Better question to ask is, can you discern the difference between solid state amps and or DACs when listened to at matched levels without knowing which one is in use?
It doesnt often swamp even the most poorly measuring amps, dacs?
I'm basing it on the headphones, DACs and amps I've used or been interested in with published measurements so you're wrong.
If you disagree, do you have some of your own measured examples showing transducer distortion is no worse a typical amp or DAC? -90dB THD+N is probably below average from most of entry level electronics on current market.
I'm basing it on the headphones, DACs and amps I've used or been interested in with published measurements so you're wrong.
If you disagree, do you have some of your own measured examples showing transducer distortion is no worse a typical amp or DAC? -90dB THD+N is probably below average from most of entry level electronics on current market.
Last edited:
Listen to yourself!
"Your clock improvement likely does not result in any real sonic gain, but when people make changes they will tend to hear a positive difference. "
Chris, listen to yourself. "likely does not result in any real sonic gain"
You have never listened. You have no experience. You imagine how it may sound. You are convinced what you imagine must be true. Anyone who disagrees must be wrong.
This thread is full of people who have heard the effect and can describe their experience. Good, bad or indifferent.
Then you all go on to tell people they clearly imagine what they experience.
Let's say I drink wine and you drink beer. I say l generally like wine from Italy, but not so much Niagara Falls. I find Ontario wine inferior and overpriced. You tell me over and over that I have been duped by Andrea because he sent me his favorite red supplying it at cost. You insisted I imagine my subjective preference. I ask if you have tried wines from these three regions. You cite your doctorate in chemistry and dismiss my claims. I cite all the others who have formed their opinion based on their actual experience. You insist we are group hypnotized and start showing pictures of your chemistry lab.
It is infuriating and insulting.
"Your clock improvement likely does not result in any real sonic gain, but when people make changes they will tend to hear a positive difference. "
Chris, listen to yourself. "likely does not result in any real sonic gain"
You have never listened. You have no experience. You imagine how it may sound. You are convinced what you imagine must be true. Anyone who disagrees must be wrong.
This thread is full of people who have heard the effect and can describe their experience. Good, bad or indifferent.
Then you all go on to tell people they clearly imagine what they experience.
Let's say I drink wine and you drink beer. I say l generally like wine from Italy, but not so much Niagara Falls. I find Ontario wine inferior and overpriced. You tell me over and over that I have been duped by Andrea because he sent me his favorite red supplying it at cost. You insisted I imagine my subjective preference. I ask if you have tried wines from these three regions. You cite your doctorate in chemistry and dismiss my claims. I cite all the others who have formed their opinion based on their actual experience. You insist we are group hypnotized and start showing pictures of your chemistry lab.
It is infuriating and insulting.
Why do we have different names for different frequency modulations in audio? Wow, flutter, scrape noise, speed accuracy, and in digital, bit jitter, word jitter, reference clock rate, comparative clock phase stability, PLL wander, reference long term stability to name a few. Just like eskimos with many names for different snow conditions we have different names because we perceive distinct classifiable differences in our perception as a result of these conditions. When digital first was released it was heralded as “perfect sound forever”. The known analog timing errors were all seemingly eliminated. There was no mechanism to cause wow or flutter or the rest. For a time I would make location recordings on both a Swiss tape recorder and SOTA digital gear. During the recording I could easily monitor the live source or switch to playback as the tape recorder had three heads. In truth both recordings sounded almost transparent to the source with the notable exception of tape hiss raising the noise floor. That alone pushed the digital to sound more transparent to the source. This was possible because the exact same time reference was being used for recording and playback during a live recording. Checking the replay suddenly the digital sounded far inferior to the analog tape. The only change was the errors in the timing reference were no longer correlated with the timing errors during the recording so instead of cancelling themselves out the added to each other. It was quite shocking how much worse the digital sounded, how much it deviated from the fresh memory of the recording just made. Years later and digital recording is much improved as a result of numerous discoveries spurred on by the evidence of our perceptions. So Andrea has put forth a theory that close in frequency phase noise is detrimental to digital audio. To this end he with others have built a clock with measurably demonstrated lower close in phase noise. Assuming we are all in agreement with the facts so far the only remaining step is for each of us to experiment with the new clock in our unique systems and report back our findings. There seems to be a counter theory that lower close in phase noise is inaudible and therefore a wast of time and energy. How do those of you pro-porting this theory suggest it’s validity be tested since you deny listening as it is excluded by supposition of the theory?
Chris, my friend this is starting to sound a bit too melodramatic. Soldering irons are dangerous to diyer's, as are tube circuits, etc.
Please let's tone it down a some on both sides.
it's better 10 constructive messages that a multitude that has no sense,
when something exasperates me,I take off.
Let's stop responding to these members who pollute this thread.Andrea you have better to do than justify you in the eyes of these detractors
So your role as a moderator is to cull any experimentation or project, repeatably every year, that you don't believe in or understand?
Do you think you became unreasonable, at the point you started offending and belittling people whom you don't know?
Last edited:
Just to be clear, Chris is posting as a forum user, no more no less. He should be treated as you would any other user. To become a moderator he has to 'power up' with the hat icon. No hat, normal person. Hat, moderating.
Now commenting on moderating is against the rules, but I have read somewhere on here that, once a moderator (powered down) starts to participate in a thread then he cannot moderate that thread.
Thanks Bill, I wasn’t aware of the power up to moderator etc. But just to be clear, a sentence ending in a question mark is a question. Not a comment.
Last edited:
Everyone - we all need to review the forum rules
Remember, this applies to all race, creed and color regardless of number of posts or self proclaimed skills...
"diyAudio is a place for all members of the DIY audio community to learn, share knowledge, and enjoy interacting with others interested in the design and construction of audio components."
Please consider Rule #1 in the list of Not Allowed
Disruptive behavior of any sort, including offensive language, trolling, threadjacking, insults, intimidation, harassment or other disrespectful or antisocial behavior. (Notes 1 & 3)
and Note #1
Trolling is posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Threadjacking is the practice of taking over a thread by posting off-topic replies such that the original topic becomes diluted or lost. Off-topic posts, and replies to off-topic posts, can be a positive outcome of discussion, but must either be brief or be moved to another thread. If something interesting does arise that warrants extensive discussion -- then start a new thread and link to it.
Thank you. Good stuff to consider. Let's all get back to the topic in post #1
I (Andrea) start this thread to investigate the opportunity for a diyer to build a real low jitter oscillator.
Thank you
Remember, this applies to all race, creed and color regardless of number of posts or self proclaimed skills...
"diyAudio is a place for all members of the DIY audio community to learn, share knowledge, and enjoy interacting with others interested in the design and construction of audio components."
Please consider Rule #1 in the list of Not Allowed
Disruptive behavior of any sort, including offensive language, trolling, threadjacking, insults, intimidation, harassment or other disrespectful or antisocial behavior. (Notes 1 & 3)
and Note #1
Trolling is posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Threadjacking is the practice of taking over a thread by posting off-topic replies such that the original topic becomes diluted or lost. Off-topic posts, and replies to off-topic posts, can be a positive outcome of discussion, but must either be brief or be moved to another thread. If something interesting does arise that warrants extensive discussion -- then start a new thread and link to it.
Thank you. Good stuff to consider. Let's all get back to the topic in post #1
I (Andrea) start this thread to investigate the opportunity for a diyer to build a real low jitter oscillator.
Thank you
I agree.
I find it interesting that someone can repeatedly attack Andrea for building a ‘business” and raise concerns of malpractice through mis-selling.
When they’ve openly admitted they’re a competitor to Andrea, as they do operate a business where they regularly upgrade digital products including clocking systems. In order to achieve this, they’ve invested substantially into tooling and therefore have skin in the game.
Feels ironic.
The recent posts have become out of control, are firmly breaking rule no1 and could offend their potential customer base. Seems like a lose lose.
I find it interesting that someone can repeatedly attack Andrea for building a ‘business” and raise concerns of malpractice through mis-selling.
When they’ve openly admitted they’re a competitor to Andrea, as they do operate a business where they regularly upgrade digital products including clocking systems. In order to achieve this, they’ve invested substantially into tooling and therefore have skin in the game.
Feels ironic.
The recent posts have become out of control, are firmly breaking rule no1 and could offend their potential customer base. Seems like a lose lose.
Who would be that (or those) member(s)? Quote please. Or I would have to believe the paranoia just went off the scale.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.