Yes, if you make claims, you must supply evidence.
If you can't or won't your most likely FOS
I'm suuuuuure this is not going to boil down to the same old tactic of unfalsifiable claims ever. *snicker*
Yes, if you make claims, you must supply evidence.
If you can't or won't your most likely FOS
Never went that deep where I felt it mattered when buying something. Never got that OCD, plus I always built/ designed or purchased things used. Never went audiophile nuts and spent crazy money. Always happy with my sound which was my first consideration. When I had large systems, they were horns designs mostly Altec or JBLs stuff with different reflex bass iterations, i.e. VOT or Onken type cabs. Never had room or really wanted full bass horns. Preferred triode over pentode designs, and never needed big power.So you weren't interested in using the results of blind testing to make purchasing decisions?
I am confident in controlled testing, those 1980s CD players would not be distinguishable by vast majority if not all the audiophiles from the best of the best high-end players today.
Unfortunately it is a given that audible differences existed in players then.
Wow Fitz, you sure like to make up stuff to suit your agenda to defame. Seems to be a regular pattern of yours towards John and I (I could go back into the archives and quote a half-dozen examples but I have better things to do with my time).
Just to be clear for you an others regarding your latest falsehood:
a) John does not and has never offered any "modding" services to anyone.
b) He has designed and built from scratch a dozen+ analog and digital components over the years (aside from also engineering the bowls of some of the worlds most sophisticate ASICs--the sort in enterprise network gear).
c) The completely unique commercial designs he has done in recent years (for Sonore: the Rendu series, and UpTone: the REGENs, and the UltraCap power supplies) have not only combined sold millions of dollars worth, but have spawned a market of similar copycats and inspired numerous other firms to reconsider and explore several taken-for-granted aspects of computer audio.
d) His engineering lab (custom built with quartz countertops, isolated power systems, and ultra-low-emmisons lighting) is outfitted with over $65K worth of test gear, including a $27K 4GHz scope, a spectrum analyzer with both real-time and FFT storage capabilities, and an in-progress 32-bit high-speed A-D rig that may eventual surpass some specific Audio Precision capabilities for the particular work he is doing (Wavelet analysis to prove the impact of upstream clocking variations on the analog output of the DAC). In addition, his set up includes for prototyping a vapor-phase reflow oven (capable of mounting BGA and all other hidden-pad SMDs) and a pick-and-place machine (hand placing hundreds of tiny parts gets old!).
e) Plenty of measurements are made on every product we work on. That is how design is done! Some of those measurements we elect to publish, but, like most every other audio firm out there, we don't publish reams of basic measures since only a few are going to correlate to sonic end result. If/when John makes the breakthroughs he is looking for with regards to demonstrating how digital isolation and reclocking upstream affects analog output (first by showing a defined, artificial jitter marker getting through), then we will offer up plenty--and may again bust past a bunch of preconceived notions about things that matter in digital audio reproduction.
[Some of this last paragraph is in reaction to another post you just made--in the ISO REGEN thread--where you ridicule someone for purchasing our competitor's 3x the price product and call this whole segment of the market nonsense. How much research and engineering have you done Fritz? Does none now qualify you?
-Alex C.
Ah, sorry i did read your statement as related to the general population while you meant it in the same context as before, means related to your experience and that of your staff.I'm not making any claims about 'everyone's listening abilities, but the measurements made at the time indicated that those shared DACs players were no worse than separate DAC players, except for the tiny interchannel time difference, which, as I said above, was comparable with moving one's head a few millimeters. Frequency response, noise and distortion were quite satisfactory, so no reason there for any sonic difference.
S
As said before, i´ll always provide evidence and if i later detect to have erred i post that too, something that i consider as crucial for any sound discussion. So i encourage you strongly to do the same and to restrain from using eristics.No we don't agree. You can't say multiple times there were audible differences and then finish by saying you will provide evidence when you are good and ready. We don't waste forum member's time here with empty debates. Where is the data?
So you are now modifying your statement that it was only in the context of the ones (Technics) that used a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels than all CD players of that era?Further, sorry but you should know it already. We all do sometimes forget things or misinterpret something (as i unfortunately did above in the discussion with sergeauckland) but by now you should have remembered that the result of using a single DAC chip for both channels is/was a constant interchannel (or interaural) time difference (hence the acronym ITD) of 11.3 µs .
Instead of citing evidence of clear audibility between CD players you said was the case?And of course i´ll cite a bunch of publications with evidence for the audibility of such an ITD, but still, it is in my discretion when.
Do you have anything other than doubt to inject? That’s all I see from you, you bring doubt .. for doubt sake it seems to me.As said before, i´ll always provide evidence and if i´m later detect to have erred i post that too, something that i consider as crucial for any sound discussion. So i encourage you strongly to do the same and to restrain from using eristics.
Further, sorry but you should know it already. We all do sometimes forget things or misinterpret something (as i unfortunately did above in the discussion with sergeauckland) but by now you should have remembered that the result of using a single DAC chip for both channels is/was a constant interchannel (or interaural) time difference (hence the acronym ITD) of 11.3 µs .
And of course i´ll cite a bunch of publications with evidence for the audibility of such an ITD, but still, it is in my discretion when.
So you are now modifying your statement .......
(bold feature activated now by me)<snip>
I hope we can agree that "distinguishable by vast majority" is a (totally) different topic?!
Unfortunately it is a given that audible differences existed in players then.
(bold feature now activated by me)But with what do you disagree?
At least it is known that CD players using only one DAC ic intermittently for both channels were audible different.
An no,that does not mean that _everyone_ could reach a positive "blind" controlled listening test result under all conditions.
<snip>
...that it was only in the context of the ones (Technics) that used a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels than all CD players of that era?
Instead of citing evidence of clear audibility between CD players you said was the case?
As said before, i´ll always provide evidence and if i later detect to have erred i post that too, something that i consider as crucial for any sound discussion. So i encourage you strongly to do the same and to restrain from using eristics.
Further, sorry but you should know it already. We all do sometimes forget things or misinterpret something (as i unfortunately did above in the discussion with sergeauckland) but by now you should have remembered that the result of using a single DAC chip for both channels is/was a constant interchannel (or interaural) time difference (hence the acronym ITD) of 11.3 µs .
And of course i´ll cite a bunch of publications with evidence for the audibility of such an ITD, but still, it is in my discretion when.
Weaving and bobbing, sentence parsing as usual. I am afraid I have to give it Thomas Savage and Amir. Have you actually got anything of any relevance? No, as we know full well. So, I am quite sure you are just doing this vacuous nonsense to get attention. Meanwhile, you have added essentially nothing except quarrelsomeness. Alas and alack, you deserve the immortal Ignore button. Bye!No, i don´t modify my statement, because my statement was:
(bold feature activated now by me)
1.) you forgot to answer, if we agree that "distinguishable by vast majority" is a (totally) different topic
2.) if you read the bold line as "difference in all and every player" then you misinterpreted it
(bold feature now activated by me)
See above, i was already then stating that at least it was a given for CD players using only one DAC ic ......
Hint 1, if you would just cite my assertions, instead of straining your imagination, that you want to address, you would be simply more often correct.
Hint 2, i explicitely referred to the argumentation that was used in the past to back the assertion of "impossible audible differences" .......
I was well aware of the research showing audibility of very small ITDs, but in fact it is news to me that any stereo DAC that uses a single DAC IC for both channels has an inherent ITD of 11.3µs.
Weaving and bobbing, sentence parsing as usual. I am afraid I have to give it Thomas Savage and Amir. Have you actually got anything of any relevance? No, as we know full well. So, I am quite sure you are just doing this vacuous nonsense to get attention. Meanwhile, you have added essentially nothing except quarrelsomeness. Alas and alack, you deserve the immortal Ignore button. Bye!
Looks like you have forgotten your own story. Let me remind you properly:No, i don´t modify my statement, because my statement was:
Actually the discussion and arguments remained the same for the last 40 years but the topics do change. I remember the first CD player tests describing sonical differences despite quite similar measurements and the angry reactions by EEs who pointed out that it wasn´t possible that any audible difference exists.
Hint back to you: the fastest way you can get yourself booted out of this forum is by being obnoxious. I don't care if you are objectivist, or subjectivist. I don't care if you back what I say or the opposite. Forget our mission statement which says we are here to have fun and your participation in this forum will end. None of us want to come here and get aggravated, much less by someone who is trying to play cat and mouse with us with data.Hint 1, if you would just cite my assertions, instead of straining your imagination, that you want to address, you would be simply more often correct.
A single D/A converter does not and did not mean a constant 11.3uS interchannel time delay.
Some machines, including the CDP-101 attempted to adjust time constants in S/H to minimise that time delay, and consequently, back in the day, interchannel phase differences were typically tested and displayed in decent reviews at various spot frequencies up to 20KHz as a Lissajous CRO image.
Single D/A machines were not all the same in that regard.
And is there any reason that these tests are not performed these days? Is the problem long solved?
Yes, long solved with the implementation of twin L/R D/A converters and timing corrections in the O/S digital filters.
That said, there are still some very minor phase differences observed on players that shouldn't exhibit differences.
I'll take a few XY scope shots on the weekend and post them into this thread for fun.
Ah yes, sorry I should have stated the question more clearly: is the problem now solved in respect of single D/A chip DACs?