Let me add my 1/424th to this discussion:
There is no "Amir method." It is either what is accepted by formal audio research and engineering or voodoo audio mythology created by audiophiles with zero verification of validity of what they do.
We, the scientific and engineering group in the industry and researched have arrived at above conclusion through hard work and verification. It is not some random approach you can dismiss. Let me give you an example that is relevant here.
When I was at Microsoft, we were developing our next generation *lossy* audio codec (WMA Pro). We had a mode in the encoder where you could set the quality as the priority and the codec would then choose the (variable) bit rate to achieve that. At the highest level, the quality could be set to max which by definition had to be transparent. To make sure we achieved this, we decided to leverage the large group of audiophiles at Microsoft in a blind test.
The files were encoded, achieving roughly 2:1 compression ratio. In other words, lots and lots of data was thrown away (in a psychoacoustically aware method of course). To my disappointment, the audiophile group severely underperformed our codec test team. They simply could not hear any artifacts.
I was busy so I had not take the test myself. My codec team manager came to my office and ask me if I could run the test. I said I did not have time. Seeing how badly he needed the results, I told him to wait and I pulled up a couple of samples. In an instant, not only could I tell the difference, but identified exact moment in the track where the difference existed. The team was very happy as they went and found the problem that caused the fidelity loss in those segments.
The conclusion is certain: audiophiles like you state love to think they have great ears. But when it comes to non-linear artifacts (as opposed to simple frequency response changes and such), they have no better ability than the general public. Which is to say, their ability is quite poor compared to trained listeners.
Fact is that people buy flawed audio products because they are totally deaf to their artifacts. This proves their inability to be critical listeners.
Faced with above, the convenient counter is: "oh, I prefer the distortions." Who says? If you can't hear the distortions, you certainly can't prefer them. What's more this theory has never been proven to be true using controlled tests. I have tested countless flawed products and as I observe in this review, the defects are hard to hear. But if you do hear them, they are unpleasant.
So please, don't try to fight facts and science with just word arguments. I have the data and science on my side plus decades of testing hypothesis like yours. There is no there there. Audiophiles need to wake up and get out of their illusions of audio. Reality is a cold, hard place for them to be sure. But it is also liberating when you can prove something, than claim it!
We have experience with other R2R DACs producing excellent linearity. Here is Soekris dac1421 linearity at price point of $1,000 (red trace):Having taken the decision to produce a NOS design there are many other technical challenges, linearity being one. It has already been noted that the design delivers linearity performance that is usually beyond the reach of this type of DAC.
The illusion is that the illusion is bad and needs to be cut out.Audiophiles need to wake up and get out of their illusions of audio. Reality is a cold, hard place for them to be sure. But it is also liberating when you can prove something, than claim it!
For something to be "true" it needs to be lasting. Impressions on audio products other than their sound are not lasting. Going by a bullet list of mythical audiophile bullet list on a website like Totaldac will wear off with time. Because it is not real or topical when you listen later. This is why high-end audiophiles keep upgrading and tweaking. They need that imaginary "high" because they reality is not there to back that sensation.The truth is that shiny things look and sound better to people and that's important
Subjective if expressed to convince others, better be as provable and valid as measurements. The notion that we should just accept it because it is "subjective" runs again, counter to audio science and proper engineering. We cannot live in a made-up world of science. It has to be grounded in reality as to have any level of trustworthiness.Note that I'm not saying that we shouldn't account for them either. It would be good to know the difference between a subjective and objective assessment so people can make good decisions. But the subjective part is important because that's how people use and perceive the gear. It's not fakery, it's how we experience.
For something to be "true" it needs to be lasting. Impressions on audio products other than their sound are not lasting. Going by a bullet list of mythical audiophile bullet list on a website like Totaldac will wear off with time. Because it is not real or topical when you listen later. This is why high-end audiophiles keep upgrading and tweaking. They need that imaginary "high" because they reality is not there to back that sensation.
Now if they truly "sound better" then that is factual and won't wear off like a mirage.
Subjective if expressed to convince others, better be as provable and valid as measurements. The notion that we should just accept it because it is "subjective" runs again, counter to audio science and proper engineering. We cannot live in a made-up world of science. It has to be grounded in reality as to have any level of trustworthiness.
That aside, I did listen and at times hear objectionable artifacts. And those artifacts were correlated with measurements. Now what?
Then that's important and useful information because that would be reflected in people's listening.That aside, I did listen and at times hear objectionable artifacts. And those artifacts were correlated with measurements. Now what?
Of course it was clear to me you would have learned something new, that was the reason for which I mentioned the placebo factor, Ha Ha Ha
Pls. pls. scroll back on page #1 and go thru Amir' conclusions for both Listening Tests & Final Conclusions.
Of course you did it already, but pls. do it one more time.
Everything is very well explained there.
Full ack.NOS DACs have an output spectrum that contains images at high levels, since there is no filter to attenuate them. Proponents would argue that those images are outside the bandwidth of our hearing so they are of no audible consequence (setting aside their potential to generate intermodulation later in the chain with artefacts back in the audible range).
[...]
There looks to be technical merit in the design, within the realms of what is possible with a NOS architecture. I wouldn't buy one, but that isn't to say that the designer hasn't made every effort to the do the best job that can be done with that approach.
There is a serious discussion here about the measurements of TotalDac which obviously look bad. I have another perception hearing the product, and I don’t know how many people contributing here ever listen to TotalDac. I must admit that ASR’s measurements and the emotions Vincent is putting in his answers are not so encouraging.
When it comes to myself, I appreciate your jokes Graz. Your systematic misunderstanding of what I write is very funny indeed. But that’s not important. I am sure you have good time listening to music through your different systems you are detailing in your signature. I am happy to read you today on a French forum where you say you want to invest between 5k and 8k on an used DAC to replace the Topping DX7S you have. I wish you to find what suits you best and I trust you will look at measurements and also listen to the music. On my side, the only thing which matters is as well to enjoy the music and I am eager to discover new things thanks to Amirm.
We're setting up in my company a lounge room where we receive our customers, of whom many are from China. They love the French' design and technology, so we make them happy on that by filling the lounge with French items, from champagne to beer via Focal speakers & Devialet electronics ...
That's the reason for which I was (and still) looking for a French made D/A converter, with a background of reputation and technical content consistent with the rest of the lounge set up.
Audiophonics are french and make decent DACs for 1/100 the price.
Mostly, but they also make their own DACs.I know their website, thank you so much, but everything is imported from China ...