No, I don't think you're challenging me, Tom, but I can't remember where I read about the second challenge either. I just did a quick search and couldn't find it. Pretty sure I didn't imagine it; my prejudice is in favor of disappearing differences between the attainable and the esoteric. I would prefer to stop with the original challenge imagine it was verified and repeated, and believe the giant was slain.
Most probably at your preferred source of audio knowledge - The Audio Critic
The challenge we are addressing its the second one. Taken from the Wikipedia entry on Bob Carver : First, The Audio Critic chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the “t” stood for transfer function modified).
Most probably at your preferred source of audio knowledge - The Audio Critic
The challenge we are addressing its the second one. Taken from the Wikipedia entry on Bob Carver : First, The Audio Critic chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the “t” stood for transfer function modified).
You are my preferred source of audio knowledge, micro. Actually, I've learned much that was useful from Mr. Aczel, but I think he's pretty close to retired at this point. Nothing new since 2011. I think my current favorite source of audio knowledge is Sean Olive. Or WBF.
All I know about most of them is they found my web site through a link in a recording type forum, and emailed me their choices. It may not be obvious, but it takes a lot of courage to do that! And most were humbled rather than combative if it turned out they chose the wrong files. One recent email stated with absolute certainty the identity of all three mix files in my Converter Comparison. But he got them all wrong, picking the $25 SoundBlaster as the high-end converter. This is part of his second email to me after I sent him the answers:
emailer said:
Thanks for responding, and thanks for your stimulating contributions to the world of audio, however controversial your opinions may have been. It takes a challenge for all of us to discover the truth. Its amazing how good a cheap converter from Creative is. This has certainly been an education for me and I am shocked. How can a down sampled recording on a Sound Blaster, in my humble opinion, sound more transparent to a LAVRY?
I'm not confused about the Carver Challenge. I posted on numerous occaisions exactly what happened. Unforutunately other memberrs continue to cherry pick points from the argument to support thier conclusion(s).
No matter I have nothing more to say on the issue.
I'm not confused about the Carver Challenge. I posted on numerous occaisions exactly what happened. Unforutunately other memberrs continue to cherry pick points from the argument to support thier conclusion(s).
No matter I have nothing more to say on the issue.
Then you understand that in the first Carver challenge, the one entitled "The Carver Challenge," the one everyone is talking about when they refer to "The Carver Challenge," that Carver achieved the goal of making Caver's amp indistinguishable, to the reviewers, from the reference CJ? And you understand that those results played out over multiple sets of speakers and were not limited to the midrange? Good. Good to know you're not confused.
From an emailer: "...Its amazing how good a cheap converter from Creative is. This has certainly been an education for me and I am shocked. How can a down sampled recording on a Sound Blaster, in my humble opinion, sound more transparent to a LAVRY?"
The better Creative DACs measure absurdly well, so in assuming that it couldn't possibly sound any good, your emailer clearly doesn't believe in measurements at all. He also links price to performance as though there is a direct relationship; maybe there used to be, but when it comes to integrated circuits, digital audio and software there's no link any more. The cost comes in the 'Intellectual Property' that, once refined and tested, can be duplicated by the million at zero cost. People should understand that most DACs really are all the same, and spend their money where it matters: on great (active) speakers!
The better Creative DACs measure absurdly well, so in assuming that it couldn't possibly sound any good, your emailer clearly doesn't believe in measurements at all. He also links price to performance as though there is a direct relationship; maybe there used to be, but when it comes to integrated circuits, digital audio and software there's no link any more. The cost comes in the 'Intellectual Property' that, once refined and tested, can be duplicated by the million at zero cost. People should understand that most DACs really are all the same, and spend their money where it matters: on great (active) speakers!
Yes, people should understand the relation between specs and sound quality, but looking at the two posts following yours it's clear that many still don't.
Then you understand that in the first Carver challenge, the one entitled "The Carver Challenge," the one everyone is talking about when they refer to "The Carver Challenge," that Carver achieved the goal of making Caver's amp indistinguishable, to the reviewers, from the reference CJ? And you understand that those results played out over multiple sets of speakers and were not limited to the midrange? Good. Good to know you're not confused.
Greg
One of the pairs of loudspeakers was the Infinity RS-1B, but with the Conrad-Johnson or Carver amplifiers driving the midrange/treble panels only.—John Atkinson
Yes, people should understand the relation between specs and sound quality, but looking at the two posts following yours it's clear that many still don't.
In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CkyrDIGzOE he explains how all the measurements that they used showed that the sound quality SHOULD be perfect & identical to a reference DAC but some people could hear differences (blind) & they seem to have eventually tracked down where these differences lay & devise a methos of measuring them. One relevant quote: "But, engineering for specifications is secondary to engineering for exceptional sound fidelity..."
I also just recently posted a link to a paper from the laboratory of mathematical physics in Rockefeller University in which their experiments show hearing actually is more revealing than measurements [U]http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.4611.pdf[/U]. "We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity."
Again, no comment from you!
Yet you make the above claim
Care to comment on these this time or again ignore them?
I just got off the phone with Bob who is getting his speakers ready for the RMAF and he believes that it was the M1.0t that he modified for both of the challenges. I would have more for you but the phone signal was about as good as a weak FM signal for some reason. Must be that Florida weather. He had mentioned that he will get back with me tomorrow before he hits the airport but something tells me he will be too busy. I wish him luck with the new line arrays. He sure is a fun guy to talk too.
This thread is really cool. It is like an infinite loop treadmill that keeps all the usual suspects plodding and trodding without contaminating the other threads.
This thread is really cool. It is like an infinite loop treadmill that keeps all the usual suspects plodding and trodding without contaminating the other threads.
I did look at that video, but I'm not willing to sit through more than an hour just to learn that you likely quoted him out of context, or find out how he's mistaken. If you tell me specifically what part to watch I'll gladly do so. YouTube makes it easy to skip around. I seem to recall asking you for the time many pages back and you ducked that.
One relevant quote: "But, engineering for specifications is secondary to engineering for exceptional sound fidelity..."
I also just recently posted a link to a paper from the laboratory of mathematical physics in Rockefeller University in which their experiments show hearing actually is more revealing than measurements
Your link is broken but I figured it out anyway. Regardless, that paper says no such thing. It compares "FFT uncertainty bounds," not what is possible to measure. You should run for president of the US.
Why let a facts get in get in the way of a good story Ethan?
Since you're accusing JKenny of selling "expensive DACs," you can tell us, without looking it up, what the actual price of the item is that you're referring to? Inquiring minds want to know.
And while you're at it, please define what's an expensive DAC? Something that costs more than $25? $100? $500? $1000? More than $2000? More inquiring minds want to know.
Then while you're at it, please break down the parts cost and all other expenses that go into bringing a product to market and how you could do it for less. Most inquiring minds want to know.
I did watch the video, and enjoyed it. What it told me was that the algorithm you use for a Sigma Delta DAC can be very poor, or very good - and early Sigma Delta DACs were simply not as good as they could be; it didn't need any more expensive hardware, merely for someone to sit down and think through how to optimise the algorithm for the best noise performance and stability. As I said in a previous post, it's all in the 'Intellectual Property' and once refined and perfected it can be churned out by the million at no extra cost. Like the man said, ESS are fabless and simply pick the "cheapest" manufacturer to produce the silicon. It is also apparent that ESS's algorithms are licensed to many other DAC manufacturers - or have been copied by them!
Very interesting point about how typical frequency domain measurements didn't show the problem up clearly, and it made our discussion on time domain null testing seem quite relevant. However, in this case you wouldn't need to make actual physical measurements, merely analyse what the Sigma Delta algorithm was doing.
