Distortion down to -300 dB, what exactly does that mean physically?

[tw99]

Think I am missing the point here.

You said it...

 

[dc655321]

Think I am missing the point here. Looks like everyone including Amirm is gathering to convince each other that Rob Watts cannot hear what he claims he can. How do we know what he can hear/perceive ?

You are missing a few things, I fear: Watts' claims are a physical impossibility both in terms of amplitude (-300dB?!?) and frequency (> human limits).

 

[RayDunzl]

Think I am missing the point here.

Yup.

Review the Shoutometer page...

Expand the Shoutometer DeLuxe under the more common scale, to see the even more inconceivably unreasonable values.

 

[roskodan]

Yeah, it's funny how folks get enchanted by a good speech and can't see all the discrepancies in the narrative. Like all the much more serious distortion induced by the rest of the system. Even Sir Watts proposed that solder joints, metals crystal boundaries, oxide layers, cables, would make for a more perceptible difference, but somehow forgets that his devices too have and use all of those in abundance. Resistors and transistors matching anyone?

"I recognized that, what was happening here, was that it's about small signal amplitude non linearity, because when you have a metal oxide layer and another metal through the solder joint, you create a little resistance, very small signals, so a micro volt level of signal will have a bigger impedance than for higher voltages. So, it's again, same issue we got with the noise shapers, that very small signal non linearity..."

 

[voodooless]

How do we know what he can hear/perceive ?

A tiny thing called physics..

 

[Frank Dernie]

Think I am missing the point here. Looks like everyone including Amirm is gathering to convince each other that Rob Watts cannot hear what he claims he can. How do we know what he can hear/perceive ? I'm convinced he is a well trained listener but I/we cannot know and what's the point ? In my opinion he is just someone who is trying to develop/design serious digital to analogue audio-gear by a thorough understanding of the mathematics involved and also by listening. What can be wrong with that ? In addition; aiming for the sinc impuls response, as he does, is the mathematical way to go as we were educated in University. In case you don't believe his experiences and conviction then leave it and don't listen to it or buy it. Anyway, judging the reactions here, Rob Watts caused a lot of doubt in this community and not without reason. All our brains are listening with two ears and doubting is part of the process.

I think the problem is simply that if one hasn't studied a subject in depth, and I am talking years here not a 2 day Google marathon, the only way to form an opinion is to "buy in" to a particular narrative.

At my primary school about 80% of the kids either had no aptitude for things scientific or no interest.
That means for a very large number, almost certainly the majority, of people their education does not give them the first principles to work out things technical for themselves.
All these people will end up picking up on a narrative that seems correct to them, whether it is or not, and following it. In the case of things technical the majority may well pick up on a persuasive narrative which actually is not supported by fact and being in the majority feel they have the "right" pov regardless of it being factually incorrect.

The whole ears over measurement paradigm started many years ago and even though a lot of the beliefs do not stand up to factual analysis the opinion is widely held, for the above reasons IMO.

The idea that 300dB is audible is actually genuinely ridiculous because of facts, see the shoutometer to easily understand why.
What makes it doubly absurd is the fact that all listening needs an amplifier and headphones or speakers between the DAC output and one's ears and there literally aren't any with better than 125dB dynamic range so listening would not be a possible way to judge in any case.

I don't know Rob Watts so don't know whether he believes his own narrative due to placebo effect or whether he is just selling but one thing is completely sure, until somebody repeals the laws of physics, the narrative is nixed by facts.

The problem this forum has, IMO, that the ears over measurements is so "baked in" to the HiFi narrative that the vast majority of people do not question it using fact and, as is psycologically normal apparently, are more angered by a long held belief being shown to be false than they are at the promulgation of that falsehood.

 

[JohnA]

..I don't know Rob Watts so don't know whether he believes his own narrative due to placebo effect or whether he is just selling but one thing is completely sure, until somebody repeals the laws of physics, the narrative is nixed by facts...

I have watched repeatedly and very carefully all of Rob's lectures on the web, along with all his posts on HeadFi (quite a few!). The presentation slides are also there.
I own a QuTest and a Dave, even splashed out for an MScaler based on Rob's narrative (what a mistake that was!)

It is disappointing that he would not be prepared to back his claims in a controlled blind test.
Means he suspects some of these audibility claims could be placebo

His DACs sound glorious though, he's a master

 

[roskodan]

I've a "feeling" Chord DACs sound nice also (read mostly) thanks to John Franks' output buffer designs. I'm really disappointed there are no analog inputs on the Hugo TT 2, as well as John Franks not being interested in making a dedicated headphone amp / preamp. Bummer!

Can't wait for ASR review of the Hugo TT 2 and M Scaler.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I have watched repeatedly and very carefully all of Rob's lectures on the web, along with all his posts on HeadFi (quite a few!). The presentation slides are also there.
I own a QuTest and a Dave, even splashed out for an MScaler based on Rob's narrative (what a mistake that was!)

It is disappointing that he would not be prepared to back his claims in a controlled blind test.
Means he suspects some of these audibility claims could be placebo

His DACs sound glorious though, he's a master

I have a Chord Hugo and it does indeed sound fine and I like the styling and the weird ergonomics too.
OTOH level matched it sounds the same as others, I keep it for its functions, its sound is pristine but so is the sound of most DACs.

I also use a Chord Blu CD transport chosen for its styling and construction though, I see no reason why it would sound any different to any other

 

[Frank Dernie]

I've a "feeling" Chord DACs sound nice also (read mostly) thanks to John Franks' output buffer designs. I'm really disappointed there are no analog inputs on the Hugo TT 2, as well as John Franks not being interested in making a dedicated headphone amp / preamp. Bummer!

Can't wait for ASR review of the Hugo TT 2 and M Scaler.

Amir has tested the Qutest
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ew-and-measurements-of-chord-qutest-dac.5981/
which is to all intents and purposes audibly transparent.
All the other Chord DACs are likely to be equally transparent.
The M-scaler may well do nothing to improve the performance in any audible way.

 

[roskodan]

I was more interested in the output buffer performance, the amplifier part, has some interesting specs at 18W RMS 8Ω. I'm not really a sucker for -120dB THD + noise and what have you, let alone -300dB.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I was more interested in the output buffer performance, the amplifier part, has some interesting specs at 18W RMS 8Ω. I'm not really a sucker for -120dB THD + noise and what have you, let alone -300dB.

I did read that the Hugo could drive efficient speakers but after initial excitement couldn't be bothered to make the cable to connect to my 109dB/watt speakers (I have an amp for them already)

 

[JohnA]

..
The M-scaler may well do nothing to improve the performance in any audible way.

That has been my experience unfortunately.
Other people, when focused and 'squeezed' to spot a difference full-scale vs bypass (masking tape over scaler/dac lights!), only managed to spot a slight lack of bass with upscaling, but very slight and I doubt it would pass a proper blind test to the highest level of confidence.
Even then, nothing like 'air between the instruments', blacker blacks, bouncy prats, deeper soundstage and the like.
One was a musician, and although he managed to pick the scaling levels , it was not due to any of the aforementioned qualities, just the looser bass with upscaling. I don't know what to make of it.

I've equalised subs with REW, speakers placed with runnaway horse method, image is as wide and deep as I've heard in good recordings.
Move the speaker rake or tow a few mm and boy do you notice.
MScaler on/off didn't make *any* difference, WTF, is there mass placebo pandemic, or is my hearing defective just on this one?

 

[Chester]

I did read that the Hugo could drive efficient speakers but after initial excitement couldn't be bothered to make the cable to connect to my 109dB/watt speakers (I have an amp for them already)

I have powered my Revel F208 with the Chord TT2 direct (single ended).
It drove them incredibly well and if the specs are right, was probably the best performing amplification available. Obviously, 7W isn’t going to be enough for a lot of people, but it got much louder than I expected.

It was designed to drive B&W D3’s direct I was told by the designer.

It will be interesting to see how the more powerful versions coming in future measure and sound.

 

[Frank Dernie]

is there mass placebo pandemic, or is my hearing defective just on this one?

IMO yes.
The whole hobby relies on it to keep people spending money.
Transducers differ, speaker and listener room locations make a big difference, some power amps have reasons they don't work well but otherwise it is pretty well what you like the styling of, does it have the functions you need and is it safe and reliable, not sound quality.

 

[Chester]

That has been my experience unfortunately.
Other people, when focused and 'squeezed' to spot a difference full-scale vs bypass (masking tape over scaler/dac lights!), only managed to spot a slight lack of bass with upscaling, but very slight and I doubt it would pass a proper blind test to the highest level of confidence.
Even then, nothing like 'air between the instruments', blacker blacks, bouncy prats, deeper soundstage and the like.
One was a musician, and although he managed to pick the scaling levels , it was not due to any of the aforementioned qualities, just the looser bass with upscaling. I don't know what to make of it.

I've equalised subs with REW, speakers placed with runnaway horse method, image is as wide and deep as I've heard in good recordings.
Move the speaker rake or tow a few mm and boy do you notice.
MScaler on/off didn't make *any* difference, WTF, is there mass placebo pandemic, or is my hearing defective just on this one?

I too have an M Scaler. Could I pick it out in a blind test? I would highly doubt it.

 

[BDWoody]

I am missing the point here.

The point is that the claims are ridiculous.

If I marketed basketball shoes on the claim I can jump 30' high with them, would you just accept that? You might want proof...

MScaler on/off didn't make *any* difference, WTF, is there mass placebo pandemic, or is my hearing defective just on this one?

People will generally hear what they were told to expect they would hear. They paid good money for it after all!

The industry capitalizes on ignorance.

 

[JohnA]

I did read that the Hugo could drive efficient speakers but after initial excitement couldn't be bothered to make the cable to connect to my 109dB/watt speakers (I have an amp for them already)

Got these ones from Amazon
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B075S1X32X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Cheap and easy to wire, just to test the principle.
My secondary speakers are rated 95db/W and I would definately try to drive them directly from a TT2.
109db/W would be a no-brainer for me. Hell, I'd try them with the Dave!
Losing preamp and power amp from the signal path is definately worth trying, lots of distortions and feeback loops eliminated.

 

[JohnA]

People will generally hear what they were told to expect they would hear. They paid good money for it after all!
.

Well I *did* expect to hear wider/deeper soundstage, air between the instruments etc.
I was convinced from Rob's presentations, so placebo was working on the Scaler's side.

Never once did I manage to hear any difference, I even let the 4 week return window expire, because I badly wanted to lift the final veil and make digital sound analog. Still nothing.
I keep an open mind on the audibility of extreme upscaling, the theory I cannot argue with.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I badly wanted to lift the final veil and make digital sound analog.

If you want to add enough noise and distortion to make digital sound like analogue a SET valve amplifier may have an audibly poor enough performance to achieve it.

Losing preamp and power amp from the signal path is definately worth trying, lots of distortions and feeback loops eliminated.

Since IME the amp I am now using has below audible levels of noise and distortion it would only be a theoretical improvement not an audible one. That is why I haven't bothered - nowt wrong with the system anyway (over and above the transducer colourations of course)