A good measurement does not mean it sounds good. It means it sounds right. That's what high fidelity is all about.What if we are all wrong here?
A good measurement does not mean it sounds good. It means it sounds right. That's what high fidelity is all about.What if we are all wrong here?
One can argue about this, but a noise level of -60dB below programme levels is inaudible. Even -40dB is inaudible. The issue is more that when the quiet bits come along, even -40dB needs to be a lot less relative to peak levels, so -80dB is pretty much there. -90dB better still but unless one has a very quiet room, I suggest that -80dB is normally quite enough. I'm not referring to headphones of near-field listening, as I don't do either to any extent, almost all my listening is in-room, several metres from the loudspeakers.I agree with your conclusion but I don’t agree with your noise threshold. I think it should be a bit lower still.
The NAD is a preamp/streamer isn't it? What is the amp you're comparing with the 4700?
Both were using the same external power amp - Hypex NC400 DIY kit (monoblocks). I've listened to the C658 with and without Dirac Live. Even my daughter taught the NAD sounded better. SPL was the same (tested with my phone).Its possible that your phone db measurements are off by 0.5 db or more which could be the difference. Pretty sure the technically savvy here would tell you to measure across the terminals to get 0.1-0.2 db margin of error.
I think we could all be wrong about the assumed correlation between measurements and sound. I had a Denon 3700x and didn’t like the sound coming from my Revel f206s; the Yamaha RX-A 3080 sounded better. It shouldn’t have done based on the measurements, but it did. My Naim Supernait 2 sounds better than either, but it shouldn’t according to the measurements.
Did anyone research this? Is there an AES article which correlates harmonic contaminations to sound perception?
This is worse looking into...
It's exactly my point. If measurements don't correlate to sound quality, what does then? Are Naim/ PS Audio/NAD engineers design their products based on trial and error, or do they know something that we don't?
Another think I've noticed, I could listen to music for hours on the C658, but I get fatigued after 30 minutes listening with the Denon AVR, even when the same power amp is used...
So what's the point in measurements if they don't matter?
So what's the point in measurements if they don't matter?
Measurements do matter, but its important not to fixate on a single one like SINAD and look at all of them to try to get an objective picture of a component's performance. But the problem is that these are objective in nature and can't possibly take into account things like 'what is the distortion signature' - what is the spectra, and thus audibility, of the noise - is it above the audio band? etc. With speakers for example, if you don't like the sound of a particular speaker, all the 'great' measurements in the world don't matter squat.
With electronics, my system would absolutely flunk this forum's objective measurements on such things as SINAD. I don't go out of my way to build/buy gear which has 'poor' performance, but I balance many parameters of performance and utility to work to my satisfaction as a whole system. As one example, my (vacuum tube) amplifiers have typical or somewhat lower 'distortion' associated with tubes - they would thus fail a SINAD test. But the other component - the noise - is incredibly low since I use highly efficient full range horns, and any noise, even that associated with good solid state amplifiers would be excessive and audible.
So I have extremely low noise which would probably pass the 'noise' part, but these components would flunk the 'distortion' part. See my point here? A single measurement such as SINAD can be utterly useless if taken as a single figure of merit without considering other aspects.
SINAD therefore is a proxy and litmus test for design excellence.
SINAD is just one of the aspects that are measured and NOT the most important one either nor is it claimed to be.
I think this probably comes from the fact that it's the first measurement in a review, and it does seem Amir gives it outsized weight.
It is not the first thing in a review. The first thing is a full dashboard with a number of pieces of information. It is all presented at once. Some of it is not interesting like the frequency unless it is. In a recent DAC review, I actually highlighted that instead of the rest of the info: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dio-gd-master-7-singularity-review-dac.26460/I think this probably comes from the fact that it's the first measurement in a review, and it does seem Amir gives it outsized weight. Right off the bat, if it's toward the top of the range, it's proclaimed to be in the top x% of measuring DACs. Time and time again if it's unusually high Amir usually says "Do you see what I'm seeing here?!" Being excellent in other measurements usually doesn't elicit this type of response.
Agreed. just when it was the only thing of importance then Amir could just mention the SINAD number and leave it at that but he doesn't for good reason.