Digital Processor Reviews

So what is the difference between fig. 8 and 9?

Fig 8 = 16 bit
Fig 9 = 24 bit
"Linearity error with 16-bit data was very low, at less than ±1dB to –110dB (fig.7), while the V90-DAC's reproduction of an undithered sinewave at exactly –90.31dBFS was excellent, with the three DC voltage levels described by the data well defined (fig.8). With 24-bit data at the same level the result was a well-defined sinewave (fig.9), though both the 16- and 24-bit waveforms were overlaid with intermittent high-frequency noise."

"But from my own listening and my comparisons with the outstanding Auralic Vega and my workhorse Benchmark DAC1..."

Without controlled double-blind testing, subjective opinion about alleged sonic differences between DACs (or cables, etc.) is just nonsense.

"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel...Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio."
--J.Gordon Holt
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

re: "stop projecting your fantasies on to Gordon who, sadly, is no longer here to speak for himself."

So you'll speak for him, since he's no longer here. Yeah. Right. But we are to ignore his own published (right here in Stereophile!) words. That's just me "projecting". Got it.

re: "You don't like or appreciate what Stereophile does, please stop reading the magazine."

Gee, can I get you a crying towel?

What "Stereophile does" is proclaim that various mega-expensive DACs, cables, etc, possess sonic attributes not possessed by standard items (that meet the required specs for the job at hand). But it flat refuses to validate any of its claims with what JGH plainly stated were "the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal." Then, your poor feathers are ruffled when questioned about this nonsense. Cry me a river. You recommend gear that cost more than most folks make in a year, but whine when asked to justify it, scientifically. Audio reproduction is, after all, science -- not magic. Oh, that darn icky science stuff!

As noted, I was reading Stereophile before you ever got here, and I'll be reading it -- and holding its feet to the fire -- long after you've gone the way of the eight-track cartridge. After all, someone has to hold up the legacy of JGH around here!

Hey sixtyniner!

Still going on about DBT...when nobody else is?

Where is the Calvary of Truth?

Where are your Minions of Science?

Just you?

Oh, dear.

Must be lonely.

I love giant-killers. Keeping in mind that the top of the line TI (Burr-Brown) or ESS DAC is under $20, in volume, EVERYONE should be able to design elegant circuits that perform and sound as good as anything from Harman's high-end or Burmester for that matter :-)

Sincerely,
Bapcha

John, you are wasting your breath with some readers. If you respond or don't respond to them, either way, they are not happy and it is a waste of time. They will not change their mind but they do hope to change the way you review - it is always up to you to meet them all the way - they will never meet you halfway or be civil with their comments. Kind of like arguing with a fool - it unfortunately brings you down to their level.

So much delayed comment...well I am guilty because I have read article of V90 and then the following discussion.
Unfortunately I found here some heavy words, namely 'arguing with a fool...'.
Universal scientific truth and perhaps the most important 'LAW' of any review is DBT. For that i strongly support the attitude of Mr sixtyniner.
Alas, those tests are expensive in many ways and above all time consuming. And even above everything, those tests are not commercially 'appropriate'. With DBT implemented, many magazines should vanish already in the time when 'His Master's Voice' appeared on the market.
But magazines and editors are not the only culprits. They work for thousands of people of great vanity and strong believers of snake oil generally speaking.
I won't enter any further discussion but I can offer another path, or solution or remedy...DoItYourself.
Cheers

This review provided just what I was looking for stating that the piece under review was a tad polite without the sense of momentum of more expensive pieces. Thank you, you saved me the time and effort involved in auditioning the product.