Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[DHT 845]

IKEA

 

[WireWoundResistor]

Since this is my first post I'm guessing I should make it here?

I like to consider myself an objectivist (even though I'm probably not) and I try to buy my stuff, using objective criteria BUT what stays in my system and what doesn't is most of the time purely emotional and subjective. I've had the odd piece of gear that measured incredibly good but sounded off and the replacement that measured equally good sounded good to me. Strange, I know.
I am a musician, an audio engineer trained in critical listening and my hearing is good, so my (according to some HIFI-Shop owners in my area) very arrogant opionion is "If I can't hear it and they can't produce measurements to convince me otherwise, it's not there". Also: Just because I think I can hear it, it doesn't mean it's there. It's a constant battle with myself.

As an audio engineer I tend to buy professional grade stuff, that's good quality but reasonably priced. I wouldn't go as far as to say the cheapest cables or crossover components, for example, are as good as higher quality ones. But there's a threshold of "good enough" that is clearly measurable and everything beyond that I consider unnecessary. On the other hand I clearly get why people want fancy looking cables to go with their fancy looking equipment - as we all know, we hear with our eyes too.

I have one very specific pet-peeve when it comes to "classic audiophiles": Most of them rate the importance (to the quality of sound) of their audio equipment in order of prestige. For example they love to buy very expensive amplifiers but don't care about room treatment, or speaker stand/mounts. It's about how much money it costs and how shiny it is.
Speakers is where the prestige/importance diagram seems to overlap, but they prefer sleek looking towers with small drivers over large-baffled speakers with adequately sized drivers because it's the aesthetic flavor of the moment.

That coffee table in front of your listening postion is more importatant to the sound you hear than that DAC you bought for the price of a small car!

Anyway, I bought some stuff because Amir recommended it and I constantly use the techniques he teaches us to determine, whether I like something or not - so... Thank you all for making the this a place where you can go and be passionate about something without relying on magic to justify your preferences. Preferences don't need to be justified and everything else you can measure.

Thanks and all the best!

 

[keith_h]

So what were the white bracket mount speakers?

PSB Imagine Mini's. Later bought a PSB sub to go with. Turned out to be very good indeed.

 

[tvrgeek]

"That coffee table in front of your listening position is more important to the sound you hear than that DAC you bought for the price of a small car!"
I agree, the environment is a huge part of the battle, most often neglected, and differences can swamp the electronics for some things. But I beg to differ. With no other changes, the "glare" around 3100 Hz is so clear to my ears between 5 DACS, it was is not even close. The only small car I can buy for what I paid for the DAC I kept is 1/64 scale. Atom Dac+. Now, It does measure way into the blue, but one that was objectionable measured better. I bought it on the outstanding test results and fully expected it to be nirvana. It was not. I actually bought the previous one based on the SNAID as at that time, I believed any "decent" one would sound the same. I was wrong.

So, the current set of objective measurements are valuable as a first guide. But no two hear the same things and there are differences some of us can hear, or maybe that some of us care about, that are not captured in the current measurements.

There is more to be measured. That is all I am saying. Measurements SHOULD be everything. Those who continually say if you hear a difference you are wrong are not helping to further the science of measurement.

One thing I think I understand is our ability to distinguish sounds below the noise floor differs. My experience suggests it differs by gender, age, as well as individuals. It can be trained to some extent. I am not at liberty to discuss where this experience comes from so those who continually have to scream "prove it with 100 person ABX scientifically monitored testing" need not try. Maybe a clue, maybe not. Clue why noise masking works better for some than others? Are parents more attuned to alert to a baby screech frequencies but are conditioned to alert, not cringe?

Do two tone tests really identify IM or do we need a more complex test? Is there something cumulative in there?

What tests tell us about linear distortion in dynamic music. What burst profile cold be used to see what effect transients of what level effect the rails? This can't be shown in a static sine wave distortion test. Can we put a number on it for comparison and interpret good enough or not? In the bad old days, we could almost buy an amplifier by weight and it correlated to our perceptions as well as anything else. Pounds per Watt. We can do far better now. A clue is how close to double the power at 4 Ohms than 8? Tells us something about the power supply you can't see with steady state testing. Is this masked by just getting a bigger amp? A "stiff" 50 W may sound the same as a crappy 150W because both have enough?

From what I have read, we are less sensitive to distortions a higher volumes and at very low volumes. My experience aligns with this. Can we but numbers on this, or is it too variable? Why can I sit 10 feet from a cheap PA speaker in a coffee house playing too loud, but the same speaker in my living room I would toss out the window screaming at "comfortable" levels?

We do not all hear by the exact Fletcher-Munson curve. We are not all young men in England in 1933. Does that make some of us more sensitive to different distortions and where they are? Should we be weighting distortion with the F-M curve? What does the A weighted curve tell us in addition to flat? Does it tell us what levels for measuring tell us the most when correlated to our listening levels? Is a uniform 5W the most informative level for amplifier testing? Or is 20 ( providing that is less than half rated) or does our experience with amplifier design say, it correlates? I don't know. I just know we hear things not fully explained by the current measures, or maybe interpretation of the measures.

 

[anmpr1]

1) Since this is my first post I'm guessing I should make it here?

2) ... but don't care about room treatment... ...sleek looking towers with small drivers over large-baffled speakers with adequately sized drivers because it's the aesthetic flavor of the moment.

1) It should not be your last post.

2) No doubt what you say is the case, however room treatment is certainly not as simple as placing two loudspeakers on a stand on either end of your equipment rack, or in the corner of your listening room. First, you have to know what you are 'treating' and, second, the best way to do it. Measurements are really required, and the 'treatment' can and most probably will interfere with the feng shui of the room, which, as you point out, is an aesthetic point for the audiophile, and often more importantly, his wife.

Generally, from what I've read and seen here on ASR, a lot of folks using 'room treatment' are doing it in the context of a dedicated home theater, where architectural design can be more functionally integrated into the space, than is possible in a living room, where other, more domestic oriented, factors may predominate.

 

[Newman]

As an audio engineer I tend to buy professional grade stuff, that's good quality but reasonably priced.

You are allowed to mention names, you know.

 

[Newman]

There is more to be measured. That is all I am saying. Measurements SHOULD be everything. Those who continually say if you hear a difference you are wrong are not helping to further the science of measurement.

OTOH those who continually use sighted listening for determining what differences they hear and report on the forums, are doing a disservice to all science, both listening and measurement. The idea that such listening reports should be used to further the science of measurement is wholly misguided.

 

[Blumlein 88]

"That coffee table in front of your listening position is more important to the sound you hear than that DAC you bought for the price of a small car!"
I agree, the environment is a huge part of the battle, most often neglected, and differences can swamp the electronics for some things. But I beg to differ. With no other changes, the "glare" around 3100 Hz is so clear to my ears between 5 DACS, it was is not even close. The only small car I can buy for what I paid for the DAC I kept is 1/64 scale. Atom Dac+. Now, It does measure way into the blue, but one that was objectionable measured better. I bought it on the outstanding test results and fully expected it to be nirvana. It was not. I actually bought the previous one based on the SNAID as at that time, I believed any "decent" one would sound the same. I was wrong.

So, the current set of objective measurements are valuable as a first guide. But no two hear the same things and there are differences some of us can hear, or maybe that some of us care about, that are not captured in the current measurements.

There is more to be measured. That is all I am saying. Measurements SHOULD be everything. Those who continually say if you hear a difference you are wrong are not helping to further the science of measurement.

One thing I think I understand is our ability to distinguish sounds below the noise floor differs. My experience suggests it differs by gender, age, as well as individuals. It can be trained to some extent. I am not at liberty to discuss where this experience comes from so those who continually have to scream "prove it with 100 person ABX scientifically monitored testing" need not try. Maybe a clue, maybe not. Clue why noise masking works better for some than others? Are parents more attuned to alert to a baby screech frequencies but are conditioned to alert, not cringe?

Do two tone tests really identify IM or do we need a more complex test? Is there something cumulative in there?

What tests tell us about linear distortion in dynamic music. What burst profile cold be used to see what effect transients of what level effect the rails? This can't be shown in a static sine wave distortion test. Can we put a number on it for comparison and interpret good enough or not? In the bad old days, we could almost buy an amplifier by weight and it correlated to our perceptions as well as anything else. Pounds per Watt. We can do far better now. A clue is how close to double the power at 4 Ohms than 8? Tells us something about the power supply you can't see with steady state testing. Is this masked by just getting a bigger amp? A "stiff" 50 W may sound the same as a crappy 150W because both have enough?

From what I have read, we are less sensitive to distortions a higher volumes and at very low volumes. My experience aligns with this. Can we but numbers on this, or is it too variable? Why can I sit 10 feet from a cheap PA speaker in a coffee house playing too loud, but the same speaker in my living room I would toss out the window screaming at "comfortable" levels?

We do not all hear by the exact Fletcher-Munson curve. We are not all young men in England in 1933. Does that make some of us more sensitive to different distortions and where they are? Should we be weighting distortion with the F-M curve? What does the A weighted curve tell us in addition to flat? Does it tell us what levels for measuring tell us the most when correlated to our listening levels? Is a uniform 5W the most informative level for amplifier testing? Or is 20 ( providing that is less than half rated) or does our experience with amplifier design say, it correlates? I don't know. I just know we hear things not fully explained by the current measures, or maybe interpretation of the measures.

If one does not test against reality, one can imagine anything. One can rarely determine anything that way.

 

[pkane]

I don't know. I just know we hear things not fully explained by the current measures, or maybe interpretation of the measures.

Posting a bunch of claims and then concluding with "I don't know" doesn't help support any of your points, I'm afraid. If you are going to post claims, please provide some evidence for them so that others can review or reproduce. "I just know" doesn't quite make it.

 

[anmpr1]

From what I have read, we are less sensitive to distortions a higher volumes and at very low volumes.

I would want to know more about that. Certainly, when it comes to loudspeakers, high distortion at high SPL is quite noticeable. I've mentioned this before: the late Drew Daniels (among other things an application engineer at JBL pro) designed plans for a large, horn loaded/vented bass loudspeaker that could play very loud with very little distortion. Drew cautioned that because of the loudspeaker's inherently low distortion, listeners have a tendency to play at higher SPL than with typical domesticated loudspeakers, where distortion will cause audible artifacts at loud SPL, making the sound unpleasant. Drew stated:

The system described here is easily capable of producing sound pressure levels far in excess of that which will cause irreversible hearing loss--don't take this lightly. These speakers make so little distortion that you will be tempted to believe that the 120 dB sound you are listening to is only playing at 90 dB.

Once, when I was doing some editing work for Peter Aczel, we discussed this. He told me:

The dynamic range of the human ear is more than 120 dB. The dynamic range of 16-bit digital recording is theoretically 98 dB. The difference between the absolute softest audible music in a concert hall and the loudest climaxes is of the order of 60 to 70 dB because of the ambient noise floor. Let us say you need 1 milliwatt of amplifier power, in a given installation, to play the softest passages (I am just guessing), then 70 dB above that would come to 10,000 watts. Any domestic loudspeaker would go up in smoke with that kind of input. With extremely high-efficiency horn-type theater speakers the numbers change; it is actually possible to produce levels of 110 or 115 dB or even more in a single installation, and here’s the remarkable thing—you can tolerate it because the distortion is low. We tend to judge loudness by the amount of distortion we hear, not by SPL! You wouldn’t adjust the volume control if you heard no distortion. So, you could have your “too good” 98-dB balls-to-the-wall digital recording without compression, if the efficiency and power-handling capability of your system were adequate—which they generally are not.

 

[tvrgeek]

OTOH those who continually use sighted listening for determining what differences they hear and report on the forums, are doing a disservice to all science, both listening and measurement. The idea that such listening reports should be used to further the science of measurement is wholly misguided.

Sorry, you are flat incorrect and this attitude is BLOCKING further development of scientific measurement.

 

[audio2design]

But I beg to differ. With no other changes, the "glare" around 3100 Hz is so clear to my ears between 5 DACS, it was is not even close.

So, the current set of objective measurements are valuable as a first guide. But no two hear the same things and there are differences some of us can hear, or maybe that some of us care about, that are not captured in the current measurements.

One thing I think I understand is our ability to distinguish sounds below the noise floor differs. My experience suggests it differs by gender, age, as well as individuals. It can be trained to some extent. I am not at liberty to discuss where this experience

What tests tell us about linear distortion in dynamic music. What burst profile cold be used to see what effect transients of what level effect the rails? This can't be shown in a static sine wave distortion test. A clue is how close to double the power at 4 Ohms than 8? Tells us something about the power supply you can't see with steady state testing.

From what I have read, we are less sensitive to distortions a higher volumes and at very low volumes. My experience aligns with this.

We do not all hear by the exact Fletcher-Munson curve. We are not all young men in England in 1933. Does that make some of us more sensitive to different distortions and where they are? Should we be weighting distortion with the F-M curve? What does the A weighted curve tell us in addition to flat? Does it tell us what levels for measuring tell us the most when correlated to our listening levels? Is a uniform 5W the most informative level for amplifier testing?

I don't know. I just know we hear things not fully explained by the current measures, or maybe interpretation of the measures.

Cool stories.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I would want to know more about that. Certainly, when it comes to loudspeakers, high distortion at high SPL is quite noticeable. I've mentioned this before: the late Drew Daniels (among other things an application engineer at JBL pro) designed plans for a large, horn loaded/vented bass loudspeaker that could play very loud with very little distortion. Drew cautioned that because of the loudspeaker's inherently low distortion, listeners have a tendency to play at higher SPL than with typical domesticated loudspeakers, where distortion will cause audible artifacts at loud SPL, making the sound unpleasant. Drew stated:

The system described here is easily capable of producing sound pressure levels far in excess of that which will cause irreversible hearing loss--don't take this lightly. These speakers make so little distortion that you will be tempted to believe that the 120 dB sound you are listening to is only playing at 90 dB.

Once, when I was doing some editing work for Peter Aczel, we discussed this. He told me:

The dynamic range of the human ear is more than 120 dB. The dynamic range of 16-bit digital recording is theoretically 98 dB. The difference between the absolute softest audible music in a concert hall and the loudest climaxes is of the order of 60 to 70 dB because of the ambient noise floor. Let us say you need 1 milliwatt of amplifier power, in a given installation, to play the softest passages (I am just guessing), then 70 dB above that would come to 10,000 watts. Any domestic loudspeaker would go up in smoke with that kind of input. With extremely high-efficiency horn-type theater speakers the numbers change; it is actually possible to produce levels of 110 or 115 dB or even more in a single installation, and here’s the remarkable thing—you can tolerate it because the distortion is low. We tend to judge loudness by the amount of distortion we hear, not by SPL! You wouldn’t adjust the volume control if you heard no distortion. So, you could have your “too good” 98-dB balls-to-the-wall digital recording without compression, if the efficiency and power-handling capability of your system were adequate—which they generally are not.

Your ears themselves distort at those levels. There is no such thing as hearing 115 db clean in that sense. If you've ever heard some mechanical gear running at those levels it sounds harsh. Use some ear plugs and drop it down, and suddenly it sounds full of detail you can hear, but your ear was distorting and masking it at the louder level.

 

[audio2design]

B]it is actually possible to produce levels of 110 or 115 dB or even more in a single installation, and here’s the remarkable thing—you can tolerate it because the distortion is low. We tend to judge loudness by the amount of distortion we hear, not by SPL! You wouldn’t adjust the volume control if you heard no distortion.[/B] So, you could have your “too good” 98-dB balls-to-the-wall digital recording without compression, if the efficiency and power-handling capability of your system were adequate—which they generally are not.[/I]

Well that's predominantly a loud of crap with some caveats. Due to Fletcher Munson curves at high distortion harmonics can be louder than the primary frequency causing us to perceive louder. However we also perceive harsh and unpleasant, not just loud.

 

[killdozzer]

Hi,

Can't agree more with your conclusion.
At the end of the day, you'll be listening to music, not measures and numbers.

Me, when, I am asked by friends what I do advise, my answer is following :
" Did you listen to it ?
- Yes.
- Did you like it ?
- Yes.
- Then it is good for you".

If answer is "No", then I of course say "It's not good for you".

But if the device has not been heard, my advice is following.
Get your appointment in "Audio shop".
The night before, do not sleep and get there super tired.
Ask them to play the music reasonably loud.
Can you fell asleep with that music ? Then the device is good for you.
Does it irritate you and you want to turn if off ? Then the device is not good for you.

This does not mean that the device is "better" or "worse".
It has nothing to do with how "pure" or "transparent" the sound is objectively.
It is only a matter of taste, which is totally subjective.

So we all have to be humble and say "I like it", not "It is the best you can get"...

Regards.

I really don't think this is a good advice. First and foremost, people who appreciate well measuring speakers do not think they'll be listening to numbers and measurements. They are trying to asses the quality and predict behaviour of the speakers at least up to a point.

I think it would be more fair to say @keith_h got lucky and bought a good product. It would also be very fair to say that his decision followed the measurements more or less decently, since B&W don't really measure up there with the best of them.

Saying go out there and test your luck perhaps better suits casinos, not giving advice to buyers. One question always comes to mind; what if a better product can't be heard at your local shop? You'll end up buying what sounded best at the shop not the best for you (even for you subjectively) and, let's be honest, "sounding best at the shop" can be manipulated endlessly.

We all saw people buying good sounding, bad measuring gear in the Hegel thread. You throw away your money and just sit at home wonder when will poor performance rear its ugly head as it certainly will sooner or later.

Why not simply find the middle ground; it has to perform well AND sound good to the buyer. Wouldn't that be the most honest approach?

 

[anmpr1]

Your ears themselves distort at those levels. There is no such thing as hearing 115 db clean in that sense. If you've ever heard some mechanical gear running at those levels it sounds harsh. Use some ear plugs and drop it down, and suddenly it sounds full of detail you can hear, but your ear was distorting and masking it at the louder level.

Is that distortion, per se? In the same sense as distortion in an amplifier or loudspeaker? I am just asking? Obviously there is a big difference between, say, a 170dB rifle shot, and a loudspeaker, both happening in the same room. The rifle shot will not be 'distorted' in the same way that a loudspeaker distorts, because what you are 'hearing' from the rifle (before your ears shut down) is a 'clean' or 'natural' or unadulterated primary sound.

What the loudspeaker will do, if attempting to reproduce the rifle shot, is add its own secondary distortion. On the other hand, if a loudspeaker/amp could produce a SPL equivalent of the rifle shot, and with no secondary additional distortion, then there would be no essential difference between the two, from the ear's perspective.

As far as loudspeakers, it is all recording limited. At a concert (and depending upon your seats) it is not uncommon to approach 100dB SPL. If one's loudspeaker can produce that, or close to that, without appreciably distorting, then I suspect one might be more inclined to listen at louder levels than, say, a loudspeaker that cannot. In the latter case, one will likely turn down the volume because of the distortion coming from the loudspeaker.

 

[anmpr1]

Well that's predominantly a loud of crap with some caveats...

What Drew Daniels was saying, was that if your system can handle it, you can subjectively listen very loudly without actually perceiving the physiological damage that is possibly (and likely) occurring to your ears. That is not a 'loud of crap', but intelligent advice... for anyone interested in protecting their hearing.

You are certainly correct when you state that something 'harsh' sounding might 'sound' subjectively louder than something 'clean'. That is pretty much his argument, after all. That is, loudspeakers throwing out a lot of distortion will lead one to turn it down, because you won't want to hear all the grunge. With a 'clean' loudspeaker, it could be different.

One other point: No one (I don't think) is claiming that something super loud will sound clean, pleasant, and enjoyable. But the threshold for ear damage occurs at a lower SPL than might be generally supposed. That is the point. In the early days of hi-fi, the big thing for 'demonstration' records was to record a freight train, or maybe a B-52 bomber at takeoff. Of course the recording could not match the SPL of those. But if they could, the resulting sound in your living room would certainly be lowered before it matched anything approaching real life, because your ears would start to hurt.

 

[tvrgeek]

As I have already said, the current set of measurements, highly informative and carefully consistent are great. But there if more to what we, can hear than is described by this limited set. I have offered several suggestions on what they may be. Can you explain when what you hear, is totally in conflict with the expectations? How do you explain another person who has no idea what you changed, care what it costs, or how much effort you put into it without being asked can offer the exact same description of the sound and blame it on sighted bias?

The scientific method is to make an observation, then investigate, hypothesize, test, and develop theory on which we can base a conclusion. Claiming I can't actually hear a difference and declaring the limited set of measurements perfect is making the conclusion first. Completely against the scientific method. How is this not clear enough?

I can't tell you how many times I have labored and spent money tweaking a speaker system having great expectations , brought it in and it stunk. Stunk to me, stunk to my wife. Sighted placebo?

I was stoked. The D30pro measurements were so good, they are hard to imagine in a consumer product. With great expectations, the "glare" difference to my other DAC was barely noticeable through speakers. Differences in very low level detail with headphones I can explain by the much lower noise floor. Objective measure described a difference is sound. Conclusion? Not that much different, good as it gets. Threshold reached and all that.

As I needed another DAC anyway, I wanted to get the Modius but it is out of stock, so I bought the Atom. After all, the conclusion was that is as good as it gets, and it measured better than my Asgard, it should be the same. Tossed it on. Huge difference in the specific sound that bothers me and my wife. I mean walk by the hall different. Sent the Topping back. I really wanted it to work. I mean, it was slick, every feature imaginable, fantastic specs. Loved the remote which surprised me. But the JDS flat out sounds better. So the CORRECT question, is what is different? Can we measure it? Can we quantify it, put it on a scale? Because we measure something as better by belief smaller or bigger must be better, is that true? What does our brain do to sounds based on the pattering it makes when we walk into a room and it evaluated the environment, audibly and visually? What allows us to perceive "Goldilocks"

I am not ready to declare I know everything, we can shut down research, fire all the scientists, kill the patent office because what we know is perfect. If you do, fine, you need not be in the discussion anyway as you have nothing to contribute or take away. Sorry. I hope to not quit learning until my last breath.

FWIW, I had 4 line level preamps and I couldn't tell them apart. My conclusion is we can make them "good enough" I only needed one, so with some romantic attachment overcome, sold my Nak. Not hard on the Hafler or DIY. The Nak was just sweet to use. Massive personal attachment and bias. It did not fit on the shelf, no headphones and I do the EQ in the host.
Dumping the horrible sounding Parasound, I compared my old Creek to my own MOSFET amp. At low levels, I could not tell them apart. By about relaxed levels, they were different slightly. "Signature" as the subjectivists would say. I suggest is the difference in Beta droop between bi-polar and MOSFET. Something we CAN measure. Handles dynamics slightly differently. Neither wrong in any sense. Both just fine. At higher levels, the Creek ran out of power. Quite expected. 40W clipping into my not very efficient monitors. Power supply less than 1/4 the current from my MOSFET that clips close to 100W which has 8 times the rail storage. Curious, the "defect" in the Parasound was not much unlike the defects I heard in DACs. Not exact, but in that range. That confirms there is something that can be measured there.

One last thing:
Probably 2/3s of my CDs sound identical on all my amps, and all my DACs. Source material matters. For example, all my Billy Joel highlight the issue in the cymbals. Joni Mitchel can kill it. Harry James trumpet gets too rough, Buddy Rich is too rough because that is how he conducted his band. Bream plays Alverez, bass strings sound metallic on the Parasound amps. These things are clear enough I can take a CD to stores and hear the same things repeatedly. I repeat ad-nauseum. Amazing how many very prestigious amps failed the Julian Bream test. Equally, last road trip, three integrated amps and I could not hear any difference in the strings. All passed. All "good enough" There is something to measure here.

 

[danadam]

I would want to know more about that.

Some empirical example:

Can you hear a 1kHz sine wave distortion of 0.85% from tube preamplifier

This test is on audibility of harmonic distortion of the pure sine wave that went through a tube preamplifier, resulting in THD = 0.85%. Two files, pure sine and output from the tube may be downloaded from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Npg8YFJAfRvqqN6lalsBjVAkHS2Q1lnd/view?usp=sharing If...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[pkane]

As I have already said, the current set of measurements, highly informative and carefully consistent are great. But there if more to what we, can hear than is described by this limited set. I have offered several suggestions on what they may be. Can you explain when what you hear, is totally in conflict with the expectations? How do you explain another person who has no idea what you changed, care what it costs, or how much effort you put into it without being asked can offer the exact same description of the sound and blame it on sighted bias?

The scientific method is to make an observation, then investigate, hypothesize, test, and develop theory on which we can base a conclusion. Claiming I can't actually hear a difference and declaring the limited set of measurements perfect is making the conclusion first. Completely against the scientific method. How is this not clear enough?

I can't tell you how many times I have labored and spent money tweaking a speaker system having great expectations , brought it in and it stunk. Stunk to me, stunk to my wife. Sighted placebo?

I was stoked. The D30pro measurements were so good, they are hard to imagine in a consumer product. With great expectations, the "glare" difference to my other DAC was barely noticeable through speakers. Differences in very low level detail with headphones I can explain by the much lower noise floor. Objective measure described a difference is sound. Conclusion? Not that much different, good as it gets. Threshold reached and all that.

As I needed another DAC anyway, I wanted to get the Modius but it is out of stock, so I bought the Atom. After all, the conclusion was that is as good as it gets, and it measured better than my Asgard, it should be the same. Tossed it on. Huge difference in the specific sound that bothers me and my wife. I mean walk by the hall different. Sent the Topping back. I really wanted it to work. I mean, it was slick, every feature imaginable, fantastic specs. Loved the remote which surprised me. But the JDS flat out sounds better. So the CORRECT question, is what is different? Can we measure it? Can we quantify it, put it on a scale? Because we measure something as better by belief smaller or bigger must be better, is that true? What does our brain do to sounds based on the pattering it makes when we walk into a room and it evaluated the environment, audibly and visually? What allows us to perceive "Goldilocks"

I am not ready to declare I know everything, we can shut down research, fire all the scientists, kill the patent office because what we know is perfect. If you do, fine, you need not be in the discussion anyway as you have nothing to contribute or take away. Sorry. I hope to not quit learning until my last breath.

FWIW, I had 4 line level preamps and I couldn't tell them apart. My conclusion is we can make them "good enough" I only needed one, so with some romantic attachment overcome, sold my Nak. Not hard on the Hafler or DIY. The Nak was just sweet to use. Massive personal attachment and bias. It did not fit on the shelf, no headphones and I do the EQ in the host.
Dumping the horrible sounding Parasound, I compared my old Creek to my own MOSFET amp. At low levels, I could not tell them apart. By about relaxed levels, they were different slightly. "Signature" as the subjectivists would say. I suggest is the difference in Beta droop between bi-polar and MOSFET. Something we CAN measure. Handles dynamics slightly differently. Neither wrong in any sense. Both just fine. At higher levels, the Creek ran out of power. Quite expected. 40W clipping into my not very efficient monitors. Power supply less than 1/4 the current from my MOSFET that clips close to 100W which has 8 times the rail storage. Curious, the "defect" in the Parasound was not much unlike the defects I heard in DACs. Not exact, but in that range. That confirms there is something that can be measured there.

One last thing:
Probably 2/3s of my CDs sound identical on all my amps, and all my DACs. Source material matters. For example, all my Billy Joel highlight the issue in the cymbals. Joni Mitchel can kill it. Harry James trumpet gets too rough, Buddy Rich is too rough because that is how he conducted his band. Bream plays Alverez, bass strings sound metallic on the Parasound amps. These things are clear enough I can take a CD to stores and hear the same things repeatedly. I repeat ad-nauseum. Amazing how many very prestigious amps failed the Julian Bream test. Equally, last road trip, three integrated amps and I could not hear any difference in the strings. All passed. All "good enough" There is something to measure here.

You've convinced me by the complete lack of any evidence and a very long and detailed set of unsubstantiated opinions repeatedly shared in your numerous posts. I particularly liked the reference to your wife hearing the difference between DACs from the hall. Well done!