Bruno Putzeys reaches out to the subjectivists

[solderdude]

Yes. Do you recommend one proper switchbox?
We could check by measurements that it's not degrading sound...
Or, for some items, maybe by recording the same material and ABX through foobar or so...

I always built my own 'test devices' and never used commercial switches so have no recommendations.

 

[solderdude]

Those are the ones you'll find here.

Well you will find some of those here and some of those elsewhere.
Most here already know the drill and what matters and what not.(crowd they like to hang with)
Then people come on here to tell them how wrong they are. (like walking in a church and telling their God doesn't exist)
They laugh and post about it in other forums and get their confirmation there.

There are a few that come here to look at the other side of the medal... some actually do test this way and see what ASR is about.
Some do halfbaked tests and get incorrect results while thinking the test is valid... they go back to the 'hearing folks' or hang around.

 

[Wombat]

I strongly disagree with that.

Some "subjectivists" may well have a (more or less well) hidden agenda, since their goal is to earn money or esteem, but most are sincere.
They just don't know how to measure what they hear, are mislead by placebo effect and/or don't know (or can't) perform more objective tests.
There is no religion in there. And it's not comfortable at all.

Each honest audiophile (or whatever name we give to them) is in quest of better sound.
Measurement is a key help. But that's just a tool. And it has to be supported by theoretical explanations.
Science has made great progress recently. That's a chance. But we all know we're not at the end of the journey yet.
At the end, what counts is the musical pleasure.
That's the real goal.

Faith is belief without rational supporting evidence. It doesn't just apply to choice of supernatural things. E.g. audiophilia, economics, politics ….. ..

 

[JJB70]

To be clear I am not against measurement and I think that the only sensible way to design audio equipment is by measurement. Peter Walker of Quad was right about that decades ago. I also value measurement when looking at reviews and would only give credence to reviews which include measurements. So far so objective.

I think that audio gear should be designed to be transparent. I completely get why people like coloured sound, more bass etc. However, to me the appropriate way to address this is to design for a neutral and transparent sound signature, then for consumer to use EQ and DSP to tune the sound for their subjective preferences. If they are bass heads then pump up the bass. I like a flat sound with maybe a touch of brightness (not much) but subjective preferences for sound signature are what they are and if people like thunderous bass then their preference is no more right or wrong than my own.

If the objective is transparency then the question is what benefit is there from going beyond transparency in SQ terms? What classifies as transparency will depend to a great degree on the listeners sensitivity to distortion and response etc. However in my own humble opinion it is hard to get a DAC which isn't audibly transparent and ditto for amplifiers if they are well specified to work with your speakers. Then there is the question of whether even discernible differences actually affect enjoyment of music? Some do, but if people are struggling to identify differences in a double blind test then it indicates that such differences are basically irrelevant for enjoying music.

And so it goes on. I have a preference for old Japanese hifi because I like the quality. My preference is not really about the SQ although those classic Sony ES products do still measure well, I just like the quality. I would not buy audio equipment that didn't meet my expectations for SQ, but if it does then my decision making is about things like price, build quality, tactile feel and industrial design which except for price are subjective preferences.

I have all my music files in FLAC. In most cases I struggle to discern differences between 320k MP3 and FLAC and find that going to FLAC does not alter my enjoyment of music. I am playing a trick on myself by using a lossless format which I think must be better. In a sense you could say that using FLAC rather than MP3 is an objective choice, but I suspect that my own choice is actually a subjective one.

 

[Enkay25]

To be clear I am not against measurement and I think that the only sensible way to design audio equipment is by measurement. Peter Walker of Quad was right about that decades ago. I also value measurement when looking at reviews and would only give credence to reviews which include measurements. So far so objective.

I think that audio gear should be designed to be transparent. I completely get why people like coloured sound, more bass etc. However, to me the appropriate way to address this is to design for a neutral and transparent sound signature, then for consumer to use EQ and DSP to tune the sound for their subjective preferences. If they are bass heads then pump up the bass. I like a flat sound with maybe a touch of brightness (not much) but subjective preferences for sound signature are what they are and if people like thunderous bass then their preference is no more right or wrong than my own.

If the objective is transparency then the question is what benefit is there from going beyond transparency in SQ terms? What classifies as transparency will depend to a great degree on the listeners sensitivity to distortion and response etc. However in my own humble opinion it is hard to get a DAC which isn't audibly transparent and ditto for amplifiers if they are well specified to work with your speakers. Then there is the question of whether even discernible differences actually affect enjoyment of music? Some do, but if people are struggling to identify differences in a double blind test then it indicates that such differences are basically irrelevant for enjoying music.

And so it goes on. I have a preference for old Japanese hifi because I like the quality. My preference is not really about the SQ although those classic Sony ES products do still measure well, I just like the quality. I would not buy audio equipment that didn't meet my expectations for SQ, but if it does then my decision making is about things like price, build quality, tactile feel and industrial design which except for price are subjective preferences.

I have all my music files in FLAC. In most cases I struggle to discern differences between 320k MP3 and FLAC and find that going to FLAC does not alter my enjoyment of music. I am playing a trick on myself by using a lossless format which I think must be better. In a sense you could say that using FLAC rather than MP3 is an objective choice, but I suspect that my own choice is actually a subjective one.

Cannot say it much better.
Totally in tune with my reflections on this.

Afterall 'music' is there for enjoyment. Whether refined or not is matter of personal taste (and a rather intimate philosophy, I guess).

 

[PierreV]

I set up my systems as objectively as I can without falling into obsessiveness. Well, at least trying not to. Then, I enjoy them subjectively.

The biggest problem on forums, at least IMHO, is that many people feel, for some reason, compelled to actively aggress the other side as if they were on a holy crusade.

I am all for exposing snake oil with hard facts. But that shouldn't mean attacking users.

 

[Ron Texas]

I think this fight will eventually end when a figure high enough will be a guarantee that all devices reaching it are sounding the same. Which means, will have no 'sound' of their own.
As most things in life, there may be a quantitative level that translates in a qualitative leap forward.

The only thing is that we don't know exactly what to measure to be most relevant in subjective terms and where is the "good enough" level.

78dB SINAD is NOT high enough, for what I know.
110dB has a pretty good chance to be "enough", though.
But, as we know, those figures are only reached at or near highest levels, due to noise.
So IMD vs level or some multi tones FFT at different levels would probably be better measurements, to assess the subjective result.
Still, most probably, it's a full set of measurements you have to perform to make reasonably sure.

Someone high enough, on what, Colorado pot?

The 12 bit number was arrived at by a member of this forum who used a feature of JRiver which reduces the bit depth and allows a comparison. He had someone else try it and they got 13 bits, possibly. Where does your 110db come from? Looks to me like you pulled it out of your imagination. You are ignoring the obvious while being snake charmed by numbers.

 

[Frank Dernie]

78dB SINAD is NOT high enough, for what I know.

It definitely is for me.
I can enjoy LPs, FM radio and tape recorders all of which are inferior to 78dB.

 

[Rja4000]

You are ignoring the obvious while being snake charmed by numbers.

This kind of comment is unpleasant.
Let's stop here.
And yes, the 110dB is out of my imagination.

 

[DonH56]

IIRC J_J used 110 dB when asked for a reasonable number he felt represented an audible limit. But I could have imagined it...

Found it: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-and-dac-measurements.5734/page-7#post-206187

Yes, I'll appeal to authority!

 

[HammerSandwich]

He just thinks that people like me who think transparency is the goal will be the death of the "audiophile" industry due to competition being based only on price

Sounds like he's more interested in having beguiling hardware available than in listening to recorded music. Something, something, fetish, something, something, false idols...

 

[day7a1]

Sounds like he's more interested in having beguiling hardware available than in listening to recorded music. Something, something, fetish, something, something, false idols...

Yes. He clearly thinks that being an "audiophile" is about the hardware itself. He's not alone and it's a disincentive for manufacturers to create truly transparent gear. If you have one that's transparent and one that's not, and you don't know which is which, there's really no way to find out. Some recordings sound worse on good gear.

I don't get it either.

 

[HammerSandwich]

If you have one that's transparent and one that's not, and you don't know which is which, there's really no way to find out. Some recordings sound worse on good gear.

Absolutely. My experience is that you can tell - within limits, obviously - by using many recordings. Gear with a signature reduces the differences between recordings. It may sound nice, but everything sounds a bit the same.

I'm 100% okay with claims that, "I prefer this hardware, because it makes bad recordings more listenable, and I still recognize good recordings thru it." But it sure seems that the folks who prefer that hardware inevitably claim that it's higher-fi, as well.

 

[HammerSandwich]

But, as we know, those figures are only reached at or near highest levels, due to noise.

Probably not that big a concern.

Consider the DX3 Pro's IM performance, which shows this sloping character & appears in most ASR DAC reviews. Start on the right side of the chart. From peak to -20dBFS, distortion's -95dB or better. As level drops, so does the distortion "score." At -60dB input, IM is only -57dB or so. Gross, right? But that -57dB is relative to the input, meaning the distortion actually lies at -117dBFS.

 

[Rja4000]

Probably not that big a concern.

Consider the DX3 Pro's IM performance, which shows this sloping character & appears in most ASR DAC reviews. Start on the right side of the chart. From peak to -20dBFS, distortion's -95dB or better. As level drops, so does the distortion "score." At -60dB input, IM is only -57dB or so. Gross, right? But that -57dB is relative to the input, meaning the distortion actually lies at -117dBFS.

This is why I say you can't just rely on one figure.

In that case, the result is pretty much perfect: the limit at lower volume is the noise, which is low.
While for some DAC, you see that "ESS hump" (original Topping M50 is an example) or worse (see NAD M51).

One figure is easier to use, of course, but we have very little chance to find one that says it all.
Unless we invent a new one that combines them all...

Amir's tests for DACs pretty much tell us everything we need, I think, since performance level can be pretty high and input/output are pretty much standardized.

For power amp, I don't know.
(But others may know better, for sure)
I fear that the loudspeaker is too much of a variable to allow comprehensive tests with a small loads set.
Also, actual use may vary a lot according to speaker sensitivity and listening conditions. What's the actual output level range we will be using ?
Bruno Putzeys also has this test at 18.5kHz + 19.5kHz (that AudioXpress is also using).
He may have other relevant tests that we "miss" here.

Common wisdom says that a good measuring amp, when used far enough from its limit, is transparent.
So we'd better have one that measures "perfectly" for a wide range of uses.

What a SINAD figure of, say, 110dB tells us (if there is no 'incident' at lower volume) is that we can set the digital volume in a wide range before we'll reach an audible distortion or noise.
This is not the '110dB' which is meaningful, but probably rather the actual SINAD at -30dBFS, which is more likely to be your max listening level. But saying 110dB tells all of that with one figure.
Of course, matching level in your audio chain may make a big difference: if you have to set your digital volume to -60dB or 0dB, that has quite a big impact!
But if your measured performance is high enough, ultimately, that will work in all normal cases.

And that's also why there is no contradiction between aiming to have at least 110dB SINAD at 0dBFS while we say we are able to 'resolve' "only" 78dB... with volume set at -30dBFS.

 

[solderdude]

Soooo.. the number should be between 78dB, 13 bits or -110dB.

What if: the 78dB is because of background noise which sounds different from the noise created by quantization errors (not dithered). How would that change the number and audible acceptance of the noise. How high is the SINAD of vinyl ? Will it be the same number in the outside and inside of the groove ?

What if: 13 bits were enough (Philips thought 14 bits was enough but Sony wanted 16). What if we dithered at 13 bits. That would be enough. Even Bob thinks the general public that won't unfold their origami soup would find 13 bits acceptable.

What if: J_J just wanted to give a number of which he knew with absolute certainty that no degradation ever will be audible under all circumstances.
Say for instance ... You want to play extremely loud and have peaks of say 125dB SPL yet when a 'pause' is there between songs that isn't muted or before the music isn't played you can't hear any noise (nor distortion) at that moment... you would need 110dB for sure.
What if we attenuate digitally and the noise floor of the DAC in question becomes the practical limiting factor where 0dBFS is say... 125dB ?

What if: when playing music at 'normal listening level' 80dB were enough. Play music loud enough so it is still just comfortable. Then apply 80dB of attenuation and listen if you still hear something. (No cheating with ears held against your speakers)

What if: a SINAD of 78dB (at 1kHz) isn't enough for the simple reason that when playing music the distortion products are MUCH higher at higher or lower frequencies (let's face it 1kHz offers about the best 'numbers') and a 78dB SINAD in some cases results in noise levels that are considered audible.

Then... we all would be correct in our statements but disagree over specific numbers that are only kind of related ?

 

[HiFiSoundFarts]

But we do have business to deny that. When you write: "Many of these compatibility issues -- where people say this preamp sounds good with that CD player -- some of these mysterious interactions actually happen through the power wiring, and sometimes even through direct coupling from a power cable into a speaker cable."

Surely the first thing go check there is reliability of said listening test than assuming it is real and chasing power wiring, power cable coupling into speaker wire, etc. The former is almost a sure thing (listening test was improper) whereas the latter (interference) is almost unheard of.

I realize in a different situation you have to speak differently but here, we do need to stick to what we can prove rather than lending technical hand to audio myths.

Science has an objective to find logical order. Science does not have a business to be subjectively defining what people experience or what people say they experience. There always is a limit to what you can prove no matter the logical order found.

 

[SIY]

Science does not have a business to be subjectively defining what people experience or what people say they experience.

This will come as a great surprise to people doing sensory research.

 

[boXem]

This will come as a great surprise to people doing sensory research.

I guess they will be happy. It's not everyday a researcher finds something.

 

[peng]

But we do have business to deny that. When you write: "Many of these compatibility issues -- where people say this preamp sounds good with that CD player -- some of these mysterious interactions actually happen through the power wiring, and sometimes even through direct coupling from a power cable into a speaker cable."

Surely the first thing go check there is reliability of said listening test than assuming it is real and chasing power wiring, power cable coupling into speaker wire, etc. The former is almost a sure thing (listening test was improper) whereas the latter (interference) is almost unheard of.

I realize in a different situation you have to speak differently but here, we do need to stick to what we can prove rather than lending technical hand to audio myths.

But I thought you said he was wrong, yet I think you now would agree that he's not "wrong" in saying what he was saying, and you now are saying specifically that "..we do have business to deny that...", and "...the first thing go check there is reliability of said listening test than assuming it is real.......". That I agree, though Bruno did not "....assuming it is real...." as such in that post, he simply said "...some of these mysterious interactions actually happen.....".