That’s the problem right there!
Oh you don’t believe anything? It’s likely you believe things on this forum that you had no role in producing, or am I wrong?
Well, you had no role in me producing measurements or measure it yourself. By your logic, you have no business questioning my review then!
I believe lots of things, but generally I tend to go by objective evidence. In audio, in many cases, things are believed without a single shred of evidence, substantiation or scientific principles. The industry actively abuses this to sell their products.
What has producing have to do with it?
People on YouTube claim all kinds of things on various subjects. That doesn’t make it true. This is not evidence.
I didn't inject any let alone too much:
People on YouTube believe in flat earths, aliens, parallel worlds, Santa Claus … the list goes on.
Exactly! So then we just go back to taking many different reviews and then determining if we enjoy the music changes ourselves.
Is that what you do when you get sick? Or do you go to a doctor who uses his experience and measurement diagnostics to figure out what is wrong with you???
Yes I actually just watched a video where he explained that the jitter produced by the mscalar was supposed to be taken care of by the DAC. Interesting viewpoint.I didn't inject any let alone too much:
The source is my state of the art analyzer Coax S/PDIF output which as the green line shows, has extremely low jitter. Red line is Chord M-Scalar which is producing jitter on its own -- a fact that was confirmed by Rob Watts (designer).
I suggest you ask questions if you don't understand the review.
As to others saying it is good, all but one did not measure it. And the one that did, found the same problems but swept them under the rug.
Actually yes. Medical opinion is often just that. If you were smart, when sick, you would consider getting multiple opinions from other physicians and if most people say one thing then the probability that this is true is far greater. The diagnostic testing often isn’t as relevant as the interpretations of the medical information. Not a great example.
I know the difference between hearing and perceiving. Former is made up of sound waves. Latter is composed of sound, your brain, imagination, bias, etc. The only valid test is one where only sound is involved. None of the youtubers you are going by relied on sound alone. Until they do, their opinion is just fantasy. I too "hear" all kinds of effects that are not real and vanish when testing is performed blind.
Your multiple medical opinions are all from doctors with experience and diagnostic tools. You are not getting second and third opinion from people standing on the corner of the street dispensing medical advice with no experience, license or qualification. Yet that is what you are doing in audio. Did you bother to ask those youtubers their qualifications?
Yes, but if you take the majority of content, reason plays out. There are more people who believe normal terrestrial science than not. That makes the probability greater that the former is true. All that’s left is the reader to review the data themselves.
You are dismissing my extensive diagnostics for which the designer had no answer. These are firm and factual data points which you are choosing to ignore based on made up excuses. It doesn't get worse than this.
You have no plurality of "data." You have data from me. The rest are joe random youtuber who woke up one day and called himself a reviewer. They have not read one iota of audio research. Have no experience performing proper audio tests. And have severe conflict of interest being at the mercy of manufacturers to send them gear. Go ahead and see how many negative reviews they publish. You won't find any whereas I give thumbs down to 2/3 of what I review.
I’m not sure what the duration of my activity on the forum has anything to do with it. If I don’t find an argument convincing, no amount of time will change said opinion.
On what basis? How do you know they are right? Audio science says that any test of products like this demands controlled testing. How many of these tests did you read about CHORD?
It is nonsense. I have heard huge number of high-end systems. I have friends with such and have been to thousand plus rooms at audio shows. None of that amounts to anything when it comes to subjective differences in gear that should not make such. The only valid evaluations are a) measurements or b) controlled blind testing where only sound matters. If you are resorting to something else, you are subscribing to junk audio science. Which again, is fine but don't raise the noise floor here with those arguments. We have heard them. We even experience the same faulty evaluations. Move along and let more informed discussion occur.
