Mivera Audio DAC

[amirm]

Looks like you missed this very important paragraph:

View attachment 8262

You mean the part that he says listening tests should be performed to see if there is an audible problem there???

 

[Mivera]

You mean the part that he says listening tests should be performed to see if there is an audible problem there???

Yes sometimes with Audio related applications designed for human ear listening, human ears need to be involved.

 

[amirm]

I've already explained on the other thread how Dustin Foreman (head engineer of the ESS Sabre division) and I conducted blind listening tests on identical DAC's besides the clocks.

I don't believe that for a second. PM me with Dustin's email address so that I can confirm what you are stating on his behalf. Alternatively, ask him to join the forum and confirm.

 

[March Audio]

Masking is why lossy codecs work. Close in phase noise is masked

I've already explained on the other thread how Dustin Foreman (head engineer of the ESS Sabre division) and I conducted blind listening tests on identical DAC's besides the clocks. All of the industry's top engineers are on the same page as me regarding this. Well except maybe the Benchmark guy who had the finest DAC that could possibly be built 10 years ago. Anything better was beyond the threshold of audibility. But somehow keeps making his DAC's better and better with each revision. Kinda put his foot in his mouth there. However his believers still believe.

.....and I.............mmmm

Who? Please cite. Also their published evidence of masking being irrelevant to close in phase noise.

 

[amirm]

Yes sometimes with Audio related applications designed for human ear listening, human ears need to be involved.

That's right. And until you have involved them, you don't get to feed us the conclusions without doing so.

Regardless, back to your reference, there is zero information in there about close in jitter being audible. He may be claiming it, but there is no information whatsoever to demonstrate that. You know, using human ears.

 

[Mivera]

I don't believe that for a second. PM me with Dustin's email address so that I can confirm what you are stating on his behalf. Alternatively, ask him to join the forum and confirm.

I already shared the photos on the other thread. Why do you think I had 2 of his Resonessence Mirus DAC's? His position on close in phase noise is made very clear in this paper:

"The reason 50MHz was chosen is in Audio its important to have the lower phase noise in the Audio Band which is 20Hz to 20kHz. Notice how the CCHD-950 50MHz has –90dB at 10Hz!!! This is one of the key components in getting the great bass definition the INVICTA family has."

http://www.resonessencelabs.com/service-support/faqs/

 

[Thomas savage]

I'm a huge fan of when both measured results, and listening tests correlate to phenomenal sound quality. To me that's how you can gauge a real winner.

Yea, I'm a fan of the proper testing being done so new industry standards can be established then we can all move on from arguing about what's audible.

As you know and as you can see on forums it's easy to meet the criteria if all your trying to do is persuade individuals of a fact. Those Individuals may lack the knowledge and understanding to know better, basically you inspire a faith in them imo that's a shallow ambition.

I'm not intrested in faith based audio , I want those with faith AND knowledge to have the ambition to prove their convictions in the proper way. Through science and objective testing, publishing the required evidence for scrutiny.

I don't see that happening ( not your fault or responsibility) , what I do see happening is a raft of pseudo science being thrown at audiophiles for financial gain. It just creates a atmosphere of insecurity and feeds a never ending lust to 'fix' what many believe to be 'broken' .

That's why we ( ASR) want to promote knowns, well established and accepted theories backed by the appropriate experimental evidence.

Unfortunately, audibly is one area that creates a deal of confusion and takes a lot of effort to prove. We can only go on what's been proven.

As a individual I'm ok with objectivity proven performance, I can't really be arsed with the audibly argument as it seems to get used as a stick to beat folk with when you've lost all other avenues of opposition.

If we are to strictly adhere to what's audible then the hi end landscape would look very different as would all our bank accounts. Good for me but probably bad for anyone in the industry.

 

[amirm]

I already shared the photos on the other thread. Why do you think I had 2 of his Resonessence Mirus DAC's? His position on close in phase noise is made very clear in this paper:

I don't care if you had two of those. What I care about is your truthfulness in saying a blind test was conducted with Dustin. I like to confirm that. Please ask Dustin to contact me. Or give him his contact information.

 

[Mivera]

Yea, I'm a fan of the proper testing being done so new industry standards can be established then we can all move on from arguing about what's audible.

As you know and as you can see on forums it's easy to meet the criteria if all your trying to do is persuade individuals of a fact. Those Individuals may lack the knowledge and understanding to know better, basically you inspire a faith in them imo that's a shallow ambition.

I'm not intrested in faith based audio , I want those with faith AND knowledge to have the ambition to prove their convictions in the proper way. Through science and objective testing, publishing the required evidence for scrutiny.

I don't see that happening ( not your fault or responsibility) , what I do see happening is a raft of pseudo science being thrown at audiophiles for financial gain. It just creates a atmosphere of insecurity and feeds a never ending lust to 'fix' what many believe to be 'broken' .

That's why we ( ASR) want to promote knowns, well established and accepted theories backed by the appropriate experimental evidence.

Unfortunately, audibly is one area that creates a deal of confusion and takes a lot of effort to prove. We can only go on what's been proven.

As a individual I'm ok with objectivity proven performance, I can't really be arsed with the audibly argument as it seems to get used as a stick to beat folk with when you've lost all other avenues of opposition.

If we are to strictly adhere to what's audible then the hi end landscape would look very different as would all our bank accounts. Good for me but probably bad for anyone in the industry.

You don't break new ground by following textbooks from the Industrial Age. If everyone thought that way since the beginning of time, we would still be cavemen. My testing over the last couple years has been more than enough evidence for me that what all of the industry's top engineers are saying about close in phase noise is true. Same with client feedback.

A big difference between Alex's customer feedback and mine is most of them are coming from crappy $2 SMPS wallwarts or noisy computers. Folks who bought the Purestream upgraded from DAC's costing several times the price. So far out over over 30 DAC's compared, the MSB Select DAC 2 has been the only DAC reported to beat it. And by narrow margins at that. Another great reason to believe the stellar measured results of my clocks, and the clocking scheme have paid off.

 

[Mivera]

I don't care if you had two of those. What I care about is your truthfulness in saying a blind test was conducted with Dustin. I like to confirm that. Please ask Dustin to contact me. Or give him his contact information.

I'm not going to waste his time and tell him to come argue on here. He doesn't like forums for 1, and he doesn't speak publicly regarding any of his opinions. Unless his name isn't attached such as with the Resonessence literature.

 

[amirm]

I'm not going to waste his time and tell him to come argue on here. He doesn't like forums for 1, and he doesn't speak publicly regarding any of his opinions. Unless his name isn't attached such as with the Resonessence literature.

Oh? You just spoke publicly about his position being that in blind test he can tell the difference between clock oscillators of the type you are talking about. Are you taking that back now?

 

[Mivera]

Oh? You just spoke publicly about his position being that in blind test he can tell the difference between clock oscillators of the type you are talking about. Are you taking that back now?

That we me that said that. Not him. I'm not claiming to be him.

 

[amirm]

That we me that said that. Not him. I'm not claiming to be him.

No, you said this:

Has he conducted such a blind test with you and passed?

 

[Thomas savage]

You don't break new ground by following textbooks from the Industrial Age. If everyone thought that way since the beginning of time, we would still be cavemen. My testing over the last couple years has been more than enough evidence for me that what all of the industry's top engineers are saying about close in phase noise is true. Same with client feedback.

A big difference between Alex's customer feedback and mine is most of them are coming from crappy $2 SMPS wallwarts or noisy computers. Folks who bought the Purestream upgraded from DAC's costing several times the price. So far out over over 30 DAC's compared, the MSB Select DAC 2 has been the only DAC reported to beat it. And by narrow margins at that. Another great reason to believed the stellar measured results of my clocks, and the clocking scheme have paid off.

Honestly, that's just hot air mike. It sounds convincing and will suit you well on other forums but not here.

I have no doubt in regards to your convictions being genuine but the weight of evidence needed to transcend your assertions into industry standards has not reached critical mass.

Shouting louder won't help

 

[Mivera]

No, you said this:

View attachment 8263

Has he conducted such a blind test with you and passed?

Here's all the evidence you're gonna get that this blind test took place.

 

[amirm]

That just says a blind test was proposed. It says nothing about the nature of it and Dustin and you personally passing it.

I ask again, has Dustin passed such a test reliably?

 

[Mivera]

That just says a blind test was proposed. It says nothing about the nature of it and Dustin and you personally passing it.

I ask again, has Dustin passed such a test reliably?

Well it happened, and I explained the results on the other thread. And no Dustin wasn't the listener. They have a golden eared audiophile named Hans for that. Here he is at a show. Ask him at the next RMAF if you want. He's the fellow on the right:


http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/10/resonessence-labs-introduce-herus-plus-at-rmaf-14/

 

[amirm]

Well it happened, and I explained the results on the other thread. And no Dustin wasn't the listener. They have a golden eared audiophile named Hans for that.

So Hans has passed a double blind test of these oscillators? And if I asked Dustin, he would confirm that?

 

[Blumlein 88]

It always ends up disappearing down the rabbit hole. You simply can't get a straight answer. Lots of hoopla, lots of indirect responses. Not so much on simple factual details. We all know how simple factual details tend to be bad juju for audiophile endeavours.

 

[Thomas savage]

It takes huge effort and resources to get a large enough sample to publish listening tests in AES etc. That's if you want to start breaking the boundaries of what's been proven.

So these kind of arguments are futile imo

If large companies have conducted these tests it makes zero sense to keep it all secret. There are no published examples are there?

So what are we arguing about? If two guys did some undocumented listening test. Ffs who cares.