I'm sure y'all've been waitin' on this ... the Man hizself has pub'd a PAPER in AES.
Not “
been waiting on this”, although I would be interested in reading it. Unfortunately I no longer have a subscription to the JAES, so I can’t. However, I’m presuming it’s effectively just a formally presented overview and set of conclusions based on the cumulative measurements/observations/conclusions he’s already posted on his website. The video you posted indicates this.
From the video, I can already easily spot a couple of issues. One is an old bugbear, Amir’s method of determining audibility is not entirely scientifically invalid but it is inapplicable (to consumer listening), this affects his categorisation of DACs. The second issue is his inclusion (and conclusions) of professional DACs. Unfortunately, Amir has little knowledge of “professional applications” and therefore his measurements of professional DACs are commonly incorrect/flawed because he doesn’t know how to use them, EG. He uses inappropriate settings, setups or comparative metrics. Furthermore, he doesn’t actually test the DACs most widely used professionally, he’s tested mostly prosumer DACs used by amateurs/serious hobbyists and those used in home/project/basement studios rather than those used by professional/commercial music and sound studios. For both these reasons, Amir’s conclusions regarding Professional DACs and where he places them as a group relative to Consumer, AV and “Custom” DACs are therefore invalid. However, these two criticisms to do not apply to his measurements and conclusions of the various categories of consumer DACs, bar the occasional measurement mistake (that he often/usually corrects).
Note what Majidimehr, specifically mentions in the video: In the AES paper, brand names/models are not noted. (AES standard for bias???).
Yes, that is entirely standard, not just for the AES but for pretty much all scientific publication platforms. There are several reasons for this, which includes but is not limited to potential bias. For example, it also avoids certain potential political, marketing and financial issues but probably the most important reason is that it avoids unjust invalidation. For instance: “Here are the results of a range of typically available DACs” (as of the publication date) vs “Here are the results of specific DACs” (named). The former allows generalised conclusions while the latter doesn’t and as soon as one or more of those specific, named DACs is unavailable, the paper is largely or at least partially invalid/useless, which somewhat defeats the purpose of a scientific publication repository.
HOWEVER , in the video and asr site [of course], Majidimehr, as an added BONUS, does note the "good" and "bad" dacs ... my manuf and model.
Of course, ASR is not a scientific publication repository, it’s a comparative review site designed for consumers of consumer audio equipment based on the scientific principles of objective measurements. Obviously it would be useless to consumers if it never stated what those consumer products actually were (“manuf and model”). So, it’s NOT an “added BONUS”, it’s pretty much the whole point of the site! I’m not sure how you can’t know this? (Although I can have a good guess!)
G