Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[solderdude]

Funny... I thought, and still do, digital is far superior on all aspects.
I wasn't an early adopter though. My first CDP was a Technics SL-PJ33 (1987) which I modified with SL-P500 post filters but figured out long before that what was wrong with tape and vinyl and fixed it by going digital. Still working (but not in use)

 

[Robin L]

Yeah, I guess I'm a latecomer, because I've also been listening to vinyls since I was born. But that's only since 1970's so I guess that counts as a latecomer. And built my own RIAA phono stages, amplifiers and loudspeakers in the 80's. And first DAC in 1994.

But I'd consider myself a latercomer in digital audio, because I didn't like sound of the early CD spinners and got first own one as late as around 1990. Until that I was just spinning the black discs, open reel tape and C-cassette, as the analog was better sounding to me. Well, later I figured out what was wrong with the digital audio and how to fix it.

I really disliked the sound of digital recording when I first heard it. That was around 1975, believe it or not. An odyssey reprint of a Denon recording from 1973, Jean Pierre Rampal, solo flute. Not a very high bar sonically. Back then, digital audio was the elephant riding a bicycle, amazing that it was happening at all. Didn't have a CD player until 1988, got one because I needed it for radio production. I liked the sound of a SPDIF signal going into a tc audio M2000 20-bit capable digital processor in 1995 better than listening to the analog signal coming from the CD player. At the same time as this, I'm recording, mostly from a Mackie mixer using Neumann microphones into a DAT recorder. Turns out the ADC in the M2000 is better than the ADCs in the Technics DAT recorder. But the experience of recording also meant that I was exposed to a lot more unamplified music, as I was recording Classical music for the most part. And consistently heard low-level details in the sound [and high-level dynamic shifts] that weren't being picked up in my recordings but were even less present on the analog recordings I heard of the same pieces. I first listened to "golden-age" recordings of orchestra music, that was my standard and made that kind of sound my goal. Problem is, those golden age Shaded Dogs really don't sound like the real thing.

I don't think I fully adapted to the sound of digital recordings until about 2015 with a nice 5.1 system playing SACDs and DVD-As, and around 2015 I had about 2000 LPs, also a pile of 78s as well. So it took me a long, long time to adjust to reality [true in other ways as well].

 

[Miska]

I liked the sound of a SPDIF signal going into a tc audio M2000 20-bit capable digital processor in 1995 better than listening to the analog signal coming from the CD player.

For me, I just built bunch of DACs (and used bunch of commercial ones, such as Audio Alchemy etc). And modded my longest time player, Marantz CD-60 (SAA7220 + TDA1541A). But these always tended to have some irritating aspect in the sound.

Then in 1998 I decided to build my own CD player around PC with CD-ROM drive and 96/24 8-channel studio DAC by ganging the output channels in 4 + 4 configuration through external active mix box I built. I wrote the software using the digital filters I already had for measurement software purposes, ripping the CD in realtime and feeding it through my own DSP chain. That's how HQPlayer was born.

 

[ahofer]

I first listened to "golden-age" recordings of orchestra music, that was my standard and made that kind of sound my goal. Problem is, those golden age Shaded Dogs really don't sound like the real thing.

Yeah, they have a fun, sort of thick, sound, but if you go to a concert, you notice it ain’t accurate. Sort of a weird substitute for live ambience.

 

[billyjoebob]

I'm saying they sound sufficiently similar that you won't be able to recognize which one is which when comparing blindly level-matched. It's a verifiable statement. I verified it myself. You are welcome to verify it, if you wish. Science is when you make a hypothesis and then do an experiment to prove or disprove it.

Blind tests are flawed!
When blind tasting food, people could not determine toast with mustard.
Does that mean a single person would ever choose to eat toast with mustard?
Do we listen to music or test equipment to make others happy?
Enjoy your aresii brother!

 

[Berlin]

Blind tests are flawed!
When blind tasting food, people could not determine toast withmean a single person would ever choose to eat toast with mustard?

Well, in a blind test with a toast with honey I would probably be able to taste a difference... ;-)

 

[billyjoebob]

Well, in a blind test with a toast with honey I would probably be able to taste a difference... ;-)

I would like to think so too...
But that apparently is not the case.
If you strip a human of any of their senses, it affects them all!
AND (back to dbx) if you keep switching the sources as quickly as I see in some tests, OR as may as 20 times!, it just makes everything sound like one even pile of crap!

Let it ride for a bit, let it soak in, thats when differences can be determined.

 

[billyjoebob]

Our host did a video on setting up something more useful if you might be interested. The brain is a tricky beast...a little work is needed to isolate the evaluation to the ears only.

But the very idea of this is to deny the senses and trick the brain as well!

I'm ALL for numbers, fire away!
Let them aid in informed purchases!
BUT tricking your brain (which dbx is) is not the be all in tests.
Then when one is done, cause someone was told that was the only path to enlightenment, then all hell breaks out about volume matching and how many time the test was done.
Similar yes.
But there is no way,.all DAC'S, amps & CD players sound the same.
Maybe on a desktop system.

 

[Robbo99999]

I would like to think so too...
But that apparently is not the case.
If you strip a human of any of their senses, it affects them all!
AND (back to dbx) if you keep switching the sources as quickly as I see in some tests, OR as may as 20 times!, it just makes everything sound like one even pile of crap!

Let it ride for a bit, let it soak in, thats when differences can be determined.

On that very last point of yours in your message, when comparing audio you have to do it quickly in terms of flipping between one & the other, as accurate auditory memory only lasts in seconds. So you'd listen to the same short sample on one & then flip it to the other & listen to that short sample again. "Letting it soak in" as you say would not allow you to accurately/correctly notice any differences especially if you're only talking about small/fine differences.

 

[Geert]

Blind tests are flawed!
When blind tasting food, people could not determine toast with mustard.

What a pile of BS. Blind tasting is even a game that children play. It's part of a sommelier training. Not only tasting wine, but initially learning to recognise the tast of individual ingredients. Blind!

If you strip a human of any of their senses, it affects them all!

So next time you burn or cut your fingers, just close your eyes.

 

[SIY]

But the very idea of this is to deny the senses and trick the brain as well!

I'm ALL for numbers, fire away!
Let them aid in informed purchases!
BUT tricking your brain (which dbx is) is not the be all in tests.
Then when one is done, cause someone was told that was the only path to enlightenment, then all hell breaks out about volume matching and how many time the test was done.
Similar yes.
But there is no way,.all DAC'S, amps & CD players sound the same.
Maybe on a desktop system.

What is "dbx" and how does it trick your brain?

No-one has ever claimed that "all DAC'S (sic), amps & CD players sound the same." So stop beating that strawman. Try dealing with actual arguments, not made-up ones.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

What is "dbx" and how does it trick your brain?

No-one has ever claimed that "all DAC'S (sic), amps & CD players sound the same." So stop beating that strawman. Try dealing with actual arguments, not made-up ones.

Think it was a Dolby competitor back in the cassette days, think I might have had a deck with dbx instead of Dolby B.

 

[DaveOttley]

Someone has been guzzling the kool-aid.

It's what I HEAR! I actually agree with most of Amir's assessments about products I have purchased, thus my joining here. It is clear that the members here in general are skeptical of objective audio experiences, so I think I can bring a needed counter perspective. I started building my own cables a while back to avoid some of the high cable prices. What I learned was that there is a lot of difference and detail in how every strand of fiber is oriented, sized, insulated, soldered... and so on. There are so many variables in a single interconnect! And when you dissect a cheap one and then you make a top-of-the-line one, you *know* the difference. It's like wearing an old shirt that is hand-me-down vs a new Versace suit! It's very different to behold, even if the fabric is made with the same die.

I'm willing to spend money to have audio experiences and link them causally to the components and cabling as best I can. I do this within my personal budget and it has led to a dramatic increase in audio reproduction quality and enjoyment, subjectively. I hope my opinions can influence someone to try a certain product that I have tried and that I trust, because they wont have to *waste* their money on another product if, say, their budget only allows them to try one product. This is particularly true in the case of Denafrips because their products are priced a full tier below the performance that they offer. I would say most middle-class Americans or Europeans could afford a Denafrips Pontus II for example and it would drastically increase their sonic enjoyment for years to come.

 

[BDWoody]

. It is clear that the members here in general are skeptical of objective audio experiences, so I think I can bring a needed counter perspective.

What is needed is evidence, not another perspective.

We are skeptical of claims that don't have any.

 

[Killingbeans]

I would like you to review the higher end units and let me know what you think, because there is NO WAY that a cheap $90 DAC or a $500 DAC could compare sonically to the higher-end DENAFRIPS products, which are a fraction of the cost of their peers, namely a dCs stack in this case.

Does "sonically" mean a different frequency respose, or higher performance?

What limit do you believe human hearing has?

 

[DaveOttley]

What is needed is evidence, not another perspective.

We are skeptical of claims that don't have any.

I don't work for Denafrips or make money from them, so it's not like I'm trying to get my claims accepted. I'm posting here because I think somebody will find it in the future and hear a voice that is living their potential audio life. As someone who has heard a fair number of DACs from $50-$8000 I can tell you that in every price category that they offer, the Denafrips line is best-in-class. The question IMHO shouldn't be whether the Denafrips DACS sound the best but rather whether you have the space for such a chunky enclosure? Do you intend to go fully balanced because Denafrips only offer balanced solutions. Are you aiming for golden-channel stereo or multichannel? Headphones or Speakers. Those are more important. If you need something small or don't have space, then some other cheaper options make sense to me too. But if you have the space, the AC Power supply, heat controlled room for hot components, balanced cables, and you want to hear something better, then go with the Denafrips.

 

[DaveOttley]

I mean, having heard both, which one do you want to sell and which one do you keep? For me, I have sold every component that I have A/B tested with a Denafrips product. I am more sonically pleased with them. Frequency response I am sure is a component of that. According to Amir, tonality is the most important aspect of subjective quality. I believe that. But I don't have time nor interest to research the *why* of what is happening. I can tell you that I do like it better or I don't. If Amir is to be believed, we have generally converging audio tastes. If that is true, then I believe the sonic performance of the Denafrips products is a cut above the rest, that I have heard, in each price category.

 

[DaveOttley]

To address your point on the limits of human hearing, I think my best input would be my observation that from my perspective there seems to be an extreme variation in the limits of hearing on an individual-by-individual basis. If one person can perceive a sound differential and another cannot, then the first will always sense a gap between his hearing and he others. If some people can also hear what the first hears and some cannot, then the first can say there is a large variation in what his peers are able to perceive. However, the person who cannot hear the difference, or who hears it only slightly, or who can only perceive it when pointed out, they will not think that there is much of a difference. They will see it as something that only one person, or a few people say they perceive, but that doesn't seem to exist.

I am that first man. I definitely hear many minute differences between things in the acoustic world, the analog world, and the digital world. Some people I know are like me but quite few. Most people say they can't hear things that make me sick. Some people can't feel the utter joy of great music when it comes on. I get it. But for me, the only wish I have is that I had more money to keep trying more expensive solutions because I still hear the difference and it is so good to me.

If I am crazy, I'm fine to be crazy. But I don't think I am. I think when Amir gets the higher end Denafrips products he will have great things to say as well.

 

[Purité Audio]

Uh-huh
Keith

 

[DaveOttley]

Uh-huh
Keith

I found a track by this name by Keith Kelly. If you're referring to this track it's cool. I assume I'm missing a joke, though ;||