"No controlled DBT to confirm the results." but you still disagree. That's rich.
It will never go different, but I do not care. We have more important things to care about.
Plain old single-bit sigma-delta modulator for PCM to DSD256 conversion or something fancier? Plain single-bit sigma-delta modulators are known for their idle tone issues.
Last edited:
Do you have any direct or indirect ties to London Audio, Century Sound, Strathroy Audio Video, Sound Electronics or stores like those in southwestern Ontario?
What clocks were used for the fifo with dac lite? the ak4499 was also using andrea's fifo? what clocks?
Indeed. Whatever the case, some of these dac chips simply seem to sound 'better' to humans when operated in DSD mode. Could be more of an indictment of their PCM mode SQ, don't know.
Andrea's Driscoll clocks at 11/12MHz were used with DAC_Lite. Crystek 957 22/24MHz clocks were used with Custom AK4499 dac. Experiments showed that Andrea Driscoll clocks only offered very slight SQ improvement to our AK4499 in DSD mode. However, my Crystek implementation is not exactly like any I have seen described in the forum. The clocks are carefully powered, bypassed, buffered, and laid out. Even the buffers receive special treatment. There is more regarding reclocking stages that I will leave aside for now.
I'll bite...why?... and why Strathroy Audio Video?... are you including Target HiFi? Seems I'm a subject of investigation.
Last edited:
Goodness me... this thread's been a blatant, cruel awakening... for me at least.
I've seen blatant attempts at extracting data left, front, right. Even Jeff Zhu statements have been paraphrased & used in an attempt to obtain data -> for the sole purpose of ripping off one of the best designs currently in production.
The moderators should shut this whole thing down... unbelievable.
I've seen blatant attempts at extracting data left, front, right. Even Jeff Zhu statements have been paraphrased & used in an attempt to obtain data -> for the sole purpose of ripping off one of the best designs currently in production.
The moderators should shut this whole thing down... unbelievable.
🙄 Wasn't it apparent to you by second page that the OP's comparison method cannot lend itself (reasons explained on first 2 pages) to the obtainment of useful data on the sound of DACs?
Markw4 said:
@PMA, We are going to disagree. IME the listening group did not all hear the same way or listen for exactly the same things. However, the things they described hearing were all correct and already known to me.
"were all correct" -> where all the same as mine - is that what you intended to say perhaps?
//
@PMA, We are going to disagree. IME the listening group did not all hear the same way or listen for exactly the same things. However, the things they described hearing were all correct and already known to me.
"were all correct" -> where all the same as mine - is that what you intended to say perhaps?
//
The sales rep of Topping was not present. Had she been there the result would have been a three-way tie instead of a two-way tie.
Thought i knew what data left and data right were, but data front? 🙂
Seriously, what are you on about?
Listening group impressions ...... a phrase like this is in fact used to support the story teller's view.
I have organized and participated in many similar "listening group" tests and have quite defined opinion about their outcome.
At least, it is good to place the components under the test behind the curtain and not to tell the listening group what is playing. Only such trivial modification of the usual sighted test leads to surprising results (like changing of preferences). However, the organizer of such test must be independent with no tendency to prefer one of the DUT components, which I doubt was a case here. The tests as described usually serve to strengthen author's or owner's belief in his component.
I have organized and participated in many similar "listening group" tests and have quite defined opinion about their outcome.
At least, it is good to place the components under the test behind the curtain and not to tell the listening group what is playing. Only such trivial modification of the usual sighted test leads to surprising results (like changing of preferences). However, the organizer of such test must be independent with no tendency to prefer one of the DUT components, which I doubt was a case here. The tests as described usually serve to strengthen author's or owner's belief in his component.
You are jumping to conclusions. There was no specific discussion as to ranking devices in some order. There were primarily comments regarding observations of device reproduction characteristics that could be aurally discriminated. In some cases where opinions were expressed to me in simple language using words such as 'good,' that may have been a consequence of the language barrier (English verses Italian), as there was sometimes some back and forth discussion among listeners that I could not understand. I did make sure that I understood what they were trying to tell me specifically. As to whether or not my later post describing the event was of the exact verbatim wording that took place, I would say it was more of a summary of my recollections. Whether the visitors discussed ranking among themselves after they left Auburn is unknown to me.
Last edited:
I'll bite...why?... Seems I'm a subject of investigation.
Do you have (or have you had) any direct or indirect ties with boys, live ladies or a lady representative?... nudge, nudge... wink, wink.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.