"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
snip, too much..read earlier posts in thread for background
First, are you sure you weren't just bypassing the ad-da converters out
the
headphone jack? That's how my Panansonic DAT's work. Otherwise the
sound
would not be synched.
Yes I'm sure because I spoke with the Marantz people prior and without the
CDR
being placed in record mode no sound gets to the headphone output.
That's how my dat works too...but it doesn't go through the convertors. It
simple routes the signal to the headphone outlets as well as to the
convertors....there is no way to "read" the data off a DAT or a CD-R in
"real time". That is just so you can hear what the DAT or CD-R is being
fed.
Second, what is this supposed to prove about the sound of DAC's in
general
and whether or not they would improve upon a given cd player...that was
the
original point of this post.
All this does is suggest that your AA and your
Marantz sounded alike (neither the epitome of high-end sound IME).
I'm glad you regognize that Audio Alchemy was high-end hyperbole.
Well, then I guess you think the Marantz SE was also high-end hyperbole.
Perhaps
your answer to the original poster should be that you doubt the AA DAC
would
be an improvement...perhaps he should borrow a Wadia, or a Mark Levinson,
or
an MF, or at least a Benchmark to listen to. No?
Why bother; there's nothing they could possibly do but degrade an already
transparent signal.
How do you square this with your assertion above....since you seem to think
the original signal was a transparent as possible. Then either both the SE
and the AA were transparant, or they were both high-end hyperbole. which is
it?
And based on your dismissal of antidotal discussion of listening tests,
your
experienced enthusiasts might or might not have heard a difference based
on
their expectations, and in either case their opinions cannot be trusted.
But this was a double blind test and the numbers show they were unable to
reliably identify them. I didn't rely on their 'opinions.'
It would have helped if you had mentioned this in your post...instead of
alluding to a nebulous listening session.
Perhaps, another set of "experienced enthusiasts" might have heard an
equally untrustworthy difference.
IMO another set of listeners would have heard (or not) exactly the same
thing.
Might or might not, in part depending on what their going-in expectations
were.
Since you dismiss antidotal evidence as worthless, those "experienced
enthusiast's" opinions we should accept as the last word? Given that
they
were acquaintances of yours, how are we to know that they have been led
to
have negative expectations of differences by the known opinions, of you
their friend. Perhaps another set of "enthusiast" might have reached a
different conclusion. But it doesn't count anyway, right?
Well at least half of them seemed heavily biased in the other direction,
at
least in comments. But, as you well know, I'm not one to accept opinions
when
true sonics can be verified.
You mean biased to hear differences? Or biased in that they thought they
heard differences?
Don't forget that when the experiment is double blind there is no way that
I
can prevent listeners from hearing true differences.
Ah, I see. The test set them straight, right?
Assuming the test protocol doesn't interfere....which as you well know you
have not proven to the satisfaction of those of us who have asked for
controls in order to provide such proof.