Objective2 Mini-Review and Discussion - Page 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus 

I disagree.  This is an oversimplification in analysis similar to saying digital audio is just ones and zeros.

Digital audio is ones and zeros. Once it is not, it is no longer digital.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus 

I have yet to hear any perfect wire w/ gain amp or perfect DAC w/o signatures of their own.  

Can you also tell any two DACs apart in a level matched double-blind test ? Or even just A and C or D and F here ? The signatures of amplifiers and DACs are often (but not always) just the product of imagination and not sufficiently well controlled testing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draygonn 


Not taking sides here but can we keep this thread in the amp section please?

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 

Why did Shike's thread get closed?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverickronin 

Do not question the moderators for their ways are mysterious and blunt.

 

i.e. no clue

For those curious:

Spam/flames, last post I reported got removed and then the thread was locked.  Now you know.

I'm debating building up a second O2 when the odac arrives and going for the dac/amp solution.  I can't wait to see how it turns out - the April 1st update almost got me :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike 

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 

Why did Shike's thread get closed?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by maverickronin 

Do not question the moderators for their ways are mysterious and blunt.

 

i.e. no clue

For those curious:

 

Spam/flames, last post I reported got removed and then the thread was locked.  Now you know.

 

 

 

 

I'm debating building up a second O2 when the odac arrives and going for the dac/amp solution.  I can't wait to see how it turns out - the April 1st update almost got me :P

Shike, I do NOT want to continue with you here to affect this thread. But please be honest and do not lie.

Let us be factual, both my post and your post were removed. So if there were attacks, they were from both sides (me and you), not just my attack against you. You have at least one attacking post against me that was removed, said post stating "Your test was bad. You should feel bad" (this is a word-by-word quote). Is this not a fact?

I did not spam.  

I suggest that we both close our mouth and chill out. Let us not get another thread locked. Mods closed that thread for a good reason.

Edit: But I reserve the right to defend myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike 

<snip>

 

I'm debating building up a second O2 when the odac arrives and going for the dac/amp solution.  I can't wait to see how it turns out - the April 1st update almost got me :P

The problem I'm having with the odac is that if I put it in my O2, I loose the batteries and it no longer has portable capability.

how much are the odacs going to be?  Will JDS labs be making them like they make the objective 02 dose any one know?

For those who haven't followed as closely, the ODAC is going to be closed-source and use surface-mount components, unlike the O2.  Details are summarized below.

As for the price, latest info says it is "still on track to hopefully come in under $100."

As for fitting it in the O2 enclosure, if you moved up from the B2-080 to the taller B3-080 there might be room for both the ODAC and batteries I think.  You would need to figure out your own front and back panels for that though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus 

So it has begun:

 

 

Warning: Yada yada... (Click to show)

 

Since some people seem to like car analogies....

 

20 years ago, the greatest scientists, engineers and aerodynamicists designed the fastest Formula One cars ever to race the earth all based on pure science (with a touch of productive art in the aero dept).  20 years later the cars are even faster and better based on the same physics which has not changed.  Did everyone from 20 years ago suffer from headcolds which impaired their designs?  I think not.  These 'true' scientists and objectivists keep pushing and searching for milliseconds in their development of a relatively simple electronic, mechanical and chemical device.  The only thing that matters is the lap time which is easy to test yet things are still dynamic, change and evolve.

 

In audio, you have a biologically (aural and neural) and psychologically dynamic system interacting with environmental physics and mechanical devices.  This seems a more variable and dynamic problem simply because of the three aforementioned variables.  To me this seems a much more complex problem than a D-Scope can solve in its entirety.  If an 'Objectivist' can claim that we know all there is to know about perfect audio reproduction, let him throw a tarp over Yo-Yo Ma and DBT his Cello versus whatever best audio reproduction system he can assemble and prove it on Youtube.  I'll even throw in a sweetner if you put your own money on the line. 

 

 

20 years ago carbon fiber was just being mastered and CAD wasn't much of a thing.  You're also comparing someone with the somewhat nebulous goal  of "going faster" to building a device with a well known and easily definable ideal performance.