Amir vs. Abyss: The Battle We Need

[Sukie]

I would start by eliminating review processes that are knowingly flawed. . .

Peer review can be flawed, but it does not follow that all peer review is flawed.

But back to this thread. Amp testing is carried out and differences are found. How can this be presented in a way that allows for the findings to be tested?

 

[ahofer]

Maybe it accurately describes some type of way a person feels about a particular sound but wtf do they actually mean?

My [ridiculously expensive watch] tells time with slam and PRaT, far more than the [slightly less expensive last year’s model] It’s almost as if it allows the essence of time to emerge, with all its component dimensions intact. Highly recommended.

 

[HiFidFan]

Peer review can be flawed, but it does not follow that all peer review is flawed.

Right, and as long as one can discern between which are and which aren't, there is no problem.

Easy peasy

 

[danielmiessler]

I am an objectivist, but it is also my opinion that of course measurements and our understanding of how they correlate to enjoyment are not perfect.

I have some speakers that measure poorly and I enjoy them anyway. Still, discussing hard data is a lot better than subjectivist audio circles that rely solely on vague "wine-tasting" terms to describe audio, IMO. I find that kind of talk completely useless. Maybe it accurately describes some type of way a person feels about a particular sound but wtf do they actually mean?

This is super-high-quality feedback. Like 24-bit at least.

Seriously, thank you.

This new information resonates strongly with me, but there is a counterforce that is almost as strong.

Namely, I find it hard to believe that so many people spend tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, after listening to multiple systems, and still haven't been able to collectively figure out a basic truth that diminishing return happens around $200.

Like you said, this hobby has been going for decades. And we still haven't figured this out? A super obvious truth that Amir is showing us right in our faces? Like nobody has simply recorded and compared $200 dollar equipment next to $200,000 equipment and noticed that the measurements were identical?

That is an extraordinary claim on its own.

Now, I am 1014% convinced in Amir, and everyone here's point, that there is TONS of snake oil in this business. And I massively appreciate this data-based approach to things. I actually do business intelligence for a big tech company. I love using data to solve disputes.

I just worry that we're dealing with human minds here, and that there might be more to the equation than I measured this vs. that and therefore this sounds as good as that.

It seems like the other extreme of the spectrum, which I'm prone to doubt as well. And I think I remember Amir saying he's not a pure, 100% objectivist either. More so that he's shedding light on the blatant bullshit, which I love.

Anyway, thank you for the education. I have much to think about. See you in the threads.

 

[danadam]

Sun orbiting the earth versus earth orbiting the sun for example. Those unable to understand the science which proved that the earth orbits the sun, persecuted the ones who understood this, because it conflicted with their ignorant and fixed beliefs (mindset, dogma, ideology).

Just beliefs, not perception? "I can hear it with my own ears see it with my own eyes that the Sun is moving."

 

[Linus]

This is super-high-quality feedback. Like 24-bit at least.

Seriously, thank you.

This new information resonates strongly with me, but there is a counterforce that is almost as strong.

Namely, I find it hard to believe that so many people spend tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, after listening to multiple systems, and still haven't been able to collectively figure out a basic truth that diminishing return happens around $200.

Like you said, this hobby has been going for decades. And we still haven't figured this out? A super obvious truth that Amir is showing us right in our faces? Like nobody has simply recorded and compared $200 dollar equipment next to $200,000 equipment and noticed that the measurements were identical?

That is an extraordinary claim on its own.

Now, I am 1014% convinced in Amir, and everyone here's point, that there is TONS of snake oil in this business. And I massively appreciate this data-based approach to things. I actually do business intelligence for a big tech company. I love using data to solve disputes.

I just worry that we're dealing with human minds here, and that there might be more to the equation than I measured this vs. that and therefore this sounds as good as that.

It seems like the other extreme of the spectrum, which I'm prone to doubt as well. And I think I remember Amir saying he's not a pure, 100% objectivist either. More so that he's shedding light on the blatant bullshit, which I love.

Anyway, thank you for the education. I have much to think about. See you in the threads.

Same reason some people need a Lamborghini while a Civic will take you from point A to point B in the same amount (bare in mind speed limits).

A Rolex and a Casio will give you the exact same information.

Your $35K (seriously!?) DAC will give you same results as a well designed $100 DAC.

 

[Racheski]

Great question. The short answer is triangulation. These items had the most people saying good things and the fewest people saying bad things within a particular price range.

Uh-huh.

 

[Coach_Kaarlo]

Just beliefs, not perception? "I can hear it with my own ears see it with my own eyes that the Sun is moving."

1. Sensation.
2. Perception.
3. Emotion.
4. Thought.
5. Behaviour.

Perception of the sun moving would be shared by those who can see the sun moving.

Belief of why, how, what are subjectively based on our individual and unique framework of reality (aka bias). I believe in the sky fairy, so I ""think"" they made the sun move for example.

Understanding of why, how, what is really only possible after measurements which can be repeated, observed and repeated by others, and which support a hypothesis generally result in a somewhat more robust and universal, and ultimately useful result. After testing my idea I can prove X, and anyone else who replicates my test will also be able to measure and observe X.

Hard part (speaking for myself here) is recognising belief type thinking in ourselves, and then being able to change our thoughts (sometimes), or become open to other ideas.

 

[danielmiessler]

Same reason some people need a Lamborghini while a Civic will take you from point A to point B in the same amount (bare in mind speed limits).

A Rolex and a Casio will give you the exact same information.

Your $35K (seriously!?) DAC will give you same results as a well designed $100 DAC.

This is exactly the type of comparison I'm worried about with this forum. There are experiences in driving a $200,000 car vs. driving a $20,000 car. How the car smells. How stable it feels. How it feels when shifting. Etc.

If we were to measure with a checkbox, "Did the Porsche get you to point A?, and did the Kia get you to point A?", then they would both be "equal".

Is it possible that the same sorts of measurement misses are happening here? I'm not being rhetorical. I'm asking.

Like introducing types of flaws that improve experience in the music? Warmth, liveliness, etc. Like Je Ne Se Qoi type stuff.

And I'm not talking about magic. I'm talking about measurable stuff we're not measuring, or that might be difficult/impossible to measure currently.

This car analogy worries me that it could be the case.

 

[danielmiessler]

Uh-huh.

This is helpful. Thanks.

 

[boselover61]

Uh-huh.

How to drag out a 1000 words essay

 

[PierreV]

Like you said, this hobby has been going for decades. And we still haven't figured this out? A super obvious truth that Amir is showing us right in our faces? Like nobody has simply recorded and compared $200 dollar equipment next to $200,000 equipment and noticed that the measurements were identical?

There's a factor of 100 between two of the DACs I use in my systems ($100 to $10000 roughly). No differences as far as the sound is concerned. (features, convenience and the fact that the $10000 one was available 7 years before the $100 was are another issue)

Maybe you could argue that my speakers are the limiting factor, and you could be right, but they are also Focals, a step or two above the ones you have selected.

I also do own even more 'exotic' speakers, more expensive and "audiophile" than the Utopias. Guess what: switch DACs, no difference.

 

[boselover61]

This is exactly the type of comparison I'm worried about with this forum. There are experiences in driving a $200,000 car vs. driving a $20,000 car. How the car smells. How stable it feels. How it feels when shifting. Etc.

If we were to measure with a checkbox, "Did the Porsche get you to point A?, and did the Kia get you to point A?", then they would both be "equal".

Is it possible that the same sorts of measurement misses are happening here? I'm not being rhetorical. I'm asking.

Like introducing types of flaws that improve experience in the music? Warmth, liveliness, etc. Like Je Ne Se Qoi type stuff.

And I'm not talking about magic. I'm talking about measurable stuff we're not measuring, or that might be difficult/impossible to measure currently.

This car analogy worries me that it could be the case.

So you are in the side that thetr are things we still cant measure in 2021? If it cant be measured but the designers of these devices are able to incorporate these unknown features into these aspects. Jesus man were making audio devices here. We make speakers, headphones, amplifiers. This isnt rocket science. We are not making spaceship to Uranus for an discovery.

Speakers design is pretty much a solved problem imo. Regardless of the drivers, tweeters, cabinets in the end is how they sound and most importantly how they measure? Why do you think people EQ their speakers so much? If they like the intended SQ then just leave it as is? Why dial out the room modes? Why remove dips and peaks. Just be blindsided and just buy the most expensive stuff there is without knowing how it sounds like based on measurements.

I understand your point is that you want luxury products for them to provide good sound but remember. A clueless designer making stuff by ears on speakers that cost 100k is useless and absolutely inferior to a design that make their speakers based on science, even if that speaker doesnt cost much.

 

[PierreV]

Like Je Ne Se Qoi type stuff.

You mean "un je ne sais quoi".

 

[boselover61]

You mean "un je ne sais quoi".

Hey there's a bakery named that where i live (DC)

 

[Doodski]

nd I'm not talking about magic. I'm talking about measurable stuff we're not measuring, or that might be difficult/impossible to measure currently.

Like one peep here stated a month or so ago, "We put all of the audio information into a record groove and now we think stuff can't be measured." Of course it can be measured.

 

[danielmiessler]

So you are in the side that thetr are things we still cant measure in 2021?

No, I'm on the side of thinking the human brain is strange, and that there are all sorts of nuances and biases that affect the perception of sound.

If you walk into one system in a room, and it blows you away, and you walk into a room next door and are underwhelmed (and everyone else feels the same), what happens when there are more expensive components in the first room?

Or let me ask this another way. Are we saying there isn't much point in optimizing all this stuff? That everything prettty much sounds the same after around $200?

So we should spend all our money on a $200 dollar DAC and the rest in good active speakers? And this will equal or be better than a $50K DAC/Upsampler connected to $50K in preamp/amp gear connected to similarly-sized speakers?

Is that the claim? If so I'm so glad I found this place before buying my preamp and amp!

 

[danielmiessler]

Maybe you could argue that my speakers are the limiting factor, and you could be right, but they are also Focals, a step or two above the ones you have selected.

I also do own even more 'exotic' speakers, more expensive and "audiophile" than the Utopias. Guess what: switch DACs, no difference.

Fascinating. Tell me more.

So what actually does make the difference? The speakers and the room pretty much? Preamp and amp?

 

[Doodski]

No, I'm on the side of thinking the human brain is strange, and that there are all sorts of nuances and biases that affect the perception of sound.

If you walk into one system in a room, and it blows you away, and you walk into a room next door and are underwhelmed (and everyone else feels the same), what happens when there are more expensive components in the first room?

Or let me ask this another way. Are we saying there isn't much point in optimizing all this stuff? That everything prettty much sounds the same after around $200?

So we should spend all our money on a $200 dollar DAC and the rest in good active speakers? And this will equal or be better than a $50K DAC/Upsampler connected to $50K in preamp/amp gear connected to similarly-sized speakers?

Is that the claim? If so I'm so glad I found this place before buying my preamp and amp!

I think a $200.00 DAC might be a bit simple for such a system. On the other hand putting the majority of that budget into speakers will solve big issues for you and some room treatment.

 

[PierreV]

Fascinating. Tell me more.

So what actually does make the difference? The speakers and the room pretty much? Preamp and amp?

Speaker and room, yes, definitely. The amp might, one of my amps has a hard time driving the Utopias, probably because it doesn't like their lowish impedance in bass (theory, did not bother to measure FR, just switched amps because I had them). EQ is definitely required to deal with the room IMHO, which is why, as @Doodski said above, you might want to pay a bit more for the DAC/Preamp to get EQ, an informative screen, the flexibility of inputs/ouptuts control etc...