Jump to content

pkane2001

  • Content Count

    4150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

4 Followers

About pkane2001

Recent Profile Visitors

5346 profile views
  1. As far as I know, Modi 1 measurements were atrocious, with large levels of noise and jitter. Modi 3 appears to be a very reasonable, well-performing DAC that was made after Schiit acquired an APx555. Don't know what was right or proven wrong, but this is what the measurements show.
  2. I'm a bit confused. What objective facts? What Schiit said was wrong after they purchased an APx555? Sorry, I'm not privy to such facts.
  3. Ask them, why are you asking here? Training and knowledge is required to understand and use measurements properly.
  4. Real engineers know the value of measurements. Schiit doesn’t have to say schiit about it, this is engineering 101.
  5. @The Computer Audiophile, can you please ask @sandyk to stop moderating my thread? Or I can do it if you give me moderator rights. Thank you.
  6. Peter will get 10/10, as he already promised ;)
  7. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, Peter. I'm just observing :) You're in, then you're out, then you're in again, and now you're out. I've not changed any of the parameters that I originally proposed, except to adjust to yours and others requests, so I don't quite understand this dithering. I even offered to do a mic recording after the analog loopback test. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. I'll publish what I record and others can decide if they want to listen to it or not, and whether they hear the difference.
  8. That's a good test, but much harder to conduct properly in the days of COVID and, in general, for a distributed audience spread over multiple continents. Maybe in a year or so we can do something like that. For now, sharing recorded files is the best we can do.
  9. I only avoid full tracks for internet distribution when there is a copyright consideration. This is the law where I am, and I'd rather not break the law if I can avoid it ;)
  10. Did I argue about changed bits? You seem to be on a different track than the rest of the discussion. If you see a problem with what's being proposed, please propose a different methodology.
  11. Peter, I think you're overcomplicating things. The test is not to simulate what you have in your system, with your filters and your sampling rates, but rather what happens in a typical audiophile system. Source material of 24/48k or even 24/192k will work just fine with my equipment. But I have to ask again, how do you think that playing through extra amps and speakers, recorded by a microphone, and then recorded using an ADC will not cut off those higher frequencies above 192kHz? How many people using your cable have a tweeter capable of producing frequencies up to 192KHz? How man
  12. So do we agree to capture analog outputs for this initial test? I'm not against doing the microphone test after this, although I think it'll introduce way too many new variables into the test, like microphones, speakers, amps, cables, power supplies, etc. that have nothing to do with the USB cable and can all generate obvious differences and distortions.
  13. I don't know if you realize it, but you're describing exactly an ABX test. There are two tracks that are properly labeled -- references, and there are two (or more) files that are not labeled. Your job in an ABX test is to match up unknown files to the reference. How you do this (listen to the whole track, listen to 5 seconds at a time, repeat the track multiple times, compare it multiple times to each of the references, etc.) is exactly what ABX test allows you to do. There's no time constraint or requirement to do quick switch-overs. How you match an unknown track to a reference is up to you
  14. Or the printer USB cable? It all depends on the outcome.
×
×
  • Create New...