Darko Audio podcast - Beware the measurements

[Archsam]

Oh dear.....

Edit: Darren Myers compared the design of an audio component with digital image processing (tweaking exposure / satiation / contrast to arrive at a 'pleasant' looking image, rather than a raw and unprocessed 'true' image).

I am not sure if this is a fair comparison? I'm very familiar with digital photography but not an engineer, so I am intrigue to what ASR members may have to say about this.

https://darko.audio/2020/06/podcast-beware-the-measurements/

 

[oldsysop]

 

[Glasvegas]

It’s clearly just a sales video.

Just imagine the script writers’ meeting. The story goes like this..... “Young hot shot designer slaves night a day over a hot soldering iron to bring you the best possible sound from vinyl, and learns a valuable lesson too“ ... and as a bonus, explains why our products measure so badly.

At $2,499 they need all the help they can get to sell it.

And Darko takes this seriously?

 

[Kaiju]

Darko worships Brooklyn mytec Dac and amp, I wonder what these measures... I am sure he is financed heavily by Brooklyn.

 

[Jimbob54]

From an ASR angle, there seems to be 2 main thrusts :

1. Does a device measure well- which lets boil down to does it not add or subtract from its source other than to convert format or amplify
2. Is the device good value- which hinges on the above and also its build, functions etc

Devices that are neither of those tend to get short shrift. The logic being- if I wanted an expensive kit with expensive components, I'll get one that measures well and I can colour the sound to my taste with EQ at will. The hifi kit is the camera/ lenses. You want the raw image in as much clarity as possible, reflecting the light etc at the time.

EQ (software or hardware) is the Photoshop equivalent. If baked into a well measuring device and controllable, even better.

Nobody wants core components that can only produces arty blurred images/ euphonic distortion, do they?

 

[Soniclife]

Edit: Darren Myers compared the design of an audio component with digital image processing (tweaking exposure / satiation / contrast to arrive at a 'pleasant' looking image, rather than a raw and unprocessed 'true' image).

I am not sure if this is a fair comparison? I'm very familiar with digital photography but not an engineer, so I am intrigue to what ASR members may have to say about this.

Sounds like BS. Light room is the equivalent of protools, they both allow creators to manipulate the source data to render their final version, the best setting for one photo do not apply to the next one, and the same with sound, that's not to say some presets cannot give a good first result. The better equivalent here would be an uncalibrated monitor that has the colour balance etc all wrong being used to look at other peoples work, some people may like the way some pictures look on it, but it's not correct.

 

[Jimbob54]

Sounds like BS. Light room is the equivalent of protools, they both allow creators to manipulate the source data to render their final version, the best setting for one photo do not apply to the next one, and the same with sound, that's not to say some presets cannot give a good first result. The better equivalent here would be an uncalibrated monitor that has the colour balance etc all wrong being used to look at other peoples work, some people may like the way some pictures look on it, but it's not correct.

Exactly.

 

[Archsam]

I will add my take on sound reproduction vs photoshopping of an image

- The camera = microphone / recording device. Both devices are capturing the 'live' event in front of you.
- RAW image file = master recording. Both are the pure 'data' captured with no adjustments
- LightRoom / RAW converter = mastering. This is where the 'art' of manipulating the sound / image occurs, to adjust the tone / balance / situations / contrast, etc, to suit the taste of the 'creator'.
- Computer monitor / physical print = hifi system of the listener. This is where the view / listener receive the intended sight / sound. Technically at this step the reproduction of the image / sound should be as accurate as possible, so that the viewer / listener will get as close to what the 'creator' intended for us to perceive.

 

[Archsam]

So my 2 cents is, to say the hifi system is supposed to make the sound more 'pleasant' and 'musical' is like using a printer or monitor that has inaccurate white balance setting, so the picture that comes out is 'warmer' or 'more romantic'.

I don't think anyone will agree with that.

 

[Jimbob54]

So my 2 cents is, to say the hifi system is supposed to make the sound more 'pleasant' and 'musical' is like using a printer or monitor that has inaccurate white balance setting, so the picture that comes out is 'warmer' or 'more romantic'.

I don't think anyone will agree with that.

Exactly that too. By all means include a switch/ setting to add the warmth or whatever if the default is "correct". But all the expensive kit with the lofty language and tuning by ear is basically that monitor with only the adjusted image.

Now, that said , if the vast majority of viewers/ listeners prefer the warmer image and have no desire to fiddle with settings, the PS audio and the rest arguments take a different dimension.

 

[FooYatChong]

Oh dear.....
Edit: Darren Myers compared the design of an audio component with digital image processing (tweaking exposure / satiation / contrast to arrive at a 'pleasant' looking image, rather than a raw and unprocessed 'true' image).

That's what they do with the in-camera jpeg conversion. But you can choose to start with the RAW image and decide for yourself what a a 'pleasant' looking image should be.

 

[MattHooper]

So my 2 cents is, to say the hifi system is supposed to make the sound more 'pleasant' and 'musical' is like using a printer or monitor that has inaccurate white balance setting, so the picture that comes out is 'warmer' or 'more romantic'.

I don't think anyone will agree with that.

Depends on the goals and taste of whoever is putting together the hi-fi system. Some people are ok with some pleasant coloration. I don't mind a little bit in my system.

 

[Vini darko]

 

[Vini darko]

Colored sound isn't hifi

 

[pozz]

I posted this in the other thread on this podcast, but I think Daniel Myers is in a bad position working for PS Audio. I can feel him working through some cognitive dissonance since he seems otherwise articulate apart from when he is trying to explain/justify moving away from measurements.

 

[bidn]

View attachment 70516

Nice citation!

I see your nickname, Vini Darko, I am wondering, you are not the Darko from the site and podcast in question, are you?

 

[Zensō]

I posted this in the other thread on this podcast, but I think Daniel Myers is in a bad position working for PS Audio. I can feel him working through some cognitive dissonance since he seems otherwise articulate apart from when he is trying to explain/justify moving away from measurements.

I suspect this is true for many working in high-end personal audio. Thankfully most of this is absent on the pro audio side where most customers are more pragmatic and won’t spend dollars on snake oil.

 

[Vini darko]

Nice citation!

I see your nickname, Vini Darko, I am wondering, you are not the Darko from the site and podcast in question, are you?

Nice citation!

I see your nickname, Vini Darko, I am wondering, you are not the Darko from the site and podcast in question, are you?

I share his liking of Euro trash electronic music. But that's all.

 

[Wes]

Given that many use digital image processing to create horribly unnatural "high impact" images that look like a motivational poster on meth... there is some similarity to audio.

 

[jtwrace]

After listening to this, I've decided Darren should take up painting where he can connect with the music and make art as he really wants to where there really is no wrong. It's scary to think that a 32 year old E.E. thinks this way on many levels.