Bad Sounding Equipment that Measures Well

[SimpleTheater]

I was looking at the forums on Super Audio Best Friends and was struck by the argument that @amirm does almost no listening, thus the review lacks subjective analysis. The analogy was put forward that it’s like testing a car but never driving it (and yes, I know that’s a terrible analogy because I haven’t seen a measurement for how your butt feels after 3 hours in a seat, or a test that points out the cup holder is too close to the shifter, etc.)

But could there be some truth to the argument? Has anyone heard a DAC that measures > 110 dB SINAD that was bad? And I’m not talking about some fan boy who hates Topping and says they sound terrible, but an overall consensus from consumers and/or reviewers that this well measured component sounds bad.

When I saw ASR’s review of the Benchmark AHB2 I looked up the Stereophile review to see if they knocked it because it costs $ thousands less than other recommended equipment, but our man @Kal Rubinson came through with a glowing review. The one component that needs something other than pure testing are headphones for comfort and durability, but I’m interested in well measured equipment that sounds bad.

 

[Robin L]

I was looking at the forums on Super Audio Best Friends and was struck by the argument that @amirm does almost no listening, thus the review lacks subjective analysis. The analogy was put forward that it’s like testing a car but never driving it (and yes, I know that’s a terrible analogy because I haven’t seen a measurement for how your butt feels after 3 hours in a seat, or a test that points out the cup holder is too close to the shifter, etc.)

But could there be some truth to the argument? Has anyone heard a DAC that measures > 110 dB SINAD that was bad? And I’m not talking about some fan boy who hates Topping and says they sound terrible, but an overall consensus from consumers and/or reviewers that this well measured component sounds bad.

When I saw ASR’s review of the Benchmark AHB2 I looked up the Stereophile review to see if they knocked it because it costs $ thousands less than other recommended equipment, but our man @Kal Rubinson came through with a glowing review. The one component that needs something other than pure testing are headphones for comfort and durability, but I’m interested in well measured equipment that sounds bad.

Sounds like a "High-End" myth. There will be people who want muddied or exaggerated sound. And they will find super-clean sound less than ideal. But if the goal is "High Fidelity", they don't have a viable argument.

 

[Jimbob54]

I was looking at the forums on Super Audio Best Friends and was struck by the argument that @amirm does almost no listening, thus the review lacks subjective analysis. The analogy was put forward that it’s like testing a car but never driving it (and yes, I know that’s a terrible analogy because I haven’t seen a measurement for how your butt feels after 3 hours in a seat, or a test that points out the cup holder is too close to the shifter, etc.)

But could there be some truth to the argument? Has anyone heard a DAC that measures > 110 dB SINAD that was bad? And I’m not talking about some fan boy who hates Topping and says they sound terrible, but an overall consensus from consumers and/or reviewers that this well measured component sounds bad.

When I saw ASR’s review of the Benchmark AHB2 I looked up the Stereophile review to see if they knocked it because it costs $ thousands less than other recommended equipment, but our man @Kal Rubinson came through with a glowing review. The one component that needs something other than pure testing are headphones for comfort and durability, but I’m interested in well measured equipment that sounds bad.

I could understand someone commenting on this who is used to tube amps with audible euphonic distortion going to a well measuring solid state. Other than that, anything else should be met with "did you level match blind test?"

 

[SimpleTheater]

I could understand someone commenting on this who is used to tube amps with audible euphonic distortion going to a well measuring solid state. Other than that, anything else should be met with "did you level match blind test?"

Exactly. The statement from bboris77 who posts here was “Ultimately, I’m interested in dispelling the myth of “Amir’s measurements are the only thing that matters”. So he’s already ignoring science and has a goal to dispel a myth, yet myths are easily dispelled so I thought there would be lots of bad sounding well-measured equipment.

 

[Jimbob54]

Exactly. The statement from bboris77 who posts here was “Ultimately, I’m interested in dispelling the myth of “Amir’s measurements are the only thing that matters”. So he’s already ignoring science and has a goal to dispel a myth, yet myths are easily dispelled so I thought there would be lots of bad sounding well-measured equipment.

I've got to put a caveat here. I'm talking about electronics, so DACs and amps. Not transducers. And the amps in question are operating within ideal conditions, not overdriven etc. Also, "sounds bad" is itself a subjective concept.

I can well imagine someone who listens to less than immaculate recordings might appreciate less than perfect transparency. But I fail to see how a 110 SINAD (and other measurments Amir does) component can sound better, worse or even different to a 115 SINAD (etc) component, all other things being equal.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Measurement do not consist of a single parameter, it is a set and at this point in time the sets that are used by, for example , Amir are sufficient to qualify the sound of an equipment.
If an equipment measures well, it sounds good. Period.

 

[Lambda]

If an equipment measures well, it sounds good. Period.

so are for example emission test for cars. but VW found way way to perform well under test but not in the real world.

I can think of many ways to "cheat" at some tests an make an theoretical device that wold sound way worse the it measures.

The measurements at very good for example for DACs ant they can tell you a lot.
But not everything is tests so we can only assume for example that if distortion is only measured at 1k is low it will also be low at 10KHz.

This assumptions are maybe reasonable and true but they don't have to.

But of cause its possible to measure every aspect of sounds quality and if it measures good it sounds good.

 

[BillG]

I'm totally in agreement with the statement that if something measures well (i.e. it's provably high fidelity) that it will sound good, with "good" being faithful to the source material. However, are the majority of consumers actually educated as to what high fidelity audio is supposed to sound like? If they're not, then some will walk around thinking that whatever distorted or bass boosted crap TotalDAC or whoever is pushing is actually high fidelity when an analysis shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that these products are far from it.

By the way, I'm referring strictly to electronics with my comments above. When we get into transducers, we have to deal with things like listener preference, room response, ear geometry, etc.. For speakers, those issues appear to have been identified and addressed sufficiently at this point, but for headphones/earphones, it seems less so to me.

 

[mhardy6647]

http://hhscott.com/vonrecklinghausen.htm

"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing."​

 

[Wes]

I was looking at the forums on Super Audio Best Friends and was struck by the argument that @amirm does almost no listening, thus the review lacks subjective analysis. The analogy was put forward that it’s like testing a car but never driving it (and yes, I know that’s a terrible analogy because I haven’t seen a measurement for how your butt feels after 3 hours in a seat, or a test that points out the cup holder is too close to the shifter, etc.)

But could there be some truth to the argument? Has anyone heard a DAC that measures > 110 dB SINAD that was bad? And I’m not talking about some fan boy who hates Topping and says they sound terrible, but an overall consensus from consumers and/or reviewers that this well measured component sounds bad.

When I saw ASR’s review of the Benchmark AHB2 I looked up the Stereophile review to see if they knocked it because it costs $ thousands less than other recommended equipment, but our man @Kal Rubinson came through with a glowing review. The one component that needs something other than pure testing are headphones for comfort and durability, but I’m interested in well measured equipment that sounds bad.

First, fidelity: I've never heard such a unit. Could it exist? Maybe not. SINAD captures important aspects of HiFi for electronics, tho I would not claim that it captures all aspects of fidelity for an electronic unit.

Second, is the use of the term bad - arguably, high SINAD could not sound as euphonic as a nice phaat tube amp with even order distortion.

 

[julian_hughes]

I was looking at the forums on Super Audio Best Friends and was struck by the argument that @amirm does almost no listening, thus the review lacks subjective analysis. The analogy was put forward that it’s like testing a car but never driving it (and yes, I know that’s a terrible analogy because I haven’t seen a measurement for how your butt feels after 3 hours in a seat, or a test that points out the cup holder is too close to the shifter, etc.)

But could there be some truth to the argument? Has anyone heard a DAC that measures > 110 dB SINAD that was bad? And I’m not talking about some fan boy who hates Topping and says they sound terrible, but an overall consensus from consumers and/or reviewers that this well measured component sounds bad.

When I saw ASR’s review of the Benchmark AHB2 I looked up the Stereophile review to see if they knocked it because it costs $ thousands less than other recommended equipment, but our man @Kal Rubinson came through with a glowing review. The one component that needs something other than pure testing are headphones for comfort and durability, but I’m interested in well measured equipment that sounds bad.

Super Audio Best Friends is a rich kids' hang out. It's by & for people who can't listen to stuff unless it's boutique and expensive. The things they hate most are their friends' and sponsors' products being shown up as poorly made or designed (i.e. Schiit); regular pro audio stuff actually being fine (i.e. Shure); well designed, well made stuff from non-kewl companies measuring well and making a nonsense of boutique bs (i.e JDS Labs or Topping). They go in for a lot of measuring but when it comes to their friends' products they ignore the data and get the hype train rolling. It's like head-fi but with a few zeros added to the prices.

 

[Judas]

Wow! those are some serious mental contortions. You guys have some serious brain cramps. All you need for for an ss amp to measure well but sound bad is unlimited amounts of negative feedback. Good means real music in real space.

 

[JSmith]

I was looking at the forums on Super Audio Best Friends and was struck by the argument that @amirm does almost no listening, thus the review lacks subjective analysis.

Super audio best friends sounds ridiculously lame... is it a Pokemon thing?

The test data is just that... test data. No one ever said they were listening reviews hence the name of this forum... I think you may be looking for another forum.



JSmith

 

[BillG]

Wow! those are some serious mental contortions. You guys have some serious brain cramps. All you need for for an ss amp to measure well but sound bad is unlimited amounts of negative feedback.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/amplifier-negative-feedback

 

[julian_hughes]

Wow! those are some serious mental contortions. You guys have some serious brain cramps. All you need for for an ss amp to measure well but sound bad is unlimited amounts of negative feedback. Good means real music in real space.

Can someone pass this through a translation tool and render it into human language? You know, where words convey meaning, that kind of thing.

 

[Daverz]

Can someone pass this through a translation tool and render it into human language? You know, where words convey meaning, that kind of thing.

I think he's just mocking the audiophile fetish of amps without negative feedback.

 

[Robin L]

I think he's just mocking the audiophile fetish of amps without negative feedback.

Nope. He's drunk on Kool-Aid.

 

[Maki]

Wow! those are some serious mental contortions. You guys have some serious brain cramps. All you need for for an ss amp to measure well but sound bad is unlimited amounts of negative feedback. Good means real music in real space.

Somehow I suspect that an oscillating amplifier will neither measure well nor sound good.

 

[Putter]

http://hhscott.com/vonrecklinghausen.htm

"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing."​

View attachment 113264

I remembered seeing this in what I thought was this forum, but found the reference in Audiokarma. I have no reason to doubt that it came from our lord and master, but if I've misquoted him, I sure he'll let me know.​

The AES (PNW section) has a nice page with laws for audio engineers and von Recklinghausen is quoted with: If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it Measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing.

Careful! First, that is a bit of fish story since I have never found the source of that line. It is attributed to a meeting at Boston Audio Society yet I have never found it. So the context is totally unknown.

What is not unknown is that the late Recklinghausen was the key driver behind the IHF, the Institute of High Fidelity. IHF set standards for fidelity of amplifiers using measurements. Here is Recklinghausen talking about said standard: http://www.bassboy.com.au/getreel/site/classicamps/files/articles/ihf/article.htm

"The new Standard will help establish design goals for audio engineers and at the same time furnish test techniques for validating them. For the audiophile, the new ratings will make possible a more intelligent choice among the profusion of amplifiers now available."

He was also the editor of Journal Of AES for many years when papers were published showing the fallacy of sighted tests. As a member of review board/editor, he helped form and shape the current accepted standard of throwing you out of the room if you show up with sighted tests as your proof for anything.

Finally, he was the chief engineer at H.H. Scott. In that world, folks did try to win the race with better specs so it is not out of reason that he would try to deflect that superiority by others in that regard.

Speaking of that, I ran into your posts on a German forum where you had signed them as seller/manufacturer of audio amplifiers. Is that so?

Back to that quote, if you indeed find that the true sound of something is better despite worse measurements, indeed those measurements are faulty. The problem we deal with in this topic is that imagined sound is substituted for what is really output by the equipment. Recklinghausen would never get behind that notion.

Amir
Founder, Audio Science Review

I recalled this and suspect that from his impeccable engineering credentials, Mr. R would be spinning in his grave that the quote, if it is indeed his, is used to justify the subjectivist position that all amps are noticeably different when operated within their design criteria and competently engineered. He would certainly agree with the quote, but allow that the audible difference is measurable with the right equipment.
​

 

[Lambda]

Somehow I suspect that an oscillating amplifier will neither measure well nor sound good.

if its oscillating at 1khz the SINAD at 1k can measure well

"Of cause you have to measure everything and at different levels... Measuring harmonic distortion at 1 khz is insufficient!"

I think no one here is claiming Amir is measuring everything.
But there seem many people here religiously claiming that the measurements show the whole sorry and there can't be more to it.

SINAD at 1k is nice to know and indicating a lot but its far from everything