A+ Technology in Daniel Hertz's Master Class software and future of highend audio

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by windowsx, Jan 19, 2017.
  1. WindowsX
    Me making claim? What did I claim? All I ever said was he claimed something and I asked what do you guys think about his claim.
     
    I didn't try to take his claim as a gospel or reverse the engineer to make competitive product. I'm just curious in how it works.
     
    There might be some of off-topics debate about CD VS SACD but that has nothing to do with A+. If it's not possible to find out. That's OK. That's all.
     
  2. spruce music

    If you met personally with the people and couldn't find out, it seems strange to ask here.  Be that as it may.  It is an equalizer with 6 imo well chosen bands.  It can alter to taste many recordings for those who aren't experienced at such matters.  The talk about smoother curves whether a reference to upsampling or not is garbage.  Marketing spiel at best, at best mind you.  Mind numbing misdirection more likely. 
     
    More than that there simply is no information for us to comment upon.  It seems rather expensive for what it does.  What about it initially interested you to think it worth investigating?
     
  3. chaos215bar2

    I've been reading a number of threads you started and — if it's okay — I'll try to offer some advice and/or explanations to why people aren't responding well.
     
    • I think there's definitely a language barrier going on. Sometimes your posts are completely clear. Sometimes, no matter how I read part or all of a post, I can't figure out what you're trying to state, claim, or ask (and sometimes I can't even figure out which). Unfortunately your clearest posts, whether meant to do so or not, tend to make extraordinary claims which you're then unable to meaningfully back up. I tend to leave the other posts alone, but I think other people here are trying to respond as best they can and eventually giving up and deciding you either don't know what you're talking about and won't listen or are just trolling. I still can't figure it out, but if you really want help, try to be clear about what you're asking.
    • You need to understand, random people on any forum, even the more knowledgable members of this forum, aren't likely to know much about the inner workings of some piece of hardware or software they haven't used. There are absolutely people here who can offer excellent general advice on just about all things audio, but pressing for specific explanations of vague marketing claims isn't going to make you any friends here. Most audiophile marketing is nonsense, and when you repeat it even after others try to explain that it's nonsense, it just makes it look like you've already decided what you want to hear and won't accept anything else.
    • Name-dropping expensive, high-end equipment and claiming that people here couldn't understand what you're claiming to have heard unless they've heard that equipment is probably the single worst thing you could do if you're looking for helpful advice on this subforum. Some of the people responding here probably have heard the equipment you're talking about or something even better, but more importantly, equipment isn't good because it costs a lot or makes extraordinary marketing claims. It's good because it can be shown to perform well in one form or another of unbiased testing. Unsubstantiated claims about how one must listen to one piece of equipment or another to truly understand some feeling or effect you're trying to convey are going to carry very little weight here, and make it hard for people to take you seriously.
     
    I hope this isn't offensive. I try to take your posts seriously (even if the threads end up being somewhat more entertaining than informative in the end), but please try to be mindful of how others are reading and interpreting your posts if you are truly seeking advice.
     
    sonitus mirus likes this.
  4. gregorio
     
    That's patently not true as you've made many claims in this thread, either directly or by unambiguous implication: "You can get used Emm Labs SACD Player and hear how authentic SACD sounds like. You can insert hybrid CD/SACD disc and use mode switch to compare between CD/SACD. Models like CDSA is around $2-3k which isn't as expensive as before." ... "I don't know which SACD players you have but Emm Labs is the only SACD player I trust. I compared between CD/SACD layer in hybrid disc and result was clear to me." - You're clearly claiming: 1. CD vs SACD formats can be evaluated by comparing the layers on a hybrid disk. 2. SACD is more authentic than CD. 3. Your SACD player is audibly superior to everyone one elses', unless they too have an Emm Labs SACD player. 4. The CDSA is effectively a bargain.
     
    All these claims are nonsense and therefore insulting to those in the Science forum!
     
     
    You are the one who started the CD vs SACD debate, in your second and third post to this thread. If it's off-topic, then that's your fault!
     
     
    You asked your question, the engineer answered your question and we've translated/explained what that answer means based on the information supplied and the science/known facts of digital audio. What more do you want?
     
    Posting nonsense claims here in the science forum is insulting, then stating that you didn't make any claims (when they're there in black and white for all to see) is even more insulting. Then, instead of apologising and attempting to mend your ways, you respond with even more nonsense, deflection or failing that, you just ignore the replies, eventually start a new thread and do exactly the same thing all over again, which is INSULTING. You then act surprised when we respond as people who've been insulted???
     
    G
     
    sonitus mirus, Brooko and bfreedma like this.
  5. WindowsX
    First of all, I appreciate in everyone's opinions and information about A+ algorithm. That much is clear to me. However, I didn't start SACD topic. bfreedma did. He wondered what SACD sounds like, I recommended Emm Labs for player to listen without stating anything about CD VS SACD except tell him to listen and compare himself. He started all that and derailed the topic so blame him if you must but not me, OK?
     
    I'll apologize for my wrongdoings but I won't apologize for what I didn't do. And I won't apologize for refusing bfreedma's claim about CD VS SACD. Can you drop this topic now? If you want to continue about CD and SACD stuff, you should start a new topic. I didn't bring this.
     
    I really appreciate in chaos215bar2's suggestion about behaving in here and I'll try to improve my problems with language barrier and communication issues in here. I don't know why it's happening only in sound science forum. Even reddit I recently joined worked fine without issues if I don't bother with one mad guy who behave like certain head-fier in sound science forum over there. I believe most issues in this forum often come from a few haters whom I'm familiar with before.
     
  6. gregorio
     
    1. bfreedma was questioning the article YOU quoted!
     
    2. Why recommend an SACD player if it was off-topic? And, you didn't just recommend an SACD player, you implied any results would be invalid unless a particular brand of SACD player were used. You DID state something about CD vs SACD, that SACD is more "authentic"! You did NOT just tell him to listen and compare himself, you told him (inaccurately) how to compare and the conclusions you've already drawn from your (inaccurate) comparison. In the last post I quoted YOUR OWN WORDS, you cannot dispute what you've already posted and trying to do so is insulting. Your insulting response is EXACTLY as predicted, so your proving my point rather than refuting it!
     
    3. bfreedma was NOT making a claim, he was stating the science/known facts. You are therefore "refusing" the science (on a science forum!) and refusing to apologise for refusing the science. Again, perfectly proving my point!
     
    4. You really don't know why refusing science on a science forum is more insulting/offensive than refusing it on general/non-science based forums?
     
    5. Agreed! Why would those who apparently hate science even come to the science forum in the first place? I believe that those few haters, hate because they're actually ignorant of the science and therefore scared of it, scared that it will: Upset their simplistic view of audio. Prove that they're ignorant. Prove that many/most audiophile products are snake oil and that they've been repeatedly suckered by snake oil salesmen. ... It's very strange for you to say that you're "familiar" with these few haters though, surely you're more than "familiar" as you are one of them!? Maybe it's a "communication issue"?
     
    G
     
  7. WindowsX
     
    1. He firstly asked about how SACD sounds like and there's nothing wrong in that. I suggested him to try Emm Labs SACD Player and there's nothing wrong in that. His reply about never feel anything different has nothing wrong too. The issue starts from his removed posts and I don't want to bring that back again.
     
    2. You're right. I shouldn't have followed his off-topic comments. I apologize in following his derailed topics. I said authentic because I prefer SACD implementation from Emm Labs over others. It has nothing to do with CD format and I only asked him to compare CD/SACD with Emm Labs, nothing more. Please don't put your fantasies into my words.
     
    3. bfreedma claimed he never felt anything different regardless of the format of the shiny disc, and that's his subjective opinion without any fact or information provided. Did you misread his comment?
     
    4. I refused to agree his subjective opinion about CD and SACD having no audible difference. I don't think that's science since I didn't see any data or information backing up his claim to validate.
     
    5. I fail to understand how you reached that conclusion. This is full of accusations and biases and I hope moderator with do something about your rude and offensive comments. I won't answer this topic.
     
    Please, make a new thread about SACD, not here. I don't want to talk about SACD here.
     
  8. gregorio
     
    1&2. You didn't just "suggest" that. Please don't try to put some fantasy meaning to your actual stated words!
     
    3&4. The Boston AES study by Meyer and Moran is so well known and has been quoted and discussed so many times here that bfreedma probably judged that quoting it as a supporting reference was unnecessary. Indeed, for nearly all of us, he was correct but apparently not for you. This leaves us with you not thinking it was science and you not knowing the data or information backing up his claims, which is a deficiency of your thinking and your knowledge, NOT a deficiency of the actual science or data which has existed for a decade! So, you ARE refusing the science, which is fine provided you refuse it with other science, refusing it with subjective opinion alone is an insult!
     
    5. How can you fail to understand, it's effectively what you said, I agreed with you! The only differences are that I was talking about the "haters of science" and you were talking about the haters of the "haters of science" and that I elaborated on why I believe there are haters of science.
     
    G
     
  9. bfreedma

    How could quoting the second sentence from the link you posted and asked for commentary on be off topic? Gregorio is correct, the validation for my claim about CD/SACD are so well and ubiquitously documented here that I didn't think it was necessary to post them yet again.

    My comments on "SACD feel" were clearly both my subjective view and a sarcastic reaction to A+'s ridiculous and unsupported claim, once again, from the second sentence in the link you posted. All of the relevant discussion is still here, not in the deleted posts. That said, you never did answer as to what an SACD feels like compared to the same master on CD - you simply said you didn't know what players I had and changed the topic to the playback hardware.

    BTW, considering there are two SACD capable disc spinners listed in my gear on every post, it makes me further question how hard you generally attempt to perform research...

    The pattern of your threads is painfully clear. You aren't asking for opinions, you're looking for posters here to confirm your existing opinions on the topics you post. Every time someone points out the flaws in the articles and your interpretations of them, you refute them without a evidence, then muddy the waters by moving the goalposts/changing the discussion points. Calling people rude for refusing to agree with you isn't helping.
     
  10. WindowsX
    It's not my intention nor my obligation to express or answer about SACD thing. If you believe SACD isn't any better, fine by me. I disagree and a few people in AES prefer DSD too. The fact is you never provide me any tangible information to validate your claim about inaudible improvement with SACD.  I don't feel like discussing about it right now so we should call it quit.
     
    I asked about A+ just because I was curious how it works. I got some of answers about it from you guys and thank you for that. I think it's quite clear that we won't salvage anything worthwhile from now on in this thread. Moderator might as well lock this thread since it's not getting healthy anymore.
     
  11. gregorio
     
    If I were to state that if I drop my DAC it will fall to the floor, I do NOT need to provide you with any "tangible information to validate" my claim, I do not need to explicitly quote Isaac Newton because gravity is a widely known/accepted scientific fact. If you were to claim that my DAC won't fall, that however would be an exceptional claim and would require exceptional evidence, evidence that would have to effectively prove that Newton and the accepted science is wrong. In this analogy, the only way you would make your claim without supporting evidence is if you were completely ignorant of Newton and the known scientific facts of gravity AND, by asking for "tangible information to validate" my claim, you're just confirming that you are ignorant!
     
    The solution is simple. If you see an unsupported claim you disagree with DON'T just keep arguing your counter claim without evidence, as that will be taken as an insult to this community! What you should do is: 1. Find out if the claim is unsupported because it doesn't require support (because it's already a known/accepted fact) 2. If you can't find out why it's unsupported, then ask, especially if it's a claim no one else is disputing! 3. If, after completing steps 1 and 2 you have evidence the claim was incorrect, provide that evidence AND provide evidence that your claim is correct. 4. If you don't have the evidence to satisfy #3, then ask and learn (!), DO NOT argue, obfuscate, impugn other's equipment or hearing or insult them in any other way. If you do, you'll achieve nothing except animosity, insults in return, wasting everyone's time and eventually being banned!
     
    Please try to understand all this and stop with the nonsense already!!!
     
    G
     
  12. WindowsX
     
    I didn't disagree with newton's law of physics. I disagreed with his subjective observation that there's no audible difference between CD and SACD and I left it at that. I didn't inquire him for any data but he's the one who asked me to provide data for backing up my disagreement which isn't my concern nor my interest. Did I receive double standard treatment here?
     
    If indifference between CD and SACD is accepted as a matter of fact in this sound science forum, there should be sticky posts for newcomers like me to read. Are you sure you aren't making things up yourself? There should be a thread about accepted facts for newcomers to read so they can understand what ironclad of truth to believe as a matter of fact and whatnot.
     
  13. sonitus mirus
    There does not appear to be any technical reason for a difference to be heard based on our current understanding of human hearing perception, and so we must rely on listening tests.  To date, there hasn't been any irrefutable, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to suggest a difference can be consistently heard with music in a typical listening environment.  In a sense, everything is subjective, but that is a bit too deep to be useful to these discussions.  
     
    If you know of any evidence that can show a difference can be heard, please present us with this information.   Before we can go any further in the discussion, we must first set this precedent.  Is there a difference to be heard?
     
    Brooko likes this.
  14. Brooko Contributor
    Gents

    I think this one has run its course and see no reason for it to continue. It's only going around in circles and it is clear you're not going to get any meaningful data fro the OP. Locking. Thanks for contributing. S-M, that last post was brilliant.
     
  15. WindowsX
    After giving up on learning more about A+. I unexpected found the answer from one of comments in my facebook post stating:
     
     
    The explanation in that website is very relevant to Mark Levison's products. A+ seems to be ambiance generation DSP trying to surpass processed SACD and analog recordings with reduced fatigue in high frequency domain. I'd like to make it clear I'm just interested in how A+ works. I didn't endorse this feature at all personally. I post this thread again to let people who maybe interested in Master Class.knowing that you can learn more about it from here.
     

Share This Page