Equal measurements is not the same as equal sound quality

[DLS79]

Yes, but here is the thing: I never claimed I had proof or used science, it was others that kept hammering about how un-scientific I was and how I lacked proof.

Guess what, you are on the wrong forum then. The entire point of this forum is to discuss the technical an measurable parameters of audio gear.

 

[DonH56]

I like this page and the reviews, and I think Amir is doing an excellent work. However, I think some of the conclusions drawn from measurements are wrong. Yes, measurements can be used to (partly) decide how well engineered an HiFi equipment is, but they cannot fully describe sound quality. Take soundstage (depth, width, precision, cohesion and more), no measurement I have seen can measure those.

We can measure those but it takes a little more work and analysis. Soundstage depends upon things like reflected sound and phase over frequency, which are fairly easily measured but rarely presented. For example, virtually all FFT (frequency response) plots show only magnitude, not phase, and are anechoic so do not show the reflections in your listening room. You can pick up a $100 measurement mic and downoad REW software (free) to explore for yourself. All sorts of things can be measured like frequency response magnitude and phase, time (impulse) response, waterfall plots showing reverberation and reflections in the room, etc.

I can take an example, from 2 DACs I have listened to myself, the Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital and the Schiit Yggdrasil. Looking at measurements the Pro-Ject DAC looks to sound better, but it does not. Not even close! The sound stage, clarity and detail retrieval from the Schiit is several steps ahead, as it should based on the price difference. And if you don't believe me, do yourself a favor and listen yourself.

Most if not all of us "measurbaters" have done much listening over decades of our lives (speaking for myself, anyway). And gone from being able to hear every atom in a speaker cable to realizing that under DBT or ABX testing most differences go away and the rest are readily explained by measurements. You must remember the datasheet specs are a tiny fraction of the measurements that can be and have been done. And all too often sound with lower distortion is not preferred but rather sound that has some added distortion that "fills in" the signals. Proved over and over again; the most recent example I can think of are the experiments showing listeners preferred a little added second-order distortion. Not accurate to the source, but preferred.

Then there is the issue of sound quality: what is it? Lots of people out there like tubes and R2R DACs, which measures horrible. In a way, you could say that they add "good" distortion, and while the ears can differentiate between good and bad distortion, measurements cannot.

Some do, some don't, and often "horrible" is relative. A DAC with 90 db SINAD may measure "horrible" compared to one with 120 dB but the difference is inaudible with most music and listeners. A counter example is the same two DACs may be compared and if the 90 dB DAC has a lower power supply spur or slightly lower hiss it may be preferred. A tube amp with high output impedance will change the frequency response at the output of a speaker and you may prefer the altered response. All well-known and quite measurable.

Btw, I have equipment that measures good myself (RME ADI-2 DAC and NCore 500 power amps), because I like how they sound. But there are better sounding DACs and amps out there, and some of those measure less good.

Preferences vary.

 

[Thomas savage]

Fabulous, night night darlings ..