artk

There's the full text of the study. You tell me where their methodology is wrong. http://c.wrzuta.pl/wo8536/848633c40022f8f4499160b0/0/jaes_v55_9_pg775.pdf

The market share for SACD Classical recording is a fraction of the overall market. And for good reason. In 2007 there was a double blind study with over 500 participants to see if they could tell the difference between standard and SACD. People guessed right 50% of the time, the same result you’d get if all the listeners were deaf and guessing randomly. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

When my german shepherd starts to take a serious interest in music, I’ll keep this in mind. In the meantime, the real problem is that virtually all the high res classical releases are third rate performances from third rate performers.

<br /> I've attached a rather detailed scientific paper about how there's a real physical basis to perception bias. Tell me why the research is wrong? Tell me why it’s not reasonable to believe that auditory perception is subject to the same bias as taste and smell? <br />

I have no doubt that Weiss adds lots of additional engineering to justify their pricing. The real question is if all that over engineering actually adds anything. It’s well documented that people’s perception of quality is changed their knowledge of an item’s price. Tell someone that something is more expensive, there’s a demonstrable physical reaction. I’ve attached research on wine tasting, what make’s you think that audio is different.

Every Weiss owners bank account should hope that there's much more to their perception of its quality than the ESS chip. That’s a $20 part. That would mean that pretty much anyone could reproduce its performance for a fraction of the cost.

Miska sez: "But reacts more actively when ultrasound is not filtered from the music than when it is filtered out" I'd like to see a reference on that. I've looked for that sort of information on several occasions and can't find any research that says you can detect any air tranmitted signal above 20KHz

You’re not implying that a salesperson on commission would ever be motivated by money, are you. I just got a comment pulled because I asked about retailer equipment markups, you might be next

<i>Comment removed by Editor.</i><br /> <br /> <i>Art please take your discussion about obtaining distributor and retailer pricing and markup in general (unrelated to the Weiss review or any specific product discussed on this page) to a separate forum thread.</i>

<i>Comment removed by editor.</i><br /> <br /> <i>Art please discuss your opinion that all DACs sound the same in a separate forum thread.</i>

The Weiss is clearly better on crosstalk at 1k, but the same at 20k. Then again, most dogs can't hear down -125 db, so the Wiess’s -160 isn't an audible difference. Most of the other measurements appear the same or better. The Benchmark shows measurably lower distortion below about -5 db, but higher above that. All in all, pretty much the same. <br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/manuals/DAC1-USB-Manual-RevG.pdf<br /> <br />

Thank's for the posting real testing results. Just for fun, I decided to look at the same testing for the $1,700 benchmark. Most are the same, some of the Benchmark specs are better.<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/manuals/ADC1_USB_Manual_Rev_C.pdf<br />

Three years is an eternity in the semiconductor business. That said there’s actually an interesting whitepaper on the old part on the ESS website. If anything, it will give you an idea how engineers discuss the capabilities of a DAC. Words like "soundstage" and "sonic signature" are remarkably absent.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf<br /> <br />

I don’t know if Reference uses the Pacific Microsonics because it’s the best. Their sentimental attachment to HDCD make’s the Pacific encoder the only choice. I’ve always been disappointed by Reference’s offerings. Their classical collection is an odd assortment of second rate orchestras, conductors, and soloists. I’ll take 1950s or 60s recorded Pollini or Solti or Beecham over one of their 24 bit monstrosities any day. <br /> <br /> Getting back to newer, newer microelectronics means faster, cheaper, higher functionality, lower power consumption. For analog it also means lower noise, less distortion and better linearity. That sounds better to me, what’s your definition of better?<br />

The ESS ES9018 is a very good dac. Is it that much better than others, hmmm. ESS doesn’t seem to follow the industry standard practice of including full product specifications on their web site so it’s hard to make a detailed comparison. They claim that it includes fancy jitter elimination on the chip. It might very well be as good or better than what you can add, but I don’t know. I do know if you use theirs it lowers the parts count and your costs. It's unclear from the verbiage on the Weiss web site if they are using the standard Saber dejitter or adding their own special sauce. If one of the owners can peek inside and provide a list of parts, it should be pretty simple to answer that question<br /> <br /> Here's their product overview.<br /> <br /> http://www.esstech.com/PDF/Sabre32%20DAC%20PF%20081217.pdf<br />