"Chord Electronics FPGA DAC Technology Explained" - What went wrong?

[Multicore]

This part I don’t get. If a null test is saying 250db difference in audible range, what kind of engineering curiosity would drive you to look for a listening test? Do you think the test is missing something?

Geert said that if reliable tests of audible difference were presented here then people would be interested. I would be. I'd want to know what explains the completely unexpected test results.

 

[Purité Audio]

No manufacturer is ever going to run a double blind series of tests to undeniably prove that their products sounds exactly the same as everyone else’s.
I believe years ago a U.K magazine ran a series of unsighted amplifier tests, Martin Colloms maybe where no-one could reliably spot the difference between amps, again I believe those comparisons were extremely short lived.
Keith

 

[Multicore]

measured yes, but setting up a blind test requires a lot more effort. And if it comes up with surprising results you are going to have to show independent verification for those results.

Is it that hard? Can't we take an audio file and run it through 1-million tap reconstruction filter to produce a second one, make them both available for download and then compare them by listening on our own gear? Software can blind and randomize the switching between the two files.

To be clear, I'm not interested personally but some people might like to do something like that to see if they can tell a difference.

 

[fpitas]

No manufacturer is ever going to run a double blind series of tests to undeniably prove that their products sounds exactly the same as everyone else’s.
I believe years ago a U.K magazine ran a series of unsighted amplifier tests, Martin Colloms maybe where no-one could reliably spot the difference between amps, again I believe those comparisons were extremely short lived.
Keith

Especially not when charging more and telling people it's better works so well.

 

[Purité Audio]

This is the original ‘Quad’ comparison but I believe another comparison was performed ( because no-one could believe the results of the first) using Quad, TVA and Naim amplification .

https://keith-snook.info/wireless-world-articles/Wireless-World-1978/Valves%20versus%20Transistors%20DCD.pdf

Keith

 

[antcollinet]

It's not easy for the ordinary punter to construct a blind test that has results that would be accepted.

It is not trivial - but it is possible for most (especially when comparing DACS) with the investment of a little bit of time** and a small amount of money, and possibly a lot of humility. (IE accepting help on how to set the test up properley)

** possibly not much more time than people are prepared to invest here arguing about it.

 

[fpitas]

** possibly not much more time than people are prepared to invest here arguing about it.

Zing!

 

[Mart68]

Is it that hard? Can't we take an audio file and run it through 1-million tap reconstruction filter to produce a second one, make them both available for download and then compare them by listening on our own gear? Software can blind and randomize the switching between the two files.

To be clear, I'm not interested personally but some people might like to do something like that to see if they can tell a difference.

Yes but then there are still issues with being unable to control people gaming the test. And with a null result typical audiophile criticisms such as 'Deaf', 'Equipment not resolving enough', 'Not experienced listeners' and so forth.

Ideally it needs to take place in a physical space with equipment approved by all parties, independent moderation, and subjects who genuinely believe they can pass the test.

 

[Mart68]

It is not trivial - but it is possible for most (especially when comparing DACS) with the investment of a little bit of time** and a small amount of money, and possibly a lot of humility. (IE accepting help on how to set the test up properley)

** possibly not much more time than people are prepared to invest here arguing about it.

again though you have the issue that if you get an unexpected result the methodology will be criticised. It has to be done in such a way that people who were not present still have to accept the result.

I did a blind test last month - streamer vs CD transport. I could not tell them apart. Say I did though, say I identify the source correctly ten correct out of ten, and I presented that result here? You think everyone would say 'Oh well, that's that then. Proof positive.'?

 

[antcollinet]

Ideally it needs to take place in a physical space with equipment approved by all parties, independent moderation, and subjects who genuinely believe they can pass the test.

That is not generally what is asked for.


No, we can't necessarily identify people gaming tests - but people who are llikely do that generally show themselves up long before we get to reliable (looking) test description and results.

 

[Mart68]

That is not generally what is asked for.

By who? It's one thing to say to someone who thinks DACs have a sound to go away and get the wife to test them, to demonstrate to them that their perception is fallible.

That's just for personal satisfaction it has no wider application.

I now know I cannot distinguish my expensive CD transport from an expensive streamer but it won't satisfy someone who believes streaming has superior SQ because it is bit perfect, or there are no moving parts, or some other nonsense.

if you want to convince the outside world the test must be very stringent, maximally so.

 

[fpitas]

Even the best conceived test will run into an impenetrable wall of disbelief. The stream of people who come here whining about the X Factor is the tip of an iceberg.

 

[DSJR]

Shouldn't be to difficult for Chord, since this is what Watt's has to say about the Hugo M Scaler:

"That is, you will hear better depth and detail resolution, unless you are deaf, or not blessed with good hearing, or not interested in the SQ and musical performance, in which case why on earth would you be interested in an expensive up-sampler".

I'm going to say this again, you won't hear it using a Chord amplifier unless they've radically changed them in the last year, this last hearing with the new six grand preamp they launched....

 

[Mart68]

Even the best conceived test will run into an impenetrable wall of disbelief. The stream of people who come here whining about the X Factor is the tip of an iceberg.

true there will always be a hard core but there's no point trying to reach people who can't be reached.

It will be good enough for all the rational people and all those with no dog in the fight but who would like to know for sure there are no audible unmeasurables.

 

[fpitas]

true there will always be a hard core but there's no point trying to reach people who can't be reached.

It will be good enough for all the rational people and all those with no dog in the fight but who would like to know for sure there are no audible unmeasurables.

I agree. Just noting it's almost a labor of love. To most audiophiles it's the answer to questions they would prefer not asking.

 

[Ron Texas]

No, YOU have no idea what I heard. I don't need the formality of double-blind tests to convince me of what I heard. I need all that to convince YOU. That's fine. I'm not expecting you to rely on what I heard. Nor do I need your validation of my own experience.

Scrolling up, I did see a reply where you shared your personal listening experience with the Dave. That's what I was looking for. Thank you for sharing that.

That's not how things work around here.

 

[Mart68]

I agree. Just noting it's almost a labor of love. To most audiophiles it's the answer to questions they would prefer not asking.

Finding people who reckon they can hear the difference and are willing to be tested will be very hard, on top of all else. We already see Rob Watts won't oblige.

There's a poor track record too. Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn volunteered to be tested on his claims that he could hear an A to D/ D to A loop and the effect on the sound of an additional unconnected loudspeaker in the room. He failed miserably on both counts. Once bitten...

 

[IAtaman]

Geert said that if reliable tests of audible difference were presented here then people would be interested. I would be. I'd want to know what explains the completely unexpected test results.

Yeah, that part I get. I would be very interested as well. He also said I am an engineer who wants to learn. This part, I did not get.

 

[Purité Audio]

@Mart68

Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

Keith

 

[fpitas]

Finding people who reckon they can hear the difference and are willing to be tested will be very hard, on top of all else. We already see Rob Watts won't oblige.

There's a poor track record too. Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn volunteered to be tested on his claims that he could hear an A to D/ D to A loop and the effect on the sound of an additional unconnected loudspeaker in the room. He failed miserably on both counts. Once bitten...

Like Keith said earlier, there's not much reason for people manufacturing expensive audio stuff to get involved. And here we are on ASR.