The claim would have been much more credible if they presented information about the DBT they mention.
During the presentation on jitter, the ESS guy also claims that jitter under 1ms is audible, which came as a bit of a surprise...perhaps they just have really good blind tests ...
Ultimately this has no philosophic impact on DBT, but if it is true, it will undoubtedly eventually set the cat among the pigeons, so those who like to depend on the idea that instrumented measurement as it stands, will reveal any audible feature, better be ready for the shitstorm, if and when it arrives.
Until positive DBT test results are shown to be repeatable, I don't think people will need to embrace themselves for an impending shitstorm.
If I was sure that it was coming, I wouldn't have said 'if and when', but nobody thus far has said anything to convince me that the claims are fallacious, which is not always the case with audio claims.
It's customary, however, for claimants to ignore the existence of DB testing, or to downplay it's significance, rather than to fly in the face of the likelihood that an inaccurate claim will be exposed.
Of course it could be a ruse, but at what cost to the company's reputation when exposed?
It could just be a mistake, but it's a pretty lucky mistake that exposes a feature in your product that you can modify with visible results and for which you can claim an audible benefit. It's the cumulative serendipity that makes dissembling seem less probable. Still, stranger things have happened at sea.
Fallacy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is duly noted.
Case in point: Steve Hoffman's insistence that he can ABX his DACs, which was discussed a few years ago.
Likely minimal. Those who insist they can tell the difference between DACs are generally not interested in DBT except when it is convenient for them.
It could be something entirely different from the claimed mechanism that may cause a legitimate and repeatable audible difference. It also begs the question, does this "difference" result in better sound, or just different sound?
Look, I don't necessarily hold traditional measurements as sacrosanct and am happy that DBT is rightfully being held as the supreme metric. I will not jump to the conclusion that we have a smoking gun when the results have not been vetted, however.
No, it doesn't beg the question. The issue is one of difference and its detectability, not quality. Please do not attempt to introduce red herrings.
ESS moreover claim that they have discovered (in blind testing) a further modification which is audible but for whose audibility they currently have no explanation (and evidently no capacity to detect by measurement, or none that they revealed). This is some way of imposing unconditional stability which they can turn on and off for the purposes of DBT in an FPGA implementation of the DAC.Ultimately this has no philosophic impact on DBT, but if it is true, it will undoubtedly eventually set the cat among the pigeons, so those who like to depend on the idea that instrumented measurement as it stands, will reveal any audible feature, better be ready for the shitstorm, if and when it arrives.
Apologies if this topic has been posted previously, I did a search but found nothing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=1CkyrDIGzOEThe above link shows a youtube video of an ESS presentation at RMAF.
Last I knew, it wasn't that hard to make a DAC audibly worse.