Tbh, even comparing a NOS vs an OS dac is problematic for me. Muddying the waters further with a lossy dsd conversion baffles me. And in the end those two, dramatically different approaches, sound almost indistinguishable? Weird. Why not compare a true NOS dac vs the NOS digital filter on the AK4499 as already suggested? At least the FR will be similar. Why over complicate by bringing unnecessary variables?
@Evenharmonics Its ok if you want to sound like an incessant, yet broken record (ironic metaphor?), constantly on the attack, but I would appreciate it if you didn't try and leverage my comments as well, in effect putting words in my mouth.
Why would you stir that up? It was clear to anyone following and I dont think there is anything to be gained by replying here.
Perhaps he wants to ask follow-up questions like 'is there any evidence for the alleged incapability?' ?
No offence, but there is quite a bit of evidence that it isnt Mark's strong suit. I think he knows very well what he wants to do and what he believes should be done, but his skills arent there yet to make it happen. Practice practice.
No offence taken - but 'not being my strong suit' isn't equivalent to 'incapable'.
No, but if you were to just look at some of the hacks he has published over the years, yo could easily say that. I have in fact said that personally at one time or another. 🙂
and another 😛
That being said, its clear he's been putting some hard work into it, so i'm intrigued to see any designs published; should that occur.
That being said, its clear he's been putting some hard work into it, so i'm intrigued to see any designs published; should that occur.
Just because somebody could say it, or has said it, makes it so?
All the deflecting makes me draw the tentative conclusion that 'incapable' was a rhetorical flourish in this instance.
All the deflecting makes me draw the tentative conclusion that 'incapable' was a rhetorical flourish in this instance.
No, but does it need to? its not really subjective as the rest we are talking about. There are design rules and instances that dictate what isnt good design and what is unlikely to bring an improvement; rather bring detriment. Yes, definitely an element of design, symmetry etc, but laws at the heart of it. I just didnt see what possible positive outcome could come from the conversation for Mark and it makes me wonder ...
and it was clearly not Andrea (or whoever the puppet behind this account is) he is talking about. He doesnt even do layouts, does he? and the layouts are quite good, at least on the clocking side. professional and the performance of the clock goes without saying. I remain unconvinced by the DAC performance as yet, but the layouts do not look incompetent at a glance.
As the original question which sparked this interlude has now been deleted, I'll desist.
Why leave mine? Now I look like i'm ranting. Is this 'The Well Editorialised conversation'?
anyway i'm off to a party 😏 at ease peeps.
anyway i'm off to a party 😏 at ease peeps.
Knowledge is in the eyes of the beholder, making it difficult to guess the nature or extent of what could have been learned by perhaps only one of the > 20,000 views of this thread. I will leave this to a god to know. Certainly there was at least one interesting thing that was reinforced by the dialog by Markw4 as related to my own experiences. This was along with some personal disappointments that included not using the Topping D90.
Last edited:
The goal is to produce a great sounding dac. I will use what sounds good to me. Andrea takes another approach at getting good sound. There is no point in making dacs sound bad and then comparing them. What for?
We have compared D90 to a number of dacs before, including comparison to my dac. Don't understand what is so special about it, especially since Topping doesn't make that version anymore.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.