Sonore
Not sure what you mean by this? Sonore does make any cables, they make Ethernet Renderers, power supplies, and some other hardware items. I am a consultant working with them on the top level products.
Not sure what you mean by this? Sonore does make any cables, they make Ethernet Renderers, power supplies, and some other hardware items. I am a consultant working with them on the top level products.
Nothing special, the cables are advertised on the Sonore web site and can be purchased online from there. If Sonare is only distributing cables from Belden (although the power cables are advertised as "Sonore AC and DC Power Cables"), then I am sure all these cables sound as good as the price tag. Your company is vouching for that, of course.
Iconoclast
Sonore - Power Cable
And then, of course, your findings about clocks and DACs are as valuable as these cables, thank you.
Sonore
Sonore is a DEALER for Iconoclast Cables, they are their own company, if you do not like Iconoclast, whatever, that is up to you.
Sonore does sell a couple of branded cables made to our specs by Cardas, which are normally bundled with products for customers, if you do not like that, again, whatever.
I have nothing to do with any of this, I am a CONSULTANT with Sonore for product development, and I build Sonore's top level, Signature Series products. If you do not like that, whatever.
I like working in high end audio, if you do not like that, again, whatever.
"And then, of course, your findings about clocks and DACs are as valuable as these cables, thank you."
The above is faulty logic.
None of his has anything to do with the AKM 4499 DAC chip, remember that folks, does anyone have anything more to share about the DAC chip this thread is about?
Sonore is a DEALER for Iconoclast Cables, they are their own company, if you do not like Iconoclast, whatever, that is up to you.
Sonore does sell a couple of branded cables made to our specs by Cardas, which are normally bundled with products for customers, if you do not like that, again, whatever.
I have nothing to do with any of this, I am a CONSULTANT with Sonore for product development, and I build Sonore's top level, Signature Series products. If you do not like that, whatever.
I like working in high end audio, if you do not like that, again, whatever.
"And then, of course, your findings about clocks and DACs are as valuable as these cables, thank you."
The above is faulty logic.
None of his has anything to do with the AKM 4499 DAC chip, remember that folks, does anyone have anything more to share about the DAC chip this thread is about?
Last edited:
Isn't it a problem for everyone who reads your post now but has missed your post(s) about the DAC listening tests?
Presumably a lot of members.
Using the search function is fine, but what are the appropriate search terms to find your posts about the DAC listening test which gave the results that were talking about?
There is an ignore feature. I've used it in this case and so have others, I believe.
No one is trying to dissuade @barrows from providing information. In fact I have been asking for more information, so I can better understand his observations. Personally, I have no idea if he can actually hear what he claims to hear, and until he can convince me that he has eliminated "expectation bias" from his observations that position will remain. He berates people for not performing similar "listening tests", but when asked, on a number of occations, to describe his methodology he simply ignores us. What is he afraid of?
Last edited:
I am not participating here in order to prove my experiences to anyone else. Getting into a discussion here about listening test methodology would be even more off topic that we have already become. I have already participated in such threads elsewhere, and have no desire to do so again, as they go nowhere. I am confident in my observations, that is all which matters to me. For others who are not, you are free to ignore them.
To those who tell me I am wrong, and that there are no differences between using a lower phase noise clock and an ordinary one (in a DAC or source), I would suggest that you go ahead and test such before sharing "information" with no basis other than opinion and speculation.
I will say no more on this topic here, and i hope that others will respect that and let this discussion get back to the AKM 4499 DAC chip:
What do folks think about different I/V approaches for this chip? Looks like Topping is using four OPA 1612, and then summing the outputs after the I/V, instead of summing the outputs before the I/V stage and using two OPAs.
To those who tell me I am wrong, and that there are no differences between using a lower phase noise clock and an ordinary one (in a DAC or source), I would suggest that you go ahead and test such before sharing "information" with no basis other than opinion and speculation.
I will say no more on this topic here, and i hope that others will respect that and let this discussion get back to the AKM 4499 DAC chip:
What do folks think about different I/V approaches for this chip? Looks like Topping is using four OPA 1612, and then summing the outputs after the I/V, instead of summing the outputs before the I/V stage and using two OPAs.
"To those who tell me I am wrong, and that there are no differences between using a lower phase noise clock and an ordinary one (in a DAC or source), I would suggest that you go ahead and test such before sharing "information" with no basis other than opinion and speculation."
Once again!! How can others replicate you tests, if you won't describe your methodology??
"I will say no more on this topic"
Unless you can establish that your observations have any scientific validity. That's probably a good idea.
Once again!! How can others replicate you tests, if you won't describe your methodology??
"I will say no more on this topic"
Unless you can establish that your observations have any scientific validity. That's probably a good idea.
Why would you want to replicate his tests, wouldn't it make more sense to do your own?
Done, by myself. With a $1 24.576MHz quartz crystal and software dividers (no fancy PLLs) for BICK and LRCK, and point-to-point clock wiring (no PCB, matched lines, etc...) got -117dB THD and -112dB THD+N up to 10KHz for AK5572 ADC + AK4499 DAC.
Next thing is to claim you can hear differences at those levels, or that there are audible differences that we don't know how to measure, or that music is different from single tone testing, or other claims of the same breed.
Whatever.
If i make up my own test, them I'm answering a different question.
As a scientist I'm totally confused by this reluctance to discuss methodology.
I don't understand that TBH
Probably because it's not to any particular scientific standard
The truth is that I suspect that his methodology is so full of holes that there really isn't any point replicating it or discussung his observations.
Of course he can be as unscientific as he likes, but he shouldn't expect people to simply believe what he says. Any open mided person will question, and if he is not prepared to deal with those questions in an open and honest manner, his credibility will suffer accordingly. People on this forum have the right to question, and in doing so they are not being ignorant.
True. Often though the discussion goes the same way as here and there doesn't seem much point pursuing it, ask the question, get the answer, then everyone can make up their own minds, which they have probably already done before the question was asked in reality
True. Often though the discussion goes the same way as here and there doesn't seem much point pursuing it, ask the question, get the answer, then everyone can make up their own minds, which they have probably already done before the question was asked in reality
Agree. This discussion has run its course.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.