Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews

Most problems arise when listeners make assertions in which no listening is involved. I applaud those that admit they dont hear a difference. Takes guts. In the end you listened and this is all that matters. 

FWIW, it takes alot to get banned on this forum. Which is as it should be. 

The main problem with ASR is Amir. If he were a congenial host who conceded that there are many ways to audio bliss which can include exotic and/or high end gear, he wouldn’t be demonized

You are wrong.  I own high-end gear.  I recommend high-end gear.  Here is an example:  Mola Mola Tambaqui USB DAC

 

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.

Nearly $12,000 streamer/DAC is recommended.

What I don't recommend is high-end gear that takes massive steps backward in performance, attempting to please audiophiles who believe in myths.  Here is the direct competitor to above, the PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC:

 

This is its distoriton+noise relative to frequency (in blue):

 

This is the Mola Mola (now in red):

 

PS Audio is selling you a noise and distortion generator.  Mola Mola is selling you a state of the art DAC.  Both are custom solutions.  One designer (Bruno) knows what he is doing. The other, not.

This is what measurements do.  They bring clarity and cut through marketing claims and user random opinions.  When they speak, they speak.  Build me a $100,000 DAC that performs well and it too would get a recommendation from me if it looks gorgeous, performs great and has nice and easy functionality.

You don't have an answer for these facts so resort to personal remarks and blame game.

@markwd “The problem isn't that there are interesting experimental results, it's that they don't demonstrate that there is anything that can be done to audio equipment to implement better solutions to whatever gaps may be present.”

• Thank you for your reply markwd - but, like amir, you obsess over the equipment a little too much : ) - my discussion of the test was to underline the entire point of mahgister raising of it, which you again missed - it was to inform about how powerful our sense of hearing is, that we can and should reclaim that birthright instead of leaving it to handicapped measurements to do it for us. Why handicapped? Because measurements will always be limited by the Fourier uncertainty principle, while human ears aren’t. Why is that principle important? Because it limits the measurement accuracy of frequency simultaneously with time, the very foundations from which music flows. Are you following now?

 

@markwd “Now, you can suggest that somehow listening on the part of the designer is allowing them to choose between design pathways but this is just speculation. It may be true, as I noted to @mahgister, but we don't know and neither does the designer.”

• I do not suggest anything of this, markwd - it IS happening, this is how the best audio equipment designers in the world are designing their servers and DACs, while of course putting equal effort to improving power supplies, and reducing realism damaging distortion. They are simply not applying signal fidelity as much as high fidelity, to their process. Do please reread my earlier post on this : )

 

@markwd “So there is a certain faith built into all this speculation, just like god-of-the-gaps arguments in other online communities ("listening-in-the-gaps" arguments has a nice ring to it!). It's interesting but needs proof and a proper measurement methodology that shows a path forward for determining exactly how these phenomena impact equipment design and use.”

• No ‘faith’ whatsoever. Have you not read that article properly? It was a test that showed human hearing capable of bettering the limits set by the Fourier uncertainty principle - here is the link again - https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

 

@markwd “Since you are a bit of a student of ideas in philosophy of science, one key one in contemporary thinking on the topic is lifted from Wittgenstein that we must remain silent on things we have no knowledge of and we have no knowledge of this.” 

• I believe you took Wittgenstein quite out of context - he wasn’t discussing the lack of knowledge in his quote, but the clarity with which we should be using language. The correct quote in context here - “What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

 

@markwd “Until we develop it sufficiently we do have an AP and spectral sweeps.”

Yes, we might use analysers to help with room set up, but no, in fact, if the measurement of equipment is all that will be done for decisions - it is more correctly stated that until we are able to determine how to accurately measure frequency simultaneously with time, we have our more accurate ears to help us on this difficult but amazing and rewarding journey. We just need to apply ourselves to each develop our listening abilities.

 

@markwd “I'll just add one footnote to my previous post: we might actually be able to address the specific issues of heterodyning and nonlinear cochlea interactions in audio by using DSP to simply mute tones that interact in those areas of the hearing range. This would be like addressing a room mode but within the ear itself. Of course, we would be robbing the signal of its fidelity in so doing.”

• you once again fall back on signal fidelity without fully understanding it matters less than high fidelity. And ‘equipment’ (in this case the tech of DSP) is again your default to address that human laziness inherent to putting effort to developing listening ability. Markwd, you have to grasp the fact there are no shortcuts in our hobby. Measurements will bring you signal fidelity, and that’s all you’ll ever have. Be happy then.

 

@markwd “Still, in order to do this we could use experiments that first demonstrate it will improve human hearing. There is a great deal of literature on methods for overcoming hearing loss; there may be something in there concerning speech that points towards something useful for audio equipment design.”

• With all due respect, I’m concerned there may be a disconnect with how you read, and comprehend with what you write - there is nothing wrong with the human hearing apparatus. Well into our seventies, while there may be a big drop in our hearing the upper registers, all our abilities to detect frequency/time nuance is still robust and functioning - the enjoyment of music continues with every fibre in our being. What needs to improve is the development of listening ability, not the apparatus we are born with. I hope you understand that distinction.

 

In friendship ; ) - kevin

@fleschler 

Thanks for your kind words, flescher, I can get long winded too, and I’m so happy you got something from my long post. And you’re so absolutely right about magnetic tape - it is actually one of the prime reasons I believe the magnetic side of electromagnetism holds secrets we haven’t plumbed just yet - something to do with the analogue continuity of magnetic flux that we all receive some benefit of in its transmission of audio signals, while it defeats the discrete nature of digital music….and all attempts to understand the discrete measurement of it, haha. I didnt put it in only because I wanted to draw more attention to how high fidelity began rather than evolved.

On a side note, your posts over the past four years were some of the many that helped me along this amazing wonderful journey I’m on - it’s medicine unlike any other. Thank you so much!

 

In friendship ; ) - kevin

Look at What’s Best Audio Forum. Most posters are congenial and obliging of alternative views, anxious to hear what’s new, posing answers as to what improvements can be made to existing equipment. 

I co-founded What's Best Forum (and came up with that name!).  So I speak from actual knowledge that we had battles between members like no one has ever seen.  Raging wars would better explain it.  It got so bad that I had to sell my half and go and start ASR as people became incredibly rude and intolerant of any measurement or talk of science.  In some sense, if people were cordial and respectful of everyone's opinion, ASR would not exist!

So if you want to pick an example and say I am the bad guy, you should avoid referencing WBF.  😀