Also it's pretty funny to accuse someone who signs into ASR using their real name as being a sockpuppet, or disingenuous.
-
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!
Amir vs. Abyss: The Battle We Need
- Thread starter danielmiessler
- Start date
Yes, this is why I have painstakingly spoken about AUDIBLE differences. There are all kinds of other perceptions and implications that may or may not be pleasing to the owner. I haven't found a soul here who denies that other aspects of the ownership experience may be worth a lot of money (and, in fact, people here own a lot of seriously expensive stuff). But are any differences audible? That's where this debate is, and the answer with cables and electronics is: unlikely.
Last edited:
DSJR
Major Contributor
May I comment on other things to do with the original suggested system?
The DCS dac systems to me, look like a car with an engine at each wheel, rather than one efficient engine driving two or four wheels via a very carefully opimised transmission. Each engine will need careful throttle and so on adjustment independently as well as equally to maintain the same loading on the wheels (excuse my bad wording here). The thing is, it's been shown that one well designed engine is all you need to drive a four or more wheeled vehicle along, the fun being in optimising the engine to the chassis as a whole for the task at hand. The RME dac does it all really for domestic use, but I suspect it doesn't look the part for some.
I worry about the long term reliability and service of the apparently hot running D'Agostino amps. Early Krells, especially from the KSA80 era non-fan-cooled models onwards, seem to all need substantial servicing now as the hot running chassis' have cooked all the electrolytic caps as well as the circuit boards possibly. Even the plateau-bias KSA50S I owned for a while, suffered what I regard as severe discolouration on the circuit boards where the design called for four transistors in a bank (current amplifiers?) to be biased hard I suspect, hot running (even if the output stage could idle at low temperature). There were four sets of these in this differential circuit design. Anyway, what I'm saying is that the think could cook if run in a spirited fashion, something like twenty elexctrolytics per side which I felt beyond me to strip out if necessary, so I sold it to a chap who enjoyed it for a year until a 'bake-off' in a local village hall where I suspect it was wrung out. It was never the same again, one channel started to distort and an engineer pal who tried to repair it admitted defeat! The Hypex/Purifi based amp designs also look to have a lot of electrolytic caps on the board, but they seeming run cool most of the time, so a long life should be taken as read hopefully. Shame he's not here now, but the March Audio amps do look nicely finished and presented as an example, if that kind of thing matters.
Now, maybe the OP's disposable income can take the ott DSC and hot running steam punk D'Agostino amp in their stride and for that kind of person, brilliant! A shame that many such purchasers wouldn't even look at simpler and at least as good alternatives - I can't speak for the speakers as final choices will be more personal. I'd ask if he can try to get a listen to the domestic/pro-crossover speakers like the D&D and Kii to name but two (I suspect the larger Genelecs and so on are extremely naughty in the current world, as large active ATC's and JBL's used to be in my day
).
The DCS dac systems to me, look like a car with an engine at each wheel, rather than one efficient engine driving two or four wheels via a very carefully opimised transmission. Each engine will need careful throttle and so on adjustment independently as well as equally to maintain the same loading on the wheels (excuse my bad wording here). The thing is, it's been shown that one well designed engine is all you need to drive a four or more wheeled vehicle along, the fun being in optimising the engine to the chassis as a whole for the task at hand. The RME dac does it all really for domestic use, but I suspect it doesn't look the part for some.
I worry about the long term reliability and service of the apparently hot running D'Agostino amps. Early Krells, especially from the KSA80 era non-fan-cooled models onwards, seem to all need substantial servicing now as the hot running chassis' have cooked all the electrolytic caps as well as the circuit boards possibly. Even the plateau-bias KSA50S I owned for a while, suffered what I regard as severe discolouration on the circuit boards where the design called for four transistors in a bank (current amplifiers?) to be biased hard I suspect, hot running (even if the output stage could idle at low temperature). There were four sets of these in this differential circuit design. Anyway, what I'm saying is that the think could cook if run in a spirited fashion, something like twenty elexctrolytics per side which I felt beyond me to strip out if necessary, so I sold it to a chap who enjoyed it for a year until a 'bake-off' in a local village hall where I suspect it was wrung out. It was never the same again, one channel started to distort and an engineer pal who tried to repair it admitted defeat! The Hypex/Purifi based amp designs also look to have a lot of electrolytic caps on the board, but they seeming run cool most of the time, so a long life should be taken as read hopefully. Shame he's not here now, but the March Audio amps do look nicely finished and presented as an example, if that kind of thing matters.
Now, maybe the OP's disposable income can take the ott DSC and hot running steam punk D'Agostino amp in their stride and for that kind of person, brilliant! A shame that many such purchasers wouldn't even look at simpler and at least as good alternatives - I can't speak for the speakers as final choices will be more personal. I'd ask if he can try to get a listen to the domestic/pro-crossover speakers like the D&D and Kii to name but two (I suspect the larger Genelecs and so on are extremely naughty in the current world, as large active ATC's and JBL's used to be in my day
).
Not sure if you are familiar with Intelligence squared, but it’s a moderated Oxford style debate aired on National Public Radio where the audience is polled before and after the debate to see if their opinion has changed. It’s not about one side admitting the other is right and themselves wrong, it’s about articulating the best arguments from both sides and letting the public decide who is more convincing. I would watch that, wouldn’t you?
I’ve heard references to it, but you are right that I’m not that familiar with it. I’ll likely have a listen, but I have to say I find long form appreciative enquiry more illuminating that traditional moderated debates. It may be a personal prejudice.
I know the phrase is "don't feed the trolls", but I try to live by another axiom, "assume positive intent". If I get trolled along the way, well shame on them, not me.
If more people assumed positive intent in social media discourse (not commerce) the world would be a much better place. But when your money's involved..assume the worst as a real possibility.
If more people assumed positive intent in social media discourse (not commerce) the world would be a much better place. But when your money's involved..assume the worst as a real possibility.
Now, maybe the OP's disposable income can take the ott DSC and hot running steam punk D'Agostino amp in their stride and for that kind of person, brilliant! A shame that many such purchasers wouldn't even look at simpler and at least as good alternatives - I can't speak for the speakers as final choices will be more personal. I'd ask if he can try to get a listen to the domestic/pro-crossover speakers like the D&D and Kii to name but two (I suspect the larger Genelecs and so on are extremely naughty in the current world, as large active ATC's and JBL's used to be in my day
I'd say that sort of fragility almost ends up a feature to some buyers. Anything that is balanced on a functional knife edge is both a status signal and an experience enhancer. Consider some of your high end Italian automobiles. Remember, we only really appreciate life because we're mortal.
Plus, when it dies...UPGRADE!!
You are right, if it’s electronics we are talking about, we achieved practical transparency many years ago. Speakers are different story.
Electronics reached practical transparency a long time ago. I buy electronics entirely on the measurements and consideration of reviews around function and build etc. It’s still fun to obsess about absolute measured performance but it no longer has a bearing on what ones hears for practical purposes. I see no contradiction in doing this whilst running turntables, reel to reel players or valve amps. But there’s no escaping the reality that a $99 dac can easily outperform the best turntable money can buy
Sorry for a few random thoughts:
1) Faults in aircraft design does not necessitate us to believe in magic carpets: This popped into my head after reading the "peer review is flawed" argument. I agree that it is, and I would support anyone who is working on solving issues involving peer review, but it doesn't mean that we have to abandon it or think up a completely new idea. This also goes for science in general. Perhaps we haven't measured all there is to measure in audio, but that simply means we continue to, using the scientific method, work towards that goal. Adding subjectivist views that cannot be replicated seem counter-productive and will simply muddy the waters. This also leads to #2:
2) Anecdote is not data, and multiple anecdotes is still not data. Reviews on products are of no use when we want to objectively evaluate equipment. People have already described clear-cut ways to scientifically measure audible differences in equipment. While the process is cumbersome and perhaps expensive, I'm not sure why people think "outside the box" thinking is required when it comes to this.
3) Someone has already stated that audio science (or science in general) wants to have unbiased results that could be replicated, and that's mostly it. Unfortunately such a simple goal is actually very hard to achieve most of the time. Nevertheless the process to get there could be easily defined. It's also helpful if you keep falsifiability in mind. What evidence would it take to overrule the assumptions you have in your head? If it's just an idea you and others have, then the weight of scientific evidence should easily tip the scale. If you have some science on your side, what amount of science on the opposite end would be required to fairly tip that particular scale?
1) Faults in aircraft design does not necessitate us to believe in magic carpets: This popped into my head after reading the "peer review is flawed" argument. I agree that it is, and I would support anyone who is working on solving issues involving peer review, but it doesn't mean that we have to abandon it or think up a completely new idea. This also goes for science in general. Perhaps we haven't measured all there is to measure in audio, but that simply means we continue to, using the scientific method, work towards that goal. Adding subjectivist views that cannot be replicated seem counter-productive and will simply muddy the waters. This also leads to #2:
2) Anecdote is not data, and multiple anecdotes is still not data. Reviews on products are of no use when we want to objectively evaluate equipment. People have already described clear-cut ways to scientifically measure audible differences in equipment. While the process is cumbersome and perhaps expensive, I'm not sure why people think "outside the box" thinking is required when it comes to this.
3) Someone has already stated that audio science (or science in general) wants to have unbiased results that could be replicated, and that's mostly it. Unfortunately such a simple goal is actually very hard to achieve most of the time. Nevertheless the process to get there could be easily defined. It's also helpful if you keep falsifiability in mind. What evidence would it take to overrule the assumptions you have in your head? If it's just an idea you and others have, then the weight of scientific evidence should easily tip the scale. If you have some science on your side, what amount of science on the opposite end would be required to fairly tip that particular scale?
Only 45 minutes, now thats a fantasy worth wishing for.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,116
- Likes
- 14,783
Yes, the smart, knowledgeable and above all honest headphone brand. Apparently.
Don't listen to anyone here. Buy the DCS DAC and send it to me to measure!
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,116
- Likes
- 14,783
It uses a ring DAC. Apparently it's a sort of a R2R idea but different. The link is translatable. A scrutinizing test of this bad boy would be interesting.Don't listen to anyone here. Buy the DCS DAC and send it to me to measure!
D
Deleted member 4708
Guest
That!
Science is hard and has the tendency to thin the herd... Making stuff up is easy and attractive.
OTOH, think of research, in any field. A lot of effort and many times what you get is incremental improvement - if that.
The bar for PHD at a renowned university is a bit higher than the bar for "I hear cables singing".
It is my belief (I am repeating myself) that nothing good other than sheer entertainment would come out of a meeting between the PHD crowd and the "I hear cables singing" majority. There is a reason why what's hard, difficult to learn pays off in life.
Very nice looking aerospace-grade machined aluminium chassis !
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
