@PMA,
although I can relate to the criticism because of the missing "confirming DBT", I don't understand your negative view on the subjectivism, as it would be still a subjective evaluation if done in a controlled experiment (including the double-blind feature).
Apparently, Markw4 tries a more qualitative test approach, which is more complex but might be less artificial than the "usual" quantitative procedure.
But, in this example, the language barrier introduced an (too high, IMHO) additional impediment.
@Evenharmonics,
It should be obvious, that the question - what a term like "correct" means - and the question, which way to examine the "correctness", are very different. (related though).
Not much "forthcoming" on your side regarding the missing evidence for your assertion.
Btw, that you - the guy constantly demanding "proof" for subjective listening experiences - have obviousley absolutely no problems posting your free-wheeling subjective statements about "business missions" or reasons as facts, is a nice example of surrealism. 🙂
although I can relate to the criticism because of the missing "confirming DBT", I don't understand your negative view on the subjectivism, as it would be still a subjective evaluation if done in a controlled experiment (including the double-blind feature).
Apparently, Markw4 tries a more qualitative test approach, which is more complex but might be less artificial than the "usual" quantitative procedure.
But, in this example, the language barrier introduced an (too high, IMHO) additional impediment.
@Evenharmonics,
It should be obvious, that the question - what a term like "correct" means - and the question, which way to examine the "correctness", are very different. (related though).
Not much "forthcoming" on your side regarding the missing evidence for your assertion.
Btw, that you - the guy constantly demanding "proof" for subjective listening experiences - have obviousley absolutely no problems posting your free-wheeling subjective statements about "business missions" or reasons as facts, is a nice example of surrealism. 🙂
I appreciate that Mark4 reported on his listening session. Perhaps in an attempt to avoid confrontation, I got little or nothing out of the report.
What I heard him say is we listened to DAC Lite, vinyl and his custom DAC. He reports that the DACs are on par. No report on how anything compared to vinyl and no report on how it compares to a known commodity. So, all we learned is Mark makes a proprietary DAC that in his opinion is equal or better to Andrea's DAC and both are likely better than the commercial DAC but they didn't actually listen to find out. Oh and also we learned that Mark's implementation of a Crystek osillator is also so smart that it is equal or better than the so called SOTA stuff Andrea made. IMHO all we learned is that Mark is still convinced that the stuff he builds is very good. It probably is, but tells us not much about anything.
What I heard him say is we listened to DAC Lite, vinyl and his custom DAC. He reports that the DACs are on par. No report on how anything compared to vinyl and no report on how it compares to a known commodity. So, all we learned is Mark makes a proprietary DAC that in his opinion is equal or better to Andrea's DAC and both are likely better than the commercial DAC but they didn't actually listen to find out. Oh and also we learned that Mark's implementation of a Crystek osillator is also so smart that it is equal or better than the so called SOTA stuff Andrea made. IMHO all we learned is that Mark is still convinced that the stuff he builds is very good. It probably is, but tells us not much about anything.
@wlowes,
If you require bluntness, fine, I will try to be more blunt:
(1) My dac is not for sale and will never be. It sounds pretty good, but not good enough I would want to sell it with my name attached to it. Regarding the clocking, I have repeatedly stated that it starts with @diyiggy advice about bypass. Other than that it could be that because the dac is running in DSD mode, because most recording ADCs don't have clocks the caliber of Andrea's so dac clocking can only help so much, and or because AKM knows something about making semi-jitter tolerant dac chips. I don't know. What I do know is that it took me a lot of experimentation work and I have been asked not to give details for now. Andrea can you tell you what he thinks about the sound if you want to know.
(2) DAC_Lite is pretty good, but not yet world class great. People who like the R2R sound are likely to prefer it to the sound of my dac, even though they can sound rather similar at times. If it has a shortcoming that would cause me not to want it, it is the sound at HF (as I already described). Other than that its quite nice. It sounds 'better' without the buffer. A better buffer might make it sound even better than it does without a buffer, don't know.
(3) I have already described what I don't like about the sound of D90 in other threads. Don't see a need to repeat it here.
(4) Vinyl sounded different. In some way piano notes and their attacks and decays sounded more natural than from either dac. In other ways it has the shortcoming of vinyl. Trying to describe its sound in words is not something I feel I could do very well. If there were two vinyl systems then it might be easier to describe their differences. I will say that optical vinyl is IME and IMHO superior to magnetic in terms of perceived SQ, detail retrieval, requires much less amplifier gain so less of some noise, and doesn't sound like a magnetic device, such as a transformer, at all. If that sounds interesting to you then you might want to see if you can audition one for yourself and form your own opinions, because what I just said about it is nothing more than my opinion.
Is that clear enough for you?
If you require bluntness, fine, I will try to be more blunt:
(1) My dac is not for sale and will never be. It sounds pretty good, but not good enough I would want to sell it with my name attached to it. Regarding the clocking, I have repeatedly stated that it starts with @diyiggy advice about bypass. Other than that it could be that because the dac is running in DSD mode, because most recording ADCs don't have clocks the caliber of Andrea's so dac clocking can only help so much, and or because AKM knows something about making semi-jitter tolerant dac chips. I don't know. What I do know is that it took me a lot of experimentation work and I have been asked not to give details for now. Andrea can you tell you what he thinks about the sound if you want to know.
(2) DAC_Lite is pretty good, but not yet world class great. People who like the R2R sound are likely to prefer it to the sound of my dac, even though they can sound rather similar at times. If it has a shortcoming that would cause me not to want it, it is the sound at HF (as I already described). Other than that its quite nice. It sounds 'better' without the buffer. A better buffer might make it sound even better than it does without a buffer, don't know.
(3) I have already described what I don't like about the sound of D90 in other threads. Don't see a need to repeat it here.
(4) Vinyl sounded different. In some way piano notes and their attacks and decays sounded more natural than from either dac. In other ways it has the shortcoming of vinyl. Trying to describe its sound in words is not something I feel I could do very well. If there were two vinyl systems then it might be easier to describe their differences. I will say that optical vinyl is IME and IMHO superior to magnetic in terms of perceived SQ, detail retrieval, requires much less amplifier gain so less of some noise, and doesn't sound like a magnetic device, such as a transformer, at all. If that sounds interesting to you then you might want to see if you can audition one for yourself and form your own opinions, because what I just said about it is nothing more than my opinion.
Is that clear enough for you?
Last edited:
Please explain what is more complex about listening to DACs and making unsubstantiated claims as compared to e.g. making de-facto standard measurements for all to see.
It is also logical. The cartridge is a fairly simple mechanical component: stylus, suspension, magnet, coils. To a great extent and precision, a mechanical movement gets translated into a variable current. Esp with MM. But it is everything else that can stress or alter the precision of the mechanical movement that would have a larger impact, and of these I would say the tonearm and its own suspension can do the worst damage.
The beef I have with many of markw4's posts about DACs is that they are unsubstantiated. We need POVs and opinions, but opinions should not be presented as facts, unless they are supported by data. In which case whey are no longer opinions, but facts.
What unsubstantiated claim can be interpreted to correlate well with perceived reproduction of stereo imaging of HF reverberation decays of a recording space?
BS?
BS?
Thanks Mark. I wasn't looking for blunt. Just your thoughts and a personal subjective opinion. IMO you have now provided that, and I found it a useful insight. Thank you.
Just a result of quite long evolution of my view on audio listening tests, based on a long time experience and testing of prototypes both in sighted tests and controlled DBT tests. Total move from impressions based on sighted tests, but biased for many reasons. No need to explain more, to write novels on listening impressions.
As expected, more of the same dance and obfuscation.
In your perception, as you've already acknowledged. It would've been interesting to read the results if your perceptions are put through the scrutiny of objective evaluation.
Don't hold your breath.
But what they write is basically an advertisement.
Taking de-facto measurements is a different thing. PMA complained about the lack of "DBT" and I mentioned the subjectivity of listeners under both conditions and further about the different approaches in sensory tests.
A controlled listening test (like the "DBT" PMA had presumably in mind) is a quantitative procedure (in all shortness, means observing the proportions of correct answers in the dichotomous trials and evaluating the compatibility of the observed data with the hypothesis(es)) while an alternative would be a qualitative procedure, where the listeners are asked for a detailed description of their perception (might even including the assessment of emotional responses).
Ok.Please explain why listening to DACs and making unsubstantiated claims (what is what Markw4 did) is more complex than performing a controlled listening test.
because they have been unable to achieve this condition in 1001 attempts? Seems it MUST be very difficult 😀
A loose analogy to what I might prefer doing could be thought of terms of a Focus Group model, or possibly in terms of an Unstructured Interview model. Maybe somewhere in between. It depends. Please note possible applicability to 'controversial topics.'
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology...that brings together,of 4 types of interviews.
https://www.bmj.com/content/311/7000/299
Aside from my preferences, when visitors accept an invitation to come and listen in Auburn they need not agree to participate in formal or casual research. Its fine if people want to come, listen, compare, and form their own opinions. If they want to be blind tested and or moderated, that can be arranged too. I would just add this the first time anyone has accepted an invitation. I don't know how some critics expect me to recruit skilled listeners to come here to be tested. Having anyone come at all is rare to say the least.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology...that brings together,of 4 types of interviews.
https://www.bmj.com/content/311/7000/299
Aside from my preferences, when visitors accept an invitation to come and listen in Auburn they need not agree to participate in formal or casual research. Its fine if people want to come, listen, compare, and form their own opinions. If they want to be blind tested and or moderated, that can be arranged too. I would just add this the first time anyone has accepted an invitation. I don't know how some critics expect me to recruit skilled listeners to come here to be tested. Having anyone come at all is rare to say the least.
Last edited:
Am I supposed to be able to explain what Markw4 had in mind? 😉
But, according to the short notes in his posts, four Italians were visiting Markw4 for a couple of hours; during this time Markw4 had not only to be a cheering host but the visitors should have accommodated to the listening and test conditions (means procedures)? In the end, all had to participate in a (usually quite tedious) controlled listening experiment (including negative and positive controls and a sufficient number of trials) before leaving? 😉
Only thing controversial about the recent discussion is that we are led to believe without any concrete evidence that a person not capable of making measurements or even half-decent layouts has created an almost world-class audio device.
Well, stranger things have happened though nothing comes to my mind now.
Well, stranger things have happened though nothing comes to my mind now.
Please keep in mind that he will continue to do what he has been doing for years, pursuing his mission. His mission is commercial grade, you know the ones that are more heavy duty than consumer grade.
People won't waste their time and funds to do things that are not necessary. Why bother traveling to do the same casual subjective auditioning that they can do at their own place?
No, but you seemed to be capable of knowing what he tried to do even without any evidence ("Apparently, Markw4 tries a more qualitative test approach").
I have to smile. We are supposed to say no, but then you have to admit that there is no output from such friendly session that might be generalized. As always, with this "test person".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.