muzzer
Numb Nut
I would call him a electronics designer, a very good oneI think of him as a manufacturer. A good manufacturer.
I would call him a electronics designer, a very good oneI think of him as a manufacturer. A good manufacturer.
Manufacturers are clearly running scared from any form of controlled testing.
I am happy to sit back secure in the knowledge that John has forgotten more than you (or Tenson) have ever learnt about digital audio. It is what he does every single day, including today and tonight.
Or that the sound differences between DACs are vanishingly small, hence the ridiculous list of requirements by certain manufacturers in order to obtain "best results".
The trouble is that your argument for the digitally adjusted signals being similar can also be applied to the (competent) DACs themselves, which makes the whole bake-off moot.
I think you need to use analogue attenuation and perhaps just two DACs at a time.
Paul
I think I mentioned the number of dacs earlier when I brought up the idea of using the same short musical piece. I think more than 3 dacs is a problem.I see your point, but I don't really agree as the effect of digital volume adjustment (using only a few dB) is so far below the distortions of even good DACs.
However if it pleases, I could use a 5K pot after each DAC output. I could also use one per channel to get perfect channel matching.
Why only 2 DACs at a time?
I think I mentioned the number of dacs earlier when I brought up the idea of using the same short musical piece. I think more than 3 dacs is a problem.
Surely connection of each dac to a passive preamp, instantaneous switching and repeating the same musical piece is the only way to do this properly? I'm not sure how that would be easy to do.
I can't see any problem with auditioning one pair of dacs at a time.
It's operationally easier too. I'll speak with Simon tonight when i see him, preferably before the alcohol kicks in
Brian, the problem is that whatever variations to the test are proposed, certain people will raise objections. Now I'd have no problem with that, nor I expect would Simon, if these same objections were ever mentioned during a regular sighted listening demo, be it a factory, home or dealer demo.
If someone comes onto a forum and states that they've bought say a Weiss dac and that it sounds better than the incumbent Cyrus, you won't see manufacturers barking questions about digital attenuation, gain structures, listener fatigue etc etc.
The opinion is more or less accepted.
Yet the minute some controls are introduced, certain manufacturers start raising objections.
Franky it stinks.
Steven, the issue I take with your suggestion is that simply because we can detect one of the controls introduces a change or distortion, doesn't automatically mean it will completely flood the differences between the DACs.
...I could use a 5K pot after each DAC output. I could also use one per channel to get perfect channel matching
It is obvious certain people are utterly desperate not to have "proven" a particular point Steven.
Etc Etc Etc. Ad in finitum............
It's amazing what some people claim is transparent - particularly when it comes to speakers and their room.
Yet question the transparency of 1db of digital attenuation instead of 0.5db and the same people are up in arms.
I really hope that major differences are identified and a stand out performer is found as it is an area that I want to be more involved with.
This will not be allowed to happen.
This will not be allowed to happen.