- Joined
- Apr 24, 2022
- Messages
- 2,305
- Likes
- 3,163
A thread worthy of inclusion in a sub-forum titled
The tHrEADS That Wouldn't Die.....
The tHrEADS That Wouldn't Die.....
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?
- Thread starter Leporello
- Start date
Hi Josh,
I am ok with the offer $3k: $1.5k to you, 1.5k$ to charity of your choice, plus shipping costs of the unit to @amirm, provided Amir is ok to receive and measure it.
But since I am in Switzerland, it is less easy. I won’t be able to deduct the donation, which would allow me to reduce my taxes by roughly 30-40% of the donation, ie $500 minimum. I’m not sure this is the same range in the US.
So, to make things simpler, can we agree that I send $2.5k+shipping to you and you donate as you want?
Else, I can donate $1.5k to the equivalent organization in Switzerland that I’m member of:
WSCHWEIZER TIERSCHUTZ STS. But they will take up to 2 months to confirm receipt, so that’s cumbersome, and even if I could produce proof of payment, I also could retract and it is not what you want.
I’ll DM Amir too, to check if he’s ok to support the receipt of the device and measurements.
Regards
Flo
From my keyboard to god's ear!
FYI, Josh posted this:
Obviously, Amir's allowed to place any conditions he wants on a purchase, but an ASR member offered $3,000 for the ABX box. I told Amir in a DM that I'd accept that, the member recanted, and then Amir posted publicly that I was trying to "profit" off of the ABX box.
Even at the time, it seemed odd that Amir was framing profit as inherently bad, given that he was a Microsoft executive. Out of curiosity, I looked to see what he's said about it in the past. He's claimed "I have not accepted one penny from anyone for any purpose to write or do what I do here" and sometimes refers to ASR as "non-profit." But he asks for donations, and when a member asked whether donations to ASR are tax-deductible, Amir had to clarify that ASR is an LLC, not a non-profit. In a thread about MQA, Amir said "let's dispense with putting down profitability as a reason something is bad" and called profit-seeking "a sign of being smart."
Beyond soliciting donations, he's used the Amazon affiliate program to generate revenue for ASR, charged fees for his measurements, and become a retailer for speakers he measures. When ASR members have questioned whether that's a conflict of interest, he's offered a version Homer Simpson's famous ivory dealer argument -- saying essentially that he's already so well-off that financial motivations "might be true for many, but doesn't apply to me" because "I am not situated like most of you. What seems to be impossible for you, is very much what I practice every day of the week and twice on Sunday."
That said, I think he's free to do what he wants. ASR's a different business model than an ad-supported site -- a Substack versus a newspaper. Each has its pros and cons, but neither is inherently more ethical.
Whether it's a double-standard or not, I was more than happy to address his objection to the idea that I'd make a profit from selling him the ABX box. Yet when I offered to sell it to him at cost and let him give the rest to charity, he continued to insist that I was just seeking a "profit." That's both untrue and hypocritical.
By his own account, he could easily afford to buy the box for what I was asking. He'd have gotten his measurements, a worthy charity would've benefited, and I wouldn't have profited. Instead, he turned down my offer. That's his right.
What's not right is that he's still dishonestly saying that I was just after "profit," that "it's all about the money for you," and that my "only friend is money." He's also implying that my offer was disingenuous. However, if he really believed that, he could have called my supposed bluff and accepted my offer. I'm sure he knows that I would've followed through, though, which is why he didn't accept it.
Ultimately, he wanted me to either loan him the box or sell it to him at a loss so that he could get an article out of it, and he decided to resort to bullying and insults when I didn't do what he demanded.
Obviously, Amir's allowed to place any conditions he wants on a purchase, but an ASR member offered $3,000 for the ABX box. I told Amir in a DM that I'd accept that, the member recanted, and then Amir posted publicly that I was trying to "profit" off of the ABX box.
Even at the time, it seemed odd that Amir was framing profit as inherently bad, given that he was a Microsoft executive. Out of curiosity, I looked to see what he's said about it in the past. He's claimed "I have not accepted one penny from anyone for any purpose to write or do what I do here" and sometimes refers to ASR as "non-profit." But he asks for donations, and when a member asked whether donations to ASR are tax-deductible, Amir had to clarify that ASR is an LLC, not a non-profit. In a thread about MQA, Amir said "let's dispense with putting down profitability as a reason something is bad" and called profit-seeking "a sign of being smart."
Beyond soliciting donations, he's used the Amazon affiliate program to generate revenue for ASR, charged fees for his measurements, and become a retailer for speakers he measures. When ASR members have questioned whether that's a conflict of interest, he's offered a version Homer Simpson's famous ivory dealer argument -- saying essentially that he's already so well-off that financial motivations "might be true for many, but doesn't apply to me" because "I am not situated like most of you. What seems to be impossible for you, is very much what I practice every day of the week and twice on Sunday."
That said, I think he's free to do what he wants. ASR's a different business model than an ad-supported site -- a Substack versus a newspaper. Each has its pros and cons, but neither is inherently more ethical.
Whether it's a double-standard or not, I was more than happy to address his objection to the idea that I'd make a profit from selling him the ABX box. Yet when I offered to sell it to him at cost and let him give the rest to charity, he continued to insist that I was just seeking a "profit." That's both untrue and hypocritical.
By his own account, he could easily afford to buy the box for what I was asking. He'd have gotten his measurements, a worthy charity would've benefited, and I wouldn't have profited. Instead, he turned down my offer. That's his right.
What's not right is that he's still dishonestly saying that I was just after "profit," that "it's all about the money for you," and that my "only friend is money." He's also implying that my offer was disingenuous. However, if he really believed that, he could have called my supposed bluff and accepted my offer. I'm sure he knows that I would've followed through, though, which is why he didn't accept it.
Ultimately, he wanted me to either loan him the box or sell it to him at a loss so that he could get an article out of it, and he decided to resort to bullying and insults when I didn't do what he demanded.
Please don't feed the troll!
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Even when this takes place the only thing measurements will show (which are going to be done by Erin anyway) is what distortion is added to BOTH the A and B output.
And as that is (very likely) the same it WON'T explain the results from Josh.
There is an off-chance that there is a fault (volume control IC or setting) but that is unlikely.
You'll be out of a lot of cash and will still NOT have an explanation for the results Josh got.
What is needed is a recording (ADC) of an actual switching between Josh's used DACs on his used recordings. IF there is an audible (an thus measurable) difference it should come from there.
This is NOT going to happen .... ever. Measuring the ABX box is (extremely likely) not going to clear anything up unless there is an obvious tell (say a different timing switching from A to B, B to A, A to A or B to B or an audible tell from the ABX box.
This too could be measured by Erin.
Agreed. Measuring the box only does not make much sense.
Yet he has no time to provide a few files for members to analyze.
While I am qualified for Amazon Affiliate program, I don't use it. Reviews do not have any sponsorship links to any site, amazon or otherwise. It was suggested to use these links years ago to cover costs of running ASR but many did not like the idea, including myself so that was that.
As for "charging for measurements," once in a while a company reaches out to me and asks if I can test their prototype products. I say I will not review such products but can run private test for them. A few times a year they like me to do that. The above example is one such thing. Given how little I charge (fraction of what a lab would), it is a surprise to me that more companies don't take me up on the offer. The aim is to help companies higher performing products, not for me to make money.
If Josh thinks I should test other companies products as part of their R&D for free, let's have him step up for that and I will send all the referrals to him!
As to speakers, yes, I do have a store that sells Ascilab speakers. Product has very thin margins and importing speakers from Korea to sell in US is anything but easy work or money. You come help lift 400 pounds worth of speakers as I had to help my brother do between yesterday and today.
There is no "business model" for ASR or there would have been a lot of them. Members and companies send me products to test. I have invested some $200,000 in gear, tools, etc. and sit there for hours testing them and publishing openly for the world to use. Just today someone asked my permission for publish research on my speaker measurements for an AES Journal paper.
There is a reason we have grown so much as to dwarf AS which existed long before ASR was formed (daily visits):
I can afford a lot of things. I am thankful that after decades of working hard, I am in that position. It has enabled me to bring resources to the audio industry toward reliable data, enabling customers to spend their money wisely. It is not meant to enrich Josh just because he sees dollar signs after someone offered $3K, especially since he is working cross purposes with what we are about.
What nonsense. What I wanted was to borrow his box for testing. I shouldn't have had to pay anything for that -- he should have volunteered it before doing this test. I made an offer of $650 for purchase it because he would only sell it, presumably to make a killing ("make me an offer I can't refuse"). I am not here to feed that need so that was that.
I have to tell you I was just stunned reading that he wanted north of $3,600 from me for the pleasure of us measuring his box. I see all sorts of people but few rise to this level of poor ethics.
His bluff has been called. Offer is made: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...re-finally-proven-with-abx.72444/post-2655015
Copy the post there and ask him to follow with @NTTY.
D
Deleted member 93733
Guest
Rub the lamp three times, and thine Genie shall appear!
We don't know that until we measure.
welwynnick
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,514
- Likes
- 1,925
Josh did some "modest" measurements that showed FR and THDN for each channel behaved the same. If Amir tests, he can do a better deep dive.
I think the real opportunity, though, would come from seeing how the AVA ABX box behaves as the attenuation is varied in each channel.
When DACs are compared and levelled, the A & B signal paths will be different, and if the AVA adds noise and distortion to one channel, that might dominate the difference between the DACs. At least, I think that's what we really want to know.
If the AVA had active electronics in the signal path, I'd be a bit worried about it's performance, but it's passive, and I vividly remember Amir's test of this junk RCA cable that measured the same as the AP loopback. If the AVA had something like this inside, you'd be a bit suspicious, wouldn't you?
solderdude
Grand Contributor
The measurements done are a bit suspect and far from complete.
Absolutely true and it would save Erin a lot of time and hassle.
The things we (well at least I) would like to know about the box are:
- Distortion at different attenuation say setting 99 (basically no attenuation), 98, 97, 95, 90, 80 (lower values are unlikely to be used as 80 is 2dB attenuation (and 30 attenuation 'steps' for the volume control IC).
- How equal the L and R is for A and B inputs (and this for a few attenuation to ensure that at certain attenuation the L-R balance is done correctly)
The thing is that 2 IC's have been used which both are dual channel BUT they are inverse opposite each other. If those are used for L and R then both channels need different codes for the same attenuation setting. When each channel uses only one of the attenuators in each chip then the volume control would need to be after the A-B relay contacts and would have to be set on each switching (possible). - How much 'mute' time there is switching between A>B, B>A, A>A, B>B (This could easily be the exact same time as there seems to be a mute relay which could easily be timed a bit longer than the other relays and as it is timed using the controller could always be the same. Should be checked in any case.
- If there is any DC component present on the analog out (unlikely but as the volume control uses electronic switches it could)
- If the signal path is DC or AC (some cap in series with the signal)
- What the frequency response is (-0.1dB) and this perhaps under different attenuation (R-C effects) and under different loads (with say at least 3 ft of normal capacity RCA cables and a 'normal' load by a good amplifier
- How well the A-B channel nulling is under equal and 'relevant' load and perhaps even with different attenuation for A and B (so one input must have additional attenuation)
- What the acoustic sound (relays clicking) is from the box in different situations (A>B, B>A, A>A, B>B)
- How EMC/current leakage behavior is (currents injected in A and B ground path) as this is all RCA. This could easily be done using an AC tone between RCA input shield and RCA output shield. Most likely this is very low as the RCA shields are directly connected but also runs to the ground of the attenuators.
And I probably forgot a few things that should be tested.
And to make the case the tester would have to use 3 or 4 different DACs and record the switched output because people want to hear it for themselves.
Preferably with the recordings used by Josh (which was made public).
Nah.... I'd hate to be the guy having to do all the testing AND reporting.
Actually, we'd need a recording of one and the same (reference-grade) DAC attached via Y-splitter cable and the ABX process in use (with switchovers). With various test signal allowing latter analysis, and with music files for offline-ABX and additional analysis. The very basic negative control mentioned so many times now. A lot of fine details to consider, though.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Yes, that too. Yet another test on the tester's plate as it were.
D
Deleted member 93733
Guest
He posted this on AS literally 5-minutes after your post above…
Josh Mound / 2-hours ago;
“FWIW, someone on ASR posted about taking me up on my cost-plus-charitable donarion offer for the box. I DM’d him to try to work out the details.”
Similar threads
- Locked
