Please stop misrepresenting my statements. You have said that I was shaming your customers, and when I pushed you to back your claims up, you encouraged your customers to have my posts censored instead, then veered into calling me a liar, insinuating that I have some sort of a hidden agenda, and stating that I was mocking people by suggesting that when audibility claims are made, they are backed up. I contend that the people most qualified to do this are the principals and engineers of the companies who make and profit from these claims, which seems fair. If you disagree, I would welcome an explanation as to why.
We can do better than this, and I hope you can extend the same courtesy when you make mistakes than you get from me when I do.
To be very clear here:
I have doubts that the engineering efforts serve any practical (i.e, audible) use at all in some cases. In most cases, these doubts apply, at worst over a Pi, at best a purpose-built device that isn’t built with the same care as yours are. The rest of what you bring to the table is irrelevant to this (and as I’ve repeated multiple times, is something I see no reason to doubt).
Regarding the blind testing thing, you seem so sure that your work makes an audible difference that, to me, your response was kinda like stating that figuring out which was the loudest of two amplifiers with a 10dB gain difference was “guessing”. It’s fine if you think it wouldn’t be easy for you to tell the difference by ear, just be forward about it.
Nowhere in this discussion did I ask for measurements at DAC output from you. I would, however, welcome them, as a matter of principle and curiosity. I did, however, mention a different product by your designer, sold by a company that isn’t yours, stating that I would rather wait for evidence of it making a difference at DAC output. If you want to further blur the line between the companies (you share a designer, the industrial design of the cases is similar, etc), fine with me, but I’m not sure that’s really in anyone’s interest.
Your partner has publicly made audibility claims for devices used in bit-accurate transmission. Since my understanding is that you speak here as a representative of your company, and not in your personal capacity, I believe that the onus is on you, as a company, to back these up.
In your defense of the added value your product brings, which is something that you and I agree exists, you very rightfully pointed out that part of the costs you have to deal with is software development, while taking an underhand jab at DiY options.
I will admit my response to this may have sounded unduly snarky, but it was not off topic. The point was that the example you used (the ability your approach has to reduce maintenance for the end user) is something that is also offered by widely used, high-quality, alternatives. It is thus, contrary to your statement, not a differentiator for your product, and if it is, I would have preferred to hear why.
In the spirit of a constructive discussion between us, and on this forum in general, I’ll reassure you, again, that I have no professional affiliation or interest anywhere near anything in the consumer electronics space. Shills probably piss me off even more than they piss you off, so that is something else we agree about.
Given the nature of your relationship to them, your allegations, and how tense this exchange has been, I would hope that RoonLabs would have done due diligence and sent me a reminder of the transparency clause in the community guidelines if this had not been the case.
Should you doubt my word on this, which I’d totally understand, RoonLabs knows my name, and while I would trust that they respect my anonymity by not disclosing either to you, I will volunteer that it would be trivial to find my profession by googling it. I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you in private as well if this can reassure you that while I strongly believe that claims should be backed up, and emotions have run high, I do not hold any grudge against Sonore, either personally nor professionally. I’m not out to get you or hurt your business. If I were, I wouldn’t have a track record of suggesting people buy your stuff.
There’s no [moderated] hidden agenda here. The only thing you’re seeing is someone miffed by all the bullshit we’re seeing in the computer audio field, and the way it feeds and preys on the insecurities of customers.
This all said, let’s try this on terms I believe we agree on.
a) Sonore provides a product that has added value to some people, and none of what was said above, by myself or you, should be considered an indictment of this.
b) It’s a good idea to isolate the playback chain from the server. If you doubt this, it doesn’t necessarily require an expensive device.
c) To achieve this, there are other, cheaper options, with different compromises. There are other, more expensive options, with different compromises as well. They all work.
d) When thinking of compromises, the tangible, provable things are support and industrial design.
e) Shills suck.
So please, instead of us slinging mud at each other, take a step back, and think of what I’ve repeatedly asked: use those engineering chops to foster reproductible standards and protocols so that consumers can compare devices. Help your consumers, reach out to your competitors, and try to figure out a way to get this done together.
The boomers who grew up on new age bullshit are going to die off faster and faster, and I sure would rather have the engineers who built the stuff take the lead on defining and explaining what matters rather than have privateers with a probe do it. It’s better, and more respectful, for everyone.