Hi Barry, he as yet hasn’t paid for it, thats the liberty we have as hifi shop employees we test stuff to death before we buy it, but after testing to death he’s still considering buying it (although at trade not quite as bad).
With regards to Scrith’s comment when I blind test it, and test able to see the cable I can’t hear what I would describe as a marginal difference, and I’ve tested my ears in anechoic conditions I was able to blind test identify a level change of 1.5 db + my hearing still goes up to 16.5 kHz. I shall continue to listen with more DAC’s, more amps, & more CD players and see if I can hear anything ill let you know if I do.
With regards to Gunnar im defiantly in the believer camp I believe that music reproduction is still a long way from being truly realistic even on 10k systems, But I don’t think throwing money randomly at parts of the system is going to help. I think we need more standardization as I say, is there not enough members of the AES on the web board alone to forward some kind of motion.
i.e.
Measurements are in two categories – AES test and Manufacturer test
For test can we not concoct a particular test and set of measurements that would adequately demonstrate the performance of a DAC for example, we certainly have measurement mics at my uni that, shock horror are more sensitive than the human ear. I’m no expert in electronics but I imagine it is possible to measure changes of 0.0000001volts the voltage equivalent of the quietest thing we can hear. People may then say well a sine tone and pink noise are not music, they have no transients, no dynamic range, so create a peace of music that has the maximum possible dynamic range, frequency content ect and test and analyse that. There’s, signal in, and signal out, any changes are a result of the DAC, im sure the modern FFT & distortion analysis is up to the task. From this derive say 4 AES measurements i.e.
Averaged A-weighted THD
Averaged A-weighted Signal to Noise
Averaged A-weighted Channel separation
Averaged frequency response variation
(or what ever else the AES members feel is necessary)
(I say A weighted as the A weighting curve is a reasonable middle ground and has been shown in the acoustics field to best represent peoples average perception of loudness and hence optimising to this should yield the best apparent audio reproduction I think .)
So every ones test spec pages look something like this
AES measurements
Averaged A-weighted THD
Averaged A-weighted Signal to Noise
Averaged A-weighted Channel separation
Averaged frequency response variation
Then the AES provides clear guide lines on the test procedure, and these figures should be able to be replicated by testing the relevant peace off kit by any company or lab that has the facilities, If your competitor is making suspect clams about his kit, test it and make sure every one knows there false. 20 companies come forward and say those figures are wrong, im sure the public will know who to believe.
+ specify AES Cable resistances lengths ect (which hopefully everyone’s agreed on optimum)
If your kit needs special cable specify it, or provide it, don’t let the consumer be coned by other companies, who frankly haven’t earned his money.
Then 'Manufacturer test' can contain whatever condition the manufacturer likes i.e.
ZHR weighted THD + signal reduction
factor@1db gain of 63 = 0.000000000000001dB
With test standardization would we not drive manufacturers to produce better equipment not better marketing.
As to my job I would like kit that I can say and know will give the customer a good and functional product, yes someone may be happy with the idea his 10k system has improved but he’d feel a lot better and so would I if it actually did.
Thanks for all the feed back everyone, I think ill rephrase my question to Dan
What would be the Approx manufacturing cost of a 2 meter digital cable that you feel would allow the DA 924 to operate at its optimum capacity.
p.s i took this picture in scotland at the weekend
Cheers
Iain