DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[amirm]

FYI Josh asked me to make an offer for his box. I said $650 since that is what we had raised. He said no but that if he could get products in trade or discount on some, he would be open to trade there. His interest was in a $3,000 DAC which I could get at industry discount. Next thing I know, he is saying he wants said $3K DAC plus another $600 cash plus shipping costs!!! The AVA comparator was $999 new which I imagine he got for less. Now he wants 4 to 5 times what he paid for!!!

I have told him to pound salt.

At this point, I am unwilling to give him any benefit of doubt. I no longer trust any result he has generated as being true and accurate. No one with this level of ethics and desire for information deserves our belief in him and his work.

We will see what Erin generates as far as measurements but I am done chasing this....

 

[pablolie]

FYI Josh asked me to make an offer for his box. I said $650 since that is what we had raised. He said no but that if he could get products in trade or discount on some, he would be open to trade there. His interest was in a $3,000 DAC which I could get at industry discount. Next thing I know, he is saying he wants said $3K DAC plus another $600 cash plus shipping costs!!! The AVA comparator was $999 new which I imagine he got for less. Now he wants 4 to 5 times what he paid for!!!

I have told him to pound sand.

At this point, I am unwilling to give him any benefit of doubt. I no longer trust any result he has generated as being true and accurate. No one with this level of ethics and desire for information deserves our belief in him and his work.

We will see what Erin generates as far as measurements but I am done chasing this....

I have also changed my mind since making the 3k offer, I doubt anything useful would come out of it at this stage. If he changes his mind and shows remote interest in validating his results, let me know. As it stands, it is just another claim of implausible hearing superpowers.

 

[RandomEar]

I thinkt this post from Josh sums up how serious he was about this negotiation

 

[amirm]

I thinkt this post from Josh sums up how serious he was about this negotiation

That explains it. Amazes me that no one asked him why he was being so greedy and how that was good for advancing the research.

 

[JSmith]

greedy

I'm starting to wonder if it is just that, or if he really doesn't want you to test the box... as it may or will reveal something and potentially invalidate his claimed ABX results.


JSmith

 

[amirm]

I'm starting to wonder if it is just that, or if he really doesn't want you to test the box... as it may or will reveal something and potentially invalidate his claimed ABX results.

That much has been clear from the start.

 

[JSmith]

That much has been clear from the start.

Well if we're all being upfront now, I thought the whole thing was nothing but an orchestrated and disingenuous shit-stir from the start.

Still, at least something positive has come out of it with @mcdn building an ABX box.


JSmith

 

[Josh83]

FYI Josh asked me to make an offer for his box. I said $650 since that is what we had raised. He said no but that if he could get products in trade or discount on some, he would be open to trade there. His interest was in a $3,000 DAC which I could get at industry discount. Next thing I know, he is saying he wants said $3K DAC plus another $600 cash plus shipping costs!!! The AVA comparator was $999 new which I imagine he got for less. Now he wants 4 to 5 times what he paid for!!!

I have told him to pound sand.

At this point, I am unwilling to give him any benefit of doubt. I no longer trust any result he has generated as being true and accurate. No one with this level of ethics and desire for information deserves our belief in him and his work.

We will see what Erin generates as far as measurements but I am done chasing this....

I need to clear this up, because this misrepresents our DM exchange. Anyone interested can read my perspective over at Audiophile Style. But to avoid being accused of self-promoting, here are the important points:

As I wrote many times at ASR, I'd only be interested in selling the box if the offer was exceptional. I paid the seller $1,200, plus $100 for packing and shipping (since the seller didn't have the original box). I also gave "my man in Seattle" some money to thank him for his help. I'm happy to provide you with documentation showing this if you don't believe me.

Prior to the ASR kerfuffle, I had no intention of selling the box, and I certainly wouldn't consider less than $2,000 for it. I don't think $3,000 is unreasonable. You're free to decline — but not free to pretend that I'm being "greedy" for not accepting a lowball offer.

So, here's my final offer:

I will sell you the box for $1,500 plus the actual cost of packaging and shipping, as long as you also donate $1,500 to the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA and send me the receipt. I adopted my kitten, Judee (after Judee Sill), and my parents adopted their dog, Benny, from there. It's a wonderful organization. I already donate to it, and I'd be thrilled if this controversy helped them further.

If for some reason you'd prefer not to send me money at all, I'd also accept this sealed copy of the out-of-print Sandy Denny box that I've wanted for years in lieu of the $1,500 to me. The shipping costs and donation to the CASPCA would be the same.

 

[Selkirks]

The most cost effective solution is to accept this test provided no solid foundation on the subject and move on. Jumping through hoops to validate questionable findings is a fools errand at this point.

 

[MattHooper]

Boy this thread reminds me of presenting my own blind test results to the “objectivist”/EE/Engineer types, years ago on an audio newsgroup.

I’ve mentioned it before, but…

In the 90s, I had a Sony CDP-295 CD player but had then acquired a Meridian 508.20 CDP and then also a Museatex Mietner Bidat DAC.

After listening informally for weeks, I was surprised at what seemed to be distinct sonic differences between them. I wanted to rule out sighted bias so I had my wife help me do blind test swapping between them. I had level matched as best I could with a radio shack meter. And in that set of blind tests it was easy for me to identify each of the players against another.

To check for any flaws on the test I presented the results and the methods to the audio group. Folks like Army Krueger, Stewart Pinkerton, our J.J. and other “objectivists” were on that site so I was seeking their council.

I was given some tips to tighten up the methodology, most salient being the suggestion to get a good voltmeter and measure at the speaker terminals to make sure volume with finally adjusted to be the same for each CDP. Fortunately I was able to borrow a good voltmeter from one of the acousticians at my studio.

ETA: (For this second set of blind tests I was fortunate to have the help of my father-in-law who was an engineer and something of an audiophile in the Julian Hirsch mode, no wishy-washy subjectivist, so he was very helpful in making sure we got things right).

Anyway…. got the volume matched for each device (especially easy matching the Bidat DAC to the others since it had its own volume control).

And the results were that, once again, I could easily identify which DAC/CDP was playing vs another.

And if you wanna talk surprising results, not only were the scores strong when listening from the sofa sweet spot between the speakers (eg between the Meridian and Bidat DAC - Incorrect Guesses: 1
Correct Guesses: 17)

I was also able to get perfect scores for identifying between these units when I listened from another room! (down the hallway from the listening room) (10/10 and 12/12 guesses correct).

I presented the method and the results again to the folks on the forum for analysis.
Some basically said “ good job” but others…. understandably….and of course Arny Krueger…. were skeptical and did some spitballing of where the test could’ve been faulty. The thing is for each of the suggestions, the test methods seem to make those fault suggestions quite implausible.

So what is one to do?

Basically, I just put it out there for anybody to evaluate for themselves and to put whatever value they wanted into it… including understandably no value at all. Hey…just some guy posting on the Internet. Fair enough.

My own conclusions were: of course I could’ve missed something in the methodology, and my tests were not replicated by anybody else so that’s a big huge caveat. But given the test methods were pretty well vetted, and there didn’t seem to be at the time any smoking gun in terms of a fault, I tentatively accepted the results that I was hearing real sonic differences (that also matched my sighted impressions).

Anyway… having looked at a whole bunch of this thread…. I can understand somewhat the feeling on both sides. I can understand Josh not wanting to keep jumping through hoops and having a feeling of “ nothing will truly satisfy the ASR folks… there will always be another question or demand.”

I can see how he would get that impression.

Nonetheless, I agree with some here: once you post tests and results like these in public (like I did mine), you’re basically asking for analysis. Or at least you should expect it.

And the type of analysis being done here, the questions being asked, are all sensible questions. They are being asked with an engineering or scientific mindset.

And scientific rigour is pretty merciless. It’s not for the faint of heart. It can be even a bit shocking for people not used to it. But it’s also necessary if you really want reliable information.

 

[pma]

Well if we're all being upfront now, I thought the whole thing was nothing but an orchestrated and disingenuous shit-stir from the start.

Still, at least something positive has come out of it with @mcdn building an ABX box.


JSmith

Yes, it might have been a positive outcome, but I am afraid that all he would get will be a frustration, because no super ABX box has a super power to make a revelation.

 

[solderdude]

Looks like he does not want to part with it which is understandable given how much time and effort he invested in obtaining one and testing with it.
Josh can ask whatever he wants as it is a rare device and that's how the market and demand works.

Nah.... this is a no win situation regardless of the effort, time and money that will have to be spent on this... just to satisfy a group of people reluctant to find the test results suspect (in the name of 'scientific truth finding').

• Box being audibly different between channels in a possibly detectable way (proven by valid testing of Josh's box only by Amir or trusted measurements)
• Foobar ABX testing by Josh to prove Josh's hearing acuity (which DAC and music to be used and what test files created by who and verified)
• Verification/witnessing of a repeated test (very time consuming for Josh and could only lead to discrediting or validation of previous test).
• Having the same test on the same gear performed by others. (even more time and which tester has the right ears for this and is 'trusted').

All we still have coming is Erin's measurements of his (not Josh's) box because Erin would like to know for himself when time is available.
Or ... Josh is paid what he wants for the box.

And even then we just know how much distortion is added and won''t know what and why Josh passed his own testing.

In the end there is only this test result as reported by Josh which is deemed valid enough for some and being questioned by others.
No progress has been made. No one is seeing any reason to change their views on the subject of 'good DACs' being different enough to be reliably told apart.
Much more witnessed and verified testing with various golden-ears is required to warrant further investigation IF it turns out Josh's test results are valid.

Testing the box in question will only give us some technical information of the box's technical performance and not say anything about the validity of the tests done by Josh.

 

[amirm]

Anyway… having looked at a whole bunch of this thread…. I can understand somewhat the feeling on both sides. I can understand Josh not wanting to keep jumping through hoops and having a feeling of “ nothing will truly satisfy the ASR folks… there will always be another question or demand.”

He hasn't jumped through any hoops. Even the smallest request for a set of files he likely already has, has been denied.

On the other hand, seems like he thought he can extort us for a bunch of cash to get a look at his comparator box. Ethics don't get any lower than this.

 

[pma]

I never use a FFT 'size' that small (1024, the default) in Audacity. IIRC I use 8192 for Redbook audio (=4092 bins, time resolution 186 ms, frequency resolution 5 Hz)

I was never able to get correct spectra from Audacity by increasing FFT size. The result was a loss of amplitude at higher frequency components. If you are able to set Audacity to get the spectrum results as I have shown in post #899 (above yours), I will be glad to learn something. All the analyzed files are available on links that I had posted.

 

[Josh83]

On the other hand, seems like he thought he can extort us for a bunch of cash to get a look at his comparator box. Ethics don't get any lower than this.

As I just posted above, I’m offering it to you at my cost, plus a donation to charity (which you presumably can deduct on your taxes).

 

[JSmith]

Too little too late IMO... I think you've done your dash here.


JSmith

 

[MattHooper]

He hasn't jumped through any hoops. Even the smallest request for a set of files he likely already has, has been denied.

On the other hand, seems like he thought he can extort us for a bunch of cash to get a look at his comparator box. Ethics don't get any lower than this.

I don’t think that’s quite fair.

First of all, my use of the term “ jumping through more hoops” wasn’t meant to be my judgement, but how it may feel for Josh.

To that end, he showed up here (when he didn’t have to ) and gave some detailed answers to quite a number of the questions, eg here.

He went to the manual and supplied the passages that you asked for here. And went into further technical detail, trying to address some concerns.

He took the time to show up here and he supplied some detailed posts at least attempting, by his lights, to answer people’s questions about the test. That is effort on his part, even if not characterized as jumping through hoops .

And he was IMO civil in doing so.

Sure he didn’t go far enough to satisfy ASR members in this thread. I’m sure the engineers here … being engineers or scientists themselves ….just can’t help thinking “but why wouldn’t you keep going to satisfy every possible detail we can come up with, so that it becomes a scientifically valid result?”

But, as frustrating as it may be, not everyone attempting blind tests is an Engineer or scientist or is similarly motivated. (I think he said as much, politely). I doubt he expected it would get to “ can you send me your comparator to measure?” Etc..

I understand there were some frustrations over trying to acquire the comparator.

But I also don’t think it’s a good look for ASR when somebody does a test like this, shows up to try to answer many different questions, and when not all the requests are satisfied it’s implied at the end “ you didn’t do nuffin’ for us.”

 

[firedog]

He hasn't jumped through any hoops. Even the smallest request for a set of files he likely already has, has been denied.

On the other hand, seems like he thought he can extort us for a bunch of cash to get a look at his comparator box. Ethics don't get any lower than this.

No one is extorting anything. The box is worth a lot more to him than it is to you. That's all there is to it.

Ethics also demand not making baseless ad hominem attacks on a user - which doesn't seem to be in the site ethics here, and fully disclosing the contents of your back and forth instead of selectively editing it to make your position look superior.

 

[ppierre]

The [unmesured] box is worth a lot more to him than it is to you.

You forgot a detail.
He has no interest in getting the box mesured or giving a recording of a test with it. It may reveal the "trick".

 

[voodooless]

The box is worth a lot more to him than it is to you.

The box is worth nothing if it cannot perform what it was designed for. Having it validated to work as advertised would actually raise its value.