Jump to content


Content Editing
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About JoshM

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's absolutely untrue. SBAF publishes lots of measurements. Moreover, both AtomicBob and Marv there are more accomplished at measurements than Amir is. The debate is about what measurements matter (and to what extent) as well as what's audible, not whether measurements have any value. The recent claim by a someone at ASR that he was banned from SBAF for being "objectivist" is flatly untrue. A bunch of members (me included) engaged with him and gave him serious comments and advice about headphones. He was banned for saying racist things.
  2. But you started the discussion by saying you could point to sites!
  3. Why can't you specify which forum you're speaking of so that we can debate whether that's the case? By the way, I'll be reviewing the Matrix for Audiophile Style, for those who'd like a subjective review. 😊
  4. Ah, I thought that was in response to your emailing them. Definitely time to reach out to Neil, then.
  5. Did they just add the "NYA Thanks The Computer Audiophile" at the end? Would be great if they added a hyperlink, too.
  6. You’d have to ask the ASR crowd what that threshold is for them. According to Amir’s reviews, DACs that measure much “worse” than any mentioned in this review are audible identical to “perfect” DACs in his blind listening. Personally, I think Marv’s SBAF post (linked as “realist” in my review) comes closer to the truth.
  7. Harman How to Listen is the classic. The Sound Gym site is also great. I've used both. The only downside is that the Harman is a desktop app and the Sound Gym tends to work best on desktop. But there are also some good, if less full-featured, apps to use on smartphones and tablets. HearEQ, Quiztones, and StudioEars are my favorites.
  8. Out of curiosity, what DAC and what member? As I said above, I don't think of myself as solely "subjectivist" or "objectivist," and I certainly think that people are allowed to believe what they want. My preamble was an attempt to flag for self-identified objectivists that my review would involve my subjective impressions (like @austinpop's reviews and others') and to politely suggest not to read on if that's not their cup of tea. Unfortunately, judging by the reaction to this review by the ASR crowd, that didn't matter.
  9. That's a fair point. I considered not even addressing the so-called "subjectivist" versus "objectivist" divide at all, but considering that this is my first DAC review, I thought it was worth saying something about it, rather than just ignoring it. The fact that this is the DAC for the ASR crowd seemed to increase the necessity of addressing it, too, at least in my mind. But now that that's out of the way, my future DAC reviews won't bother with that preamble.
  10. Don’t seem at all “ludicrous” to me!
  11. Well, as I said, my experience certainly has been that even when people (such as Marv, in the SBAF links) go to great lengths to conduct proper blind tests, they’re dismissed as “invalid.” IMO, it would be wonderful to not hear differences. I’d love to believe that a sub-$100 DAC or headphone amp is the absolute best there is. If anything, my inherent cheapness and class warrior politics biases me to always give inexpensive products every benefit of the doubt in listening. (Indeed, way back when I got into the hobby, I was convinced that many differences I now hear didn’t exist. Then I experienced better gear, improved my listening skills...) As I said in the review, I think people who don’t believe there are (and/or can’t hear) differences between DACs should simply buy one of the good cheap DACs out there and be happy, without also calling everyone who disagrees morons and harassing them. Whatever time they’re saving by not having to look further for DACs, they’re wasting by yelling at people online who disagree. In terms of masterings versus DACs, by and large masterings make much bigger differences. The difference between a poorly transfered, poorly EQ’d, or squashed mastering and one that does all three well is drastic. That said, there are certain masterings that are so close in quality where a change in DAC might be more audible (two really good flat transfers of a great master tape, etc.). But in the average mix of masterings I look at for my column, the difference between the best and worse mastering is much bigger than the difference between the Modi 3 and Solaris, in terms of immediate, unsubtle audibility. (OTOH, picking a better mastering improves one album, where picking a better DAC improves your whole collection.)
  12. I know it measures well (said so in my review). Unfortunately, however, I don’t have any sponsors. I’m accepting offers, though!
  13. Note I said “all reasonable use case” (meaning: listening to music in a normal setting). While everyone at ASR isn’t an engineer, many claim to be, and even more claim that they understand engineering in a way that mere foolish “audiophiles” do not. Moreover, even Amir has said that the flaws in DACs that measure as “poorly” (or worse) than the Airist produce “audible effects [that] are subtle to non-existent.” I put terms that aren’t my own (and that I’d prefer we didn’t use) in quotes. I don’t believe in the oppositional dichotomy of “subjectivist” and “objectivist.” I’d prefer a synthesis between the two. I value measurements immensely. But I also don’t think six or seven graphs can tell us all we need to know about how a piece of equipment will sound. I’d also be fascinated to know what in my first paragraphs demonstrated to you that I’m “technologically illiterate.” I’m guessing it’s that I indicated that I don’t agree that all “properly designed” DACs sound alike. In that case, I’ve already given you my polite suggestion of what to do: stop reading, go buy a Modi 3, and stop worrying about DACs forever.
  14. Thank you for the link. Great stuff! My first paragraph set up a strawman? I wish that were the case. That’s why I provided the link to ASR, where I lurk. But I have plenty more examples. Indeed, just today the “all properly designed DACs sound the same; no one has ever heard a difference” mantra popped up again. IMO, that crowd ignores that expectancy bias runs both ways. If you believe all DACs sound the same, of course your own blind tests will prove you correct. Indeed, there’s no way to be proven wrong in that circumstance due to the structure of the test. It’s only meaningful when people who think they can hear differences take blind tests. But in my experience (as my links show) even correct results in those tests are dismissed. So it’s become a no-win scenario if you hear differences. Given that, I honestly think it’s fine for “objectivists” to simply go their own way and buy a cheap “perfect” DAC.
  15. I'll look for that list (or, if you're able, please post a link here!). As I mention in a footnote, I matched the DACs' levels to within .2 dB, but I didn't do any blind testing. In that past, I've done blind testing of DACs before and heard differences beyond chance. (I've also done things like get my hearing professional tested, completed hearing training courses, etc. that most people who claim to care about "audio science" don't bother with.) But, as the reaction over at ASR to SBAF's extensive blind testing shows, it doesn't matter if the testing is blind, people who don't believe "properly designed" DACs can sound different will still reject the results. It's ultimately not worth the trouble, IMO. That's why I suggested (very seriously and non-snarkily) at the top of the review that people who don't think "properly designed" DACs can sound different stop reading and instead by a Modi 3 or similarly cheap "perfect" measuring DAC.
  • Create New...