Archimago and the TLS DS-1

[firedog]

1 hour ago, spotforscott said:

The context of this thread is about the DS-1 and he offers absolutely no value in that regard. I am not saying anything about his body of work or him personally. 

Context is everything. You are looking at the one blog post and missing the context. He wrote an opinion piece based on years of extensive testing of a lot of these specific issues. The device in question is just another device - there's nothing magic about it. So he has a basis for his opinions/doubts that some audio magic is going on. Basically, instead of subjective impressions, he's saying a) show me a measurement backing up what you subjectively hear; or b) explain (not just speculate) on what is happening that could cause the differences you are hearing. Vague descriptions of noise and phase without anything behind them mean nothing.

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

And that refutation comes quite frequently from folks who are conducting better tests. The fact that Archimago uses cheap software tools and conducts no tests on high performance "high-end" equipment; then draws conclusions about that equipment is contradiction enough. There doesn't need to be ANY counter evidence produced, when criticizing the testing METHODOLOGY, - which is of course, - conducting tests on low-fi equipment, - and making the false conclusion that those tests apply to ALL equipment.

His equipment isn't junk and is perfectly adequate for proper testing. Your post is the psuedo science and refutes nothing. He doesn't say his testing applies to ALL equipment. He shows that many scenarios that audiophiles trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""trot out as making a significant difference appear to do nothing of the sort when objectively evaluated.""   (I also dispute that Archimago does any objective evaluations).

 

Say you measure the output of a DAC when 2 different devices are attached to it over USB: a) a high powered PC running many processes that according to audiophiles is electrically noisy and an inadequate source; b) a purpose made ethernet to USB streamer that is supposedly running few processes and is elecrically quiet.

Results: close to identical measurements of jitter, nose, distortion, and dynamic range. Blind listening fails to show an ability to tell the devices apart in playback.

That's essentially the kind of stuff Archi does. How is that non-objective and illegitimate?