Are DBTs the defacto standard for Audio Science research?

[amirm]

"SAM" (or whatever "name" you prefer to hide behind), it is equally clear to me your reading skills haven't improved since HA.

AJ, I was more than clear to stop the name calling. I will be deleting your posts as I have done here outright should you continue to violate that. So if you want your contributions to remain, please stay on the technical topic.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So in other words you look for a DAC manufacturer who can provide you with confidence inspiring marketing material? I haven't heard anything from you about what objective data you look for specifically in a DAC.

Google a bit if you're really interested. Look at the reviews of the Benchmark, as a perfect example, with much more objective data than any marketing material, in pro audio publications, in The Audio Critic. Search the net for measurements and observations; I did. I found, among other things, one of the engineers from Benchmark's design team rather candidly discussing their goals, the fact that they deliberately over-engineered because they had the budget to do so, and his opinion that the real challenges lie with those engineering on the very edge of audibility, trying to deliver transparency at a low price point. He used file compression coding (gasp!) as the ultimate example. Don't remember what board that was on, but it was pretty enlightening. When you're done there, read Sean Olive's blog; read Toole. Understand what they're doing and to what end. None of it is in their marketing materials.

Tim

 

[amirm]

A bunch more personal posts deleted. Left a few in but I thought I set the direction clear. The title of the post is what should be discussed not anyone's record of compliance or not with it. You all saw me discuss the topic, what is so hard about doing that?

 

[amirm]

Is this talk of needing two speakers not at odds with Harmon's research where they claimed that their results for one speaker translated /correlated to two speaker setups?

No. Harman doesn't attempt to equalize two speakers with one measurement mic as Frank has proposed. Harman instead measures a hemisphere around the speaker at 72 points:

This is the microphone array:

In that regard they encapsulate all the sound that radiates from the speaker, not a single point with one microphone. In addition, they don't attempt to equalize speakers using the measurements as Frank postulates.

 

[Mivera]

Unless you consider a lot of reading about design and testing in general, plus the measurement, review and analysis of specific products in pro audio and audiophile skeptic publications, the views of people I trust in places like this, and a deep dive into the research, design and testing methodologies of companies that draw my interest to be the "manufacturers marketing material," that's 100% inaccurate, presumptuous, and shallow. I'm trying very hard to be good, Mike, but keep poking at me this way and I will eventually slap back. It will hurt. What I lack in technical expertise I make up for in command of language.

Tim

I still don't have a clear picture. What are the measured specs, and circuit typologies you look for? For example, when I made a decision to try the Mirand DIY DAC, it was based on 100% objective data. Nothing subjective at all. So I'm just trying to get a clear idea on how the criteria I judge gear on differs from people who are strictly objectivist's.

 

[Mivera]

Google a bit if you're really interested. Look at the reviews of the Benchmark, as a perfect example, with much more objective data than any marketing material, in pro audio publications, in The Audio Critic. Search the net for measurements and observations; I did. I found, among other things, one of the engineers from Benchmark's design team rather candidly discussing their goals, the fact that they deliberately over-engineered because they had the budget to do so, and his opinion that the real challenges lie with those engineering on the very edge of audibility, trying to deliver transparency at a low price point. He used file compression coding (gasp!) as the ultimate example. Don't remember what board that was on, but it was pretty enlightening. When you're done there, read Sean Olive's blog; read Toole. Understand what they're doing and to what end. None of it is in their marketing materials.

Tim

All that is, is marketing fluff. Show me board pictures, explain circuit typologies you like to see, and a list of measured specs that you like to see. This is real objective data.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Some of the marketing fluff out there about the Benchmark DAC:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-18-measurements#muoEZVXSXo0ZjOrQ.97

http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/reviews/12940049-dac1-hdr-review-peter-aczel-the-audio-critic

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul05/articles/benchmark.htm

http://kenrockwell.com/audio/benchmark/dac1-hdr.htm#meas

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/03/benchmark-dac1-pre.html

It's a rather simplistic method, I'm afraid. If I read something that piques my interest, I search for more information. I avoid audiophile publications and discount fluffy subjective reviews. If it appears as if someone has measured pretty thoroughly, that inspires confidence. It helps if they back up charts with explanations, because I'm not an EE, and some of that stuff needs explaining to me. I go to sources I know, or at least believe, are pretty analytical, because I am not, not in this area anyway. I tend to find better information from pro publications than hobbyist. When I begin to see quite a few sources who have dug pretty deep and come to similar conclusions, I figure I might be getting at a decent evaluation. Regarding the kinds of companies I like to explore, I think the nwavguy said it pretty well:

• I respect Benchmark Media as a company. They have a very solid design philosophy and they take their time developing and refining a small number of products. This is in sharp contrast to some similarly small high-end companies that churn out new models every few months trying to follow the latest fad or trend. Benchmark’s roots are in professional gear and it shows in their quality, detailed specs and lack of gimmicks. They’ve done an artful job of bridging professional requirements and performance with the often irrational desires of high-end home audiophiles.

I avoid very small audiophile companies like the plague. I tried a few back before my conversion, and it didn't work out well. I understand that I could miss out on something great by not paying attention to that end of the field, but too many of them are guys who've just crawled up out of DIY, do not have anything even approaching the resources of a small pro audio company like Benchmark (much less Harman) and are well worth avoiding. I'm afraid this answer isn't that much more revealing than my last one. You're looking for something out of me that you won't get, because I'm not a self-proclaimed objectivist. I'm just someone who reads too much, is very interested in recording, mixing and playback, and who is slowly trying to get his head wrapped around what works and what is illusion. I'm a fan of the products of the Harman companies as well. Want more links?

Enjoy reading the marketing fluff.

Tim

 

[amirm]

Well, I'm still confused - there are no wall reflections in the situation, the signal is calibrated say at a point in the middle of your head when you're sitting in the listening position. Why should there be a major disparity between two types of speaker, acknowledging that the perceived signals between left and right ear will differ?

Because they are physically different dimension and types. Take a flashlight and a table lamp and illuminate yourself from where a speaker would be to your right in a dark room. Do you get the same light on each side of your face when you switch from flashlight to table lamp? The answer is no. The table lamp has a diffused large light source that illuminate the sides of your face differently than the small point light even if you take all the walls away.

 

[Mivera]

Some of the marketing fluff out there about the Benchmark DAC:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/fifth-element-18-measurements#muoEZVXSXo0ZjOrQ.97

http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/reviews/12940049-dac1-hdr-review-peter-aczel-the-audio-critic

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul05/articles/benchmark.htm

http://kenrockwell.com/audio/benchmark/dac1-hdr.htm#meas

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/03/benchmark-dac1-pre.html

It's a rather simplistic method, I'm afraid. If I read something that piques my interest, I search for more information. I avoid audiophile publications and discount fluffy subjective reviews. If it appears as if someone has measured pretty thoroughly, that inspires confidence. It helps if they back up charts with explanations, because I'm not an EE, and some of that stuff needs explaining to me. I go to sources I know, or at least believe, are pretty analytical, because I am not, not in this area anyway. I tend to find better information from pro publications than hobbyist. When I begin to see quite a few sources who have dug pretty deep and come to similar conclusions, I figure I might be getting at a decent evaluation. Regarding the kinds of companies I like to explore, I think the nwavguy said it pretty well:

• I respect Benchmark Media as a company. They have a very solid design philosophy and they take their time developing and refining a small number of products. This is in sharp contrast to some similarly small high-end companies that churn out new models every few months trying to follow the latest fad or trend. Benchmark’s roots are in professional gear and it shows in their quality, detailed specs and lack of gimmicks. They’ve done an artful job of bridging professional requirements and performance with the often irrational desires of high-end home audiophiles.

I avoid very small audiophile companies like the plague. I tried a few back before my conversion, and it didn't work out well. I understand that I could miss out on something great by not paying attention to that end of the field, but too many of them are guys who've just crawled up out of DIY, do not have anything even approaching the resources of a small pro audio company like Benchmark (much less Harman) and are well worth avoiding. I'm afraid this answer isn't that much more revealing than my last one. You're looking for something out of me that you won't get, because I'm not a self-proclaimed objectivist. I'm just someone who reads too much, is very interested in recording, mixing and playback, and who is slowly trying to get his head wrapped around what works and what is illusion. I'm a fan of the products of the Harman companies as well. Want more links?

Enjoy reading the marketing fluff.

Tim

That is all marketing fluff. I want to hear in your words, the objective attributes you like about the benchmark. With the right marketing agency, you can make buying sand sound like a good deal on a beach. Real knowledge, requires real experience.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That is all marketing fluff. I want to hear in your words, the objective attributes you like about the benchmark. With the right marketing agency, you can make buying sand sound like a good deal on a beach. Real knowledge, requires real experience.

You didn't click on a thing, did you? These are not from a marketing agency. They are from people who haven't drunk the audiophile kool aide, have done due diligence, and have reached very similar conclusions. Without real experience, you have to choose what sources to take seriously and seriously cross-reference them to find the things you think are worth listening to. That's what I do. As I said, I'm not a strict objectivist, just an enthusiast with a very high level of skepticism for "high end" sources. You want fluff, I could have given you links to some audiophile publications, but it wouldn't have been honest, because, like you, I haven't read them.

Tim

 

[Mivera]

You didn't click on a thing, did you? These are not from a marketing agency. They are from people who haven't drunk the audiophile kool aide, have done due diligence, and have reached very similar conclusions. Without real experience, you have to choose what sources to take seriously and seriously cross-reference them to find the things you think are worth listening to. That's what I do. As I said, I'm not a strict objectivist, just an enthusiast with a very high level of skepticism for "high end" sources. You want fluff, I could have given you links to some audiophile publications, but it wouldn't have been honest, because, like you, I haven't read them.

Tim

I want your opinion. You are the one buying the gear. If you don't know what you want, nobody does.

 

[fas42]

Because they are physically different dimension and types. Take a flashlight and a table lamp and illuminate yourself from where a speaker would be to your right in a dark room. Do you get the same light on each side of your face when you switch from flashlight to table lamp? The answer is no. The table lamp has a diffused large light source that illuminate the sides of your face differently than the small point light even if you take all the walls away.

Which is what I asked you in http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...r-audio-science-research.262/page-5#post-7920. But you said no, hence the following confusion.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Which is what I asked you in http://audiosciencereview.com/forum...r-audio-science-research.262/page-5#post-7920. But you said no, hence the following confusion.

You have my opinion, and if you think what I've linked is "fluffy marketing material" you have no business designing and selling audio equipment.

Tim

 

[Mivera]

You have my opinion, and if you think what I've linked is "fluffy marketing material" you have no business designing and selling audio equipment.

Tim

Please share data based on experience why you trust that material.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Please share data based on experience why you trust that material.

I did. Can't help that you haven't read it. Sorry Frank. That response above was meant for Mike.

Tim

 

[tomelex]

Tim, I understand your process, its well thought out, and the best one can do when he is not an EE or ET or whatever. I would follow the same process were I trying to buy say any type of device that was not in my field of expertise. All I would do is the same as you, search out factual articles as best I could find, and avoid the fluff.

Mivera, Tim is not an EE or ET, but what other process could he use to cut through the audio wasteland to make a good purchasing decision? As an electronics person how about informing Tim of what he has to look for to do this job according to your standards? Yep, think about what expectations you have of him or any other without a background in electronics.

 

[RayDunzl]

Gosh...

My speakers have "resonances".

My DAC measurements are "fluffy marketing material".

My DSP is "quite low end".

You'd think I'd be all anxious about my setup.

What is Anxiety: The unpleasant emotional state consisting of psychophysiological responses to anticipation of unreal or imagined danger, ostensibly resulting from unrecognised intrapsychic conflict.

Physiological concomitants include increased heart rate, altered respiration rate, sweating, trembling, weakness and fatigue, psychological concomitants include feelings of impending danger, powerlessness, apprehension and tension.

Nah.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Tim, I understand your process, its well thought out, and the best one can do when he is not an EE or ET or whatever. I would follow the same process were I trying to buy say any type of device that was not in my field of expertise. All I would do is the same as you, search out factual articles as best I could find, and avoid the fluff.

Mivera, Tim is not an EE or ET, but what other process could he use to cut through the audio wasteland to make a good purchasing decision? As an electronics person how about informing Tim of what he has to look for to do this job according to your standards? Yep, think about what expectations you have of him or any other without a background in electronics.

Is mivera a EE? What makes you think he could show Tim the objective knowledge about products. He knows some high end designers and defaults to hand on experience like most subjective oriented aphiles.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's ok, guys. Mike is just trying to demonstrate his superior knowledge. I agree that he has it. I would expect any and all DAC designers, at any level from DIY up, to have technical knowledge superior to my own.

Tim

 

[Dynamix]

Tim, I understand your process, its well thought out, and the best one can do when he is not an EE or ET or whatever. I would follow the same process were I trying to buy say any type of device that was not in my field of expertise. All I would do is the same as you, search out factual articles as best I could find, and avoid the fluff.

Mivera, Tim is not an EE or ET, but what other process could he use to cut through the audio wasteland to make a good purchasing decision? As an electronics person how about informing Tim of what he has to look for to do this job according to your standards? Yep, think about what expectations you have of him or any other without a background in electronics.

Well said. If you were to show me a circuit-diagram I'd honestly have no idea if I was looking at an audio amplifier or a toaster oven. I come from a "Tractor is broken, give me BIG hammer!" background. But I sincerely hope that that does not mean that I have to rely only on the flowery prose of "reviewers" and marketing material. Been there, done that, and bought the cryogenically treated quantum tunneled t-shirt.

There should be a middle ground here, but being told by people with superior technical knowledge that I'm forever doomed to some sort of subjectivist purgatory isn't exactly helping.

I came here to learn. Had no idea that would mean that I would have to go back to school and become an EE first.