Separate names with a comma.
I have them . Will publish soon....
I am not a hobbyist. I am an electrical engineer. Was raised in 1960s with analog design, put myself through college by repairing electronics. And spent 35 years in the industry and then semi-retiring. During that time I managed the development of both hardware and software products. I own a high-end AV integration company right now so I remain in the industry. I also write highly technical articles for magazines on deep concepts such as psychoacostics, digital audio, acoustics, etc. I was the owner of the first Audio Precision analyzer when I found out about the company shortly after they started while working at Sony (back in early 1990s). If this doesn't qualify me to measure the output of the DAC, then I am not sure anything will.
I am open to my measurements being in error. I always am. I have spent thousands of dollars of my own money purchasing the equipment I review (only a small percentage are donated currently). I am using an analyzer that retailed for $25,000 for the work I am doing. My goal is to increase the amount of information out there. You want to "flip the bozo bit on me" you can. But please don't give reasoning that makes no sense.
Remember when an automobile reviewer assess a car, we don't demand that they be an engine designer or they are just a random hobbyist.
Ultimately I agree with #2 though. It is totally up to manufacturer to decide what to do with my data. As I have said, some reach out to me to investigate, try to improve their products, etc. Others just get mad. I am pleased to see Mike not being in the latter camp.
Anyway seems like we are just getting argumentative. My apologies to Mike for furthering that. If there is nothing technical you all want from me, I am going to depart so that regular programming can continue. My sincere appreciation for Mike for letting me interject for a bit.
Your strength is that you show measurements. The measurements are as strong as your posted setup which I still don't see or at least a link to it. Now note, you don't have to post it. But it stretches credibility.
Having said that, I really appreciate what you are doing and I enjoy your critical viewpoint. Even though it does seem a little overly critical. At least somebody is doing it. And I'd rather it be an EE doing it. Thanks.
Thanks for the credentials again. I am an EE who works in test and measurement for a living in Beaverton Oregon. I am not really impressed by either of our credentials though. You know what impresses me? Documentation, in one simple place easy for people to review. Equipment used, calibration dates, test date, pictures of setup, test modes used. Just trying to help you improve your product.
I think I downloaded the 1954 Keilberth Walkure from youtube some years ago, so it's been sitting in iTunes at 96kbps hitherto. Audiophile confession: the difference between 96 and lossless for that quality of recording...it's more than negligible, but not that much more. Anyway, just saw it on eBay for $14.90 (incl shipping) and jumped on it. We'll see if I like the sound more. Otherwise, I will simply have paid to have the acts broken up into separate tracks.
I was listening to the 1962 Knappertsbusch Parsifal...I've always been bitter about the fact that they recorded that one in beautiful stereo, and not one of those with Martha Mödl, who sang it every year throughout the 1950s, but most famously the year New Bayreuth opened (in an intimidatingly long 4 hours and 32 minutes). I'm listening to the 1959 right now, and it sounds thoroughly mono.
I'm hearing a lot of really intense interest in the Wagner paintings right now. Not sure my supply can meet demand, but here's another one I'm looking at acquiring:
Siegmund pulls Nothung from the tree, Siegfried repairs Nothung.
"Da steht ein Pferd in die Vestibule".
Heard you had some retina problems.
Be well and take good care of yourself.
Nothung, neidliches Schwert!
My favorite painting right now is Erda the earth goddess emerging from a very, very feminine crack in the earth. It's a captivating canvas; I seem to look at it for long stretches of time, transfixed. I only have space for four of my seven in the studio, and alas the ones I'm keeping are all 72"—too large to transport in a family car. Erda is one of the smaller ones, which I am forced to send to the Landhaus in LA. It will be a reason to visit LA, I suppose.
Otherwise it looks like this is possibly turning into a 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' situation. If you have full trust and confidence in your testing rig amirm, Then providing such information as to equipment and testing parameters as far as I can see should be no problem.
Sounds cool! Sounds like you are a member of the trade (and should get that tagged in your title). I’d like to read your articles. Can you post or PM which magazines you write for and what articles? Which company do you own?
Amirm, I believe it was your minions that caused the real ruckus.
I am pleased to see that you can be a gentleman.
Looking forward to your eventual meeting with Mike as I think you will find more common ground
On that note, I also like to see in the documentation list reference to test standard / method.
All this excitement got me wondering (because audio is not my technical background), what's the standard protocol for doing this sort of stuff? What does it mean? And how should the results be interpreted through to real world practice?
I might have missed it but I can't recall spotting mention of something like, AES17 - AES Standard Method for Digital Audio Engineering - Measurement of Digital Audio Equipment (or other equivalent).
I recognise that the effort being applied by those with expensive test equipment is being done for altruistic reasons but if the method is not supported by a peer reviewed standard from technical authorities (even de facto ones) in the field of knowledge, then the validity of the result will always be subject to scepticism. At the very least, noting where the test setup and method varies from standard offers those reading the results the chance to consider the impact that this could mean to the reported findings. And I know that doing a comparison test between separate bits of gear using the same test setup is an attempt to normalise the process but if the base rigour cannot be demonstrated, the voice of the sceptics will (and with a level of justification) start to increase in volume.
The other aspect of reporting that doesn't sit well with me is the use of hyperbole when commenting on the results. If the numbers show good or bad performance they should speak without further editorialising. Discussion of where there's divergence between results that shows a difference that is possibly audible is useful and worth reading.
And a final side note to Mike @Baldr- thanks for being a congenial and tolerant host. I enjoy being a guest here.