Hobbies, yes, as I already mentioned on this thread, sound reproduction equipment vs sound reproduction hobby.
What about joining a forum and posting claims of better sound? That's a different hobby, right?
As usual, just dancing around the questions.
Me: What qualifies as evidence?
You: It was your assertion and now you should be able to bring up the evidence supporting your assertion.
Me: As for the definition of correct result I brought up on post #301 goes...?
You: Correct results are results that are equal to the real/true value of the parameter under examination.
Let me ask you another way, how is correct (or incorrect) answer determined on the person listening and reporting his / her findings? And who determines that?
Make explicitly clear to everyone exactly what you are alluding to when you assert that DACs are a mature technology. No dodging.
Dodging the questions, you don’t see your logic failure?
If DAC devices are “audibly transparent” that means they don’t alter sound reproduction in a way that a human being can detect any difference, with its hearing as an observation “instrument”, to the original recorded sound and no difference in reproduction between various DAC devices.
So, claim that DACs, starting with cheap ones, are “audibly transparent” is exactly the claim that they all sound the same.
Your retraction first? It's more that just DACs. Per your statement, "Since you conclude that DACS are a mature technology, then you must also certainly conclude that power amps, and preamps are mature technologit’s. As such, they all, necessarily, sound the same, just as you assert for DACs." so it's DACs, power amps, and preamps waiting for your retraction.
Last edited:
Your attempt to position yourself as somehow wronged, while disappointing, is not surprising, nor even clever.
What is the manner of your payment to have any question responded to? Do you possess some innate entitlement?
Unwillingness to admit noted.
Was it you who said something about dodging the questions?
I am not dodging your questions I am not responding to some of them. I have no confidence in the belief that you have the critical thinking and reasoning ability to comprehend the answers if I took the time to understand and respond to what seems questions as nothing more than gobbledygook. Your questions were concluded as expected would be a waste of my time and no value to anyone. Just so you know, if you want any proof or evidence in support of my opinions presented on the DIY website you can provide the details of the testing you want conducted (double blind or otherwise). I will provide a cost estimate, or estimate of an adequate degree of humility needed as worthy of my time.
Last edited:
As usual, just dancing around the questions.
Nah, you've asked me for a quote of your assertion and you got it, so "dancing around the questions"? Pfff.
You may not like the concept, but the burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you don't know what the evidence is, you simply should refrain from making such categorical assertions.
Up to now, not much "forthcoming" on your side....
Isn't it a clear and correct (no pun intended) answer?
Don't you understand that asserting "even the cheap DACS are audible transparent" is a proposition about the (alleged) real/true value of a parameter in the population??
That is not "another way" but a completely different question.
In the past, I recommended a few good books, but as long as you refuse to educate yourself on the basics (at least), I can't help.
If your response is directed at me please consider that I always try... and that my dialog above is personally considered a reasoned analytical response that doesn't contain what might be described as Ad Hominem's. Unfortunately, and despite that being true, it can incite Ad Hominem's in response.
Gentlemen,
We are expecting to have a listening session later today. No guarantees what we will choose to listen to, but readily available options include:
*DS Audio optical phono on an SP-10 Mk 3. Includes various other features. (just for reference use)
*Custom AK4499 dac
*DAC_Lite with NGF Vref regulator
*Topping D90
There are a number of recordings for which both CD and vinyl are available for comparison. Will figure out later what recordings and devices the participants would like to listen to. Pretty sure we will not find any perfect, or shall we say, completely 'transparent,' devices among the bunch (as the ESL panels are very revealing).
We are expecting to have a listening session later today. No guarantees what we will choose to listen to, but readily available options include:
*DS Audio optical phono on an SP-10 Mk 3. Includes various other features. (just for reference use)
*Custom AK4499 dac
*DAC_Lite with NGF Vref regulator
*Topping D90
There are a number of recordings for which both CD and vinyl are available for comparison. Will figure out later what recordings and devices the participants would like to listen to. Pretty sure we will not find any perfect, or shall we say, completely 'transparent,' devices among the bunch (as the ESL panels are very revealing).
A Steinway is not necessarily a Steinway.
There is this guy Larry Fine a piano technician and author and he claims that Steinways made in New York are of a lesser quality than Steinways made in Hamburg.
Steinway themselves take that guy seriously enough that they changed their working practices in the New York factory.
Afterwards that guy said that while there was some improvement to New York Steinways but in his opinion the top pianos are (equally) Hamburg Steinways, Bösendorfers, Fazioli and Grotrian-Steinwegs while New York Steinways still lag a little behind.
Both Arthur and Anton Rubinstein were paid to play Steinways in North America but when they played elsewhere in the world they insisted on Bechstein and Bösendorfer pianos respectively. The same was true for Franz Liszt.
Carnegie Hall keeps a Steinway from each factory to keep everybody happy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.