• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mivera Audio DAC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
So Hans has passed a double blind test of these oscillators? And if I asked Dustin, he would confirm that?

He could tell which DAC had the 957. If he chooses to divulge the same results of the test I was told, then he would. But then again he might not want to get involved with something so petty. Him along with everyone in the industry that matters is all on the same page anyways. Nothing for him to prove around here.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
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.

I certainly wouldn't waste my money to have something published. What good would that serve? Give my competitors an edge?
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
I certainly wouldn't waste my money to have something published. What good would that serve? Give my competitors an edge?
I don't understand that reasoning mike, if I made a product and could prove it's technological advantage was ground breaking and set new industry standards then I very much would.

No chip company would lose out if they could prove audibly of these jitter phenomenons. The opposite in fact as there would be a huge upsurge in demand.

No, the real and only loss is in the risk it's not proven , if they do the testing and fail.

That's likely why they don't, risk vs reward.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
I don't understand that reasoning mike, if I made a product and could prove it's technological advantage was ground breaking and set new industry standards then I very much would.

No chip company would lose out if they could prove audibly of these jitter phenomenons. The opposite in fact as there would be a huge upsurge in demand.

Well clock companies who sell ultra low phase noise clocks sell maybe 0.0001% of them to the high end audio industry. They couldn't care less about audio. For audio gear manufacturers, they mostly care about building a superior sounding product. Giving away all of their trade secrets, and paying for it, doesn't seem like a very fruitful endeavour to me. Better to sink that cash into marketing what audiophiles think matters instead.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Well clock companies who sell ultra low phase noise clocks sell maybe 0.0001% of them to the high end audio industry. They couldn't care less about audio. For audio gear manufacturers, they mostly care about building a superior sounding product. Giving away all of their trade secrets, and paying for it, doesn't seem like a very fruitful endeavour to me. Better to sink that cash into marketing what audiophiles thank matters instead.
No ones giving away trade secrets, I don't understand your point there at all.

proving the audibly of close in jitter etc won't give away any secrets , it's certainly won't impact a chip manufacturer. All it will do is create more demand and add prestige ( not a lot lol) to their brand. It will also energise the sales of products that utilise that technology.

No, again the only 'risk' is it being proven not to be audible..

You are right though, it's not really the chips company's responsibility to prove audibly. That's the job of those who buy the chips and put them in audio products claiming they bring audible advantage.

These tests never happen because such folk don't need to take that 'risk' in order to sell their products.

We don't deal in that level of proof here at ASR, we known it's easy to promote a vested intrest. I'm not here selling anything, I'm here to keep standards of evidence.

That standard has not been met in terms of audibly of these jitter phenomenons .
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,388
Location
Seattle Area
He could tell which DAC had the 957. If he chooses to divulge the same results of the test I was told, then he would.
Results that you were told? I thought you and Dustin conducted the test:

index.php


But then again he might not want to get involved with something so petty. Him along with everyone in the industry that matters is all on the same page anyways. Nothing for him to prove around here.
What is petty about this? This is groundbreaking if someone can in proper double blind tests tell the difference between clock oscillators of the nature you are speaking about.

No such test or anything remotely close to it has ever been documented. It is huge news if it is true.

Of course, both of us know it is not. But we play along. :)
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
No ones giving away trade secrets, I don't understand your point there at all.

proving the audibly of close in jitter etc won't give away any secrets , it's certainly won't impact a chip manufacturer. All it will do is create more demand and add prestige ( not a lot lol) to their brand. It will also energise the sales of products that utilise that technology.

No, again the only 'risk' is it being proven not to be audible..

You are right though, it's not really the chips company's responsibility to prove audibly. That's the job of those who buy the chips and put them in audio products claiming they bring audible advantage.

These tests never happen because such folk don't need to take that 'risk' in order to sell their products.


Contrary to the popular belief around here most audiophiles choose gear based on how it sounds. As long as they can make a product that looks real good, and sounds great, that's good enough for the majority of the market. You're targeting the minority if you're just trying to prove things with numbers. Most don't really care what's in the box. When you go to buy a TV do you choose it based on the chips used inside, or how the picture quality appears to your eyes?
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
Results that you were told? I thought you and Dustin conducted the test:

index.php



What is petty about this? This is groundbreaking if someone can in proper double blind tests tell the difference between clock oscillators of the nature you are speaking about.

No such test or anything remotely close to it has ever been documented. It is huge news if it is true.

Of course, both of us know it is not. But we play along. :)

Well I suppose it was Mark, Dustin and Hans who conducted the tests. But the reason they did it was because I did the test first with a friend of mine as was shocked by the difference. So I told them to try as well. It was Hans and Mark who told me the results on the phone.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,388
Location
Seattle Area
Well I suppose it was Mark, Dustin and Hans who conducted the tests. But the reason they did it was because I did the test first with a friend of mine as was shocked by the difference. So I told them to try as well. It was Hans and Mark who told me the results on the phone.
So the story evolves.

So both you and them independently have run double blind tests of these oscillators and passed?

If so, I will come up to your place and see if you can pass the test, I will give you $1000. If you fail, you give me $500. Deal?
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
So the story evolves.

So both you and them independently have run double blind tests of these oscillators and passed?

If so, I will come up to your place and see if you can pass the test, I will give you $1000. If you fail, you give me $500. Deal?

For my test I gave both to a friend to try and didn't tell him which was which. Here's the email I sent to Dustin explaining the results.
IMG_1183.PNG
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Well I suppose it was Mark, Dustin and Hans who conducted the tests. But the reason they did it was because I did the test first with a friend of mine as was shocked by the difference. So I told them to try as well. It was Hans and Mark who told me the results on the phone.
So you lied! You embellished your story to add a weight of significance that did not exist purely to bolster your argument.

See that's why we deal in proven knowns, because random folks turn up with vested intrest or just wanting desperately to win a argument and lie. They lie and twist facts, it's ok this is human nature but it's also why we ask for the level of evidence we do.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
So you lied! You embellished your story to add a weight of significance that did not exist purely to bolster your argument.

See that's why we deal in proven knowns, because random folks turn up with vested intrest or just wanting desperately to win a argument and lie. They lie and twist facts, it's ok this is human nature but it's also why we ask for the level of evidence we do.

No I didn't lie. I just didn't mention all of the names involved with the testing at first as it didn't really matter. Hans is the one who did the blind listening test.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,388
Location
Seattle Area
No I didn't lie. I just didn't mention all of the names involved with the testing at first as it didn't really matter. Hans is the one who did the blind listening test.
So to be clear, you personally have not passed any blind tests. Correct?

And you won't sit for one either. Is that correct?
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
No I didn't lie. I just didn't mention all of the names involved with the testing at first as it didn't really matter. Hans is the one who did the blind listening test.
You deliberately miss lead the readers here, it's plain as day if you read through the posts here. You slipped up though and had to confess, slowly bit by bit that things were slightly different than you let on.

In my world that a lie, you can call it what you want and the readers are free to make up their own minds.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,523
Likes
37,056
Contrary to the popular belief around here most audiophiles choose gear based on how it sounds. As long as they can make a product that looks real good, and sounds great, that's good enough for the majority of the market. You're targeting the minority if you're just trying to prove things with numbers. Most don't really care what's in the box. When you go to buy a TV do you choose it based on the chips used inside, or how the picture quality appears to your eyes?

As always happens here with Mike. The step away from factual matters to this kind of marketing to audiophile thing.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
So to be clear, you personally have not passed any blind tests. Correct?

And you won't sit for one either. Is that correct?

I shuffled the 2 Mirus unit's and could easily pick out the DAC with the 957 installed. I'll gladly do a blind test when my Puremusic system is ready. It's perfect as it will have DIL14 clock sockets.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
You deliberately miss lead the readers here, it's plain as day if you read through the posts here. You slipped up though and had to confess, slowly bit by bit that things were slightly different that you let on.

In my world that a lie, you can call it what you want and the readers are free to make up their own minds.

You're the one twisting things around. Nothing changed whatsoever from my first statement other than I didn't go into as many details of how it all went down when I first mentioned it.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Here's all the evidence you're gonna get that this blind test took place.

View attachment 8264
Here is your lie mike, you insinuated collusion between you both in regard to this blind test. You posted this email in support of your assertion you both conducted blind tests, again this infers collusion.

The truth is you conducted no such test yourself, you only had customer feed back from a random guy you sent two things to?

All totally unreliable as evidence either way.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
While I'm at it I'll do a blind test with different discrete opamps in the gain stage as well. Likely something else you guys would claim makes no audible difference.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
The truth would sound like this..,

"On the subject of audibly, I sent two unmarked units to a customer and asked for his feed back he reckoned he could hear differences and I believe there's a guy whos passed a blind test but there's no published details. His name was Hans."

No need for pages of subterfuge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom