claims on that website.
However, I would be willing to take my own DAC-3, some good headphones, and a laptop PC (if needed to provide familiar USB digital audio source content), and then compare sound between Richard's modified, and my own unmodified DAC-3. If they sound different to me, I am willing to say so. If they the same to me I am also willing to say that.
I would also very much like to take up Richard on his offer to let me look inside his modified DAC.
Don't know how things will turn out, but still feeling skeptical at this point (and I think understandably so based on the website).
Otherwise said, you are “open minded”, unlike the “closed minded” infidels that smell a swindle from 1000 miles.
Please do a preference test, we were all taught here by the true experts that difference tests are useless and in general of no good. And please, peek as much as you can, your impression will be so much credible this way.
No exactly. I try not to jump to conclusions unlike some, is all. Could be the guy with the crazy website stumbled on something that is helpful, despite the fact that his theoretical claims are not credible at all, and despite his claim he has patents when all he shows are framed papers indicating applications for patents. I have to agree with you it looks very bad.
Thanks for the tips. As in the case of the crazy website guy, I will take your advice and claims very conditionally.
Look, any mention of The Upgrade Company on an audio forum is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. I only mentioned it, nothing more.
Mark's attitude & approach sounds pretty spot on to me.
Richard can return the Dac3 for a full refund & removal of treatment, according to that website.
Can't see the harm, myself (I may not subscribe to all that is posted on the site but that doesn't mean he is wrong in all things)
Richard can return the Dac3 for a full refund & removal of treatment, according to that website.
Can't see the harm, myself (I may not subscribe to all that is posted on the site but that doesn't mean he is wrong in all things)
Richard reports that his modified DAC sounds much better, nobody knows exactly what has been done to modify the DAC and immediately David Schulte is declared a snake oil charlatan and a new age loony.
This is carbon copy of treatment of MMerrill and plenty others, you auto negative guys should just grow up, grow some balls and stop acting like gossiping school girls.
Or better still let's start a long running discussion about how Nelson Pass is a total con artist selling monoblock amplifiers with dodgy specs (1% THD !) for USD $42,000 each FFS and drawing 700W at idle FFS.....these should be outlawed as environmentally irresponsible and only a lunatic would design such a filthy greenhouse gas emitter.
How about a box with a few caps, a few transistors and six internal heatsinks for a mere USD$3500 for driving a pair of headphones FFS ?.
Maybe we should inform Pass Labs owners that they have been conned and mesmerised by the marketing dept and that an amp measuring 1%THD is not hi-fi and spread the word that all these owners are deaf and stupid.
Oh, and while we are at it we should inform such owners that we are certain of our findings because we have tested them with Foobar ABX.
Last edited:
Dan, there are a core group on here that always look for a flaw, a reason to reject, a conviction that they are always right , a lack of curiosity of any other possibility.
Nothing wrong with scepticism but when it is brought to this extreme it is self-defeating - they will never learn anything new unless cajoled, spoon-fed, forced by the overwhelming evidence to eventually accept new facts & even then there is a lip-service paid to the new information but really the inner thoughts are still the same. Look at Evenharmonic still asking me if I am Merrill of Merrill Audio - the depth of their belief is to the core.
We can see it by their attitude to new information in the perceptual area - all of it was & still is scoffed at, despite the scientific backing it has.
Unfortunately, the same people don't apply this same scepticism to their own areas - look at how any pointing out of the flaws in Foobar ABX is rejected out of hand, no examination allowed, icht verboten
They are not the curious or even scientifically minded ones who will advance audio - why would they - all is perfect in the electronics, just the room & speakers are worth investigating - the usual mantra. And again, if they even thought about room acoustics for a moment they would see the weaknesses in the approach
Nothing wrong with scepticism but when it is brought to this extreme it is self-defeating - they will never learn anything new unless cajoled, spoon-fed, forced by the overwhelming evidence to eventually accept new facts & even then there is a lip-service paid to the new information but really the inner thoughts are still the same. Look at Evenharmonic still asking me if I am Merrill of Merrill Audio - the depth of their belief is to the core.
We can see it by their attitude to new information in the perceptual area - all of it was & still is scoffed at, despite the scientific backing it has.
Unfortunately, the same people don't apply this same scepticism to their own areas - look at how any pointing out of the flaws in Foobar ABX is rejected out of hand, no examination allowed, icht verboten
They are not the curious or even scientifically minded ones who will advance audio - why would they - all is perfect in the electronics, just the room & speakers are worth investigating - the usual mantra. And again, if they even thought about room acoustics for a moment they would see the weaknesses in the approach
Last edited:
This is a good opportunity, nice.
I think The Upgrade Company states they fit input AC filter first off then the other shielding stuffs including shield wrapping cable looms.
I am certain that the 'improved' DAC-3 will sound different, the question is preferences and for what reasons.
Dan.
Claims about sound quality aren’t a problem.
It’s the claims about electronics and the health effects of RF that are total BS. Nelson doesn’t make such claims.
It’s the claims about electronics and the health effects of RF that are total BS. Nelson doesn’t make such claims.
Richard said it sounded better, how does he know it didn't just sound different and he perceived it as better?
Over the long term is he finding that he listens to more music with it, that music playback is more interesting, that he finds it connects him with the art in the performance more, that he finds it a better illusion of a real event or a better portrayal of the art of the recording?
He often mentions accuracy, I don't know if he equates that with better, better seems subjective whilst accuracy seems objective to me. It's possible to conclude than "sounds better" means "I like it more". If so, that's great, but we are none the wiser.
Who are you talking about Richard or Mark? I guess it's Richard you mean? I believe we can judge "accuracy" by ear, not solely by measurements - in fact measurements may lead us astray
When you say "we are none the wiser" do you mean he has to 'prove to us' why it sounds better?
It seems to me that if "better" is qualified in the way I expressed it then he is onto a winner & we can try something similar ourselves or not. This strikes me as being 'wiser' for us as we can decide to investigate ourselves if we wish.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.