Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Ken Tajalli]

I did a private experiment that demonstrated to my satisfaction that Ethernet cables sound different. I have no interest in exposing my methods or results, but I would like to brag about the results here. Everyone Ok with that? You can’t prove me wrong, after all.

What? bad ones were silent, good ones weren't?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just as you, I have no need to proove anything to you and will continue to disagree with what you are saying. I stand by my claims and you by yours.

Would you be able to hear a jitter free loopback vs a jittered one just by listening?

 

[Blumlein 88]

My view is that the place on the SINAD list does not reflect sound quality (may or may not), and I certainly do not agree that all DACs sound the same. Some of the DACs I listed would certainly be lower on the SINAD list, as would many others, in terms of specification (the Wadia for sure), but its sound is simply better than the SMSL D400ES. I don't think that old and more expensive is better, and I don't know where you got that from. But it's obvious that I can't, and I don't want to, convince you that not all DACs sound the same, just like you can't convince me otherwise. I'm guided by what I hear and that's it.

So your are guided by subjective hearing and that's it. Then look for any grasping explanation that might fit the results, yet don't wish to demonstrate to anyone else. So science the way you employ it is like Aristotle, and unlike Galileo.

 

[bok]

Would you be able to hear a jitter free loopback vs a jittered one just by listening?

What type of jitter are you referring to?
As I have explained earlier I'm not interested (or worried) about jitter (any type) as such. Neither have I said anything about what I hear or don't hear so you are asking from the wrong person. But as hearing is individual and sensitivity to jitter, phase noise or what ever varies I don't automatically disqualify somebody for claiming to hear audible differences due to these. What I do instead is to make sure that anything I make does not overly suffer from these issues.

And as I also said before I would welcome if ASR would make additional measurements (e.g. for DAC close-in phase noise) to make sure that manufacturers are also striving for excellence rather than the pole position in SINAD chart.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What type of jitter are you referring to?
As I have explained earlier I'm not interested (or worried) about jitter (any type) as such. Neither have I said anything about what I hear or don't hear so you are asking from the wrong person. But as hearing is individual and sensitivity to jitter, phase noise or what ever varies I don't automatically disqualify somebody for claiming to hear audible differences due to these. What I do instead is to make sure that anything I make does not overly suffer from these issues.

And as I also said before I would welcome if ASR would make additional measurements (e.g. for DAC close-in phase noise) to make sure that manufacturers are also striving for excellence rather than the pole position in SINAD chart.

You type long posts to say nothing claim nothing and prove nothing. Interesting you are not worried about jitter in the post where you ask for close in phase noise measurements.

 

[bok]

You type long posts to say nothing claim nothing and prove nothing. Interesting you are not worried about jitter in the post where you ask for close in phase noise measurements.

Why should I have something to claim or prove to you? You seem to struggle with whole concept of jitter.

Jitter is not the same as close-in phase noise. Jitter does not include amplitude modulated phase noise. So if I ask for close-in phase noise measurements it is not the same as worrying about jitter.

 

[TheBatsEar]

I did a private experiment that demonstrated to my satisfaction that Ethernet cables sound different.

Opinion discarded.

 

[antcollinet]

Well, there is what's on paper and what you actually hear. Take your favorite CD for example. Now copy that CD to a CD-R. Now copy that copy. On paper, all discs sound exactly the same. Right? But if you listen, you will find the copy doesn't sound that great. But that's impossible! It's just a copy of ones and zeroes, right? Other things are at play here. You have two ****** DACs (and keep in mind I have and use one of them) which sound great for voice over or spraying your juices on chaturbate to then be compressed to your viewers and fan base (are we getting good signal-to-noise ratio in capturing those moans and when the fluids hit the lens?) but if we are capturing a symphony orchestra or an opera singer or some rare archival-level ethno recording...in short, when you are really recording, you may want to reach for something a little nicer. These are two hundred dollar components, are they shielded? Did the manufacturer cheap out anywhere? Was everything perfectly assembled? Is the firmware okay? Because if I am really recording something important, I don't want to worry about this. "Oh but the graph says..." yeah, whatever. Which captures the squelching of your juices better, the audient or motu? Does it matter? Depends whose juices I guess..Lots of things look great on paper, but in reality are not. There's 'good enough', which is fine. I don't mind a little cheap and dirty sometimes, but if I am really recording for keeps...

Good god - I do believe you are employing a random word generator.

 

[VQR]

I did a private experiment that demonstrated to my satisfaction that Ethernet cables sound different. I have no interest in exposing my methods or results, but I would like to brag about the results here. Everyone Ok with that? You can’t prove me wrong, after all.

Opinion discarded.
View attachment 259585

I think it was satire given other posts by @ahofer but legit can't blame you for believing. In a sane world, that would be satire, but you can't be too sure these days.

 

[MAB]

Take your favorite CD for example. Now copy that CD to a CD-R. Now copy that copy. On paper, all discs sound exactly the same. Right? But if you listen, you will find the copy doesn't sound that great.

You should do the experiment you suggest here, with controls. You will find that the copy sounds the same unless there was an error. If it doesn't sound the same, it was because of a measurable error.
Everything else you said is strange.

 

[JustJones]

Being one of the dim bulbs I'm confused about close-in phase noise. Is this noise not included in the SNR? I thought this included all audible noise, at least for humans.

 

[MAB]

Being one of the dim bulbs I'm confused about close-in phase noise. Is this noise not included in the SNR? I thought this included all audible noise, at least for humans.

It's a qualitative description, in this case applied to the clock noise distribution.
First, the clock has got to be pretty bad to produce artifacts above a threshold of noticeability. Then we could start talking about the shape and distribution of clock noise, and if it was close-in, or whatever... But since this is many orders of magnitude below a just noticeable difference, this is all pointless, and a bok has the argument a bit wrong...
A detailed discussion on noise is worthwhile when trying to figure out why the JWST performs as it does (for instance), but for audio this is an absurd starting point for an argument, and non-physical on top of that.

 

[JustJones]

It's a qualitative description, in this case applied to the clock noise distribution.
First, the clock has got to be pretty bad to produce artifacts above a threshold of noticeability. Then we could start talking about the shape and distribution of clock noise, and if it was close-in, or whatever... But since this is many orders of magnitude below a just noticeable difference, this is all pointless, and a bok has the argument a bit wrong...
A detailed discussion on noise is worthwhile when trying to figure out why the JWST performs as it does (for instance), but for audio this is an absurd starting point for an argument, and non-physical on top of that.

Thanks for explaining, it's hard for me to follow some of the discussions though I find them interesting and try to glean as much as I can from them.

 

[Aleksandar RS]

So your are guided by subjective hearing and that's it. Then look for any grasping explanation that might fit the results, yet don't wish to demonstrate to anyone else. So science the way you employ it is like Aristotle, and unlike Galileo.

Let's put it this way, I wrote my opinion on the subject based on my experience and it is clear that it is not proof. If anyone thinks that maybe be true (I agree to believe just based on what I wrote, it makes no sense), they can borrow or take from the dealer for a test, one of the DAC companies I mentioned or of similar rank and see for themselves.

I think it makes no sense to buy only based on measurements and position on the SINAD list. Measurements are very important in case a DAC does not reach some values that must be achieved and based on that eliminate it from the purchase consideration (especially online). And only for that. Theory alone is not enough.

Regarding Aristotle and Galileo, I don't know how it pops on your mind, but there is some truth in it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Let's put it this way, I wrote my opinion on the subject based on my experience and it is clear that it is not proof. If anyone thinks that maybe be true (I agree to believe just based on what I wrote, it makes no sense), they can borrow or take from the dealer for a test, one of the DAC companies I mentioned or of similar rank and see for themselves.

I think it makes no sense to buy only based on measurements and position on the SINAD list. Measurements are very important in case a DAC does not reach some values that must be achieved and based on that eliminate it from the purchase consideration (especially online). And only for that. Theory alone is not enough.

Regarding Aristotle and Galileo, I don't know how it pops on your mind, but there is some truth in it.

Your methodology as you describe it is known to be flawed. Not suspected, not believed, but known to be flawed. Just getting one of the devices and listening for themselves is poor practice. It makes sense to Aristotle. Galileo would understand why that is not enough.

 

[JustJones]

Let's put it this way, I wrote my opinion on the subject based on my experience and it is clear that it is not proof. If anyone thinks that maybe be true (I agree to believe just based on what I wrote, it makes no sense), they can borrow or take from the dealer for a test, one of the DAC companies I mentioned or of similar rank and see for themselves.

I think it makes no sense to buy only based on measurements and position on the SINAD list. Measurements are very important in case a DAC does not reach some values that must be achieved and based on that eliminate it from the purchase consideration (especially online). And only for that. Theory alone is not enough.

Regarding Aristotle and Galileo, I don't know how it pops on your mind, but there is some truth in it.

The SINAD list is a good place to start, there are inexpensive to very expensive . From there I look for the features I need. I have a Benchmark DAC 3L for main use not the best SINAD or least expensive, I also have a Topping D10B about $2000 less expensive and there's no way I can tell them apart simply by listening.

 

[Aleksandar RS]

Your methodology as you describe it is known to be flawed. Not suspected, not believed, but known to be flawed. Just getting one of the devices and listening for themselves is poor practice. It makes sense to Aristotle. Galileo would understand why that is not enough.

As I already wrote in a post here, the D400ES is currently in the place of the Wadia 321 (not for long), which I still have. In addition there is the Musical Fidelity DAC which I listened to before the Wadia. And yes of course I compared them directly.

 

[sonitus mirus]

As I already wrote in a post here, the D400ES is currently in the place of the Wadia 321 (not for long), which I still have. In addition there is the Musical Fidelity DAC which I listened to before the Wadia. And yes of course I compared them directly.

But, you have clearly stated that you do not use any types of controls for bias in your listening evaluations, so it is highly probable that you have no idea if one device actually sounds better or even different than any other device you have heard. The measurements provided, supported by scientific research with regards to our hearing abilities, indicates that there should be no audible differences heard between many of these devices. When one also considers the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that bias plays a major factor with our hearing perception, it is difficult to take anyone with a similar position as yours too seriously without any additional proof.

 

[Aleksandar RS]

But, you have clearly stated that you do not use any types of controls for bias in your listening evaluations, so it is highly probable that you have no idea if one device actually sounds better or even different than any other device you have heard. The measurements provided, supported by scientific research with regards to our hearing abilities, indicates that there should be no audible differences heard between many of these devices. When one also considers the overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that bias plays a major factor with our hearing perception, it is difficult to take anyone with a similar position as yours too seriously without any additional proof.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat that I do not consider what I wrote as evidence. Just a suggestion that people who have the opportunity and want to hear something different, try what I claim and see for themselves.

I don't understand such resistance to something like that. It costs nothing if you borrow or take a DAC from a dealer for a trial. Maybe the sound will surprise you.

 

[VQR]

I don't know how many times I need to repeat that I do not consider what I wrote as evidence. Just a suggestion that people who have the opportunity and want to hear something different, try what I claim and see for themselves.

I don't understand such resistance to something like that. It costs nothing if you borrow or take a DAC from a dealer for a trial. Maybe the sound will surprise you.

Considering this is Audio Science Review, you could match them with a voltmeter and have someone select the DAC to be played outside of view. Some basic controls would actually show you to be actually wanting to further the discussion, otherwise we're going around in circles.