[FunkyBassMan]

he doesn’t seem to know fundamental principles of noise, noise interaction, digital or analogue limitations or the basic realities of recording acoustic instruments.

One of the premier audio designers of all time doesn't know these things...

It's hard to imagine a more delusional and idiotic statement.

 

[bfreedma]

One of the premier audio designers of all time doesn't know these things...

It's hard to imagine a more delusional and idiotic statement.

I’m sure he does know those things, but he consistently and willfully misrepresents the audibility of what he’s measuring in order to sell product to those that don’t have the background to understand that.

Human hearing may be variable, but it isn’t unlimited - if his claim required 2x of the accepted hearing range, there would be room for discussion. He’s claiming audibility of somewhere between 10x to 100x of that range - not buying it without significant objective evidence.

 

[BS5711]

It's the exact question that points to the problem. You (and the usual suspects) are assuming science knows everything about human hearing.

I'm assuming the science of human hearing leaves lots to be discovered.

OK that is where we part ways.

That is a massive difference in one’s general outlook and therefore one’s willingness to accept something more or less at face value and potentially even be coerced into believing something exists that actually doesn’t.

I don’t adhere to a tenuous reliance on something unknown to explain a perceived difference in sound between devices.

I know that the unreliability of my own auditory system and how extremely easily it is affected by my other senses and thoughts can explain the differences. I have proven to myself numerous times that what I often think I hear by way of sound differences is not real.

That explanation makes a lot more rational sense to me than believing there is something currently unknown going on with human hearing ability.

When presented with two options and there is strong scientific evidence for option one and a reliance on assumption and subjective assessment for opinion two I don’t go with option two.

 

[gregorio]

[1] You (and the usual suspects) are assuming science knows everything about human hearing.
[2] I'm assuming the science of human hearing leaves lots to be discovered.

1. What usual suspects assume that? No one here assumes that, you just made that up.
2. Actually, not a great deal. Science knows all the basics of how human hearing works and has done for many years, there’s relatively little still to be discovered. There’s still a fair amount to be discovered about human perception though.

As ever, you present an argument that is simply false, a strawman. As pointed out to you previously we do not need to know everything in order to make assertions or refutations. If someone claims that 1+1=3, science does not need to know everything about mathematics and I don’t even need to be a professional mathematician in order to refute that claim and assert that actually 1+1=2. How is that not obvious and more mind boggling still, how is it not obvious despite it being explained to you previously more than once?!!

Here we go again with the "when you can't refute someone's argument, make up crap no one said and say stuff about that."

Enough with the “we”, it’s only YOU! “Someone’s argument” (Rob Watts and your presentation of it as somehow “science”) has already been refuted and the point #1 above is a perfect example of “make up crap no one said and say stuff about that”!

One of the premier audio designers of all time doesn't know these things...
It's hard to imagine a more delusional and idiotic statement.

Ah, we can agree on something. It is indeed hard to imagine a “more delusional and idiotic statement” than Rob Watts being one of the premier audio designers of all time!

There have been countless great audio designers over the decades/centuries, from Helmholtz over 150 years ago to Edison, Bell, Heaviside, Berliner, De Forest, Blumlein, Neumann, Dolby, Neve, Stockham and many more, plus numerous others who aren’t necessarily specified but worked for companies such as Bell/AT&T, BASF, Ampex, Studer, NHK, BBC, Lexicon, Sony, Philips, Yamaha and countless others. I doubt Rob Watts would get into the list of the top 10,000 audio designers, so yes, the assertion of him being one of the premier audio designers of all time is laughably “delusional and idiotic”!

Indeed, the very thing that makes him credible (beyond his extraordinary track record) is his doubts, which, unlike nearly every other designer/builder, he exposes to the world for critique. And more than that, he listens to critiques, admits when he makes mistakes, like with power supplies and the Dave design. He learned what a terrible problem RF traveling looping through the ground plane can be, I suspect largely from very clever owners of his product who built better power supplies. Indeed, Rob himself admitted that he learned his own product sounds better with a battery!

Ah exactly! What makes someone credible in this subforum, in science/engineering communities (and in general) is whether his assertions are factually/scientifically accurate and not just BS marketing.

But for fan boys credibility is apparently based on “his doubts”, “listening to critiques”, admitting to mistakes (which he typically doesn’t) and an “extraordinary track record” which consists of; learning something about RFI that science and the rest of the engineering community knew many decades earlier and a very expensive, flagship DAC/Amp that was actually so mediocre it could apparently be improved just by using a cheap battery. Impressive, truly one of the premier audio designers of all time, ROFL!!

G

 

[bigshot]

You can’t be expected to recognize science and facts when you see them when you depend on an authority to tell you what science and the facts are. He’s abrogated his critical thinking to a salesman. If he wasn’t so annoying, I might feel sorry for him.

 

[MiffyRabbit]

Just to add, Chord Mojo 2 is made by Chord/Rob Watts. I do appreciate that it is Made in Britain but these marketing claims are definitely skeptical...

Here at the bottom of the FPGA marketing, there is a claim that the Mojo 2 contains more digital audio know-how than any other small DAC which is backed by peerless reviewed technical measures from a lab. There is no link or resource pointing to these research papers at all.

If I found it, I would like to post them for Sound Science to review them, but I couldn't find them on the product page.

 

[gregorio]

There is no link or resource pointing to these research papers at all.
If I found it, I would like to post them for Sound Science to review them, but I couldn't find them on the product page.

You’ve misunderstood the claim in the marketing you posted. Chord is claiming they have measurements which support their claims that their DAC’s performance is unequalled (“peerless”), not that their claims are backed by peer reviewed science.

I only recall Rob Watts referring to one peer reviewed scientific paper and that was a discredited paper by Kuncher regarding the timing resolution of 16/44.1 (CD), which has already been discussed at length in this subforum (and other science, science discussion and engineering forums).

G

 

[bigshot]

You can have the best measurements in the world, but for all intents and purposes not be better than any DAC with worse measurements that still falls below the threshold of audibility. This guy knows how to make a good DAC, but that doesn’t mean that he understands the science of perception.

 

[MiffyRabbit]

You’ve misunderstood the claim in the marketing you posted. Chord is claiming they have measurements which support their claims that their DAC’s performance is unequalled (“peerless”), not that their claims are backed by peer reviewed science.

I only recall Rob Watts referring to one peer reviewed scientific paper and that was a discredited paper by Kuncher regarding the timing resolution of 16/44.1 (CD), which has already been discussed at length in this subforum (and other science, science discussion and engineering forums).

G

Thank you for the correction!

You can have the best measurements in the world, but for all intents and purposes not be better than any DAC with worse measurements that still falls below the threshold of audibility. This guy knows how to make a good DAC, but that doesn’t mean that he understands the science of perception.

Ahhh! So essentially, a lot of special boutique DACs tend to fall in.

1. They can measure better than other DACs, but in an accurate and faithful listening test, it would sound like any other DAC that is made. Due to the limits of human hearing, since our hearing is not as capable as say a Dog, Cat or a Bat for example.

2. DAC sounds different due to distortion of some sort being added to have customers hear there is something different. (Audible changes) For product differentiation.

 

[gregorio]

Ahhh! So essentially, a lot of special boutique DACs tend to fall in.

1. They can measure better than other DACs, but in an accurate and faithful listening test, it would sound like any other DAC that is made. Due to the limits of human hearing, since our hearing is not as capable as say a Dog, Cat or a Bat for example.

2. DAC sounds different due to distortion of some sort being added to have customers hear there is something different. (Audible changes) For product differentiation.

Yes, you’ve got it! Just to clarify your points a little further.

1. Yes. Although quite a few “special boutique DACs” don’t actually measure better. Some do but most measure roughly the same as more modestly priced DACs and some measure quite a bit worse. In almost all cases, they will all sound the same in an accurate controlled listening test because even the worse measuring ones are still beyond the limits of human hearing. However, there are some very rare exceptions. Incidentally, Dogs, Cats or Bats do not have better hearing than humans, they may have a higher frequency range and in some cases more sensitivity but then their lower freq discrimination is poorer and no other animal is known to have as good an ability to differentiate between sounds within their hearing range (probably due to the unique complexity of human language).

2. Many boutique/audiophile DAC marketers claim this but typically it’s untrue, the distortion/colouration is beyond the limits of human hearing. As mentioned in point #1, there are some rare exceptions though, a few boutique DACs with truly horrific measurements, EG. Worse than even some of the earliest low cost consumer DACs. Some (but not all) of the NOS or tube DACs for example.

G

 

[MiffyRabbit]

Yes, you’ve got it! Just to clarify your points a little further.

1. Yes. Although quite a few “special boutique DACs” don’t actually measure better. Some do but most measure roughly the same as more modestly priced DACs and some measure quite a bit worse. In almost all cases, they will all sound the same in an accurate controlled listening test because even the worse measuring ones are still beyond the limits of human hearing. However, there are some very rare exceptions. Incidentally, Dogs, Cats or Bats do not have better hearing than humans, they may have a higher frequency range and in some cases more sensitivity but then their lower freq discrimination is poorer and no other animal is known to have as good an ability to differentiate between sounds within their hearing range (probably due to the unique complexity of human language).

2. Many boutique/audiophile DAC marketers claim this but typically it’s untrue, the distortion/colouration is beyond the limits of human hearing. As mentioned in point #1, there are some rare exceptions though, a few boutique DACs with truly horrific measurements, EG. Worse than even some of the earliest low cost consumer DACs. Some (but not all) of the NOS or tube DACs for example.

G

I am starting to really love this place, learn new things everyday almost!