DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[respice finem]

Or reduce it to zero if the validation fails

 

[pma]

On the other hand, I think it should be taken into account that Josh has not started this thread at ASR. He has started his own thread at AS. Thus, he can hardly be pushed to send the box to Amir. His results may be discussed and doubted, but he is not obliged to send the box for testing. And our conclusion was we had not enough real data to check his results and with such conclusion the turmoil might have stopped.

 

[Josh83]

Josh can ask whatever he wants as it is a rare device and that's how the market and demand works.

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.

Thank you. It’s literally about what I value the box at now. That’s all. I’m not trying to be difficult.

That’s what I’m trying to make plain with the offer above. I’d obviously rather keep the box than sell it for what I paid, but in this case I’ll sell it for that — as long as an equal donation goes to charity. I’ll provide itemized receipts, if needed.

 

[AndyBell]

Having it validated to work as advertised would actually raise its value

And, of course, reduce it, and the test result, to worthless should a fault be found.

All this should have been done before publishing the results, of course.

 

[solderdude]

All this should have been done before publishing the results, of course.

This ^^^ is the key point.

There is not enough data to see this test as anything as scientific proof by lack of enough data on several aspects.
Also this test is made by one person only which in itself is already insufficient to serve as any kind of proof.

Basically it is just a written report of Josh's personal experience and description of his tests + findings with lacking information on websites that do not seem to care much about this.
A report of a hobbyist with time and money to play around with some audio equipment using a not well verified (in performance) ABX box.

 

[amirm]

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.”

One more time... He hasn't done a thing I asked for. What I asked for was very little: loan the box for me to measure. I also offered $10,000 insurance if it got lost or damaged.

He refused.

That's the bad look. Please don't dare putting this at my feet. The man has no ethics to demand nearly $4,000 for a box he paid $1,200 for, especially when we look at the need for the community to be served by this kind of analysis.

Good grief....

 

[Josh83]

That's the bad look. Please don't dare putting this at my feet. The man has no ethics to demand nearly $4,000 for a box he paid $1,200 for, especially when we look at the need for the community to be served by this kind of analysis.

As I said above, I will accept my actual documented costs for the box, plus an equal donation to my local SPCA.

 

[amirm]

On the other hand, I think it should be taken into account that Josh has not started this thread at ASR.

So? You make it sound like he is not a member here. And participating in this thread.

I defend my work here elsewhere if I am a member of both community. I don't go and say, "well, I post my measurements at ASR so I don't have to answer them here."

You either care about telling the truth or you don't. It is not about semantics.

 

[Josh83]

As I said above, I will accept my actual documented costs for the box, plus an equal donation to my local SPCA.

In case it needs reiterating, as I said in my post above:

Should the very idea of me receiving any money — even what I paid for the box — be the issue, I’d happily take the Sandy Denny CD box set, essentially trading an object I value (the ABX box) for one I’ll value at least as much (the Denny box) plus the SPCA donation.

 

[pma]

So? You make it sound like he is not a member here. And participating in this thread.

No, I do not make it sound like he is not a member here. I am saying you hardly have a legal right to ask him to send the box for test to you, based on subjective results he published elsewhere. You only may consider if you trust his results based on known data. I am saying that to me the published data are unsatisfactory and as such his test result is untrustworthy.

 

[amirm]

No, I do not make it sound like he is not a member here. I am saying you hardly have a legal right to ask him to send the box for test to you, based on subjective results he published elsewhere.

The heck you talking about? Legal rights?

You think you all have legal rights to ask me to measure his box and that is why I would be doing it? And not as any type of search for truth and understanding about this test?

I am putting my funding and time toward this work. He on the other hand, wants to take advantage of the situation by extracting tons more money because he thinks he has cornered us.

It is all about ethics and doing what is right. I owe to you all my time and financial resources to up level our understanding of audio. Josh on the other hand, seems to be after making a buck. Don't go defending this kind of conduct. He should have provided you with the files at the start and arranged to loan me his box to measure. Period.

 

[Talisman]

In case it needs reiterating, as I said in my post above:

Should the very idea of me receiving any money — even what I paid for the box — be the issue, I’d happily take the Sandy Denny CD box set, essentially trading an object I value (the ABX box) for one I’ll value at least as much (the Denny box) plus the SPCA donation.

Considering that you'd prefer to keep it, Amir offered you a substantial guarantee for the loan. Would you accept the loan plus, say, $200? You'll make money either way, and you'll keep the box.

 

[Josh83]

Josh on the other hand, seems to be after making a buck.

I am offering it to you where I will (quite literally) not make even a single buck, and it will benefit a worthy charity.

 

[Geert]

 

[Thomas_A]

I am offering it to you where I will (quite literally) not make even a single buck, and it will benefit a worthy charity.

One question. You mentioned that there is published data of the Matrix X-Sabre Pro MQA DAC has a non-inverted output. Can you direct me to that published data, showing the waveform of the in and output using the RCA output?

 

[SSS]

I have been very busy working today, so no more from me. These signals also seems to make my ears ring a bit...I do not want that...

If someone wants to hear an easy one it is this short part of a filtered sawtooth wave, first with correct polarity and then shifted to inverted polarity. Just say if you can or cannot hear the shift in timbre.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

With headphones I can hear a very small change in the lower tones. But when looked to the waveforms in Audacity then the second part had not really the inverted sawtooth. Therefore it is not a valid test file for polarity inversion.

 

[Josh83]

One question. You mentioned that there is published data of the Matrix X-Sabre Pro MQA DAC has a non-inverted output. Can you direct me to that published data, showing the waveform of the in and output using the RCA output?

There was a post earlier in this thread with a screenshot of the Matrix XSP review. The MQA version just adds MQA support and a newer USB chip (XU216). But I also posted the impulse response from my XSP MQA’s RCA output.

 

[solderdude]

That settles the suspected possible polarity issue.

Still leaves some others though

 

[JSmith]

View attachment 549568

About right.

Now seeing this pic has just made me want hunt down one of those ol' Panasonic TR-542U/A TV's.


JSmith

 

[Mart68]

Not prepared to ship box for testing despite being offered $10K surety if it got lost in transit because won't ever find another one.

Fair enough.

But now happy to sell it for $3800?

Won't provide the requested files as 'Too busy with other things now' but time to post endlessly defending the test.

Doesn't add up.