You are still repeating yourself. Why? Are you expecting a different result while repeating the same thing?
Well versed, familiarity with the subject? Yeah, right... that's what enabled him to not come up with a single example of audio DBT where the listeners couldn't detect audible difference that was really there despite the claim about the unreliability of audio DBT, just like you couldn't come up with one example of audible sound that cannot be measured despite your "Lots" claim. That puts you in the same category as him, a "well versed" and "familiarity with the subject". Congratulations!
Afaik there is only Richard Clark associated with the long running socalled "amplifier challenge" .
What i´ve said was just based on notes posted from Richard Clark and he stated that there was no person that got more than 65% correct.
I´m sorry, but you´ve asserted that you proved him being wrong. If you now argue that he used non-standard terminology and vague definitions in which way could your example established proof that Kunchur was wrong??
In fact jcx and you (along others during the various discussions) misattributed things to Kunchur that he never said but were not able to provide some facts. I asked jcx to be more specific about the publication in which Kunchurs goes at length about .... and up to now he could not cite it.
growing bored isn't conceeding the point
you just mentioned it - the FAQ
you had already mentioned it when you criticized my comment - since you already have the ref but don't choose to read it with an open mind what good is my next reply likely to do?
maybe its the needed background - several people with professional EE experience in Signal Theory, DSP find errors, implied misunderstanding of the subjects in Kunchur's commentary
you just mentioned it - the FAQ
you had already mentioned it when you criticized my comment - since you already have the ref but don't choose to read it with an open mind what good is my next reply likely to do?
maybe its the needed background - several people with professional EE experience in Signal Theory, DSP find errors, implied misunderstanding of the subjects in Kunchur's commentary
Last edited:
As i already cited the paragraph from Kunchur´s FAQ which i considered to be relevant it would have helped if you presented your arguments in which way the cited paragraph was wrong, it would have been just a normal discussion - anything wrong with that??
So please try it this time; present the argument where and why he was wrong.
There are both:
David Clark authored the AES papers on ABX audio tests.
AES E-Library High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator
Richard Clark did the "amplifier challenge" .
I joined the AES in 1985 and have read all articles of David L.Clark on this topic which includes the one you´ve cited (as well as arnyk).
Basically i think you mean both are associated with "double blind listening tests" but Richard Clark is the "Clark" that is associated with the "amplifier challenge" and that confirms what i wrote ?!
Nice recourse to the Schopenhauer list.
I prefer doing it step by step, it will not help your case in our specific point that Kunchur might have been wrong elsewhere.
And i certainly did never stated that Kunchur´s work is error-free in every aspect (publications are done by humans so perfection is quite unlikely).
The beginning of our discussion was your post :
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/280626-worlds-best-dacs-107.html#post4548169
and especially:
Kunchur did three experiments (as no. 2 is only a variance of no. 1 i´ll leave it aside) in which the same stimulus ( 7kHz square wave) was presented in a diotic setup to listeners.
In the first experiment the original signal was presented unaltered (without switching in a variable lowpass) and altered (with lowpass switched in) via headphones.
Listeners had to decide whether the stimulus presented was the original (i.e. unaltered) signal or the signal version shaped by the low pass filter.
In the other experiment the signal was fed to two transducers located in front of the listener (median plane to ensure the diotic condition) one above the other. The position of the upper transducer was mechanically variable to realize a different distance to the listener while preserving the lateral position (and height).
Again the listeners had to decide if the stimulus was presented via both transducers in the same distance or in the condition where the upper transducer was moved a bit back in distance.
That's incorrect. I posted a technical demo here that illustrated one of his errors. Of course, one would need to be able to understand the demo....
No, I produced a documented example. That's not an assertion.
The two illustrations of Kunchur's errors are independent of each other.
David L. Clark is well known to many of us, but apparently not to you, for these articles relate to tests he performed that were amplifier challenges:
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September 1985)
Clark, David, "Ten Years Of A/B/X Testing", 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention, New York, NY, October 1991.
"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?" David L. Clark and Ian G. Masters (pp.
78-84), Stereo Review Magazine, Jan 1987
Following your hint i tried to reread the FAQ with an open mind, but i could not find the paragraph in which Kunchur - according to your assertion - was going at length about a 2003 computer being not able to provide the delay needed at microsecond levels ?!
Could you please cite the paragraph from the FAQ?
And again - open minded or not - why on earth should you think a direct cite would not help???
As the question which Clark i meant is answered and we all know (at least by now) that the so-called "amplifier challenge" is usually associated with Richard Clark i think we can move on.
Still your example shows something Kunchur had not questioned.
If you have evidence showing the contrary please cite the explicit paragraph.
Okay, this is the paper I am discussing. And this study has much more to do with inter-channel timing than anything else (unless these small changes affect the frequency response). And 16/44 has more than enough resolution to handle these inter-channel effects.
Hi and thanks for the interesting thread.
Do i understand well that you are comparing dacs in different systems ?
I ask because i have a dac here and just using the AES/EBU input instead of the coax makes some differences in the sound.
Every other thing unchanged.
And there is always the old rule ... garbage in garbage out.
Maybe you put the blame on the converter while the **** is coming from the source.
Thanks again, gino
Audio-GD Master-7 is the best DAC I've hear so far under 10K$. it's a Multibit R-2R ladder DAC. it's accurate? No! it sounds liquid, airy, musical, warm and involving.
Shiit Yggdrasil is the new DAC I'd like to hear
Edit: some pretty image from inside of Audio-GD Master-7:
Shiit Yggdrasil is the new DAC I'd like to hear
Edit: some pretty image from inside of Audio-GD Master-7:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
