I would like to see Majidimehr design/build a dac from scratch though... show us all what a genius he is with his unfathomable bachelors degree n all (instead of dumping rudimentary output from a AP kit all day...that a 12 year old could be taught to do).
I hate the audio hardware business so you are never going to see me get involved in it. I did grew up with electronics as my hobby and put myself through college repairing all manners of electronics from audio to RF radios.
DAC design is not hard anyway as the IC companies provide full reference designs. What is hard is the implementation to keep noise down. That, is hard and I tip my hat at likes of Topping, SMSL, Schiit, etc. for having that hands on knowledge (I hired experts for that when I was managing engineering at Sony and others). Check out this review of Mytek Brooklyn Bridge II DAC and Streamer
It got the worst rating from me not just for performance, but for having DAC filter selections that did nothing!
Same problem was found by stereophile months earlier in their review and they still had not bothered to fix it! There must have been a shortage of 12 year olds where they work per your statement to run this simple test and find the bug.
I imagine, they went through changing the settings in the UI and picked the one that sounded best to them, not realizing that all the time nothing was changing in the unit!!!
We are talking about a $5000 unit there. Now compare that to this review of Eversolo DMP-A6 Streamer and balanced DAC:
As you see it is a gorgeous looking device with proper form factor, running Android.
This is how well it performed:
Now compare its FFT performance on top right to that of Mytek:
You see all that power supply and interference noise in Mytek? This is what happens when there is a shortage of 12 year olds that know how to run Audio Precision!
|
If it is just one boring bird squealing to a single string in a simplistic manner, one may not catch stuff like that about the ASR Topping miracle. These Chifi engineers are fairly sharp though and maybe they’ve learned a thing or two (progressed over time, wouldn’t know until a newer dac is compared)..
A few years ago, Schiit decided to take measurements seriously, put aside their lousy audio measurement and buy an Audio Precision analyzer like I have. In less than a year, they managed to produce superb performance and price as good as Chinese companies. Here is one of many examples, the Schiit Midgard:
As you see, it garnered the highest award from me (the golfing panther). The product like many others was sent to me by the company.
They are not alone. Here is JDS Labs doing the same. Of course Benchmark Audio has been there longer than many producing excellent products.
As a consumer, you need to celebrate the fact that companies are working hard to produce the most transparent audio products they can without charging you a premium. Not go on some racist tangent that if it is Chinese, it can't be that good or that they must have learned something from others. Topping has been and continues to be the only company that includes in its manuals complete set of measurements. They did this before I started reviewing anything.
But this is audio where religion and beliefs dominate more than actual facts.
|
I borrowed a Topping D whatever it was with the balanced outs (their top model kinda from a couple of years ago). When you played dense tracks is when it started to fall apart, in comparison to my other dacs...(technics, denafrips...or even the Schiit Yggdrasil).
I tested two Schiit Yggdrasils, finding design errors in them. Company disputed that so a third person volunteered his unit. In doing so, he told me he had bought a Topping and it did not sound as good. He gave me the model number and precise tracks he had used for that testing, and the fact that he had used Stax headphones. I own Stax headphones, and said Topping DAC and same music in high-res (what he had used).
First thing I had to do was match levels as out of box levels were not the same, invalidating any such listening test. After I did that, the two DACs sounded identical in AB tests. The Topping cost 10% of the Yggdrasils.
I was also told that the Yggdrasils needs to warm up. So I left it on for days, measuring it along the way. Its performance never changed.
Again, I duplicated his listening tests to the letter, except that I was careful to match levels when he had not done.
If you all just learned how to properly test equipment so that only the fidelity is being evaluated, then these arguments would all go away. Instead, you keep doing faulty testing, with all manner of mistakes and biases and arrive at conclusions that are not supported by any science or engineering.
|
Here is John Atkinson commenting on objective performance of Topping Pre90:
The Pre90 preamplifier's measured performance is simply superb. The fact that that performance can be achieved in such a small chassis and for such a low price suggests that Topping has some serious audio engineering talent in-house.—John Atkinson
On another Topping product:
The Topping DM7's measured performance is superb, even without taking its affordable price into account.—John Atkinson
|
What a nasty, arrogant condescending piece of work you are.
|
Dude (facepalm), the fact that you sat around with headphones comparing that Schiit with something else....no, you have a lot to learn.
The owner's experience was with Stax headphone and that is what I replicated.
For starters, I could show you a comparison on a couple of dacs, a good one and a crappy one i have in storage with one of my rigs (NOT HEADPHONES) and it is flipping night and day obvious how one one of them produces a flatass soundfield and the other one doesn’t.
Then go ahead and do that. Be sure to match levels, perform the test blind, and repeat at least 10 times and see if you get at least 9 right. With that kind of differentiation, it should be a walk in the park for you.
I’ll pass a blind comparison 25/25 times or 50/50 times or how many ever flipping times (done it before) in my room (not in your garage) on the test tracks I recorded/will provide.
Do you also know how to shoot a video of the event? Because that is what we need.
I conclude that you have no field experience and it is a waste of time to try and say anything to you Carry on, try and dazzle the Agon senior citizens some more with a few more of your simpleton charts.
Let's see you dazzle us with some facts rather than claims. When can we expect the above comparison video?
|
I sat at one of their facilities once and listened to a few iterations of some circuits. Guy varies the signal path distance... and the sound changes.
So your eyes were involved in that experience. It makes sense, right? That the longer distance would make things worse.
A component he deems more thermally resilient vs non-resilient (external solution)...the sound changes
You don't know that the sound changed and neither does he or he would show it to you on an audio analyzer or scope.
He had no engg explanation as to WHY himself? (Why Flippin why?)....
Why indeed. Both of you perceived a change. No question there. The question is whether the output of that device changed or not. This is what we are interested in. After all, we don't listen to music through you two's brains.
The explanation is that our hearing is dynamic and bi-directional. Your brain decides from moment to moment how much it cares about detail in the music. Most of the time, it has to throw away 99.999% of what it is hearing as recording everything would take infinite storage. But ask your brain to analyze things and it will then go into a different mode and listen much more carefully. When it does, you all of a sudden hear more air. More detail. The soundstage opens up. All of these things happen. But they happen with nothing changes in your system! You changed.
Once you hear that change, now bias sets in. You listen to the "before" system and the magic is gone. You listen to "after" system, it comes back.
What is incredible is that even full knowledge of this effect won't make you immune to it. It is so part of being human that it is just going to happen.
This is why we test blind. That way, you don't know if a change has occurred or not due to randomness of selection.
When I first started to test Marantz AV products, performance was worse than Denon. I asked the company why that is. They said they have a guy just like what you are describing making changes and a Golden ear guy makes decisions on what sounds best. I told them that process only works if the testing is done blind and repeated. Fast forward two years and Marantz products now have excellent performance with none of that degradation through the methods you describe.
We (science) are not stupid. Doing blind tests is hard. But we have to do it to eliminate not only bias, but above elasticity of human perception.
A great example of this: one of the ex-stereophile editors (now part of Absolute Sound) lives near us and he was kind enough to invite our local audiophile group to go to his house and listen to his system. While there, he had a new amplifier for review. Room was too small so we split up into two groups. First group went it and heard comparisons of his everyday amp against the amplifier under review. They come back and without saying anything, our group goes in. We are presented with different music samples played by both amps. At the end, he asked which amplifier sounded better. Majority (not including me), voted that one was.
We come back as a group to meet up with the first group. As soon as we got there they asked us which amp our group said was better. Guess what? We had selected the exact opposite of what they had! Jaws fell on the floor in both groups. Both were so convinced they were right.
The reviewer then said he knew why that happened. He said that he played the amps in opposite order for each group! In other words, merely changing which amp went first vs second, determined the outcome. Not the fidelity difference!
He was partially right. As I mentioned above, it is often that the second sample sounds better due to us paying closer attention although this doesn't have to be this way.
I didn't vote as I mentioned above because there was no way to make a proper comparison. And at any rate, both sounded similar anyway.
While what you experienced makes lay sense, and you were impressed by an authority that you thought knew more than you, what I am explaining likely does not. But it is a proven fact not only in audio but in many other fields where blind testing is performed.
So I am asking a lot. I am asking you to put aside your intuition and limited experience and trust the science. You do that to believe earth is round even though every bone in your body says otherwise. No way do you want to believe that time changes with speed yet we have GPS satellites that are calibrated for this based on Einstein's theory of special relativity. You have to trust the science in audio much like you do in other areas. Otherwise you live in a sea of confusing opinions about audio.
These are things I have explained in my video tutorials:
Let us look at a less extreme case. I have been tied to a violin for 40+ years. I own a few different violins. I could record a progression on 2 different violins I own. You play it back and I will pick out which violin is which without blinking.
I have address this before. Those two recordings could be shown trivially to measure differently. Here, you all are claiming differences that you say are not measurable so best not to mix examples. Even here, we would need evidence of y you doing this reliably. I show how I can tell extremely small impairments in the second video above. This is done through record of double blind test. Countless audiophiles failed that test.
Bottom line is this: there is not a single professional society that would accept the results of any non-blind/uncontrolled testing as you say you have done. You claim superiority to the science but lack any evidence to prove it. Only self-appraisals under an alias in a forum. That, doesn't amount to anything.
|
Absolutely not....I sat in front of a couple of TAD monitors while a couple of snickering Japanese guys tweaked away behind me...
Ah, an attempt at blind testing that was left out of your original story. Sad that you didn't know that the test needs to be repeated.
TAD by the way has sent me equipment for review, courtesy of their CEO contacting me. Here is my review of their TAD Evolution 2 Speaker:
It did "OK."
Conclusions
I guess I can state the obvious that given TAD's stellar reputation in speaker designs, I walked in expecting perfection. We did not get that. I let you all vote with what you think of the measured performance. I am delighted about the quality of the speaker though.
I should also mention the incredible support and generosity of the company to work with me and send me these samples for testing. No other company has offered such expensive speakers for testing.
|
And yes, he wants a video (as if i owe him something)...
You don't owe me anything. That request was meant to help you prove your case. Otherwise, we can dismiss it as another grandiose claim to hear someone flushing their toilet in the next country. And claim so while violating basics of how to do a controlled test.
|
Nowhere has anyone said that measurements have no place in the design and evaluation of equipment.
Then there is nothing extreme about what I am doing to review audio products. But then we read stuff like this from a few pages back:
What is so cool is when you reduce the noise (audible not measured) then you not only can hear that there are 5 back up singers instead of 4....
Noise that is not measurable? that's extreme, no?
Noise is the simplest thing to measure. Don't feed the device a signal and measure the voltage. Done! But somehow audio doesn't abide by laws of physics. It can have noise that is unmeasurable.
Wonder why it is so common to find these unmeasurable designs in audio from cables to footers and fuses. Just about every review of such unmeasurable effects about blacker backgrounds. Yet, none of these technologies are used where noise is a huge problem such as radio telescopes.
What is fascinating is that often when I measure the noise characteristics of these tweaks, they are actually worse than cheap generic stuff! Take this Nordost SuperFlatline speaker cable:
I put a transformer next to it and inject some noise into it and we get this:
Now let's do that to our generic speaker cable:
Look at how much less it is influenced by the noise! Physics predicts that from the configuration of Norodost cable but folks just want to believe marketing material and results of faulty listening tests.
So no, some folks don't want to see a role for measurements. It destroys the illusion they are living in.
|
The transparency we perceive when we remove noise with tweaks can be heard.....plain and simple. It CANNOT be measured.
Only when you use your eyes as well. Audio equipment naturally measures sound, not what your eyes also picked up. Or knowledge of what you are listening to and bias therein.
Do the test again without looking or prior knowledge, and then your claim can be taken seriously. Until then, there is no such thing as unmeasurable noise. We wouldn't know what noise is if we could not measure it!
|
Whatever you put your mind on........you become. Amir is a measurement man, he puts his mind on a measurement mache.....therefore.....he has become a machine......he he.
Not at all. I hugely value proper listening test results. Your listening tests are faulty and you refuse to understand why. Do the listening tests properly and we can then have a discussion.
When I am challenged on my hearing ability, I provide full double blind listening tests such as this public test a few years back:
----
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01 50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02 75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03 50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04 31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05 18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06 10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08 3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09 2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10 1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11 0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12 0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13 0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14 0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15 0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)
As you see, 14 out of 15 right which is almost perfect.
And Mark's test tracks he produced for a test on AVS:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav
18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)
----
All you have is claims of hearing this and that. Come back following protocols that limit your experience to only sound and then you have something. No measurements needed.
As I have said, nearly half of my reviews include listening tests. That amounts to hundreds of reviews this way. So don't keep saying I only go by measurements. I go by what science requires which is either objective tests or controlled experiments. What you do is neither.
|
We are Beautiful.....celebrate! We are an infinite Miracle......70 trillion cells in our bodies.....WOW times infinity.....can you dig it? Or would you rather be right?
That's right. All those cells have an amazing ability to invent things that don't exist. Listen to a violin and your brain imagines the thing being in your room. But there is nothing in your room. It is just imagination. You dream at nights. Nothing about that is real. Your brain has infinite ability to imagine things.
We have to have protocols to keep the brain from imagining things and only reflect what you are hearing. Don't confuse what you perceive vs what goes into your ear. They can be the same or completely different.
|
Well my guess is that some love music and others love devices.
Subjectivists are worst at it, worrying about every bit of their system affecting the sound from screws to cables. One wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of their system without constant worrying that "everything matters" and what else they could upgrade.
Objectivists do proper research of what they are buying and do so with confidence. That frees them to site back and enjoy music. I know I am.
Not JA s biggest fan, but he certainly doesnt take an overly extreme position.
He can't. There is a business to be run. His measurements don't lie though. So be sure to learn how to read them and not just go by his words. He often shows an audio product with really bad performance but finishes with "there is good engineering there." I am not so tied up so my conclusions match the data in the review.
|
If Amir was a confident in measurements as he claims, there would be no reason to mount what the ASR faithful label as justifiable defensive responses here or in any other forum.
Huge amount of nonsense is discussed about audio here and in other forums. You don't see me jumping in those discussions. As they say, you do you.
Things change when you specifically start to discuss ASR as is the case here. Some repeat the same angry chants thinking there is no one who is going to counter them.
Forum software notifies me of topics that involve ASR. I take a look and routinely find all kinds of misstatements which can trivially be shown to be wrong. I post that with the response just being angry comments. No explanation of science. No explanation of engineering. No data. Just fantastical, self-grandiose claims of amazing listening abilities that has to be accepted, damn every bit of evidence to the contrary.
If Amir is actually confident and secure in his knowledge, his first and only response would have been an invitation to participate in ASR, requesting only respectful discussion with assurance of the same from already converted ASR faithful.
That is some strange logic. Members posting here are not going to move over to some other forums to have the discussion. They want to have it here and that is what I am doing.
Regardless, if you are easily offended, I suggest just reading ASR. Don't create an account, then jump in with both feet claim that only your ears matter and not science and engineering. You will get a few chances to prove this but if all you do is brag about your super hearing and how that rules, then folks will push back hard. They will do that to me as well by the way. We have to be able to defend what we say on ASR. No one is given a free pass day in and out to make claims like it is done elsewhere.
A few years ago a bit of good natured humor was directed at ASR. Nothing rude or nasty. The ASR faithful went ballistic in reaction and behaved as if a life and death battle had been initiated.
The only threads I have seen here have been like this one: folks fighting with every rude comment and insult they can think of. Humor is not remotely found. Folks are super angry that anyone would dare to challenge their ideas of audio with science, measurements and explanation of engineering. If this impression is wrong, I suggest you form your future posts to be different than what you have post already.
|
I had always thought the suspension of disbelief was what guided the audiophile.
It is, even though stereo is woefully inadequate in doing so. When I am at a piano playing, I am constantly reminded that no stereo in the world has ever captured that sound. Two speakers have zero prayer of doing so. Same as when my son plays his drums and my pant legs are literally moving due to incredible dynamics of that instrument.
Fortunately the brain is creative and forgiving. Even listening to a smart speaker in mono you detect a violin recording as violin and imagine it being there. Your brain combines the sound with a lifetime of experiences to construct something that is not real, but desired. It is this power of synthesis that I was talking about, not some illusion of reality that we sometimes get with our audio system.
|
we definitely would know what noise is without measuring it, otherwise what would be the point in measuring it at all if we couldn't hear it.
It is the reason we do reviews: to help you buy a system and not have to buy each one to experience/evaluate it yourself. If companies provided proper measurements and specifications, then this would not be necessary. As Dr. Toole is fond of saying, there are more specifications on the side of a car tire than there is for audio equipment!
Another reason is your application changing. You may have insensitive speakers today. Tomorrow you may have a much more sensitive speaker and hear the noise. Or get an in-ear-monitor or headphone. These two category of devices have incredible ability to dig deep due to closeness to the ear and far larger dynamic range than any speaker.
If you get a device that can be shown to have noise floor below threshold of hearing, then you are assured that it is going to be silent no matter what. Earlier I talked about the Mytek streamer. I showed in measurements how it was susceptible to noise pick up internally. See how the subjectivist reviewer at Stereophile got hit with this:
Downstairs, with my desktop system, I noticed some low-level noise and hash, the kind that can sometimes leak through a computer soundcard, and also some hum. The hash was not audible from the balanced or headphone outputs—only the unbalanced. At normal listening levels, with no music playing, the hash was audible but low in level. Further investigation, including consultations with JA1 and JCA, revealed the hash source: RFI from my Linksys Mesh Wi-Fi network leaking into the audio, likely through the BBII's Wi-Fi receiver. When I navigated through the Network menu, disconnected from my Wi-Fi network, and connected via hard-wired Ethernet, the hash disappeared. The hum remained, however
Again, this is a $5,000 "high-end" streamer we are talking about. Anyone reading my measurements would know that the potential for above noise and would get a streamer that is far quieter. You may buy the Mytek and have it be quiet, only to produce noise when the configuration changes per reviewer above.
Something is either well engineered or not. Measurements of noise is one of the top indicators of this.
|
- frees one to be lazy and not develop listening skills is what it does.
Why do you need "listening skills" to enjoy music? If your are sitting there analyzing sound with them "listening skills," it means you are not paying attention to music itself. To wit, billions of people around the world enjoy music who are not audiophiles. By definition then, they are superior to any audiophile because their focus is all on music, not hardware. You should be jealous of them if your goal is music enjoyment.
This is assuming you have developed listening skills. When you are tested blind, all of a sudden you can't tell A from B even though the difference was clear as a day sighted. Listening skills would have to be durable as I showed in my double blind testing. Demonstrate that instead of self grading your exam and you would have something other than another grandiose claim.
|
This, is music enjoyment:
Not what you all pretend to do.
|
- And he determines who gets to perceive and hear correctly.
The fact that you think these are my ideas shows how little you know about human psychology. What I have explained to you has literally been known for more than a century. Don't believe me? Watch the story of "Clever Hans:"
|
very true for many subjectivists, not true for audiophiles who believe in balance. And, in truth, no different from rationalists who spend so much time worrying about the measurements, one wonders if they are ever able to sit back and enjoy the sound of the system until every measurement is done because every ‘measurement’ matters….
It is clear you have no idea who we are. Or you do know and are just making things up.
We buy gear based on measurements and excellence in engineering. Once there, we are done and just enjoy music. I listen to music for hours every day. I discover half a dozen new albums as my Roon player automatically plays wonderful music from Tidal service.
except the most vital one of the specific sound waves coming from that specific signal chain of an entire system in the specific space of listening.
Signal chain? Sounds like you are sitting there analyzing the sound instead of enjoying it as the rest of us do. And as I said, constantly worrying about what part of that "chain" needs tweaking, changing, improving.
High fidelity is not about signal fidelity in isolation - it is about the accuracy of the entire sound reproduction in comparison to the original sound.
There you go worrying about "accuracy" and not enjoying music for what it is.
The signal has nothing to do with high fidelity. Do look up the definition of high fidelity.
Search for High Fidelity and Google gives you this:
"high fi·del·i·ty
/ˌhī fəˈdelədē/
noun
-
the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original."
And how do you know about distortion? By measuring it.
You all are so wrapped around the axel that are now inventing new notions for everything. Please stop posting and go and listen to some music.
|
First, wouldn't that mean the more expensive product should get dinged in a review because even though it measured better the differences weren't audible and the relentless pursuit of better measuring products is of no value?
Not by me in the review. Here is again the Mola Mola Tambaqui review:
It got the soccer panther (equiv. of golfing panther for European products). Here are my conclusions after it topped all the charts:
"Conclusions
The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC shows again that just because a DAC is designed from ground up, it need not perform poorly. It is actually the opposite with it performing at the top of the class with respect to distortion and noise.
Since I am not the one paying for it for you to purchase it, it is not my issue to worry about the cost. As such, I am happy to recommend the Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC based on its measured performance and functionality."
There are non-fidelity aspects of products that matter to some people, myself included. There is pride of ownership, looks, support, warranty, resale, etc. that are valuable purchase criteria. The key is to not confuse those things with sound fidelity.
To be sure, there is pushback from membership on how I can recommend such expensive devices since you can get similar performance for much lower cost. My answer to them is that they can judge the product however they want (they get to vote in the poll that way). My job is not to assess how affordable something is. That, the readers can and do take into account. I provide the missing information, i.e. performance data and they get to combine it with above factors to make a purchase decision.
I should say that I do "curve the grades" a bit when testing super budget products. I will recommend a $90 amplifier with certain performance that I would not if it cost $9,000.
Finally, there are exceptions. But above is how it works almost all the time.
|
I guess my confusion about the ASR site is that there seems to be a certain measured criteria that noise when below the audible range that in a dark room I (or any real/ or perceived audiophile) wouldn't be able to differentiate this product from a more expensive product even if the more expensive measured better.
Noise is just one parameter of performance, albeit, an important one that telegraphs other performance specifications. If the frequency response of one system is rolled off then you are going to hear that whether noise is a factor or not. Indeed, passive speakers are noise-free (when you are not feeding them a signal) yet there are vast audible differences between them.
If you mean all measured impairments are below threshold of hearing in both devices, then yes, in a controlled, level matched, repeated test, listeners would not be able to reliably tell them apart.
|
Yet ASR continues to bring in new products after the peak has already been reached based on perceptive hearing, To me then it appears that the pursuit is not about music but bragging rights regarding the numbers or else there is an audible difference beyond the perceived hearing threshold and ASR members can tell the difference.
People and companies send me products and I test them. I don't go and seek them out myself. People want to know if the performance is still great or taken a step back.
Almost every review of state of the art DAC is followed by a number of people complaining what the point of testing them is as they all sound the same. So your comment about "ASR people" is wrong. Members know that a few manufacturers are in a race to product the least amount of noise and distortion they can.
Note that as of late, more features are being added such as parametric EQ in this Topping D50 III balanced DAC:
While maintaining start of the art performance for $229.
Finally, please note that the asian consumer electronics market demands fresh products. Anything more than a few months old is "not good anymore." If I were running these companies I would produce 10% of the products they do but their local market demands much more. So we have embarrassment of riches as they say.
|
The other inference is that ASR can build a minimal system based on perception measurements that when blind tested in Mike Lavigne’s listening room that the ASR system would sound indistinguishable or better than his current system. I find that hard to believe but then again I’ve never heard Mike’s system or Amir’s for that matter.
That should be hard to believe because it is not true. State of the art audio system will be expensive. My system is not cheap and neither is Mike’s:
The reason is to the left and right of Mike. To get incredible dynamics and bass down to subsonic will be super expensive. I am guessing his speakers weigh close to 1000 pounds! Your $500 bookshelf speaker is not going to do what his does. Physics and economic business models won’t allow it.
Mind you, we have made incredible progress toward bringing cost of such systems down. In the "old" analog days, every component of the system from source to speakers was expensive. Today with digital, playback hardware can be free in the form of a music player on a computer you already own. Some of us splurge a bit more for likes of Roon but that is not related to fidelity. This is a lot cheaper than a turntable.
DACs have massively come down in price while sharply increasing performance. If you don’t need balanced out, an $80 SMSL DAC will clean the clocks of many high-end DACs and provide full transparency to source content you are playing.
Amplification used to be another expensive factor. More power meant more expensive output transistors and inefficiency meant large and heavy heatsinks and cases. My amplifiers cost $25,000 each and weigh more than 110 pounds each. Fortunately, the era of high performance class D is upon us. For around $1000 you can get tons of power and superb, absolutely superb performance.
Speakers remain problematic. There is progress to bring the cost way down for equiv. performance. A Genelec or Neumann monitor bring accuracy and fidelity to die for. But except for the top of their range, they lack the amplification power and dynamics to do what Mike’s or my speakers do. Although the Genelec 8361A comes awfully close to my speakers for less than half the price.
There is a work around here with subwoofers. Those can bring the low-end but they also demand lots of work and knowledge on behalf of the owner to get them to work well with their room and main speakers.
Final note: there are a lot of expensive speakers that have poor design. So above is not to say that you pay more and get more. It is just that it is impossible to get the impressive sound that you can out of large/massive speaker systems at budget prices. I have listened to hundreds of audio systems at shows. The ones with statement speakers always do things that amaze me. No way do I go around and say you can spend $5K and get the same thing. Just not going to happen.
|
Also worth noting that these days in the 21st century, Roon DSP like DSP in general is the great "equalizer" thus can make a huge difference in sound quality in any room if applied wisely, though I suppose few buy Roon solely for its DSP. That’s merely a huge bonus!
Couldn't agree more. Absolutely true.
|
Amir told me my Pioneer S1ex were dynamic and had great bass cause the measurements said so.
What? You said your speakers measure great. I showed you that they did not remotely have such good measurements. Your diagnostic of what is wrong with them is suspect but your bad experience matches not so great measurements.
|
1: DO YOU BELIEVE DYNAMICS IN A SPEAKER IS A THING?
Your question is ambiguous indicating you don’t know the precise way to characterize speaker performance.
2: HOW DO YOU MEASURE SUCH DYNAMICS (assuming you think it’s a real thing)
Same answer.
3: YOU REALLY DONT THINK FAST IS A THING WHEN IT CONES TO SPEAKERS?
Yes.
by the way dynamics is the difference between soft and loud and how well the speaker presents and handles that transition.
Made up characteristic that is not supported by any listening test study.
Just so you know it’s not how loud a speaker can play. How loud a speaker can play is just……. How loud a speaker can play.
I didn’t tell you it was. I told you how you assess usable dynamic range of a speaker. What you are talking about is vague, made up notions for stereo reviewers to fill pages to sell ads.
|
So dynamics are not a thing?
You asked me about "micro/macro" dynamics. Those things don't exist.
Dynamics is a general term and can exist if you qualify it as I did for you last time we discussed this. I define it as how loud a speaker can play sub-bass tones without audible distortion.
|
Cause you can’t measure it with your tones?
'Cause no one can design it. It is like asking me to build you a counter for number of times Aliens have landed in your backyard. Just because you imagine something, and make up a name for it, doesn't mean it is real.
|
Sorry, but, I have heard this Putzey goof’s sterile sounding sht bro... It sounds sterile and lousy as sht...
I hear you but stereophile reviewer didn’t remotely agree with you.
Let’s go even more into the domain of subjectivity with 6moon review:
This is the concluding statement ("Danes" mean the Purifi amplifier designers)
|
So other than measuring a bunch of tones, what else constitutes a “great”speaker? How do you measure that?
|
This guy wouldn’t have had such an experience with his 86db sterile Revel salon (just not that kinda speaker).
John Atkinsons, then editor of stereophile magazine was asked at RMAF what is his favorite speaker. He said Revel Salon 2:
Doesn't remotely agree with you.
|
“ Surely you can hear a Cornwall has better Macro dynamics than a Harbeth right?
Who here agrees with him?
|
I'm sorry Amir but for sound quality price matters more than numbers, believe me I wish it wasn't true but in this case and on sound quality alone your panther has lost it’s head.
First, thank you for the constructive tone of your response. 😀
If sound quality matters, then I have that for you as well in my review of PS Audio DirectStream DAC:
"Listening Tests
For subjective testing, I chose to use the recently reviewed and superb Monoprice Monolith THX 887 Balance Headphone Amplifier. This headphone amp has vanishingly low distortion and hence is completely transparent to DACs being tested. For the alternative DAC, I used my everyday Topping DX3 Pro 's line out RCA to Monolith. I then used the XLR input to connected the DirectStream DAC. Once there, I played a 1 kHz tone and used my Audio Precision analyzer to match levels using PS Audio's volume control. PS Audio claims perfection there ("bit perfect") so I figured they can't complain about that. ![:)]( "Smile :)") The final matching was 0.3 dB difference between the two.
For headphone I used DROP + MRSPEAKERS ETHER CX with its XLR connection to THX 887 amp.
I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks.
Next I played some of my bass heaving tracks i use for headphone testing. Here, it was easy to notice that bass impact was softented. But also, highs were exaggerated due to higher distortion. Despite loss of high frequency hearing, I found that accentuation unpleasant. WIth tracks that had lisping issues with female vocals for example, the DS DAC made that a lot worse."
In my case, my findings match the measurements. Output transformers are adding significant amount of distortion:
You can see this effect in complex waveform of 32-tone test signal:
Here is the kicker: the designer whose prototype was brought to market by PS Audio, admitted using inferior transformer!
So you pay $6,000 for a DAC and there is still no room to use a proper transformer???
Knowing the source of distortion through my measurements allowed me to focus my listening tests, in this case, bass heavy tracks to better detect them. Otherwise you are just shooting in the dark.
in this instance and from my experience these statements are very misleading and outright wrong.
What makes your subjective listening experience right, and mine wrong? The SMSL DAC I recommended doesn't have any of the above impairments. I highly suggest you repeat your test, this time please match levels, do it blind and repeat at least 10 times and see if you can identify your DAC 9 out of 10 times. If the difference is obvious sighted, then this should be easy.
And no, I am not saying you are biased. I am saying you are human. And humans are not capable of performing such tests properly without controls in place.
|
We did learn one significant thing for you all to chew on. Amir uses software to identify mention of ASR so he can jump in and correct misinformation.
What? I don't use any such things. I said this forum sends me summary of active threads and when I see ASR as a thread title, I click and see what you all are saying. I sometimes ignore them but if people are typing fiction, then I post corrections.
I have said it before and say it again: I am here because you all are choosing to discuss ASR or me and saying things that are not true. Otherwise what you say or do doesn't interest me.
Let that sink in. That is someone driven by massive ego self absorbed narcissism.
What needs to sink in is some folks desire to keep talking about me rather than audio.
|
Nobody can trust their own brain, preference, or judgement is the pinnacle of arrogance.
I am glad you said "brain" rather than "ears." We are finally make progress. When your brain synthesizes an experience, it uses so many factors beside sound:
You need to find a way to avoid this or forever you are living an auditory illusion.
|
For instance, almost all the reviews of the Topping gear say it is very detailed but lacking in soul, ambience, subtly, macro dynamics, imaging, decay, etc. They all came to this on their own. They agree. AND THEY LISTENED.
Quick look at traditional press reviews on Topping easily invalidates your claim. Check out KR's review of Topping DM-7 multichannel DAC in Stereophile magazine.
"On first hearing with the DM7, I was almost certain my streamer had swerved and served up something from a different album when, after a half-dozen instrumental tracks, Ms. Perbost simply appeared in my room just left of center. "
[...]
"I also tried the DM7 with older favorites, and it didn't disappoint. It fully revealed the spacious, warm acoustic and the fully present trio on The Elder (Polarity, Hoff Ensemble, rip from 2L 2L-145-SACD). Particularly notable here, and also on Justice, is the delineation and weight of the bass and drums. Willie Nelson's Night and Day, which is recorded with the band fully surrounding the listener, shows that the DM7 can create a convincing immersive experience. I hear instruments, discretely and realistically rendered, all around me, including in the wide spaces between the front and rear speakers in my 5.3 system."
"I came back to René Jacobs's rethinking of Der Freischütz (Harmonia Mundi HMM90270001, 2 CDs), which so impressed me when I reviewed the KEF Blade Metas. Heard now with the resident Revels and the Topping DM7 (in place of the exaSound s88), it was no less impressive. The clear and varied voices are well-defined within a soundstage that's wide and deep, and the effects are convincing. In the Wolf's Glen scene, the space and chorus expand in size, including height, and the orchestra is convincingly spooky and dramatic. From just two channels, the DM7 conveys the full sense of the theatrical events with a perfect integration of pit and stage."
JA had this to say about its objective performance:
"The Topping DM7's measured performance is superb, even without taking its affordable price into account.—John Atkinson"
Here is Absolute Sound Review by Steve Stone of Topping D90SE, directly contradicting your claim:
"Sound
This is the section where I’m sure a number of readers are hoping that I discover that the D90SE, despite its wonderous specifications, sounds just OK. Sorry, but that was not the case. What I heard was reference-level digital reproduction without any sonic bromides. If the absence of coloration, individualistic character, or “house sound” was the goal, the D90SE has clearly achieved it. During my listening time with the D90SE I was never able to identify anything I would characterize as deviations from tonal neutrality. To my ears, the D90SE is very much in the “straight no chaser” school of DACs, like Benchmark or Bryston. If you need a more euphonic sonic output, the D90SE will not help you get to that place.
Since I have quite a number of recordings that I made of live performances of classical orchestras, chamber groups, Bluegrass ensembles, and solo recitals, I have a complete set of listening tools that I know well. Also, I know what the recording chain was, and what the various sonic “tells” are on different recordings. Throughout my listening sessions using my own material, I was continually encouraged to hear that the D90SE neither added nor subtracted from the spatial, textural, or rhythmic character of the performances. One of the unique recordings I have is one that I made at the Rockygrass Academy several years ago of Chris Thile playing and commenting on my then recently acquired 1930 Gibson F-5 mandolin. The D90SE did a superlative job of retaining all the harmonic characteristics of both Chris’ voice and my mandolin. [Steven is a noted expert on guitars and mandolins, and is a long-time contributor to Vintage Guitar magazine. —RH]
As usual when I listen, I’m primarily listening for faults rather than for whether a particular recording sounds more real on one piece of gear than another. But one performance arena where the D90SE ranks as “jaw-dropping” is its silence. In a properly configured system with no additive noise such as low-level hums or buzzes, listening through the D90SE will deliver the “blackest blacks” (if you wish to define signal-to-noise in terms of colors) you will hear from any DAC. In a system where I can place my ear within an inch of my loudspeaker’s drivers, I heard nothing, not even a hiss; when I switched from the D90SE as an input source to a shorted input source, there was absolutely no difference in base noise levels. On many commercial recordings the difference between the absolute silence of the D90SE and the base-level “silence” of the recording was noticeable, always in favor of the D90SE. If your sonic goal is to cobble together the quietest, most noise-free system possible, the D90SE ranks as a first-call player."
He goes to do an AB test against another DAC and reports:
"After multiple listening sessions I was forced to conclude that I could not tell any sonic difference between the sound of the Topping D90SE and the Gustard X-16. Both offer a clear view of the musical event without any house-sound or euphonic colorations. Both produced the same imaging characteristics in terms of depth, width, image focus, and dynamic acuity. Hard as I tried, I could not discern any sonic differences I could regularly identify."
And this in conclusion:
"I will admit that when considering the Topping D90SE it’s hard not to scream: “ENDGAME DAC!” And begin jumping around a la Tom Cruise in Risky Business. But since I am, first and foremost a fully grown old gent, I won’t give in to this vile temptation. But I will go on the record that if a neutral, high-resolution, modern, well-configured DAC that sounds as true to source material as any I’ve ever heard is something you are seeking, the D90SE could easily qualify as your new reference DAC."
Stereophile and Absolute Sound are the top two magazines when it comes to high--end audio. Both massively contradict your claim. Both rave about qualities you claim Topping doesn't have.
I will quote one more from Secrets of High Fidelity.
"A nice selection of music to listen to via headphones and draw by. Routing the D90SE’s analog out to my STAX headphone amp and earspeakers, I was treated to a stone quiet background from which John Williams, Yo-Yo Ma, and the New York Philharmonic worked. The details in Yo-Yo Ma’s playing throughout “The Concerto for Cello and Orchestra” were frankly astonishing. There was no hint of etch or harshness in the sound of any of the strings, horns, or background percussion. The Topping provided everything my electrostatic headphones and amp needed for them to do their effortless magic with this music. Ma’s and the Philharmonic’s rendition of “the theme from Schindler’s List” simply gave me chills. Sublime stuff this.
I need to thank fellow reviewer Gene Hopstetter for turning me on to this album. A beautiful recording of a piano sensitively played. Again the Topping D90SE did nothing to enhance, detract, or editorialize the glorious spacious piano notes that came forth from this performance. The dynamics from the piano seemed completely natural and unencumbered. “Etude n.6” was just a powerhouse tour de force that sounded huge, whether I used the D90SE with my STAX headphones or in my main system with speakers. Transparent in the extreme."
He concludes thusly:
"I’m finding it very difficult to find fault with the Topping D90SE DAC. It is well made, has superb measured performance, sounds as transparent and devoid of coloration as any other DAC that I have come across, and it won’t cost you an arm and a leg."
[...]
"The Topping D90SE is a DAC for listeners who want nothing to get in between them and their music. It reveals all without adding anything that shouldn’t be there. It is very much the ultimate textbook DAC that almost anyone can afford. Highly Recommended."
|
the whole concept of stereo is an illusion.
That's right. Leave it to content creator to make that illusion for you. That illusion is objectively there, and is predicted and explained by psychoacoustics. Imagining differences in playback hardware that is not there is naturally not explained by any science. The difference will disappear once you stop comparing things. And hence the reason some audiophiles are constantly upgrading/tweaking. And believe in "everything mattering" when everything can't possibly be mattering.
|
To prove it's not rigged, just tell yourself to listen for "Brain Storm" both times and that's what you hear.
It is remarkable how the awareness does not help. I was once helping my codec team at Microsoft test a new version of the encoder. They subjected me to a blind test and I, with full conviction, told the team which version was better. Only to have my codec team manager tell me the files were identical! I then listen, and both version sound the same. Then I imagine I can hear a difference and repeated: remarkably, I could hear the difference again!!!
It is an easy enough experiment. Copy one of your music filers and then listen to the two. Try to focus hard and invariably you will hear differences in the copy!
|
Here is a couple of guys who are doing sighted and BLIND a/bs and are also doing measurement tests to see if there is some correlation to what they hear.
Careful. Every one of their measurement videos I have watched make fundamental mistakes in conclusions they draw. I addressed one of them about network switches in this thread. You need to be careful to not leap from some measurable effect, to the output of your audio device changing. I post this video there to demonstrate how what they say doesn't apply to output of your audio system:
but they claim they are doing "no science".......they are humble.....they just listen and test every way they can.
I don't know them personally. But do know that they impress lay audiophiles by the look of their measurement gear while not understanding at all what they are measuring. Same folks who fight me tooth and nail on measurements, all of a sudden become a fan of their measurements!
Their listening tests do NOT follow proper protocols. Just running a test blind doesn't mean you are generating good data. That is but one component of proper testing.
Finally, testing audio gear is not "doing science." It is just measurements. Understanding the measurement data as far as audibility invokes science but again, is not doing science. Same with properly doing audio listening tests. Your doctor is not doing science either by following it to treat you.
|
you have uncanny "ability" to misconstrue the arguments presented to you throughout this lengthy thread. It is either due to lack of comprehension or a need of "proving" your ideas to be true. Most likely the latter, since you project yourself as the only one in the know and everybody who disagrees does not have a clue. How about to agree that we disagree. Those who follow their senses to enjoy reproduction of music by audio equipment are not harming anybody, but you do disservice to people who limit themselves in pursue of such an enjoyment following your ideas of "only measurements matter".
I am doing that? How many times have I talked about proper listening tests? I have posted videos how to do that properly. I have posted my own listening tests. I have repeatedly explained how we rely on more than measurements to including engineering knowledge and science to determine fidelity. Yet you go and repeat that made up talking point that "only measurements matter?"
If you can't even phrase what is different about us by making things up like this, why do you think we can "agree to disagree?" The first step in that is understanding the other person's position. I know you all's position. I have lived it for almost a decade in the last forum I co-founded. You all need to make a modicum of effort to correctly state what we are about.
So once more: listening is great. I do it in almost every other review. Until you learn how to do this right, you are going to arrive at wrong conclusions about audio. Measuring is an alternative to listening that can bring significant insight into design and execution of an audio device. When science and engineering is applied to it, it provides a powerful conclusion as to validity of company claims to fidelity.
As to "harming anything," you all created this thread and started to post misinformation about ASR and I. What do you call this if it is not harming?
|
It is so funny that you quote the midfi reviewers.......Steven Stone, Kalman....secrets of home theater.....etc. These guys only listen to 1% of what is out there...........Try looking around at reviews done by people who are not paid to rave about midfi stuff and have access to other more expensive gear.
I thought you said the consensus was universal? I show you reviews from top two magazines covering high-end audio and now you backtrack this way? All of a sudden "listening" is not good enough?
Yes, there are paid snob "reviewers" on these rags which wouldn't know audio science if the book hit them on the back of the head. They have not reviewed any Topping gear which would invalidate your claim yet again.
Go on.....do a search....everything I said is what they all say.....
You are asking me to do your homework? Your case is already busted. Well-known reviewers from top magazines completely disputed your claims. There are no alternative reviews to back anything you claimed about Topping.
|
When someone crashes into my lane of flow and tells lies then I let them know they are on the wrong track.
You are currently crashing into my lane. This is a thread about ASR. You are posting fallacies and mistruths to put down the work I do and who I am. When I answer with evidence to the contrary, you write a word salad instead of taking a step back, being the student that you say we should all be, and learn from that. Plowing ahead goes against the very advice you are dispensing!
Listen to me: the world of audio has been transformed in the last few years. In every category there has been great advancements. As has method of evaluation of said equipment. Over 2 million people visit ASR every month. They do so because they are logical, and see the progress we are making across the board. You don't want to hear this? Then please don't say everyone should be a student. You are not setting any example here.
|
I trust me.....the me that listens.....I trust you....the you who listens.....
That is a clear misstatement if there ever was one. I just posted three well-known reviewers who heavily praised the product you said every reviewer hates. They listened, did they not?
Is listening only good if it arrives at the same preconceived notions you have? All other listening is false?
You need to put aside your prejudices about audio. That is the first step in seeing the truth. Otherwise, your brain will tell you what you want to hear. The above reviewers did that. It is your turn.
I listen to these DACs for hours and hours. There is absolutely, positively no sign of any of the things you claim about their sound. They show the beauty or lack thereof of the music itself.
|
These 2 statements don't seem to lineup
"I listen to these DACs for hours and hours"
"I hear you but where do you draw the line? I listen to all speakers and headphones I review. I also listen to every headphone amplifier and portable DAC+HP amp I review. As you go further upstream, I listen less and less."
The first statement is about everyday listening and enjoying music. The second is in the context of reviewing products. But even the second statement means many hours of listening given the 200 to 300 products I test every year.
|
These guys are true enthusiasts....they love stereo and love music.
Every one one of us loves stereo and music. To be a reviewer, you need to know more than average listener about science and engineering of the technology you are reviewing. Sitting in front of the camera and posting audio illusions to make money from ads and sponsorships just spreads misinformation. You should be more on guard than this. Ask them to show you what training they have in being a critical listener. Ask them what formal experience they have. If they are just you with a camera, then that is useless. Just because they believe in the same myths as you with respect to cost translating into sound fidelity, doesn't make them remotely correct.
|
Please start listening. You might learn something.
That would be good advice for yourself. Don't keep using your eyes. Give your ears and your ears alone a chance to tell you what you are hearing.
|
Similarly "blind ABX tests are valuable, I do them never".
Assuming you are talking about me, I have already post results of double blind ABX tests in this very thread. I also have a tutorial on how to pass them and examples within which I have post before. Here it is again:
I have post the results of many blind test challenges that none of you would dare to take let alone pass. Here is an example by Ethan Winer of generational loss of DAC/ADC:
-------
Here is an example test you can take to show us you do have good hearing acuity. https://ethanwiner.com/loop-back.htm
It is a piece of music that has gone through a DAC, then ADC, then back to DAC and so on. And on really bad DAC/ADC as audiophile standard go: a $25 Soundblaster X-Fi.
This is me finding the difference double blind with just one pass through DAC/ADC:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:40:07
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass1.wav
06:40:07 : Test started.
06:41:03 : 01/01 50.0%
06:41:16 : 02/02 25.0%
06:41:24 : 03/03 12.5%
06:41:33 : 04/04 6.3%
06:41:53 : 05/05 3.1%
06:42:02 : 06/06 1.6%
06:42:22 : 07/07 0.8%
06:42:34 : 08/08 0.4%
06:42:43 : 09/09 0.2%
06:42:56 : 10/10 0.1%
06:43:08 : 11/11 0.0%
06:43:16 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)
And of course with 20 loops:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 05:38:16
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass20.wav
05:38:16 : Test started.
05:39:05 : 00/01 100.0%
05:39:27 : 00/02 100.0%
05:39:44 : 01/03 87.5%
05:40:01 : 02/04 68.8%
05:40:18 : 02/05 81.3%
05:40:30 : 03/06 65.6%
05:40:58 : 04/07 50.0%
05:41:09 : 05/08 36.3%
05:41:19 : 06/09 25.4%
05:41:28 : 07/10 17.2%
05:41:38 : 08/11 11.3%
05:41:53 : 09/12 7.3%
05:42:02 : 10/13 4.6%
05:42:18 : 11/14 2.9%
05:42:29 : 12/15 1.8%
05:42:42 : 13/16 1.1%
05:42:53 : 14/17 0.6%
05:43:03 : 15/18 0.4%
05:43:16 : 16/19 0.2%
05:43:27 : 17/20 0.1%
05:43:40 : 18/21 0.1%
05:43:53 : 19/22 0.0%
05:43:58 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 19/22 (0.0%)
As you see, 0% of guessing.
---------
Here is a high-res challenge produced by AIX Records:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav
18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)
-----
Here is a challenge that I would not be able to pass 320 Kbps MP3 against original:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3
19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01 50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02 25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03 50.0%
19:47:03 : 03/04 31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05 18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06 10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07 6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08 3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09 2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10 1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11 0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12 0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13 0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14 0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15 0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16 0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)
So please do some homework before posting these things.
|
Nope . That was in reference to all of the "listeners" here.
Ah, my apologies then. :)
|
