Popular Post opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, fas42 said: So, he has the assurance of knowing how all audio components behave, without even measuring ... 😉. As far as I recall, Amir is clueless about common-mode noise. I did try to educate him once when he was still active on WBF but he proved singularly resistant. Audiophile Neuroscience and fas42 2 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: I don't trust Amir's measurements. Not completely sure its relevant here but Amir misappropriated ADI's measurements of their DAC chip to malign Schiit. If you need a link I'll look it up. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Thanks, as an example of "misleading measurements" and biased reporting rendering agenda-based measurements meaningless.😃 This post is indeed a prime example of misleading measurements. You need to go to the AD5547 datasheet to see why though, the small print gives away that the two FFTs Amir places side by side are not comparable. https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/review-battle-of-schiit-audio-dacs.5487/post-121858 Seems someone doesn't want a link pointing to ASR, you need to get rid of those quote marks, close up the spaces and add .com before it becomes valid. Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 The key insight is that the AD5547 is a multiplying DAC and this FFT shows it operating in that mode - with its reference voltage being fed a sinewave. So the digital input is being held constant, unlike in the FFT on the right. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: I get information about the measured device, you -- information about the person. I missed the place where @Audiophile Neuroscience got information about Amir from this. Audiophile Neuroscience and sandyk 1 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Ah that's not 'from this' - seems he brought that to the discussion prior. pkane2001 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Clockmeister said: I firmly believe Amir has an agenda I'm not sure if belief is relevant here, he's stated openly that he has a mission. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 7, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, pkane2001 said: Well, actually it was in response to your statement that "Amir misappropriated ADI's measurements of their DAC chip to malign Schiit", so mostly it is 'from this'. And how would you interpret the word "malign" if not as an accusation of malicious intent? It wasn't intended to imply malicious intent - but he did bring Schiit's design competence into doubt through what appears to be a misunderstanding of the DS. In saying not 'from this' it was shorthand for 'not from the measurements I drew attention to' seeing as the context (established by yourself and the title of the thread) was firmly measurements. Audiophile Neuroscience, pkane2001 and Clockmeister 2 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 4 hours ago, pkane2001 said: Well, not all, as the JDS Labs Atom in the review showed no difference with filtered and unfiltered power, and Amir’s power line is pretty dirty. Let me guess - no common-mode measurements were made in that review? Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Because a significant amount of power line noise is common-mode. Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Normally power line filters have elements to filter common-mode noise (a CM choke for example) as well as normal mode noise (LC filtering perhaps). Wouldn't comprehensive measurements wish to characterize both? Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 2 hours ago, pkane2001 said: Maybe. But if the power line carries a lot of common mode noise as you say, Amir’s test would show the combination of what the filter did to both, normal and common mode noise. To me that’s what matters in the end: does the filter eliminate noise, and if it does, does this have an effect on the output of my audio system. I'd also presume readers would want to know what the filter did to both. But separate, distinct measurement setups are required for each which is why I guessed Amir hadn't made the CM measurements. I've not read the review - am I wrong in my guess? Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 11 hours ago, pkane2001 said: Don't know enough about CE certification, but my impression is that it has to do with noise produced/emitted by a component rather than noise filtration of already dirty power. Is this not correct? EM emissions are a part of it, another part is EMC susceptibility. Susceptibility testing looks to see that the product continues to work (subject to certain defined levels of degradation) in the presence of EM aggressors. Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 9, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2020 3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I know they fixed the zero crossing glitch just to appease people who looked at the measurements. Depends on the meaning of 'fix'. They fixed the measurements, that's for sure. manisandher, sandyk and Audiophile Neuroscience 3 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 9 hours ago, Ajax said: My experience has been that you will never convince any of these guys that they need measurements because they have the potential to undermine "their" hobby. Measurements are analogous to the grammar of audio. Try convincing someone you met in the East End of London with a Cockney drawl that he needs grammar. What he has works for him, why bother him with grammar? Teresa 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Clockmeister said: Indeed in similar fashion you could argue you same for southern states hick's 'When we having possum Ma?' or UK West Country bumpkins with 'My luvver' similar situation I suspect. Yes. The precise instantiation is immaterial. Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2020 Grammar is analysis of words - text and speech have physical reality. Audiophile Neuroscience and Bill Brown 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Measuring how a DAC affects a recording is exactly what measurements do, including if soundstage will be affected. Which particular measurements of a DAC are going to indicate if that DAC flattens the soundstage? Assume here a truly acoustic recording made in a concert hall not an artificially synthesized one. Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 2 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, pkane2001 said: Distortions between channels: crosstalk, level imbalance/nonlinearity, phase. How have you determined that its these? Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, pkane2001 said: Crosstalk is easy. Level imbalance is easy. Phase differences using DeltaWave, but other tools that show phase will do this, like REW. You've lost me so let me backtrack. Let's begin with your first one which was 'distortions between channels'. I'm unclear what that means - even though I'm pretty clear on distortion itself. Soundstage is going to get flatter if one channel has more distortion than the other? Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: says who? where is your evidence? I tend to concur with @pkane2001 on this - soundstage depends on the whole system not just the DAC. Which is why it won't be quantified by just measuring the DAC in isolation. Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Just now, pkane2001 said: Differences between time of arrival and amplitude between the two channels will cause a change to soundstage, as will crosstalk. You've quantified this (the former) with your software? Does Amir make measurements of differences in time of arrival between channels for DACs? I must confess I've not seen any but I'm an infrequent visitor to ASR. Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: I agree and including speaker type and placement and the room interaction. That said I do hear soundstage differences in DACS. IME high end MSB DAC in particular throw out enormous soundstage.. I've not heard MSB but have no reason to doubt this. In my experience soundstage depth has a lot to do with in-system noise. Improvements to power cleanliness seem to give greater depth for example. Its this observation that leads me to suspect CM noise as a significant player in soundstage - using transformers between components with SE ICs tends to improve soundstage depth for example. Here's a plot from ExaSound showing CM noise when there's no isolation between USB and the rest of the system. This kind of measurement doesn't often get made and when it does it gets misinterpreted. Audiophile Neuroscience and sandyk 1 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Amir usually measures channel imbalance and crosstalk. Don't think he's measured phase differences before, but I could be wrong. So on your first cited measurement, its not one that's currently at all popular? If that's true then it won't help me pick a DAC which doesn't flatten the soundstage ISTM. Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted July 11, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: It's not done by Amir, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and cannot be measured. That was the claim made by AN. Claims by AN are orthogonal to questions by me. If you recall I'm after knowing how to pick a DAC with great soundstage depth based on measurements of that DAC (post #473). So far you've not given me any indication how to do that because 'distortions between channels' isn't a currently popular measurement. Shall we move on to the next one which was crosstalk? How much can I allow before soundstage depth is compromised? Audiophile Neuroscience, Teresa and sandyk 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now