Bluesound Node Review (Streamer)

[Weeb Labs]

I have a hard time understanding why you would think these levels of distortion are audible. Do you have any citations that show such a threshold of audibility?

As far as I can see, the claim has not been made that harmonic distortion of -87dB is likely to be audible. Rather, it can not be said with certainty that there exist no circumstances under which it could be audible. The latter does not necessarily imply the former.

 

[GaryH]

As far as I can see, the claim has not been made that harmonic distortion of -87dB is likely to be audible. Rather, it can not be said with certainty that there exist no circumstances under which it could be audible. The latter does not necessarily imply the former.

In the vast majority of circumstances -87 dB THD is provably inaudible though, with just a bit of math. In order to be audible and result in the JND of 0.1 dB (the minimum 'just noticeable difference' the human ear can detect) over the playback transducer distortion, this -87 dB THD would have to be combined with a transducer THD less than -70 dB (worst-case, in-phase, combining to -69.9 dB, see the calculator at the bottom here). That's 0.03%. Hardly any transducers consumers will use will have THD this low. And of course this is not even considering absolute distortion hearing thresholds and the psychoacoustics of masking which will make the actual audible transparency threshold even more lenient. Insisting that audio electronics THD of less than -115 dB is needed for transparency is not only absurd, it's demonstrably false in pretty much every practical case, because the transducer is invariably by far the weakest link distortion-wise in the audio reproduction chain.

 

[Weeb Labs]

In the vast majority of circumstances -87 dB THD is provably inaudible though, with just a bit of math. In order to be audible and result in the JND of 0.1 dB (the minimum 'just noticeable difference' the human ear can detect) over the playback transducer distortion, this -87 dB THD would have to be combined with a transducer THD less than -70 dB (worst-case, in-phase, combining to -69.9 dB, see the calculator at the bottom here). That's 0.03%. Hardly any transducers consumers will use will have THD this low. And of course this is not even considering absolute distortion hearing thresholds and the psychoacoustics of masking which will make the actual audible transparency threshold even more lenient. Insisting that audio electronics THD of less than -115 dB is needed for transparency is not only absurd, it's demonstrably false in pretty much every practical case, because the transducer is invariably by far the weakest link distortion-wise in the audio reproduction chain.

I don't disagree but once again, it is not my contention that harmonic distortion of -87dB is likely to be audible. For the purposes of Amir's position as it pertains to the strict threshold, there need only be one set of test conditions (however uncommon) under which it could become audible.

It is important that we interpret measurement data in a manner commensurate with typical real world listening conditions but there is no good reason not to strive for performance that is demonstrably transparent under all potential circumstances; especially when it can be achieved so inexpensively.

 

[GaryH]

I don't disagree but once again, it is not my contention that harmonic distortion of -87dB is likely to be audible. For the purposes of Amir's position as it pertains to the strict threshold, there need only be one set of test conditions under which it could become audible.

Well even that is provably false. The playback transducer with the lowest THD ever is the Sennheiser HE1 with THD at -80 dB. That only requires electronics THD of -97 dB in order to result when combined in less than the JND of 0.1 dB increase in THD over the transducer's (again, worst-case in-phase distortion), so this -97 dB is a strict threshold that is provably audibly transparent in all use cases, calculated using physics and mathematics. No grey area.

 

[Mad_Economist]

there need only be one set of test conditions (however uncommon) under which it could become audible.

In what set of test conditions would a -87dB distortion product be audible?

 

[Weeb Labs]

In what set of test conditions would a -87dB distortion product be audible?

I have no idea. I was simply attempting to clarify Amir's position for Chocomel.

 

[Mad_Economist]

I am going respond to this but past this, you need to take your arguments to a different thread than this review one:

Noise: Methods for Estimating Detectability and Threshold, ” Stuart, J. Robert, JAES Volume 42 Issue 3 pp. 124-140; March 1994
“Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment, ” Fielder, Louis D., JAES Volume 43 Issue 5 pp. 322-339; May 1995

Is there an existing thread for this topic, or should I create a new one? I share Chocomel's complaints regarding the implications you're making about distortion audibility, particularly with those citations as references.

 

[DWI]

To be very clear, my job here is to find the best audio products. That mission I am not going to deviate from. If that cost $9 like the Apple dongle, great. If it costs $10,000 for a DAC or speaker, that is fine too. So don't look to me to find you good enough budget stuff. I may identify such from time to time but it is not my goal. I provide the data and you can then make that equation work for you.

I was a very happy Bluesound user. I used the app for years, did many upgrades and never had an issue. Before that I had an Auralic Aries Mini, which my son now uses and enjoys. They are both superbly user-friendly streamers and I always considered the Bluesound to be much the same as the Auralic Mini, but with a bonus DAC. Bluesound got a boost as being just about the only one to host Amazon HD when it came out.

From my reading of users, the vast majority buy the Bluesound as a streamer and don't use the DAC, but I used it in my office system and was perfectly happy with it. The measurements do not suggest it is broken. So considering it broken because of the DAC rather misses the point of this product. It's a bit like reading a review of a car written by a carpet salesman whose primary interest is the floor mats. I would highly recommend it.

 

[CMB]

[QUOTE="It's a bit like reading a review of a car written by a carpet salesman whose primary interest is the floor mats. I would highly recommend it.[/QUOTE]

Different people, different usages, different positions here.

As much I really enjoy my new Node. I really do.
As much it really works fine for me and for my usage (without usage of the internal DAC).
I love it for my usage.

Fact is :
(And as already stated by Amir) It is sold to us as Streamer/DAC, even with so called "New DAC" design with improved performance.
"Inside, the NODE features a new audiophile-grade DAC design with notably improved performance that not only supports 24-bit/192kHz audio processing, but also MQA for studio-quality listening."

And that is the point where we should be very very thankful to AMIRs work here, who is basically defending our interests against the industry.
So, comparing AMIR to a carpet salesman here, is very very inappropriate!

We basically get "fooled" by company marketing sales speech and by accommodating reviewers stating that they can hear that the DAC section is now improved. While, in fact AMIR could reveal the quiet low performance of the DAC.

I like to know that (even after purchase).

Thanks Amir and please keep up the good work.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Well even that is provably false. The playback transducer with the lowest THD ever is the Sennheiser HE1 with THD at -80 dB. That only requires electronics THD of -97 dB in order to result when combined in less than the JND of 0.1 dB increase in THD over the transducer's (again, worst-case in-phase distortion), so this -97 dB is a strict threshold that is provably audibly transparent in all use cases, calculated using physics and mathematics. No grey area.

That is a handy coincidence, as it is very close to the CD "standard" of -96 dB. Can we not agree that, although in practice it is probably not required for the vast majority of systems, a DAC SINAD of -96 DB or better should be expected "just in case", especially as it is easy to achieve with any competent design using inexpensive chips?

 

[AudioSceptic]

Didn't know that, interesting

I should have added: and if the Burr-Brown chips were incapable of achieving the required performance, why on earth would they be used in any product above bargain basement level? Use something better!

 

[GaryH]

That is a handy coincidence, as it is very close to the CD "standard" of -96 dB. Can we not agree that, although in practice it is probably not required for the vast majority of systems, a DAC SINAD of -96 DB or better should be expected "just in case", especially as it is easy to achieve with any competent design using inexpensive chips?

No. Because if you don't own a $60,000 HE1 (pretty much everyone on the planet), there is no case for which a "just in case" THD lower than this can possibly have any audible effect. It would be like insisting on buying 16K resolution movies for playback on a TV that can only display up to 1080p, you know, "just in case". And as I said before, none of this is even considering absolute distortion hearing thresholds and the psychoacoustics of masking which will make the actual audible transparency threshold even more lenient. To continue the TV analogy, even if you had a 16K TV (HE1 with 0.01% THD), your eyes are physically unable to resolve that resolution at your viewing distance (hear this level of distortion at normal listening levels), and even if you stood really close and squinted and could just about see an individual pixel on a static test pattern (turned up the volume higher than you would normally while listening to a sine wave), when playing an actual movie you would no longer be able to resolve it due to the spatial and temporal proximity of all the other pixels in the video stream and all the information processing your brain is doing (frequency and temporal auditory masking of distortion when listening to actual music).

 

[pjug]

@CMB

Well said and I agree with this. Also keep in mind part of the reason for the headless panther is that Amir couldn't get it to work. It wasn't just the DAC performance.

I take the panthers as just a bit of fun with all this and not to be taken as an absolute bottom line judgement. The measurements are provided for all of us to make up our own minds on that, which Amir often says in his conclusions.

 

[tparm]

What comes after the X16 in your components ? Preamp, amp and speakers?

X16 to Emotiva RMC-1L, Parasound A52+ powering Polk LSiM 707/706/703 set up.

 

[OldJong]

Regarding connectivity. Ive had moments like Amir with wireless and bluetooth countless times since they have been ubiquitous. I also screamed for a remote when struggling with bluutooth from the node. Im nowhere near as savy as Amir. .

Somehow I am able to get a Vault, now with 1 TB of CDs, and a node, to work everyday merely with a crappy netgear hotspot device.

Growing pains but now very happy with their product.

 

[Jmudrick]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ements-of-paradigm-pw-link-streamer-dac.7763/

This one seemed unsure if it was broken. Guess the Room Correction portion saved it.

It is down to $199 on the Paradigm site. I’d be more worried about this company’s app since it seems less of a seller?


The NODE does have a sub out but I’m not sure how well it could be implemented.

If you use Amazon or Spotify (Tidal not sure) you can bypass the Play Fi app. I use Qobuz either with Play-Fi, BubbleUpnp, or Audirvana and I'm perfectly happy with the Paradigm

 

[JJB70]

Am I missing something here?
I mean if people think 87dB SINAD is ok and feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with 87dB devices, claiming that it's inaudible, why even come to ASR and read these reviews? They can just buy any gear and be happy no?

There's a lot of truth in that. The electronics of audio were commoditised years ago and things like DACs and amplifiers reached technological maturity decades ago. Get decent speakers well set up and matched to an amplifier and the electronics are probably not worth worrying about. Ditto headphones if you prefer those. What does alter is build quality, industrial design, feature set, user interface and such like. And price. It's entirely possible to have an interest in audio at the same time as also thinking it really doesn't matter much.

 

[goofball]

I should have added: and if the Burr-Brown chips were incapable of achieving the required performance, why on earth would they be used in any product above bargain basement level? Use something better!

Easier said than done in an ongoing product, particularly a software-dependent box like Bluesound's offering. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they say the same things everyone here is saying...let's use a different DAC.

OK...but at what cost?

From what I've read elsewhere, Bluesound uses Burr Brown DACs across their entire Gen 2 and 3 product lines. If you change the DAC in one product, you end up changing them all. That means updated hardware and software in a next generation product line, along with everything that goes with it.

Would the change be worth it? It would be if a business case could be made for it. Given the discussion here on what is and/or is not audible, plus the fact that lots use external DACs anyway, would those better numbers be worth it to them?

 

[PeteL]

Easier said than done in an ongoing product, particularly a software-dependent box like Bluesound's offering. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they say the same things everyone here is saying...let's use a different DAC.

OK...but at what cost?

From what I've read elsewhere, Bluesound uses Burr Brown DACs across their entire Gen 2 and 3 product lines. If you change the DAC in one product, you end up changing them all. That means updated hardware and software in a next generation product line, along with everything that goes with it.

Would the change be worth it? It would be if a business case could be made for it. Given the discussion here on what is and/or is not audible, plus the fact that lots use external DACs anyway, would those better numbers be worth it to them?

I believe not all have Burr Brown tough, I believe after the original that I own (can't find what it was), and still it don't cause issues in firmware and software updates. I get what you say but it's not that black and white, most dac chips will not need reconfiguring the bulk of the software is about the micro controller. I agree it does make it simpler to keep the same architecture, but don't mean the old ones will stop working. But sure, there must be a reason.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Easier said than done in an ongoing product, particularly a software-dependent box like Bluesound's offering. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they say the same things everyone here is saying...let's use a different DAC.

OK...but at what cost?

From what I've read elsewhere, Bluesound uses Burr Brown DACs across their entire Gen 2 and 3 product lines. If you change the DAC in one product, you end up changing them all. That means updated hardware and software in a next generation product line, along with everything that goes with it.

Would the change be worth it? It would be if a business case could be made for it. Given the discussion here on what is and/or is not audible, plus the fact that lots use external DACs anyway, would those better numbers be worth it to them?

Probably not. I was just adding to my response to the DAC itself being blamed for the < CD performance. Oh, and they should have made any such decision early in the design process.