Measurements & What We Hear?

[jsrtheta]

I have never needed a blind test to know that DSD/SACD is better than CD or 2496 files. What one has to be careful of is the mixing and mastering of DSD and then put out retail as an SACD. I have a SACD that was recorded DSD, mastered and mixed to tape, and then brought back to DSD. You can hear it as it has lost the crispness and some air and detail.

But saying that, if you are remastering something from a high quality master tape recorded well, then putting out a SACD of that makes sense to preserve more of the original performance. I have many of those from RCA's Living Stereo collection.

Uh-oh.

 

[Taddpole]

Night and day

 

[BDWoody]

I have never needed a blind test to know that DSD/SACD is better than CD or 2496 files.

Maybe you just never realized the importance of using controls.

 

[AdamG]

I love remote controls!

 

[escksu]

Hi,

I've been watching video reviews from Amir on YouTube. I think they're amazing, I've watched every one of his videos and can't get enough. However, there's one thing that has been on my mind lately after watching the Denon receiver interview with FOMO. It's things not sounding different or technically worse on higher-end equipment. I'd like to talk about it and get some feedback from you guys.

I'm going to talk about something I know, so I want you to know that I'm talking from my own experience with 2 products.

I used to own an Oppo 203 4K Player, however, Oppo stopped making 4K players, and stopped supporting the product. I bought a Panasonic UB9000 because I heard that the picture quality was better. Picture quality is my main focus, audio is secondary to me, the picture quality is indeed better. However, the audio difference between the 203 and the UB9000 was instantly obvious, the UB9000 was much better.

To give you an idea of the differences.
Oppo 203 - brittle sound, thick sloppy bass, tinny sound.
Panasonic UB9000 - smooth midrange, smooth bass, strong pinprick treble, maybe too sharp on treble.

On my system - a Denon x6500h and 11,2 Elac Unifi speakers the difference between these players was obvious, and to my ears, the Panasonic sounds so much better.

Now, if Amir reviewed these 2 players, would the 20hz to 20k sweep be flat? Would the UB9000 look worse? I'm not saying I don't believe measurements, I do, I look for measurements in reviews. I want to see why something is technically better than another. However, if these players measured equal from 20hz to 20k, that would tell me one thing, and that is, a machine cannot measure sound quality.

I hear a difference between these 2 4K players. Now, somebody out there may have measured them and say, yeah, there is a difference, then this would negate this post entirely and measurements are 100% the way to go. The reason I'm making this post is because these are 2 products that I've owned and the difference is obvious.

I'd like some feedback on the idea, can we measure sound quality? I don't care about 20hz to 20k, I'm talking actual sound quality, can it be measured, and is there a measurable difference between these 2 players?

Thanks for listening.

Yes, i believe it can be done. But its extremely tedious and i have mentioned before that sound is varying amplitude and frequency over time. If we plot a map, it will look like surface of sea with waves. How do you decipher which part corresponds to high quality, good imaging etc... That will be very hard, not impossible but difficult.

I personally do not believe the tests done by amir can reveal the differences. But thats just my personal beliefs and i will leave it at that.

As for the differences you claimed to hear, i would not talk about it here. It will only end up in arguments and name calling/flaming etc...

 

[Beave]

As for the differences you claimed to hear, i would not talk about it here. It will only end up in arguments and name calling/flaming etc...

Or education about controlled testing, level-matching, quick switching, blind listening, how easily fooled our hearing can be when our sight is also involved, etc.

You know, good things to learn about.

 

[Descartes]

I used an Oppo 203 for 2 to 2.5 years. I bought a Panasonic UB9000. Did some DSD music, CD music and movie comparisons, just playing one after the other. There was no in-depth testing. But, we agree in our house that we all wanted to listen to music on one vs the other.

DSD music has a smoother and less harsh sound on the Panasonic vs the Oppo. This is even using HDMI, and not the XLR outputs on the UB9000.

Panasonic can’t play SACD so how can you compare?

I understand it can play DSD files stored on USB drives, but not 24/96 or 24/192 *.wav music files (24/96 and 24/192 *.flac will play) or SACD discs in the disc tray.

As to the various DSD files it will play, 2.8 MHz – DSD64 (2ch/ 5.1ch), 5.6 MHz – DSD128 (2ch/ 5.1ch), files on a USB thumb drive or USB hard drive plugged into the USB port on the front or rear panel.

Now in order to listen to the quality of the audio from the DP-UB9000, you have to connect the analog audio output jacks from the DP-UB9000 to analog audio input jacks on your preamplifier or surround sound processor.

If you are listening to the audio through the HDMI digital output from the DP-UB9000 connected to your surround sound processor, you are listening to the DAC of the processor, not the DAC of the DP-UB9000, and the quality of the sound would be a reflection of the surround sound processor, not the DP-UB9000.

 

[escksu]

Or education about controlled testing, level-matching, quick switching, blind listening, how easily fooled our hearing can be when our sight is also involved, etc.

You know, good things to learn about.

I do agree to a certain extent. However, i personally also believe audio is about an experience, similar to food. Do this simple test. Hold your breath and taste the same food. See if the food taste the same or appears different. Btw, no, i am not having an discussion on this. I am solely stating my own personal beliefs.

 

[Geert]

Yes, i believe it can be done. But its extremely tedious and i have mentioned before that sound is varying amplitude and frequency over time. If we plot a map, it will look like surface of sea with waves.

When I go out sailing I don't first have a look at the sea. I just check the measured wave height and period, and the wind and current strength and direction. These properties give me a perfect indication of what to expect.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I do agree to a certain extent. However, i personally also believe audio is about an experience, similar to food. Do this simple test. Hold your breath and taste the same food. See if the food taste the same or appears different. Btw, no, i am not having an discussion on this. I am solely stating my own personal beliefs.

Your example is irrelevant. Smell is a crucial component of taste. Sight is NOT a crucial component of hearing. That the blind have an elevated sense of hearing should minimally demonstrate that. Your statement of "personal belief" that flies in the face of both aural and psychoacoustic science is simply deliberate, obtuse, ignorance.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I do agree to a certain extent. However, i personally also believe audio is about an experience, similar to food. Do this simple test. Hold your breath and taste the same food. See if the food taste the same or appears different. Btw, no, i am not having an discussion on this. I am solely stating my own personal beliefs.

What about the Panasonic putting out 48 khz pcm? I mean there are beliefs, and then there are facts. Your beliefs may not mean or matter nearly as much as you think or wish they did.

 

[Jim T]

Maybe you just never realized the importance of using controls.

You are kidding when you think about using "controls", what ever that means, in terms of sample rate increases? Do you really understand digital audio at all?

 

[rdenney]

Any differences you hear are due to either a malfunction or a configuration issue, if you are listening to sound through HDMI. For all any of us know, the Oppo is putting out a digital stream that the DAC in whatever is on the other end of that HDMI cable is unable to interpret properly.

Pay attention to coarse effects before considering fine effects. Fine effects, to include (error-free) differences in digital encoding, bit depth, and sample rate are subtle. Coarse effects include differences in levels (even small differences), digital configuration errors (such as pushing the boundary of the bit rate of a device forcing an overloaded error-correction algorithm/processing error or inadequate bandwidth causing dropouts), impedance mismatches, improper gain structures that overdrive a device somewhere in the chain, and malfunctioning equipment.

If the effects you hear are real and anywhere near as obvious as you suggest, I’ll bet it is a coarse effect. I’ll also bet the fine effects would be too subtle to hear without training and carefully controlled testing.

But even the fine effects are measurable.

Rick “measured differences go well below the threshold of what we can hear” Denney

 

[Jim T]

No it doesn't. Just following the manufacturer's reference design is usually all that's needed to get excellent DAC performance. There is no magic or even challenging engineering involved.

Sorry, but you are wrong on so many levels. The output stage matters just as much as crunching the data. We still have too many dacs with marginal harmonic performance and some with clocking issues and jitter.

Most would not know it unless you saw testing done here or at Stereophile. The graphs often tell more than what the writers write. They write before it is reviewed which is good.

 

[rdenney]

You are kidding when you think about using "controls", what ever that means, in terms of sample rate increases? Do you really understand digital audio at all?

It means that differences seem obvious until subjected to controlled listening comparisons, during which they seem to vanish.

Rick “challenging someone’s ability to understand requires having earned a position of respect which takes a little more time than 14 posts—respectfully submitted” Denney

 

[BDWoody]

You are kidding when you think about using "controls", what ever that means, in terms of sample rate increases? Do you really understand digital audio at all?

At the derivation level. Do you?

 

[Inner Space]

You are kidding when you think about using "controls", what ever that means, in terms of sample rate increases? Do you really understand digital audio at all?

Jim, with love and respect, do you understand digital audio? What about increased sample rate do you think would be detectable by a person who admits on another thread they can't hear much above 6kHz?

 

[escksu]

What about the Panasonic putting out 48 khz pcm? I mean there are beliefs, and then there are facts. Your beliefs may not mean or matter nearly as much as you think or wish they did.

My beliefs matters only to me and its of no concern of others.

 

[BluesDaddy]

My beliefs matters only to me and its of no concern of others.

When you express them here as a valid opinion with no rational support they are.

 

[escksu]

Your example is irrelevant. Smell is a crucial component of taste. Sight is NOT a crucial component of hearing. That the blind have an elevated sense of hearing should minimally demonstrate that. Your statement of "personal belief" that flies in the face of both aural and psychoacoustic science is simply deliberate, obtuse, ignorance.

Ok, noted on your comments.