[Tronz]

Quote:

Tronz: Switch "documentation" for "marketing". 

Didn't know someone would make up specs as a marketing tactic when they receive zero money from the project. 

 

[kiteki]

Tronz it says you sold a HM-801 a week ago and you're getting the HM-901. 
 
Let us know how the HM-901 sounds versus the ODAC, huh?  Thanx.

 

[Tronz]

Quote:

Tronz it says you sold a HM-801 a week ago and you're getting the HM-901. 
 
Let us know how the HM-901 sounds versus the ODAC, huh?  Thanx.

Chances are, I'm not going to get a 901. It won't be audibly transparent. 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Exactly, that's all this boils down to in the end, so why is there so much attitude?  If you actually look at the links I posted, the inaudibility of a certain codec was 'proven' with ABX over two years with 20,000 evaluations and 60 listeners, then later quickly disproven.  Likewise parapsychology and precognition are currently statistically proven.
 
There is still a long way to go in proving total transparency of audio, especially since the listening equipment (speakers, IEM etc.) isn't transparent either.  I don't see any evidence supporting the total transparency of this DAC, so [a lot] of experimentation is required, that's pretty much it, in my view.

 
I find it suspicous that every source for that story goes back to Robert Harley article you linked to.  He also seems to have mischaracterized the study he mentioned.  He says it was a simple ABX but then says the procedure used was the same as in this study which wasn't even testing for if there were differences but was a subjective assessment of which low bitrate codec was the least crappy.  The whole story also has a pretty poor provenance and doesn't even make snese as presented.
 
Do you have any references to this that don't just repeat Harley's article?
 
Quote:

 
Maverick, if there was an immense data set of failed blind tests indicating that the difference hasn't been demonstrated, then your comment would be valid.  As it stands there is no data like that (if there is, then please link it), so all you're doing is asking for evidence before you believe in something, and until then, writing it off as psychoacoustics.  Have you even tried listening to a NOS DAC?
 
If you believe only in evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, then I'll assume you believe in parapsychology and precognition, too, and next time, don't answer with a picture of fractals within 5 minutes of coming online. 

 
You mean stuff like this?  There aren't exactly "massive" amounts of publicly available well controlled tests designed to see if things and measure the same sound the same but there is a good deal of it and that's what it indicates.  Of course even if none of that existed there's still no good  reason to believe that things which measure the same should sound different.  That claim still needs positive evidence in its favor because you should not believe things which are not evidenced.
 
I find it quite amusing that you reference parapsychology while essentially claiming psi-missing on the M&M study.  The parapsychology literature is generally characterized by small effects that shrink away nothing as test methodology is progressively tightened.  That's usually what studies show when there isn't actually and effect to be found and that's what such tests of audibility usually find.  Also, I have to wonder what relevance something like an NOS DAC, which will measure quite differently, has to the ODAC?
 
Also, your DNA arguement really was just that wrong.

 

[Sapientiam]

Quote:

Chances are, I'm not going to get a 901. It won't be audibly transparent. 

How do you know that? From the DAC IC that its using? On that argument, I know that the ODAC won't be audibly transparent coz I've heard that chip.

 

[mwilson]

Did you actually mean to say I was NOT doing that? FWIW, I posted my honest thoughts on the matter without any agenda nor seeking to discredit one side or the other.
 
Quote:

What I feel a need to respond to are statements which I feel are misleading, demonstrably false, or simply unsupported by evidence but presented as fact.  (I'm saying you're doing that mwilson.  I'm just explain where I'm coming from.)  If I feel that a person is being intellectually honest I usually enjoy a discussion of the issue in which hopefully both sides will learn something.  If I feel someone is being dishonest then my scorn is limited only by the TOS.  If someone says something ridiculous then the response that best make my point may simply be some form of ridicule.  I do my best to limit such attacks to the ideas themselves and not the people presenting them but I'm only human so sometimes I slip up.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Did you actually mean to say I was NOT doing that? FWIW, I posted my honest thoughts on the matter without any agenda nor seeking to discredit one side or the other.

 
Whoops!  I did manage to leave out the "not" somehow.  Sorry about that. 

 

[mwilson]

 

[maverickronin]

Wow.  Just wow.
 
I read that post again and leaving out the "not" just makes me sound amazingly hypocritical and condescending.
 
Thanks for saying something about it.  I'd hate for that to just sit there uncorrected forever.
 
Quote:

EDIT:  Forgot a very important negative...

 
One more time, sorry about that.

 

[estreeter]

The chilli sauce bottles are always a good laugh - I also like the dealer who advertises his biggest and baddest vintage speakers with the following in bold type:
 
EVICTION NOTICE !
 
Sadly, when I think of some of the Neanderthals I shared accommodation with in the Army, that would be like moths to a flame .... 

 

[kiteki]

 
I find it suspicous that every source for that story goes back to Robert Harley article you linked to.

 
Jeez, chill, try searching for the study it referenced... link
 
Ok, I did some searches, and there's too much controversy surrounding that study, so I retract that example, OK?  If you want to continue discussing it we can take it to a different thread.
 
I'm open to the possibility that some Hi-Fi enthusiasts with marketing incentive may want to discredit blind testing with flawed tests, I'm very open to the possibility the opposite is happening too.
Like I said earlier in this thread, err... in post #31, there is a divide in this issue often with an emotional incentive related to price / marketing, which you sortof touched on in post #85.
 
Still, a little unclear on the part where you wrote your favorite response to ridiculousness is ridicule.
 
 

 
There aren't exactly "massive" amounts of publicly available well controlled tests [/]
 
Of course even if none of that existed there's still no good reason to believe that things which measure the same should sound different.

 
Oh, in that case, then for the sake of the conversation, pretend none of the studies exist?  Then... you're right, there is no good reason to believe things which measure the same should sound different.
 
Every assertion I've seen for components sounding different is supported by some differing measurements somewhere, or at least a theory that they will measure different eventually in a certain system.
 
Example - "To-99 op-amps sound better", afaik there is no measurement or study to support this, but there are theories of less EMI, RFI or radiated RFI, whatever, and Texas Instruments is making them, why?  In fact can I ask, why is TI making higher performance audio IC's at all, if something like NE5532 is 100% sonically transparent?  Why don't you write a letter to TI and ask!  I've seen at least one response from National.
 
 

Originally Posted by maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
you should not believe things which are not evidenced.

 
Include that in your letter to TI!
 
 

Originally Posted by maverickronin /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I find it quite amusing that you reference parapsychology while essentially claiming psi-missing on the M&M study.

 
I did not claim psi-missing on the M&M study.  I claimed statistical failure.
 
I can retract my DNA comments from the conversation, but it's relevant to point out that a horse is not "A giraffe with 00.0001% deviation", or it is... kinda... it all depends on how you look at the data set.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

The best way to test a car is to put it on a controlled track ( sine waves ) vs. a public street with other cars ( music ).

 
That's not true at all.  Your analogy of sine waves is more akin to static bench testing rather than a dynamic track environment.  All you get is something like CnD or RnT metrics that are brief and largely meaningless (though objectively precise, hopefully correct and accurate) data usually inapplicable to most users.  With race cars, no simulation or controlled environment can reliably predict outcome on race day from a mechanical or electronic perspective even if you remove drivers from the equation.  There's simply too many variables that go unaccounted for under real world use.  Same for passenger cars which is why decent publications have long term test fleets despite doing bench style testing over a day or two.  Even companies that take years testing pre-production models under controlled conditions invariably produce recalls and TSBs to address unforeseen issues over the life of the model.  This is why the historical measure of vehicle performance and reliability has been racing lineage in open/closed wheel, offroad and endurance racing in hopes that those grueling metrics yield advances that trickle down to consumer oriented products.  From the world record breaking Silver Ghost of 1906 to the Audi and Toyota Le Mans hybrids of 2012, you need a dynamic system to emmulate real world use, not a static bench.  In fact, one of my own cars had it's strut mounts reinforced as a later model after a weak point was discovered after two prior years of racing.  Toyota is certainly not lacking in engineering expertise and testing equipment.  This is not to say cars=amps or what not, just that bench testing is not ideal inherently.
 
So JDS has a standalone ODAC finally?  Time to sign up and give it a go.

 

[estreeter]

And time for this thread to be moved to Sound Science. 

 
Guys, I know its tough to speculate on a product very few people have actually heard, but roughly 90 per cent of this thread has strayed well off topic. 

 

[kiteki]

As far as I'm concerned I've already heard it but I'll buy it anyway just to make sure they sound the same as an experiment - (with my perception, equipment, statistical error a.k.a. psi-missing, visual-audio illusions a.k.a. psychoacoustics, transparency of my headphone / speaker / IEM, bla ha bla ha ~)
 
I think it has a lot of sterility and high performance.  It sounds like a clean hospital... there.

 

[maverickronin]

*sigh*
 
I wish I had time to type up a proper response...
 
I'll just say that I wasn't questioning if the codec study happened or not.  I'm asking if Robert Harley's anecdote about a conveniently dead expert picking up on something that all tests missed has any other corroboration.
 
Even if it is true it still doesn't mean much because the test wasn't an ABX test.  It was ranking blinded samples.  I'd imagine that in 1991 the best lossy compression still sucked.