DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[Chrispy]

That’s not the subject of these posts.

But kinda true

 

[MattHooper]

But kinda true

Heh…”it’s a fair cop”



(but I believe I only defend the defensible parts)

 

[pablolie]

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.

I think you read things very differently. The only sad thing is that there are still members welcoming claims that have have been debunked as having zero credible foundation and the person claiming those has refused any credible peer review.
Trust me when I tell you I can hear mouse fart two blocks away from me, and I can tell mouse A and mouse B apart on top. I really do. You believe me, too?

 

[amirm]

Josh didn’t want to sell the box.

He wasn't asked to sell. He was asked to loan. He was the one that converted that to a sell and massive mark up over what he paid for. I suggest you move along as you are really dragging this conversation into the mud.

 

[amirm]

So VanAlstine doesn't produce any more I take it?

Correct. I actually wanted to buy one years ago and reached out to them. Alas, they didn't respond so I moved on.

 

[pablolie]

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.

you finally made it to my very short ignore list. What a feeble minded post considering the length of the discussion, the clear facts and the documented unwillingness to subject these highly and impossibly one sided results to peer review. you are embarrassing yourself IMO. sorry.
I often sided with you on irrational preferences being valid for each and every one of us in any hobby, but this was clownish as you exposed your inability to separate your own yearning for subjective preferences over valid peer review way too desperately, baited by Josh's utterly unproven and comically one sided claims.

 

[amirm]

Apparently the box is worth more to him than you think it should be worth to him (or to you).

No, the only thing apparent is him squeezing us for all he can. After he had offered to accept gear in trade or me organizing accommodation pricing for him, and me agreeing to it, he sent me this:

Hi Amir,

I’m just catching up on the thread. Was Pablolie actually offering to buy the comparator for $3k?

Josh

Boom, price went way up. Now I was supposed to get him a $3K DAC and $600 pocket money. His only friend is money, not you, not me, not any search for audio truth. It is this of kind behavior that gets people on my "S list."

 

[MattHooper]

you finally made it to my very short ignore list. What a feeble minded post considering the length of the discussion, the clear facts and the documented unwillingness to subject these highly and impossibly one sided results to peer review. you are embarrassing yourself IMO.

Given the tenor of your posts in this thread, including this one, sounds good to me. I’ve enjoyed some of our other conversations, but ….S’long.

(ETA: your suggestion that my posts in this thread have to do with yearning for subjectivism and rejecting peer review is clearly false. In this very thread I made THIS POST detailing submitting my own blind test results to more knowledgable people for critique, and modifying my subsequent tests based on those suggestions.

Further, not a single bit of my posts were in support of the proposition that Josh’s test results were veridical or should’ve been accepted as such. In fact I pointed out that most of the suggestions and critiques of Josh’s test/results in this thread were reasonable from the perspective of trying to uncover any flaws and increase the reliability and information content of such tests. As I pointed out if you’re looking for high levels of certainty, with a scientific mindset, the rigour of the demands can feel unreasonable or unsettling for some people, but that’s the nature of a scientific or rigourous engineering approach.
So…no…. Your psychoanalysis of my posts is quite off the mark).

 

[pablolie]

No, the only thing apparent is him squeezing us for all he can. After he had offered to accept gear in trade or me organizing accommodation pricing for him, and me agreeing to it, he sent me this:

Hi Amir,

I’m just catching up on the thread. Was Pablolie actually offering to buy the comparator for $3k?

Josh

Boom, price went way up. Now I was supposed to get him a $3K DAC and $600 pocket money. His only friend is money, not you, not me, not any search for audio truth. It is this of kind behavior that gets people on my "S list."

I did offer that many pages ago. And I was very serious. It was ignored.
Not interested anymore. 250 went to my local rescue place already. I pledged 3k and I shall spend the rest more wisely in animal rescue. I pledge that and I shall mention it is our common ASR donation, since several threads show how much we care about our furry family members that accompany us while listening to music.
At least that is a good cause Josh inspired. I will redirect the funds to a much better cause.

 

[Hayabusa]

BTW, this is the second time I am warning you to not link to another for-profit site for which, you maybe compensated.

I could just read it without being registered, so why a warning?

 

[Talisman]

.

I've often agreed with some of your more neutral views here on the site, but I think you're making a big mistake.
Josh would have only needed to provide a few requested recordings to clear up any doubts, but he consistently stated he didn't have time or even avoided responding to these requests altogether, only to then sit here and haggle over the price over and over again....
If he hadn't wanted to sell, he would have simply said "I'm not selling."
But it seems clear he's trying to milk the hype cow.

 

[pablolie]

I could just read it without being registered, so why a warning?

how can you post with a user name without being registered?

 

[JSmith]

Maybe it's time ASR members stop biting each other... no need for all that sort of internal bickering.

Probably best this thread settle down for a while, as there's nothing new to discuss or debate here.


JSmith

 

[MattHooper]

I suggest you move along as you are really dragging this conversation into the mud.

Hmm…

You have characterized Josh as an extortionist, a profiteer, ascribed to him the very lowest of ethics….
And as far as I can tell looked the other way at quite a number of mean-spirited comments directed at Josh. (And I wouldn’t be surprised if Pablolie’s insulting reply to me might also get a pass).

But my pointing out that some of the commentary has become unnecessarily mean-spirited and unhelpful…well…that is dragging things into the mud.

Sorry to get in your way.

Moving on…

 

[pablolie]

Maybe it's time ASR members stop biting each other... no need for all that sort of internal bickering.

Probably best this thread settle down for a while, as there's nothing new to discuss or debate here.


JSmith

And that was the intent to begin with. But is showed ASR is not a cult and we have the ability to openly disagree with each other within limits of due process and rationality... old 80/20 rule...

 

[Hayabusa]

how can you post with a user name without being registered?

I am just reading...

 

[rjp]

I find it very interesting

It's even more interesting if you follow the parallel thread on AS discussing this one.

 

[pma]

Since Josh is not supplying recordings, is there someone here who would record a few dacs (use sharp linear filters) with a good ADC at 96KHz so we can just how small the differences are? Or point me towards existing files like these. I can't find anything like that; the ones I can find online are 44.1K. I would do it myself but I am hoping for comparison of better DACs than I have.

Thanks. If you have time I would still be interested in doing it for two or three DACs. I am more interested in looking at the differences in DeltaWave than doing ABX, although maybe I would try ABX after that.

I should have it prepared today, as a first round. It would be without disclosure of the devices used.

 

[amirm]

I could just read it without being registered, so why a warning?

The link caused you and others to go to a site supported by advertising, sponsorship, etc. Which is fine if you are an ordinary member and post such a link. But Josh seems to be part of the staff there, writing articles or whatever. As an industry person with official Reviewer tag, he was told to not do so per our terms as we are not here as a tool for self promotion or making money. He could have just as well post that stuff here. But chose to promote the other site by posting it there, and linking to it from here.

Note that every forum out there has similar rules. We are actually quite lenient in our enforcement, hence the reason for my two warnings instead of immediate ban. And I have left the links be. Here is for example the AS terms of service where Josh is sending you to: [bolding mine]

"(b)

Except as specifically authorized, you will not: (i) upload or otherwise post User Content with a commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, offers to sell products or services or attempts to solicit funds or to advertise products or services; (ii) post or upload User Content that constitutes or contains "affiliate marketing," "link referral code," "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," unsolicited commercial advertisement, behavioral or viral marketing, or other spam; (iii) or e-mail such User Content to other users who have not indicated in writing that it is ok to contact them about other commercial services, advertisements, products or commercial interests; or (iv) post or upload User Content that includes links to commercial services or web sites."

In other words, if you as much as breath the other way regarding anything with commercial interest, you are violating their rules and they can terminate your membership.

 

[pma]

I should have it prepared today, as a first round. It would be without disclosure of the devices used.

DAC test files

I was asked by @pjug and some other members to prepare 96/24 test files recorded from DAC outputs. So here is the 1st round, the files can be downloaded from

Dactest.zip

drive.google.com

There are two 96kHz/24bit wav files in the Dactest.zip file. The zip file is to be downloaded and unzipped. I did my best to match the files in level and time alignment. I have to admit that it is not that easy and I understand why someone who might be not experienced in this job does not want to provide the files, as there might be HW setup errors.

Anyway, feel free to listen to or analyze the files, but most of all I will appreciate a foobar abx protocol report, to show if there was or was not an audible difference. PK metric says

Spectra start to differ near 40kHz and also at lowest frequencies, most probably as a result of coupling capacitors.