svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
On the use of nazi in modern era language:
@Blumlein 88 , flat in-room vs open field is a great distinction. I think that distinction often gets lost in translation.
On subjectivism vs objectivism: Subjectivism is important to guide audio research in the right direction, to make priorities. And here I see a sign that I take as unintelligent subjectivism masquerading as intelligent objectivism. On this site, the interest for measurements of DACs (and other boxes) is high and generates great traffic. But how intelligent is it to focus so much on a DACs ability to suppress noise and distortion below audibility?
An alternative, more intelligent approach could be to use subjectivism research in order to make a ranking order of priorities for research focus. So if acoustics and psychoacoustics are more important than say 120 dB SNR of a DAC, focus should be shifted away from measurements below audibility to what counts more; always based on empirical research of subjects’ preferences, of course.
Amir does a great job smoking out a few of the schitty producers of audio gear, but is focus too much on what can easily be measured, cfr. the drunkard searching for his keys below the street light because that’s where the light is?
This is written in good will. I think this site is great so this is just to provoke reflections on what good is objectivism without understanding the subjects’ preferences (and thus resulting priorities in intelligent audio research).
The tail is wagging the dog. Dubious, selective measurements are being used as justification to 'correct' the outcome by brute force, rather than asking what, logically, from the ground up might lead to a population of happy listeners.
I'm specifically talking about the idea of thinking that 'objectivism' at the listener's ears is the answer.Better marketing combined with better drugs should do the trick. Have a better idea?
Schiit owners are not just happy but super loyal. Identify with the brand and love it. It ain't about the sound performance. I say mostly the story, idea, the marketing.
... As far as flatness is concerned, it shows an attenuation of 20dB from 1 to 10kHz, and even more beyond 10kHz. So, it does not surprise me that some sloping is prefered. ...
Very good! I like that! And, we're back to the room discussion... The anechoic dry recording may still not be what I would prefer, thoughSupposing you have a dry recording of a pipe organ. You think "This would sound good played in a stone church".
(This is not fundamentally different from saying "I have a recording of my favourite singer but I've only heard it in my car. I would like to hear it in a good room". It's just a question of degree).
You set up some speakers in a church and play it. It sounds heavenly.
You think "Aha, it's great, but it could sound better". You make some measurements. They're terrible! All over the shop, with huge resonances and nulls. Through judicious use of a graphic equaliser, you get a flat measurement - when you measure it a certain way. You convince yourself the system is objectively better and it therefore sounds better. Odd, but better. But different measurements give different results and this bothers you.
Gradually you use more and more sophisticated correction methods so that you get consistently flatter results no matter how you make the measurement. Now, when certain notes are held steady, where they previously hit a resonance that built up over time, they are now pre-emptively reduced in volume, so that those awful singing resonances are 'pulled'. Much better! Gradually you refine the system with more and more sophisticated DSP until eventually that glorious moment: you sit in a certain pew and hold very still and the recording sounds just like it does in an anechoic chamber. Success!
I think I see where you are coming from on this. First things first maybe.
My own idea on DACs, they are incredibly popular to talk about, so many are made so many different promises. Probably the least important part of the chain as so many are good. And yet surprisingly many have failed to live up to promises. Also like the recent info on how some headphone amps fall apart driving headphones is important. Shows you have to do your measurements mind the details etc. A good topic to get people interested in measuring gear though.
But past a certain point I simply see no way they can be audibly different. I mean a noise floor of -123 db instead of -108 db? If my speakers max out at 108 db SPL I'll never hear either one. i certainly don't think people want to pay extra money for less performance than cheaper gear. So if -123 db is the same price sure why not. But it isn't important anymore is it.
Now where I doubt much gear is so pure is amps drivings speakers and headphones. Worthwhile to do measures of those.
I do find myself fuzzy on the details of what you are proposing. I don't think anything other than amps a little and speakers/headphones making a difference. I see how it could go the other way. What is the minimum performance to sound perfect. Speakers and headphones are not close, and everything else might be far beyond sounding perfect.
As for DACs the Schiit gear may be the only one that sounds different than any of the others. It does so because it performs worse.
It surprises me.
Take a source of live music. Record it, in an anechoic environment. Now move the source into your room alongside a reproduction system. What frequency response should the reproduction system have, to exhibit a perceived similar frequency response to the live source?
Better marketing combined with better drugs should do the trick. Have a better idea?
Schiit owners are not just happy but super loyal. Identify with the brand and love it. It ain't about the sound performance. I say mostly the story, idea, the marketing.
Frequency response measured how and where, exactly? What polar patterns for the speakers?
Once you get away from the simple matter of electrical signals, things get... not simple.
Supposing you have a dry recording of a pipe organ. You think "This would sound good played in a stone church".
(This is not fundamentally different from saying "I have a recording of my favourite singer but I've only heard it in my car. I would like to hear it in a good room". It's just a question of degree).
You set up some speakers in a church and play it. It sounds heavenly.
You think "Aha, it's great, but it could sound better". You make some measurements. They're terrible! All over the shop, with huge resonances and nulls. Through judicious use of a graphic equaliser, you get a flat measurement - when you measure it a certain way. You convince yourself the system is objectively better and it therefore sounds better. Odd, but better. But different measurements give different results and this bothers you.
Gradually you use more and more sophisticated correction methods so that you get consistently flatter results no matter how you make the measurement. Now, when certain notes are held steady, where they previously hit a resonance that built up over time, they are now pre-emptively reduced in volume, so that those awful singing resonances are 'pulled'. Much better! Gradually you refine the system with more and more sophisticated DSP until eventually that glorious moment: you sit in a certain pew and hold very still and the recording sounds just like it does in an anechoic chamber. Success!
That's a matter of test signal (there's lots of ways to get impulse response), but it says nothing about what point(s) in space to set the mike and how to interpret the curves obtained at different points. Further, it says nothing about how the measurement is gated (or if it's gated), how bass and midrange/treble measurements are merged (if they are merged at all). A few minutes of thinking and I'm sure I could come up with a bunch more variables.
Basically, the 1-D aspect is trivial, the 3-D aspect, not so much.
I think I see where you are coming from on this. First things first maybe.
As for DACs the Schiit gear may be the only one that sounds different than any of the others. It does so because it performs worse.
It's a thought experiment, to highlight the confusion that I think applies to audiophile 'objectivity'. We could perhaps come up with three basic classes of card carrying 'objectivist':I find this account to be speculative, limited in viewpooint and biased. I've actually done the experiment, only instead of recording a real pipe organ in an anechoic chamber which is difficult, I had a transcription of a modern high quality electronic organ's audio signal output which is easier.
What I found is that the transcription sounded different than the room's own real pipe organ. Pipe organs strongly tend to be vastly different in terms of their construction so no surprise there.
The transcription sounded like a different pipe organ, but a remarkably realistic sounding one had been magically transplanted into the room. I think that is what we would rationally expect.
The conventional wisdom is that you adjust room acoustics depending on what the mission of the room actually is. In audio, this means that the ideal listening room for certain genre's of music and dialog would be necessarily different.
Churches are acoustically tough because the same room is used for spoken word and music of various genres. It turns out that there are two flavors of spoken word, one for lectures and one for drama.
The ideal room acoustics for listening to these varied programs are different. Yet they may all be parts of the same church service. These are divergent rquirements, to say the least. One solution would be a room with adjustable acoustics, and while I've been in High School auditoriums, University recital halls and Opera house recital halls with adjustable acoustics, I've nver seen anybody roll out that technology in a church. Probably just a matter of time for the relevant parties to come up to speed.
I think that's true for several products that have a reputation amongst 'subjectivists' for good sound. Take Boenicke W8 loudspeakers. They have one of the nastiest frequency responses of any loudspeaker of that sort of (expensive) price, yet have a devoted following amongst those for whom a decently flat response sounds just that, flat. (and for flat, read boring).
Similarly, the popularity of SET valve amplifiers, that have horrendous distortion at the frequency extremes, often offer flea-power that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, and yet have a devoted following. Then there's the latest 'craze, that of using Reel-Reel tape recorders and recording a CD onto tape as it sounds 'better'. In other words, some people actually like treble crushing and bass woodles, and a little W&F doesn't come amiss either...from the same people that would shun a DAC that has nanoseconds of jitter for one with picoseconds!
I am a card-carrying objectivist (at least I would be, if I had a card) and I measure everything I buy, and as long as it's good enough for transparency, it's good enough.
I really don't understand how the Audio business has got itself into this state, where transparency is considered boring, and 'character' i.e. poor performance praised.
S.