Another measure of success
How can success of DRIXO be measured?
Phase noise plots from multiple measurers showing SOTA measurement
Subjective listening tests from multiple people around the globe who actually listened
Let's add .. Did people pay hard earned cash to receive it?
Andrea, how many WTMC have been ordered? My guess 100 devices delivered. Multiple group buys and people asked to receive one, paid, waited a year for it to be developed and built.
How many have complained it was useless? Snake oil? One guy says only a little better, but he initially mocked this concept before trying it.
Many have taken the time to comment on positive impact. Some suggested its one of the more positive upgrades they've made to their system.
Sure some trolls will hiss that buyers are duped idiots with no ability to understand how Andrea has mislead them. So what? That's just the sad state of social media.
Andrea, be happy and proud.
How can success of DRIXO be measured?
Phase noise plots from multiple measurers showing SOTA measurement
Subjective listening tests from multiple people around the globe who actually listened
Let's add .. Did people pay hard earned cash to receive it?
Andrea, how many WTMC have been ordered? My guess 100 devices delivered. Multiple group buys and people asked to receive one, paid, waited a year for it to be developed and built.
How many have complained it was useless? Snake oil? One guy says only a little better, but he initially mocked this concept before trying it.
Many have taken the time to comment on positive impact. Some suggested its one of the more positive upgrades they've made to their system.
Sure some trolls will hiss that buyers are duped idiots with no ability to understand how Andrea has mislead them. So what? That's just the sad state of social media.
Andrea, be happy and proud.
Lots of people said green pens made their CDs sound better back in the last century. Pride of ownership in having an ultra_clean clock is fine. Pleasure in having modified something and it still works is good too. If this is how you spend your hobby dollars fine and dandy.
Claiming a huge improvement with no evidence other than sighted uncontrolled listening tests will cause questions to be asked. And that is also good or everyone will still be discussing exactly which shade of green is best on their CDs.
Interesting. I think technical discussion should be encouraged and I love learning about why I am hearing what I am. To be fair to Andrea, I think he has measured what he can given the tools he has access too and he seems open for anyone to measure what he has developed. This is his second iteration, which I'm sure he has already incorporated feedback into.
I am talking about micro-economics and socio-economics, to raise awareness of the impact that the elitist, toxic and bullying culture has in the digital forums. You can be the greatest engineer, I work with many, but if there is no one to buy your products - you will do something else and that will kill the digital forum and it has already been declining for a while. The TMV of Andrea's "business" on DIY Audio is around 30-40 people. If those people get sick and tired of the culture and lack of moderation in this forum - there is no-one to cover his costs. He's going to keep his personal projects to himself. This kills innovation at a macro-economic scale too. It's a shame to see it here.
Thats where my idea originated from. Just because someone doesn't realise the impact of their behaviour. It doesn't mean it isn't the case.
I hope that makes sense
I appreciate if that opinion isn't valued here.
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing. Thoughtful breath of fresh air. I hope you inspire others who are just getting their DRIXOs installed to seek help or share their experience, good or bad.
The Lord of measurements who has been using the Mark Levinson 360S for 21 years.
Except that he eventually measured it and, according to his own measurements, he noticed that the MEIZU dongle (45 USD) measures better and so he has replaced it.
But he is the reference for the audio world (sorry, not for me).
Scientific approach
Hi Chris,
well, let follow the approach "If you don't prove it, it doesn't exist".
We arbitrarily forget that we are not yet able to explain how our brain processes the signals it receives.
In this thread we are talking about oscillators so we have to find a scientific approach to measure an oscillator, or better to define the threshold below which there is no audible difference .
I knows two methods only, phase noise (frequency domain) and jitter (time domain), but I'm open to other ways.
So there are a few questions to explore the unknown:
1) would you prefer jitter or phase noise measurements?
2) if jitter was the preferred way, what integration bandwidth?
3) if phase noise was the preferred way, what part of the noise spectrum?
4) if jitter was the preferred way, what is the audibility treshold?
5) if phase noise is the preferred way, what noise audibility treshold and at what frequency from the carrier?
This is the minimal starting point, without the answers to the above questions no scientific analysis can be pursued.
Now I'm waiting for someone to define the above research parameters.
Andrea
Hi Chris,
well, let follow the approach "If you don't prove it, it doesn't exist".
We arbitrarily forget that we are not yet able to explain how our brain processes the signals it receives.
In this thread we are talking about oscillators so we have to find a scientific approach to measure an oscillator, or better to define the threshold below which there is no audible difference .
I knows two methods only, phase noise (frequency domain) and jitter (time domain), but I'm open to other ways.
So there are a few questions to explore the unknown:
1) would you prefer jitter or phase noise measurements?
2) if jitter was the preferred way, what integration bandwidth?
3) if phase noise was the preferred way, what part of the noise spectrum?
4) if jitter was the preferred way, what is the audibility treshold?
5) if phase noise is the preferred way, what noise audibility treshold and at what frequency from the carrier?
This is the minimal starting point, without the answers to the above questions no scientific analysis can be pursued.
Now I'm waiting for someone to define the above research parameters.
Andrea
I just do not get the point of these attacks to Andrea's work. He has his own approach to digital audio and a line of products according to this vision is being developed.
First product is the oscillator, and the performance has been published resulting on pair with the best oscillators in the market (Mutec REF SE120) at a small fraction of the price. So, what is wrong with that???
If someone does not agree is obviously free to ignore his work and state his/her opinion as well. But this fierceness seems strange, I have never seen this in any other thread.
This is an audio DIY forum and not the conjecture de poincare demonstration committee. There are Physics and Maths as it should, but not only....
I want to THANK Andrea for his work and ENCOURAGE him to keep on working his way. I consider his products the most interesting in the digital arena right now!
48 posts since 2018, 43 (89.5%) in this clock thread and the associated Group Buy thread. Thank you for your contributions to DIYAudio.
Last time I’ve checked is called “correlation” and your timepod uses it as well.
Andrea,
Could you focus on how owners or future owners of your '' clock related '' boards have to use them to get the maximum benefits?
A few weeks ago i already suggested to Ian/ Andrea to write a simple basic '' tutorial '' on how to get optimum results but nothing has happened so far.
My boards might end up on swap meet pretty soon.
Greetings, Eduard
Could you focus on how owners or future owners of your '' clock related '' boards have to use them to get the maximum benefits?
A few weeks ago i already suggested to Ian/ Andrea to write a simple basic '' tutorial '' on how to get optimum results but nothing has happened so far.
My boards might end up on swap meet pretty soon.
Greetings, Eduard
Hi Chris, I think what you are asking for might involve a lot of time consuming research. The reason I say that is that well understood AP type tests are usually done one channel at a time, and then maybe crosstalk is measured at one or a few frequencies.
So far as I know, there are no commonly used measurements for stereo imaging accuracy, which is one thing clocks help dacs do better. If no recognized test standard for imaging, how should it be measured? How should one measure imaging depth?
Also, even if imaging dimensionality cues were to be measured in some way, the skeptics would say the measurements mean nothing because they have not been statistically correlated with human perception. The skeptics will claim the measurements are are of something inaudible.
That's where it always ends up. Proof of audibility. Its a difficult, time consuming, and costly undertaking to do properly. There is no funding for it, EEs don't by themselves have the expertise for it, and nobody seems to have the time for it, especially just to satisfy some skeptics who might not ever be satisfied (which is what has happened in other fields). I'm not kidding, it took Martin Seligman a good 20 years of published research to almost single handedly overturn Skinner's Behaviorism model of human motivation. It almost surely won't be easy to change the thinking of audio skeptics either.
Last edited:
Fact of the matter is someone has designed an objectively SOTA oscillator and offered it to the community at a price an order of magnitude lower than anything similar.
From the way some people are responding you'd think this was a bad thing.
Some people dont think you could possibly hear a difference between this and a cheap XO, totally understandable and based on existing, measurable data that is the most logical conclusion, this could be said in single civilised post and then move on.
From the way some people are responding you'd think this was a bad thing.
Some people dont think you could possibly hear a difference between this and a cheap XO, totally understandable and based on existing, measurable data that is the most logical conclusion, this could be said in single civilised post and then move on.
My Timepod uses 3 cornered hat measurement to measure a DUT better than the reference, not only cross correlation.
Excellent question?!
In my room the speakers are 4' out from the front wall but the auditory illusion is back behind the front wall. I have a laser measuring tool, best in the business, but no way to use it to measure where my brain perceives that cymbal. It can only tell me where the wall is.
Now a useful exercise for the scientists would be to accept that some people can hear a difference in depth with the same track played on two different pieces of equipment(the hypothesis) and then find what in their measured sound is different and repeatable. The DIYaudio crowd might say I see no differences in my measurement therefore you imagine you hear a difference. The enlightened would continue to search for the measurement they are missing and move the science forward. To bring this back on topic, this could all be done by swapping clocks.
I could accept that, provided you could unambiguously define the concept of "depth". Or, lacking an analytic metric for "depth", a controlled listening test would do as well.
Otherwise, you won't be able to make a scientist bother to guess and interpret the (by)products of your brain.
Hello,
To bring us back on topic. Anyone willing to spend a little time on writing a one page tutorial on how to get the biggest benefits when using the Italian clock circuitry instead of arguing all the time with no benefits for anyone.
It might even scare away from buying Andrea's circuitry. To be honest if i had to make the decision to invest this amount of money on the six boards and the two tiny STS boards again right now i would probably postpone it.
On top of that Ian announced a Sinepi board that would be this much better but which in the end might not turn up for sale.
Survival of the fittest soon to follow!
greetings, eduard
To bring us back on topic. Anyone willing to spend a little time on writing a one page tutorial on how to get the biggest benefits when using the Italian clock circuitry instead of arguing all the time with no benefits for anyone.
It might even scare away from buying Andrea's circuitry. To be honest if i had to make the decision to invest this amount of money on the six boards and the two tiny STS boards again right now i would probably postpone it.
On top of that Ian announced a Sinepi board that would be this much better but which in the end might not turn up for sale.
Survival of the fittest soon to follow!
greetings, eduard
I find what's happening in this thread (and forum) very sad. Short of snake oil merchant(s) (they always existed, and will keep peddling forever, nothing outstanding) I see a bunch of people being uncomfortable with, and very vocal about, the very basic foundation of science and technology. And I can tell, this is only getting worse over the last 20 years. I could speculate about the root causes, but this is not the right place and time, saving it for an eventual Pub thread.
It looks like your tool is a little outdated, maybe you could replace it with a modern one.
It's enough obvious that you can't measure a Wenzel BT ULN oscillator.
BTW, although your tool has the limit of 10MHz input frequency, it's not so difficult measuring a 5MHz oscillator.
Just add a frequency doubler and finally subtract 6dB.
I would assume that you are able to do this.
Attachments
I would be interested too, if done properly it may define a path for evaluation of this product in the context of SQ, beyond the usual anecdotic reports. I guess it could only be the peddlers of the said products. I'm not holding my breath, though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.