DAC audible differences are finally proven with ABX?

[NTTY]

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.”

I’m happy to confirm we worked out the details, and we have a deal with Josh

 

[welwynnick]

I’m happy to confirm we worked out the details, and we have a deal with Josh

Many thanks NTTY.
I'm really looking forwards to what happens next.

 

[NTTY]

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 are many questions to answer, indeed. The problem is complex to express with too many variables. An agile approach is required to simplify and resolve.

Let’s start with the obvious. Measuring another box would leave us with doubts. At least, we’ll be able to clear that one out. And maybe it will be enough.

It is very nice @amirm accepted to review it.

Even if partial, Josh left us with some clues that we can use to correlate his findings with ours. I suppose it will be enough to complete the story.

 

[Iving]

There are many questions to answer, indeed. The problem is complex to express with too many variables. An agile approach is required to simplify and resolve.

Let’s start with the obvious. Measuring another box would leave us with doubts. At least, we’ll be able to clear that one out. And maybe it will be enough.

It is very nice @amirm accepted to review it.

Even if partial, Josh left us with some clues that we can use to correlate his findings with ours. I suppose it will be enough to complete the story.

There is a point at which obsessive preoccupation with a null hypothesis (e.g. it is not possible to discern the difference between two DACs) - to the point of insisting out of quasi-religious doggedness that there must, eventually, be found some explanation for a reported effect other than the one proposed by a competent researcher - becomes ego-driven Scientism rather than good Science.

It’s just as faulty to baulk irrationally at the possibility that an Independent Variable has not been fully isolated.

Arguably the best Science is collegiate in foundation - and people use common sense to know when to respect a p<0.05 - having afforded due scrutiny to a colleague's Method, Design, Procedure, Analysis. The best academic institutions understand “weight of evidence” – what it is – what it is not (in terms of proof).

I hope that Josh's discriminations are vindicated; otoh, I wouldn't be remotely dismayed if Amir's bench work discovered box anomalies.

Whatever the next Chapter, imo NTTY's generous investment would be optimally rewarded with (at least interim) broad consensus regarding possibilities, rather than interminable wrangling for righteousness’s sake.

 

[voodooless]

There is a point at which obsessive preoccupation with a null hypothesis (e.g. it is not possible to discern the difference between two DACs) - to the point of insisting out of quasi-religious doggedness that there must, eventually, be found some explanation for a reported effect other than the one proposed by a competent researcher - becomes ego-driven Scientism rather than good Science.

The whole reason for insisting on more data and the device is to do good science and find out what is going on here. It it turns out that Josh has some magic power no-one else has, it would be a scientific novelty. It would be extraordinary interesting.

So, your scientism claim is just nonsense.

Arguably the best Science is collegiate in foundation - and people use common sense to know when to respect a p<0.05 - having afforded due scrutiny to a colleague's Method, Design, Procedure, Analysis. The best academic institutions understand “weight of evidence” – what it is – what it is not (in terms of proof).

Common sense is not science. It is abundantly clear that there are way too many red flags to simply accept the result at face value.

 

[Iving]

The whole reason for insisting on more data and the device is to do good science and find out what is going on here. It it turns out that Josh has some magic power no-one else has, it would be a scientific novelty. It would be extraordinary interesting.

So, your scientism claim is just nonsense.


Common sense is not science. It is abundantly clear that there are way too many red flags to simply accept the result at face value.

Sigh

 

[emmodad]

There are many questions to answer, indeed. The problem is complex to express with too many variables. An agile approach is required to simplify and resolve.

Let’s start with the obvious. Measuring another box would leave us with doubts. At least, we’ll be able to clear that one out. And maybe it will be enough.

It is very nice @amirm accepted to review it.

Even if partial, Josh left us with some clues that we can use to correlate his findings with ours. I suppose it will be enough to complete the story.

Grüezi Flo!

This is a very kind and noble action you have made on behalf of Amir and the ASR community, and The Scientific Method.

Now that Josh is

• 1/ receiving $$ (but not stunning CHF note artwork which I miss most dearly in everyday life); and
• 2/ benefiting from imminent plausible deniability the moment box leaves his possession (as his overall system test environment no longer can be replicated, personal accountability no longer (in the future) can be tied to his claimed results);

perhaps, if not already included in deal parameters, you could politely ask him to provide also his adc recording files?

And who knows: in the name of increasing liklihood of validating his published system test results in the eyes of the CA/AS community, maybe Josh would be willing to provide also for testing his specific DACs and digital + analog interconnects? I'd be willing to pay for US domestic pack/ship/insurance costs Josh <> Amir.

Flo, please DM me with a PayPal (or similar) address so that I might donate für Hund/Katz Guetzli und e schöni Fläsche Wii....

Ciao,
Charles

edit: add in the future; restructure so that my wonderful, beloved high school English teachers Fran Carter and Mid Cadwallader will not be forced to commence any rolling over in their graves...

 

[pjug]

perhaps, if not already included in deal parameters, you could politely ask him to provide also his adc recording files?

Good idea. I don't know if he has even made them (I only his update showing recordings from a single DAC). If he has to make new recordings he should use a proper range with the XLR inputs.

 

[emmodad]

The whole reason for insisting on more data and the device is to do good science and find out what is going on here. It it turns out that Josh has some magic power no-one else has, it would be a scientific novelty. It would be extraordinary interesting.

So, your scientism claim is just nonsense.


Common sense is not science. It is abundantly clear that there are way too many red flags to simply accept the result at face value.

Sigh

although I would have chosen to have written "The whole reason for requesting more data and the device is to do good science...";

+1 for @voodooless

 

[pjug]

although I would have chosen to have written "The whole reason for requesting more data and the device is to do good science...";

+1 for @voodooless

Or if that won't do we can say the whole point is to improve on the reporter's bad science.

 

[rjp]

Agreed. Measuring the box only does not make much sense.

But we just spent 50 pages talking about getting this box!

 

[pma]

But we just spent 50 pages talking about getting this box!

I am not intervening anymore. Let's @amirm , @NTTY , @Josh83 do what they want to do. I may have some opinion, but it is not important and it is not my business.

 

[MattHooper]

Call me morbidly curious: is there a MattHooper figure over there decrying the death of audiophile decorum and counseling restraint with a mournful shake of the head?

Not sure. But I think it’s safe to presume that forum probably has a typical range of good faith, civil replies to snarky cheap-shot commentary, like this forum. I haven’t seen a forum that escapes this dynamic. Btw…don’t the mods here council restraint and keeping discourse civil? Is that concept suddenly out of style?

Fortunately, there’s enough good natured and informative commentary on ASR to rise above the occasional snark and make it a great place overall, which is why I (quixotically) defend ASR on other sites.

Anyway….I’m glad to see that despite scepticism it would never happen, Josh will be parting with the ABX box. The desire to more closely investigate Josh’s seemingly unlikely results certainly makes sense to me, the suggestions of what to investigate are fascinating, and I’m very interested to see what Amir discovers!

I also wish Josh would send audio files output from the DACs to be examined, as some people have been requesting.

 

[solderdude]

I’m happy to confirm we worked out the details, and we have a deal with Josh

When you have it drop shipped to Amir at least you'll know that the ABX box was up to snuff and at least the usability of it.
What better than to be able to say the device has been 'measured by Amir'.

 

[Plcamp]

“No definitive explanation!”

Opens envelope…

“What happens when Josh’s comparator is measured?”

 

[hardisj]

I’m happy to confirm we worked out the details, and we have a deal with Josh

That’s great. Sounds like there’s not really a need for me to test my ABX unless something shows up wrong with this one. Gotta say, I’m selfishly happy because I’m already stressed enough as it is trying to get through the things I have on hand. haha

My only request is that any subjective interpretation of the objective data is well tempered. The way that some of this discussion is gone, I’m concerned we’re gonna get to the level of picking nits beyond reasonable audibility and may be more critical of the ABX box than we might other pieces of electronic equipment.

Edit: speech to text misspellings

 

[amirm]

A couple of comments about what is posted on AS:

1. Filter audibility. I already post way back that Stuart et. al. reported in a peer-reviewed paper that simulated low pass filters can be statistically audible. That outcome though, was far, far weaker than results Josh has reported (statistically significant vs near certainty). And at any rate, were simulated in a DAW. FYI, I have defended those results across many years, not dismissed them.

2. Polarity reversal. I have never investigated this. I imagine people here who say it could be audible say so in the context of one DAC having reverse polarity vs another in ABX, not by itself. Correct me if you are saying polarity reversal by itself is an audible impairment in which case, I like to see some evidence.

 

[amirm]

My only request is that any subjective interpretation of the objective data is well tempered.

This reminds me of a childhood story. Guy sitting with his friend and asks his kid to take a vase and put it on the other side of the room. Before the kid leaves, he whacks him on the behind. Kid starts crying while doing as father said. Friend, surprised, asks why he did that? He said in case he breaks the vase as doing so after the fact, would do no good!

So let's not worry about what the results will be before we even have the box at hand.

 

[solderdude]

2. Polarity reversal. I have never investigated this. I imagine people here who say it could be audible say so in the context of one DAC having reverse polarity vs another in ABX, not by itself. Correct me if you are saying polarity reversal by itself is an audible impairment in which case, I like to see some evidence.

FWIW:

MUSINGS and LISTENING: On Absolute Polarity / Phase... (And on the joy of the modern audiophile.)

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[amirm]

Thank you. Good read and analysis.