Killingbeans
Major Contributor
More like 1/10, IMO.
But hey, first rule of manufacturing: Don't price your product according to what's fair. Set it as high as your customers are willing to pay.
-
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!
Chord DAVE Measurements (With MScaler) by GoldenSound
- Thread starter Matias
- Start date
More like 1/10, IMO.
But hey, first rule of manufacturing: Don't price your product according to what's fair. Set it as high as your customers are willing to pay.
Given the extended stoush that played out here, I wouldn't take one perspective of that argument as gospel. It was before my time, but GoldenOne (aka GoldenSound) and Majidimehr actually attempted to negotiate a DAC blind test. Things broke down unfortunately as negotiations between factions sometimes do. Better not to revisit any rancour, but you can go back and draw your own conclusions (or not) if you are interested.
Personally, I can't really differentiate DACs I have (or had) sighted so blind listening doesn't come up for me. But I wouldn't say I have a lot of experience there.
Hundreds. And posted many in public. Here are a couple of many:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01 50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02 75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03 50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04 31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05 18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06 10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08 3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09 2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10 1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11 0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12 0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13 0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14 0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15 0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)
As you see, 14 out of 15 right which is almost perfect.
And Mark's test tracks he produced for a test on AVS:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav
18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)
Again, 10 out of 11.
=========
When the data says something is inaudible, and you say otherwise, you better back it with solid, statistically valid evidence. It is trivial to believe your own creations making a difference when they do not.
He said he would proceed with the test regardless. He never did.
B&WTube
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2020
- Messages
- 87
- Likes
- 105
I hate that. Even someone like me, who is very enthusiastic about the Rob's methodology, finds that disturbing. Pricing aside, its not like the Qutest bombed your test. So why not let you look behind the curtain and see what spending 7x the Qutest's price gets you from Chord/Rob. Going with more than triple the tap filters should be nothing but good (assuming the processing is sufficient), right?
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Depends on how much havoc you believe the aliasing wreaks. Some people swear by omitting the reconstruction filter more or less completely. I'd say that's risky business, but if nothing else, it shows a bit of how forgiving human hearing is in reality.
B&WTube
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2020
- Messages
- 87
- Likes
- 105
I see a lot of people are upgrading the power supply on the Dave to get much better sound. Obviously, these people already have no issues in spending crazy money on a DAC, and probably own everything in the snake oil catalog. However, I have seen a number of comments on the lack of quality in the design of the Dave’s power supply (which seems insane for any kit at this price).
So my question is:
Is the Dave’s power really supply sub-par for it to run optimally? Or is it more of ppl throwing expensive stuff at a problem that doesn’t exist?
So my question is:
Is the Dave’s power really supply sub-par for it to run optimally? Or is it more of ppl throwing expensive stuff at a problem that doesn’t exist?
dc655321
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,597
- Likes
- 2,236
Those are addressable by measurements.
Do any of the comments you’ve seen on this use instrumentation other than ears?
Amir tested their ‘qutest ’,
www.audiosciencereview.com
No audible mains issues there,
Keith
Review and Measurements of CHORD Qutest DAC
This is a review and detailed measurements of CHORD Qutest DAC. It is on kind short-term loan from Gig Harbor Audio. I previously tested a the older generation, Chrodette and 2Qute DACs so naturally members were curious how the current product line performs. The retail price of the Qutest is...
www.audiosciencereview.com
No audible mains issues there,
Keith
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
That would be my guess. I've seen plenty of people replacing switch-mode wall warts with honkin' trafos and shunt regulators or something equally audiophile approved, and then raving about improvements in the microplankton and what have you. Zero verification with measurements. Most likely just their imagination running wild.
Last edited:
B&WTube
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2020
- Messages
- 87
- Likes
- 105
No- otherwise I wouldn’t be asking. But perhaps there are people that understand the engineering aspect of a PSU on a device like this, who can look at it and make some sort of educated guess. Is it optimal- definitely not. I am just curious about it, and wondering if there are any thoughts on the matter. Looks fine to my untrained eyes, and has a partition on the board side…might have been nice to continue the partition wall by the screen.Those are addressable by measurements.
Do any of the comments you’ve seen on this use instrumentation other than ears?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #53
What is the problem with that? The same is used by dCS Vivaldi, one of the best DACs there is, and even more expensive.£9000 for a device with a power supply connected with crimped spade terminals?,
mccririck
Active Member
Ah, I dont think I'd be happy with a test like that. You need to be fully relaxed imo to get the best results. This is why music sounds best is in dark room with no background noise. You can be fully immersed and your brain isnt focusing on other things. I do think it's important to make the listening tests as stress-free as possible. In this respect I agree with Rob Watt. You need to understand how the brain processes music - if there are other things going on distracting it less brain power is used for the listening.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
The mere realization that it's an ABX makes you so stressed that you can't concentrate?
Easy solution: Tell yourself that you have nothing to lose, take a few deep breaths and then proceed like you would with any other task that requires concentration. It might be really boring, but it's not that hard (unless you have an ADHD brain like I do).
BTW, how many reports about night and day differences, when auditioning these kind of products, also point out that they were only heard in a dark room with no background noise? None. These alleged differences always hit people smack in the face, no matter the listening environment
Easy solution: Tell yourself that you have nothing to lose, take a few deep breaths and then proceed like you would with any other task that requires concentration. It might be really boring, but it's not that hard (unless you have an ADHD brain like I do).
BTW, how many reports about night and day differences, when auditioning these kind of products, also point out that they were only heard in a dark room with no background noise? None. These alleged differences always hit people smack in the face, no matter the listening environment
mccririck
Active Member
I don't think you really appreciate how introducing ABX testing is going to affect the brain. It's far more complicated that a lot of people like to think. Therefore tests really need to be designed with that in mind in order to minimise effects. Telling someone "This is how the test shall be conducted and if you complain about it we will belittle you" is not the best way.The mere realization that it's an ABX makes you so stressed that you can't concentrate?
Easy solution: Tell yourself that you have nothing to lose, take a few deep breaths and then proceed like you would with any other task that requires concentration. It might be really boring, but it's not that hard (unless you have an ADHD brain like I do).
BTW, how many reports about night and day differences, when auditioning these kind of products, also point out that they were only heard in a dark room with no background noise? None. These alleged differences always hit people smack in the face, no matter the listening environment
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Who said that? How about "This is a way of testing that will give you reliable data on the probability of you actually hearing these things, take it or leave it" I don't see where the belittlement comes in. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Seriously, I'm not trying to be an a$$.
Last edited:
I agree that one should be cautious interpreting test results. Blind and ABX are two different aspects, in that ABX is only one possible configuration. If memory serves (you never know) some of the psychoacoustic literature (not all of it specific to music) posits that ABX is useful for testing categorical differences, but not so good for non-categorical. For example, people have difficulty differentiating phonemes like "p" and "f" via ABX. This suggests it's a less optimal choice for investigating (possible) subtle differences in audio. I'll have to see if I can find the reference/s, but I think it's reasonable to assume the audio engineering cohort that advocates ABX (specifically, not controlled or blind testing generally) for non-categorical differentiation may be misguided to the extent of any over-reliance.
Nothing wrong with crimped spade terminals.£9000 for a device with a power supply connected with crimped spade terminals?,
Insinuating controlled testing is unreliable for identifying differences due to stressing out the person under test is the least imaginative deflection against the scientific method that I can think of. Of course you're going to be called out on it. With that kind of vague reasoning no test could ever be considered reliable, because they're tests! How then can we test your theory about the invalidity of controlled testing?
Similar threads
- Locked
