FAQ Questions on Audio/ASR

[xaviescacs]

high fidelity

1. the production by electrical equipment of very good quality sound that is as…

dictionary.cambridge.org

the sound produced by electronic equipment of very good quality that plays recorded music very accurately

But DACs don't produce sound and yet they are said to provide more or less fidelity! Your dictionary doesn't seem to be aware of that...

 

[dweeeeb2]

I find the look of Wikis to be uninviting and cold. They would also look very different than the rest of the forum. But yes, I will think about it.

The hardest thing about the ASR forum is to find answers. There is 1000x the information required to satisfy any audio curiosity. Even after finding the correct thread means pages and pages of reading. I’ve often wondered if the initial thread creator could keep editing the initial post with info as the thread progresses. A wiki does seem a very good way to display all the incredible knowledge here.

 

[ahofer]

A lot of the answers exist in the forum. For instance, Amir has already covered dynamic range. It’s really a matter of refining and linking.

But the people who need it most never click through the links or use the search feature. Never.

 

[xaviescacs]

The hardest thing about the ASR forum is to find answers. There is 1000x the information required to satisfy any audio curiosity. Even after finding the correct thread means pages and pages of reading. I’ve often wondered if the initial thread creator could keep editing the initial post with info as the thread progresses. A wiki does seem a very good way to display all the incredible knowledge here.

This has been my thought since ever. However, it's clear that a Wiki is a major commitment and has its drawbacks. My idea was to have some of the experts to write the articles, which is the bulk of the work, so Amir could focus on structure and general guidelines. In fact Don has some articles that are true references, it's like extending his work and provide a structured index of topics.

A lot of the answers exist in the forum. For instance, Amir has already covered dynamic range. It’s really a matter of refining and linking.

But the people who need it most never click through the links or use the search feature. Never.

Yeah, but a lot of topics are defined/explained by other people, so they don't have the kind of seal of approval that an article in the wiki would, like saying: this is the official ASR answer to that question. Again, this is a major commitment.

It has the advantage however, in my opinion, of cementing the answers and definitions, and hence obliterating the need to write them ever again. So people would reference more and write less, which is better... right?

 

[Timcognito]

IMO, The ASR crowd is a mix professionals, hobbyists, enthusiasts, newbies, and want to be's. It's charter is testing and presenting device centric data in a consistent format. Many of the questions proposed in this tread are nuanced by the level of experience and sophistication of the poster. For an FAQ start with and stick close to the charter with many of the basic issues already covered in Amir's videos so I think the FAQ should take that same information and reiterate it in a question and and answer format. Many topics such as DSP have fewer experienced users and some very experienced practitioners and topics like that would the next level of FAQs. If one looks at the forum titles in the link above a logical breakdown of FAQs would fall from that tree. I guess I'm saying re-present science, exiting data, jargon and myths for the broadest number of people first in every desired category and add to that over time. Some topics are ignored by design such as UIs, software and multi-device system configuration, to name a few, where there is often a keen interest that is usually handled in the comments by purchasers of that gear or gear type and expertise, so again stay close to the ASR charter defined by Amir.

 

[Stoutblock]

The request I have is a bit complicated, hard to explain, and would be far from easy but I think it would be very useful. It is also something other sites don’t address well.

Component performance at certain price points is easy to determine based on your testing but what about system performance? Considering a system is only as good as its weakest link some may think buying a component that measures well will always improve their systems performance, when in fact, if its not improving the weakest link it is probably doing nothing? It would be a real shame if it’s an expensive component and the buyer probably should have spent the money elsewhere in their system to gain real measurable improvement.

I think the way to make this useful is to make a tiered reference grouping separated by cost thresholds. When I look at a review the first thing I notice is the price and if it is something unaffordable to me I may still read it out of curiosity but it’s not relevant to me as a consumer. What is unaffordable to me may be pocket change for another but even then is it smart money considering the price tier of their own system?

I would try to keep it simple (which is not easy) by just grouping basic stereo components like streamer > DAC > preamp > amp> speakers > sub but also with recommendations for cables and interconnects at each price tier (sic). I really don’t know the price levels or quantity of how many tiers would be useful? Maybe a budget level <$1K, modest <$5K, serious <$10, extreme <$20K and bonkers >$20K.

If it is something that proves popular you might expand it into HT system, headphone systems, vinyl systems etc?

IMHO opinion each tier level would pivot on the speaker price. I don’t think this is something that would have to be constantly updated but only if a specific component knocked out another at a price tier level. I also think there is nothing wrong to mention in your conclusion that a reader may want to consIder this component at a specific tier level even if you don’t think it bumps out a previous recommendation.

Of course these recommendations have some subjectivity, and you would not be actually measuring a complete system (although that would be nice) but they would be based objective performance/cost data.

I remember back in the late 60s and early 70s there was a mail order company that only sold stereo components. I can’t remember the name? Stereo superstore, or stereo warehouse or? It was certainly way ahead of its time. I remember it was very useful because they had complete system recommendations at different price points. I don’t think I have seen anything like this in modern times?

Anyway, you asked for it.

 

[Mikig]

A few questions inserted in the FAQ with already prepared answers could be enough: the links to the Amirm threads and to those called "master thread". only problem would be to choose which questions are the most interesting.
But only long-time users and the founder can say this. They have essentially grown the site to this day.

As far as I'm concerned, this "fundamentals" section should look more like a "Constitution" rather than a "Code", the risk is to make it excessively long and complicated.

 

[Chrispy]

TLDR but do wonder which ideas you will end up incorporating over and above what you started with as a result of this thread....

 

[Blumlein 88]

The request I have is a bit complicated, hard to explain, and would be far from easy but I think it would be very useful. It is also something other sites don’t address well.

Component performance at certain price points is easy to determine based on your testing but what about system performance? Considering a system is only as good as its weakest link some may think buying a component that measures well will always improve their systems performance, when in fact, if its not improving the weakest link it is probably doing nothing? It would be a real shame if it’s an expensive component and the buyer probably should have spent the money elsewhere in their system to gain real measurable improvement.

I think the way to make this useful is to make a tiered reference grouping separated by cost thresholds. When I look at a review the first thing I notice is the price and if it is something unaffordable to me I may still read it out of curiosity but it’s not relevant to me as a consumer. What is unaffordable to me may be pocket change for another but even then is it smart money considering the price tier of their own system?

I would try to keep it simple (which is not easy) by just grouping basic stereo components like streamer > DAC > preamp > amp> speakers > sub but also with recommendations for cables and interconnects at each price tier (sic). I really don’t know the price levels or quantity of how many tiers would be useful? Maybe a budget level <$1K, modest <$5K, serious <$10, extreme <$20K and bonkers >$20K.

If it is something that proves popular you might expand it into HT system, headphone systems, vinyl systems etc?

IMHO opinion each tier level would pivot on the speaker price. I don’t think this is something that would have to be constantly updated but only if a specific component knocked out another at a price tier level. I also think there is nothing wrong to mention in your conclusion that a reader may want to consIder this component at a specific tier level even if you don’t think it bumps out a previous recommendation.

Of course these recommendations have some subjectivity, and you would not be actually measuring a complete system (although that would be nice) but they would be based objective performance/cost data.

I remember back in the late 60s and early 70s there was a mail order company that only sold stereo components. I can’t remember the name? Stereo superstore, or stereo warehouse or? It was certainly way ahead of its time. I remember it was very useful because they had complete system recommendations at different price points. I don’t think I have seen anything like this in modern times?

Anyway, you asked for it.

Amir said just suggestions not arguing. So I hope I am not out of line. And I've no intent to argue. Only an observation to your idea.

You correctly point out it pivots on speakers. After that it would pivot on mostly desired features. You really wouldn't need tiers other than speakers. Everyone can figure out what features or appearance or whatever they wish to spend money upon. Maybe a short bit about this fact, that even with the best speakers costing 5 figures, very inexpensive gear won't compromise the result. $50 k speakers with $1000 for everything else would be just fine. Certainly little reason to go beyond $2000 for everything else other than features and coolness factors. This alone might raise some eyebrows and quickly get the point across regarding what this site is about.

 

[Chrispy]

TLDR but do wonder which ideas you will end up incorporating over and above what you started with as a result of this thread....

 

[Chrispy]

TLDR but do wonder which ideas you will end up incorporating over and above what you started with as a result of this thread....

 

[janbth]

What is the Klippel NFS (Near Field Scanner)?

 

[Rja4000]

Do cable matter ?
How could jitter affect sound (or not) ?
Does phase alignment/shift matter ?
Isn't HiFi about equipment matching ? And how could possibly measurements help with that?
Isn't EQ or Bass/Trebble control killing audio quality ?
How to know if this amp will work well with those speakers in my room (without listening) ?
Why don't you listen to ... (pick your choice: DACs, speaker amps, cables, network switches,...) ?
Why are you listening to speakers in mono ?
What are the (scientifically documented) levels we can distinguishly hear for THD, IMD, Frequency response variation, Jitter, Noise, ... ?
And why do you target better value in your measurements than that ?
How much power do I need ?
...

 

[Rja4000]

I think the wiki is a good idea too vs just an FAQ.

Possibly.
But the amount of work to keep it on track may be quite different.
You may benefit initially from more contributors creating content. But you'll then have to discuss, negotiate, arbitrate, monitor,...
A FAQ, even if writing load is shared and discussion on draft(s) is open (and it should be) would be more manageable, I think.
But I may be wrong.

 

[Stoutblock]

Amir said just suggestions not arguing. So I hope I am not out of line. And I've no intent to argue. Only an observation to your idea.

You correctly point out it pivots on speakers. After that it would pivot on mostly desired features. You really wouldn't need tiers other than speakers. Everyone can figure out what features or appearance or whatever they wish to spend money upon. Maybe a short bit about this fact, that even with the best speakers costing 5 figures, very inexpensive gear won't compromise the result. $50 k speakers with $1000 for everything else would be just fine. Certainly little reason to go beyond $2000 for everything else other than features and coolness factors. This alone might raise some eyebrows and quickly get the point across regarding what this site is about.

Good point. Once you have your speakers and an amp capable of driving them to their potential, the other components are mostly in their shadow.

 

[kemmler3D]

Which Dac / amp / speaker / headphone should I buy?

Where to place my speakers in my room?

What should I upgrade in my system?

What sort of room treatment do I need?

Why are ____ considered better than _____ ?

 

[bluefuzz]

A lot of those aren't questions.

No, but they are fallacies or issues that seem to come up in various guises pretty often here on ASR (at least in the bits I notice). Of course they are all basically variations on the question 'what is science?', 'how does science work?' or 'how do we know what we know?' etc. But this is probably not the place for deeper forays into the epistemological undergrowth ...

And how frequently are they in fact asked here?

So I asked ChatGPT 'What are the 10 most frequently asked questions on audiosciencereview.com?':

As of my last update in January 2022, I can't access real-time data or specific websites like audiosciencereview.com to provide the current top 10 most frequently asked questions. However, I can give you a list of common questions that might be frequently asked on such a website based on typical interests in audio science:

1. What is the frequency response of [specific audio device]?
2. How does [audio device] perform in terms of distortion?
3. Can you explain the significance of signal-to-noise ratio in audio equipment?
4. What are the differences between various audio file formats like FLAC, WAV, MP3, etc.?
5. How does jitter affect audio quality?
6. What is the importance of DAC (Digital-to-Analog Converter) in audio systems?
7. How to interpret THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) measurements?
8. What are the best practices for speaker placement in a room?
9. Is there a difference in audio quality between expensive and budget audio cables?
10. How can I improve the sound quality of my audio system without spending a lot of money?

A wiki, perhaps, like @Keith_W mentioned here.

Yes, a wiki is probably the best way organize both a FAQ and a more extended collection of esoteric ASR wisdom and lore. The Grimoire of ASR ... ;-)

 

[solderdude]

When all the questions/remarks are assembled in one post it will:

A: be a very long post as there are hundreds of questions/remarks possible
B: there will still be questions (and links to answers) missing. I hate it when I stumble on a FAQ and my questions are not in there or the offered explanations do not answer my question.
C: sometimes not all explanations may apply in all situations so different answers to a single question may be possible depending on circumstances.
D: The field of audio is way too 'broad' and conditions that are present where 'music reproduction' is required and goals for that differ too much might make it impossible to condens it all in a small (linkable) way.
E: It is often impossible to change the mind of people that already 'know' their answer, even when presented with facts as they aren't their facts.


I think it should be sticky, easy to find and no replies should be possible.

 

[bluefuzz]

I find the look of Wikis to be uninviting and cold.

A wiki need not look like a 'wiki'. A wiki is in principle just an HTML page that can be styled however you like. Most 'wikis' simply use the default formatting of the underlying wiki-software. There are many variants and similar systems available that may be more amenable to styling ...

 

[BInaural_Ears]

This seems to become quiet an effort.

Towards ASR

- What is (the mission of) ASR?
- Who is behind ASR / pays for it?
- How to become a member
- Rules to follow
- Equipment, measurement, metrices used in reviews

Some ideas towards audio science

- Which steps are involved in music production and reproduction (from composer to recipient)?
- How does the human hearing work?
- How does (stereo) music reproduction work?
- Where does taste come into play?
- Which vocabulary is used to describe the sound of a system?
- What would be an ideal system and how do I come close?