DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[mcdn]

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.

Assuming by "he", you mean me, I'm certainly not expecting revelations! I myself am pretty good at ABX tests with tones - bass distortion for example - but that's because the cues are relatively easy to isolate if you're strategic and careful in finding them. The same goes for certain parts of certain music tracks, which have similar properties in that the cue is identifiable once you find it. But music tracks in general? Can barely tell a 320kBps rip from the original CD.

But let's enter an alternate universe where @Josh83 had used the ABX box I'm building. Level matching would have been beyond question at every volume level. Distortion contribution of the device would have been indisputably not a factor. There would be undeniably consistent fading in and out, with no cues from switching relays (there are relays but they are tiny, quiet or inaudible, randomised and only used when music is muted). And all of the above, including the ABX selection sequence and times would be recorded in an audit trail. Heck it could even automatically record track portions as the test goes on (no promises, not enough storage on board right now)

So if Josh had all that in hand and got a result, we'd be having a very different conversation. Some may argue he wouldn't have got a result at all, but that doesn't remove the value of the device.

 

[Josh83]

There is no DM coming from me as I told you in private when you asked for nearly $4000. The benefit of doing all of this without any financial goal or business obligation is that I don't have to crawl on the ground to make a transaction that makes my skin crawl.

But hey, if we are leaving each other with an offer, should you ever put money aside and show genuine interest in understanding the device that enabled you to do this test, I am here to measure and analyze it for free. There will be no money changing hands, only honorable intentions.

I suggest not waiting long though as the members here are running at speed of light to build a better version of it at much lower cost than what you are offering. Pretty soon you will have to donate to a charity to sell the box...

Folks can read our DMs and decide for themselves whether that’s a fair characterization. I was clear from the beginning that I would not loan the box. You continued to insist that I send you the box. I reiterated that I wouldn’t loan it out and said I’d be unlikely to sell it, either, unless it was an offer I couldn’t refuse — meaning, at a minimum, more than I paid. You then expressed interest in buying it, but offered me less than half what I paid. One ASR poster seemed to offer $3,000, then recanted. When you objected to my selling the box at any profit, I presented multiple options where I would not profit and a worthy charity would benefit, all of which you’ve declined. From the beginning, you’ve allowed insulting posts to stand — and even “liked” and joined in. I tried to turn this silly debate into something positive and charitable. You’re free to decline. With that, I’m done here. Should you or anyone else want to accept my offer, I’ll honor it.

 

[Archimago]

I appreciate how you have gone out of your way to leave all of the evidence for the rest of us to verify for ourselves. Over the years, and not just these few examples. Including great instructional posts on how to perform and interpret measurements. Thank you.

A pleasure...

And for more fun, and maybe to calibrate the ears, make sure to have a listen to the AliExpress CheapDAC'22 recording - US$3.57 DAC from 2022, maybe US$5 today depending on tariffs .

Should not have difficult time ABX'ing that one vs. something decent.

Curious about early CD players? See here for the Technics SL-P110 (1986) and Sony CDP-690 (1990).

 

[amirm]

I reiterated that I wouldn’t loan it out and said I’d be unlikely to sell it, either, unless it was an offer I couldn’t refuse — meaning, at a minimum, more than I paid.

I don't know why keep repeating that it is all about the money for you. We heard you. You wanted to make a killing selling the box. It is a profit opportunity for you. We know it.

I tried to turn this silly debate into something positive and charitable.

You have contributed nothing to this thread let alone steering it. Members here have taken a strong and genuine interest in understanding your testing and have expended a ton of effort in that regard. Yes a few are dismissive but that is natural and to be expected. They would do the same to me if I had come forward with such conclusions.

I for one have been defending the impact of your tests repeatedly and resisted calls for ignoring it. For your part, you keep posting our private email exchanges at AS, participated in empty discussions about us, etc. That is what silly debating is about rather than constructive engagement with our members to advance the knowledge about your test.

Net, net, nothing has happened with your posting here, and so leaving would be just as well.

 

[amirm]

Folks can read our DMs and decide for themselves whether that’s a fair characterization.

BTW, this is the second time I am warning you to not link to another for-profit site for which, you maybe compensated. The third such attempt will get you banned from ASR. You have something say, post it here. Don't say we should go and read it there.

 

[antcollinet]

Folks can read our DMs and decide for themselves whether that’s a fair characterization. I was clear from the beginning that I would not loan the box. You continued to insist that I send you the box. I reiterated that I wouldn’t loan it out and said I’d be unlikely to sell it, either, unless it was an offer I couldn’t refuse — meaning, at a minimum, more than I paid. You then expressed interest in buying it, but offered me less than half what I paid. One ASR poster seemed to offer $3,000, then recanted. When you objected to my selling the box at any profit, I presented multiple options where I would not profit and a worthy charity would benefit, all of which you’ve declined. From the beginning, you’ve allowed insulting posts to stand — and even “liked” and joined in. I tried to turn this silly debate into something positive and charitable. You’re free to decline. With that, I’m done here. Should you or anyone else want to accept my offer, I’ll honor it.

I've not seen any of the debate above - but assuming you don't have Amir's agreement, then publishing DM's is despicable. They should be kept private without agreement from both parties.

Plus you seem to be whining becasue people won't pay what you want them to for your box. It works both ways. Just as no-one can tell you what you should be prepared to sell it for - so you can't tell anyone else what they should be prepared to pay for it. The value of a device is not necessarily what you paid for it.

 

[pablolie]

... I was clear from the beginning that I would not loan the box...

And that's all you need to say and stop right there. You refused a peer review. Your results are irrelevant. No one is curious anymore. Go away with you fake "test".
Some gullible souls kept defending you may be into a "scientific breakthrough". If that was even remotely the case, any halfway credible scientist would invite peer review.
You're LK-99. But unlike those scientists didn't even have the b*lls (or confidence in your "test") to subject your "test" to peer review. What a joke and waste of energy.
Ignore list. Keep catering to feeding the subjectivist demented claims, as clearly it is your goal to establish a reputation in that camp. Have a nice fake audio career catering to gullible fools.

PS: I donated $250 to my local shelter in your honor. So at least something positive came out of this. Read the Notes...

 

[Josh83]

I don't know why keep repeating that it is all about the money for you. We heard you. You wanted to make a killing selling the box. It is a profit opportunity for you. We know it.

This is my last post at ASR — not just in this thread, but for good.

I'll only add that characterizing an offer where I literally won't make a penny as "for profit" is plainly false, as anyone reading the thread can see.

 

[pjug]

Update:

The measurement of my ABX isn’t happening this week. I’m terribly far behind. I leave tomorrow for Audio Advice Live. And I’ve been busting my a$$ with my review of this Orsefon (Mcintosh clone) amp and I’m so far behind that I feel bad for the owner who loaned it to me and is waiting for it to go back to him. I actually shot the video last night only to then corrupt the SD card because I cut power to the camera before ejecting the card (insert obligatory “pull out” joke here). So I have to remake the damn video. Ugh.

FWIW, in terms of time, gathering and posting data to my website is kindergarten level compared to making a video discussing the product, measurements, listening, etc. It’s literally a second full time job. I enjoy it most of the time but I hate holding onto loaned gear for too long and it gets stressful at times.

But I promise the measurements of my ABX is coming eventually. I’ve just got other obligations to wrap up first.

I’m as interested in the results as anyone here. Just bear with me. Thanks for your patience.

- Erin

And no, I’m not at home where I could be working on my ABX box measurements. I’m on a lunch break at work typing this from my phone.

When you do this, can you please record the back and forth relay sounds? Surely these are different just because of location in the box. It will be interesting to know if they are so different that it is easy to tell them apart. If we can get 16/16 on ABX of the relay recordings, is there really any need to bother looking at anything else?

 

[pablolie]

There is no DM coming from me as I told you in private when you asked for nearly $4000. The benefit of doing all of this without any financial goal or business obligation is that I don't have to crawl on the ground to make a transaction that makes my skin crawl.

But hey, if we are leaving each other with an offer, should you ever put money aside and show genuine interest in understanding the device that enabled you to do this test, I am here to measure and analyze it for free. There will be no money changing hands, only honorable intentions.

I suggest not waiting long though as the members here are running at speed of light to build a better version of it at much lower cost than what you are offering. Pretty soon you will have to donate to a charity to sell the box...

Don't we already know know what the result will be? Does anyone in any way expect a near 100% success rate in telling competently designed and deployed DACs apart? Come on, we had Archimago here. This has been thoroughly proven both academically as well as by Archimago's comprehensive and thoroughly methodical tests.
We've spent 52 pages responding to what at this stage is clearly clown science. honk-honk...awooga!

 

[emmodad]

@Josh83 , for years I have enjoyed and respected your TVBOs, and admire the obvious time/effort invested in each work.
Clearly labours of love and passion.
Reflect admirable content-gathering research, editing, and compositional skills.
Also, knowledge wrt how to utilize various audio-related SW packages, and present results in a clear and layman-understandable manner.

---

Putting aside for the moment non-technical, non-scientific elements of current 50+ page poolpah/skitstorm: it would certainly be helpful for me (and I would think many in the ASR community) to understand your underlying toolset wrt relevant foundational technical concepts, and your on-point background supporting rigorous application of scientific methodology.

Would you be willing to respond with a précis regarding your formal training in areas such as:

• electrical engineering, including i.e. digital signal processing, data conversion architectures, circuits and systems engineering;
• low-noise audio circuit design (including analog and digital systems, RF, and electrical noise abatement);
• electronics, and electronic design in general;
• acoustics and psychoacoustics;
• psychology, experimental psychology, behavioral psychology;
• experimental design; statistics; data analysis;
• controlled listening protocols and standards for subjective audio assessment;
• whatever other education/training in long-term use which you feel relevant to the ABX/test topic at hand?

adthanxvance, I anticipate there's a lot about you we don't know,
chuck

edit: punctuation; add "in a clear and layman-understandable manner"; originally forgot the bullets

 

[early rejecter]

I've not seen any of the debate above - but assuming you don't have Amir's agreement, then publishing DM's is despicable. They should be kept private without agreement from both parties.

Generally agree with this — but worth noting that Josh’s end of the private conversation was already revealed (in paraphrase, not quote) several pages back, so I can understand why he’d want the other half out there too.

 

[MattHooper]

This is really sad. I hate when an ASR thread starts to look like the very kind of thing that scares people off of this site.

Yes, I know it’s often under the banner “we are just making realistic critiques and making reasonable demands” …. And yes, it was that way for quite a while. But it really unfortunately has turned into character attacks that are very unhelpful. Dismissing Josh’s efforts here to answer quite a number of questions (which he tried to do), but when it wasn’t enough, and he also wasn’t into selling or sending the comparator, the devolving of the replies started to become ugly. I can understand why some are peeved at Josh not making it easy to acquire the box.
I can also understand being in his position and not wanting to sell it or send it. (I have gear that I’d be interested in being measured, but I’m definitely not interested in the prospects of having to ship it to ASR. Which makes me very grateful for those who are so inclined. But I don’t see it as a strike against anybody who isn’t into it).

But calling the test “fake”…. dismissing Josh’s replies as having done nothing at all, dragging it down to characterizing somebody as unethical…suggesting he’s a troll…yeesh.

It’s a sad phenomenon of online discussion that when there’s a disagreement there is a common reaction to ascribe cynical/bad-faith motivations to the other side. (I sure as heck have experienced that, here and elsewhere… but certainly I’m sure anyone online long enough has as well).

It was not just Josh’s fault that this thread looks as ugly as it does it points.

 

[amirm]

I'll only add that characterizing an offer where I literally won't make a penny as "for profit" is plainly false, as anyone reading the thread can see.

Is that right. Did you not write this to me?

Hi Amir,

I’d probably accept either:

A) $600, an [Matric Audio $3K DAC] ND-1, plus actual cost of whatever shipping/packing you want

B) $3,000 plus actual cost of whatever shipping/packing you want.

There’s no factory box, so I’d prefer to let UPS or FedEx pack it safely.

Josh

What motivated you more than doubling what you paid for the box if not attempt at making profit?

That you were embarrassed by above disclosure and now backtracking to some extent in public doesn't change who you are and clear impression you left with me.

 

[amirm]

It was not just Josh’s fault that this thread looks as ugly as it does it points.

Nonsense. It is absolutely his doing that we are where we are. Handing over a few files would have eliminated much of what we are into now. Loaning the box for measurement would have absolutely neutered anyone trying to accuse him of not being helpful.

Anything else, like what you are writing, is rewarding bad behavior as it is against the very foundation of what we are about: search for the truth in audio in provable, objective manner.

In other words, posts like yours is what is contributing to the ugliness you are complaining about. We need to be clear about what we asked for, and what was (or was not) offered. This is not a turn the other cheek kind of place....

 

[oldsysop]

MattHooper: You never miss an opportunity to defend subjectivism.

 

[ahofer]

Wow, things really went pear-shaped since my last visit to this thread!

Oh well. It would have been interesting to see what was going on here, with a little more cooperation.

 

[MattHooper]

Is that right. Did you not write this to me?

Hi Amir,

I’d probably accept either:

A) $600, an [Matric Audio $3K DAC] ND-1, plus actual cost of whatever shipping/packing you want

B) $3,000 plus actual cost of whatever shipping/packing you want.

There’s no factory box, so I’d prefer to let UPS or FedEx pack it safely.

Josh

What motivated you more than doubling what you paid for the box if not attempt at making profit?

That you were embarrassed by above disclosure and now backtracking to some extent in public doesn't change who you are and clear impression you left with me.

Josh didn’t want to sell the box. Apparently he found it to be valuable enough that it would take a substantial offer by somebody in order to get him to consider parting with it.

I can understand this. I have a pair of speakers that are quite rare that I got for a good price, but frankly, I would never let them go for the price I paid for them. They were not easy to acquire and that figures into the idea of anybody offering to purchase them.
I’d have to have a really enticing offer to let them go. And it’s not about “ making a killing”… it’s about the value I have for the speakers and my general desire to keep them. Not to mention the hassle of selling and shipping them.

I can understand if Josh has a similar motivation with the ABX box.

So at one point, he was willing to accept something that was unreasonable to you. Fair enough. I think one of his offers regarding $3000 was too much as well. But hey…. it’s his gear and he can place whatever value he wants on it. Apparently the box is worth more to him than you think it should be worth to him (or to you).

But when he was also accused of just being into it for personal profit, to indicate that was not his motivation he made an offer where, apparently he would not personally profit.


You replied again, accusing him of just being in this for profit. And he was pointing out that’s an unfair characterization given he had made an offer in which he would not personally profit. Which is a fair point for him to make IMO.

The fact that you guys disagree on the value Josh should hold for his AB Xbox does not automatically mean that Josh’s motivations are unethical or simply about being a profiteer.

Perhaps I have missed or forgotten some part of the conversation, but this seems to me to be the case thus far.

 

[Chrispy]

So VanAlstine doesn't produce any more I take it? Been a while....

 

[MattHooper]

MattHooper: You never miss an opportunity to defend subjectivism.

That’s not the subject of these posts.