DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[pma]

Wow, not it works OK. Attached my Creative E-MU Tracker with USB and ASIO driver played the file with JRiver (test period). Now I get the real sawtooth on my external oscilloscope. Pics attached here:

Good to see it. And maybe you should use such configuration when doing listening tests.

 

[SSS]

Good to see it. And maybe you should use such configuration when doing listening tests.

With this setup I tried it with the headphones. In the first part I heard a lower frequency tone mixture which was not so strong in the second part. Although I do not know what the polarity of my headphone membrane is in relation of the file. But anyway for me there is a tiny sound difference. Press or suck can be a difference in the ear and/or the headphone membrane.

 

[pma]

Similar or same here. I may (or you) split the file into two and try ABX.

 

[danadam]

But anyway for me there is a tiny sound difference.

Here's 46 Hz sawtooth flipping polarity every second, low-passed at 3k to sound less annoying. I'd say the difference should be easily audible to anyone really:
(originally from here)

 

[pkane]

Also sad to see that this thread has gotten pretty ugly with some of the latest posts.

Agreed. It's hard to know what someone's thinking, but accusations of greed and hidden motives based on a civil interaction seem harsh and unnecessary. I see the same from the owner of that other site and it's not a pleasant experience. I've interacted with Josh a few times before this, and he seemed to always be civil and interested in exploring the objective approach and measurements. The results of his ABX test are certainly unexpected, but all of this can be discussed without the unnecessary attacks and aggression directed towards him. Seems that we're pushing folks that are curious away simply by assuming malicious intent.

 

[Nutul]

This is degenerating from the original topic already...

 

[AaronJ]

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.

This has been my feeling about it from the start, and it's why I suggested closing the thread until anything substantive develops. Sadly I don't expect we will ever see the files or the box. The behavior reminds me of Eric Alexander's whose measurements we are still waiting on.

 

[welwynnick]

The behavior reminds me of Eric Alexander's whose measurements we are still waiting on.

I really wouldn't compare Josh Mound and Eric Alexander.

 

[NTTY]

Agreed. It's hard to know what someone's thinking, but accusations of greed and hidden motives based on a civil interaction seem harsh and unnecessary. I see the same from the owner of that other site and it's not a pleasant experience. I've interacted with Josh a few times before this, and he seemed to always be civil and interested in exploring the objective approach and measurements. The results of his ABX test are certainly unexpected, but all of this can be discussed without the unnecessary attacks and aggression directed towards him. Seems that we're pushing folks that are curious away simply by assuming malicious intent.

I disagree.

The community has been trying to openly discuss the results, to understand and replicate, but all asks have been rejected for random reasons.

We got few measurements but wrongly performed, and they ended up being meaningless.

Now Josh is asking thousands of dollars only so Amir receives and measures the box, while Josh said he can’t loan it because he still uses it.

And so you can’t prevent or blame people for thinking what they think based on hard facts, the few we actually got.

All of that could have been avoided by simply and properly using the ADCiso to record the output of two DACs via the box. Yet here we are.

 

[Josh83]

Now Josh is asking thousands of dollars only so Amir receives and measures the box, while Josh said he can’t loan it because he still uses it.

My offer is, quite literally, a break-even one. I recover what I paid, a worthy charity gets a donation, and Amir ends up with the box to measure (and then resell). I’m not sure what more I can do to show I’m not trying to profit here. (And to correct the premise: I declined to loan it because I don’t loan my equipment to anyone — not because I’m precious about this particular box or singling out Amir.)

 

[SSS]

My offer is, quite literally, a break-even one. I recover what I paid, a worthy charity gets a donation, and Amir ends up with the box to measure (and then resell). I’m not sure what more I can do to show I’m not trying to profit here. (And to correct the premise: I declined to loan it because I don’t loan my equipment to anyone — not because I’m precious about this particular box or singling out Amir.)

Of course it is up to you what you do and decide. Why don't you take the box, buy a flight ticket and do the test together with Amir at his site?

 

[pma]

Could not we stop it? We have no reliable valid data, so the results are untrustworthy, and nothing during those 49 pages has changed it. Period.

 

[pkane]

The community has been trying to openly discuss the results, to understand and replicate, but all asks have been rejected for random reasons.

And it's Josh's choice. Nobody is required to give you or me what we want just because we demand it.

 

[Selkirks]

My offer is, quite literally, a break-even one. I recover what I paid, a worthy charity gets a donation, and Amir ends up with the box to measure (and then resell). I’m not sure what more I can do to show I’m not trying to profit here. (And to correct the premise: I declined to loan it because I don’t loan my equipment to anyone — not because I’m precious about this particular box or singling out Amir.)

Why are you adding a request to send money to a charity? they are attempting to validate your findings. It feels (to me) like a bad faith offer to undermine ASR members if they refuse. Is there a history of making donations to peer review requests?

Every subjectivist is going to quote your article as proof that DACs can be picked out in ABX testing.

 

[firedog]

Or reduce it to zero if the validation fails

Not really. There's a small market for the box. It has already existed without validation. A fail at ASR probably won't invalidate the box for some potential customers - they probably don't all come here and might want the box for reasons that many of the posters here apparently would find difficult to understand.

 

[Mort]

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

Dude, just give us the data files and stop. You are only trolling now.

 

[Mort]

Not really. There's a small market for the box. It has already existed without validation. A fail at ASR probably won't invalidate the box for some potential customers - they probably don't all come here and might want the box for reasons that many of the posters here apparently would find difficult to understand.

Right like you would buy it having failed it's most important test.

 

[Josh83]

Of course it is up to you what you do and decide. Why don't you take the box, buy a flight ticket and do the test together with Amir at his site?

Why are you adding a request to send money to a charity? they are attempting to validate your findings. It feels (to me) like a bad faith offer to undermine ASR members if they refuse. Is there a history of making donations to peer review requests? Every subjectivist is going to quote your article as proof that DACs can be picked out in ABX testing.

I find this puzzling. I’d never presume to demand that another reviewer send me their gear, let alone travel to me. As I’ve said, I value my time well above money, so flying out to test at someone else’s site isn’t something I’m going to do.

On the donation: I wouldn’t sell the box for what I paid for it, full stop. The donation is what makes selling at cost worth it to me — without it, I’d rather just keep the box, as I’ve said from the beginning.

 

[Deleted member 93733]

Why are you adding a request to send money to a charity? they are attempting to validate your findings. It feels (to me) like a bad faith offer to undermine ASR members if they refuse. Is there a history of making donations to peer review requests?

Every subjectivist is going to quote your article as proof that DACs can be picked out in ABX testing.

I think it is referred to as ‘moral grandstanding’ a form of virtue signalling. Or he might genuinely care about giving to charity. We will likely never know the real answer, just like the testing research.

 

[Josh83]

I think it is referred to as ‘moral grandstanding’ a form of virtue signalling. Or he might genuinely care about giving to charity. We will likely never know the real answer, just like the testing research.

I do genuinely care about the organization. I’m a monthly donor to the SPCA, as well as another animal rescue — and was long before any of this. So this isn’t for show. I’d be thrilled if this silly ABX controversy helped them.