Distortion down to -300 dB, what exactly does that mean physically?

[Blumlein 88]

I am pretty sure he is attacking something he experiences as a problem and puts all his effort in solving it. Otherwise he must have had many acting lessons.

So which acting school did he attend?

 

[Mart68]

I am pretty sure he is attacking something he experiences as a problem and puts all his effort in solving it. Otherwise he must have had many acting lessons.

He's not an actor he's a salesman and like any salesman his task is to sell you a product that is no different from one at a tenth of the cost,. He does that by 'painting a picture'.

Painting a picture is not lying or deceit rather it is just creating a general impression in the punter's head that there might just be something extra they will miss out on by not going for the expensive option.

 

[Music1969]

Rob writes a lot of nonsense and he has a very loyal following that have made him very rich... With just Mojo alone, Chord have sold over 100k units.

But the guy clearly knows how to design state of the art discreet D to A and headamp performance. Look at Amir's Qutest measurement. A re-test of Hugo2 would be interesting. Rob's shared APx555 measurements are different to Amir's.

He writes a lot about listening tests. I would love to be a witness to these test and see him (or whoever he is using for testing) pick between the vanishingly low distortions he writes about, which he says are easily audible in listening tests.

 

[SIY]

He's not an actor he's a salesman and like any salesman his task is to sell you a product that is no different from one at a tenth of the cost,. He does that by 'painting a picture'.

Painting a picture is not lying or deceit rather it is just creating a general impression in the punter's head that there might just be something extra they will miss out on by not going for the expensive option.

The term of art is "FUD."

 

[mansr]

Opinions on the other hand are like *ssholes,

Well, it's easy enough to tear someone a new one, whereas changing their opinion is generally impossible.

 

[j_j]

Has our disinformation specialist explained his "different opinion" yet about his belief in a magic sinc function that's always better, instead of the known fact that there are better ways to reduce errors in practical cases in the real world?

 

[Spkrdctr]

@Spkrdctr, actually what you wrote and what I intended are not really the same thing and even your post somewhat illustrates what I was indicating. My posts was mainly targeted not at joe blow audiophile as you described, but the faux technical audiophile who does not realize the shallowness of their knowledge.

Take the simple concept of a flat response achieved with EQ, placement, room treatments, etc. It's not really flat as the direction of the sound has a significant impact on the frequency response of what gets picked up by our auditory system. Add in some nasty artifacts due to 2 channel speakers and head transfer functions to that as well. So what is "flat" ?

Is lowest noise always the best? Just like in electronic sensor systems, adding noise to audio can allow us to detect details that we cannot detect without. There could even be correlation between preference (which can improve with added noise), and ability to extract detail.

Other aspects of reproduction viewed as artifacts or "errors" can product a more pleasing and even arguably more accurate representation of the original performance once it reaches the brain. Electrical signals are simple, sound fields are immensely complex. We can state authoritatively when a change to the electrical transmission is inaudible. What we can't state authoritatively at all times is not only what the subjective result is when changes are sufficient to be audible, but what the objective results is inside the all important brain.

I didn't of course write as succinctly as I should have. I was just trying to agree with you AND put a little of my own spin on how in what your saying makes for the technical nonsense that faux "experts" on line and in audio shops dish out is pure crap. So, our audiophile and our Joe Blow are left thinking they know things that in fact are not true. The variables of the sound field and the ear/brain function are enormous. Bottom line I liked your post, even if it seemed I was off target!

Although, I have been off target before, it is an occupational hazard when posting on audio forums. Trying to keep the ideas so simple anyone can understand it means to me almost zero inside audio technical jargon in my posts. I leave that to you and JJ. I'm retired and don't have the patience anymore. Maybe I'm becoming an old grouch when it comes to audio forums.......nah, that can't be it! I'm too likeable for that.

 

[audio2design]

I like the vision of Rob Watts, if his design is according j.j "overkill" then so what ?
Don't think it's a problem in case someone else has a different opinion.
Time will tell how it works out...........

So what that people like you are evidently convinced of the "superiority" of something that is not in fact superior at all. So what that people like you will spend money on what is effectively a lie.

 

[audio2design]

He writes a lot about listening tests. I would love to be a witness to these test and see him (or whoever he is using for testing) pick between the vanishingly low distortions he writes about, which he says are easily audible in listening tests.

... that crosses the line from FUD to lying though some may just call it the spreading of ignorance. Is he ignorant or?

 

[peterzuid]

So what that people like you are evidently convinced of the "superiority" of something that is not in fact superior at all. So what that people like you will spend money on what is effectively a lie.

This seems to be my problem then, thx for the warning but I can manage this.

 

[audio2design]

This seems to be my problem then, thx for the warning but I can manage this.

I would disagree as you don't appear to even begin to have an understanding of the science and technology of what you are arguing for.

 

[peterzuid]

Has our disinformation specialist explained his "different opinion" yet about his belief in a magic sinc function that's always better, instead of the known fact that there are better ways to reduce errors in practical cases in the real world?

Sorry Sir j.j, I think you meant me if I am not mistaken. I responded to Geert who asked me the question and happy to repeat my answer;

j.j can state he has true knowledge and so can Rob Watts.
These seem to be two worlds apart but I don't like the idea of excluding one or the other.
For me there's no point in taking sides.
I like the vision of Rob Watts, if his design is according j.j "overkill" then so what ?
Don't think it's a problem in case someone else has a different opinion.
Time will tell how it works out..........

Concerning my thoughts on the "sinc issue";
From the theoretical side:
Regenerating the perfect analogue reconstruction of a sampled band limited signal is only possible by the sinc filter function.
This also means we should take all samples of a music piece into account (thus define a begin and an end)
It also means it will take eternity before we can replay the music piece as the sinc impulse response is not time limited
Conclusion; perfect reconstruction is not possible as delay on playback cannot be unlimited
Conclusion: perfect recontruction is not possible as it is impossible to realize a delta T = 0 between samples
From the practical side:
compromise to limit the amount of generated samples between the CD samples (15 chosen in the subject)
this will limit the accuracy of higher frequencies mostly
compromise to limit the respons time of the filter
this will limit the accuracy of lower frequencies mostly
In case compromise the respons time window of the filter to one second:
the lowest contribution wil be the first and last sample of the sinc window is sin(jwt)/jwt and 1/(44.100Hz * 0,5 sec) = let's say - 88 dB maximum and although not major, might still be significant
Contributions of samples more in the middle of the timeframe of course might have larger contributions to the extra generated samples.
Anyway; Limiting the amount of extra calculated samples between any two original and/or limiting the timeframe used for this calculation of the extra samples is throwing away information that is all available in the original sample pattern
This lost information can never be regenerated by any means once it has been thrown away.
Of course the main question remains;
At what compromise is missing information turning out to be audible ? (for someone/anyone)

 

[audio2design]

I would disagree as you don't appear to even begin to have an understanding of the science and technology of what you are arguing for.

I rest my case.

 

[Music1969]

... that crosses the line from FUD to lying though some may just call it the spreading of ignorance. Is he ignorant or?

Lying? You've been at the listening tests? That would reveal the truth.

Until then, we don't know.

he can't be ignorant designing state of the art discreet circuitry.

He has patents used in other popular brand's products too.

 

[amirm]

He writes a lot about listening tests. I would love to be a witness to these test and see him (or whoever he is using for testing) pick between the vanishingly low distortions he writes about, which he says are easily audible in listening tests.

I sat in one of his presentations. When it finished, after him talking at length about proper way to do a listening test, I raised my hand and asked him if could pass any of these tests blind. To my surprise, he pushed way back saying blind tests were too stressful so he did not believe in them! I quit at that point.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I sat in one of his presentations. When it finished, after him talking at length about proper way to do a listening test, I raised my hand and asked him if could pass any of these tests blind. To my surprise, he pushed way back saying blind tests were too stressful so he did not believe in them! I quit at that point.

Keith Johnson used to say in talks some of his younger employees could hear the difference in pico second and femto second jitter. Of course the listening was sighted. He was somewhat two faced about cable sound too.

 

[Music1969]

I sat in one of his presentations. When it finished, after him talking at length about proper way to do a listening test, I raised my hand and asked him if could pass any of these tests blind. To my surprise, he pushed way back saying blind tests were too stressful so he did not believe in them! I quit at that point.

I remember but he still recently writes about listening tests on head-fi

I think he just didn't want to engage with you in front of that crowd .

Maybe a 1 on 1 private discussion would have been different

We'll never know! Unless we sit in and watch these listening tests he talks about

Or maybe they don't happen

The truth is out there

 

[audio2design]

Lying? You've been at the listening tests? That would reveal the truth.

Until then, we don't know.

he can't be ignorant designing state of the art discreet circuitry.

He has patents used in other popular brand's products too.

I don't have to be at the listening tests to know that some of the claims he is making are total and utter poppycock. That is the benefit of having a solid grasp of physics, acoustics, psychoacoustics and neuro-physiological aspects of hearing.

State of the art compared to?

He may not be ignorant w.r.t. to some aspect of circuit design, but he is speaking ignorantly about a whole range of topics related to hearing, and either is ignorant of, or spreading ignorance w.r.t. aspects of signal processing as it relates to audio. You can paint a pig any color you want ....

 

[Music1969]

To my surprise, he pushed way back saying blind tests were too stressful so he did not believe in them! I quit at that point.

And actually when you introduced your name and said Audio Science Review to him, his immediate body language changed, so the push back that came later is hardly surprising.

He seems to recognise you, I guess he didn't want to go there, with a crowd and camera recording.

So I wouldn't read too much into that exchange.

Maybe a round #2 exchange will be different

 

[Mart68]

Lying? You've been at the listening tests? That would reveal the truth.

Until then, we don't know.

he can't be ignorant designing state of the art discreet circuitry.

He has patents used in other popular brand's products too.

If he'd done controlled listening tests that proved what he was claiming then it seems highly unlikely that he would fail to mention them. Inconceivable in fact.

In the presentations I've seen where he talks about his listening tests they involve him listening sighted and then his young son listening sighted. I'd be happy to bet that's the only 'listening tests' he's done.

He's in the business of selling DACs, that's what puts food on his table. Never ceases to amaze me how receptive some people are to sales patter, especially in this hobby where people are otherwise generally well-educated and accomplished.