How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

[beefkabob]

100% agree.

The ASR community seems to have drifted into "measurement fetishism", focusing on inaudible SINAD differences, in a way that isn't really supported by psychoacoustic science's understanding of listening thresholds.

Which is not particularly scientific, really.

Oh, ASR, how ironic you have become.

Which is why I've lobbied for an "audibility threshold" line on the SINAD graph, but nobody else seems to like the idea.

Maybe because people don't want to recognize it / hear that story, similar to @Blumlein 88 greyhound better example. Don't bust the narrative.

BS. There's no fetishism when companies are shipping shit and charging 6 grand for it.

If you're a golden ear, -116db in the worst of situations. Probably not even close to that for 99% of us in the worst of situations. What's so hard about that? Shall I come to your house with a ruler and a magic marker?

 

[digicidal]

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about insurance. My financial adviser had a client who didn't bother with a personal all hazard umbrella policy, $200 or so a year for $4M coverage. During one of our NorEasters his wife backed out of their driveway over one of their neighbors crippling her for life. The first court action in discovery was to tabulate their entire assets.

There is a fairly large distinction between liability, indemnity, etc. (catastrophic insurance) - and whole life, extended warranties, "purchase" insurance, etc. Sure there are some known fraudulent side-products in the first group... but they are about as common as non-fraudulent versions of the second one. There's a huge difference between carrying coverage on your house, car, or person in case of accidents, disasters, etc. and paying $100+ to get one extra year on the manufacturer warranty on a $500 appliance.

Just like annuities... they can make sense in a few cases - but that doesn't mean the bulk of them aren't simply fraudulent commission-based sales which actually consume wealth rather than create or secure it.

 

[scott wurcer]

There is a fairly large distinction between liability, indemnity, etc. (catastrophic insurance) - and whole life, extended warranties, "purchase" insurance, etc. Sure there are some known fraudulent side-products in the first group... but they are about as common as non-fraudulent versions of the second one. There's a huge difference between carrying coverage on your house, car, or person in case of accidents, disasters, etc. and paying $100+ to get one extra year on the manufacturer warranty on a $500 appliance.

Just like annuities... they can make sense in a few cases - but that doesn't mean the bulk of them aren't simply fraudulent commission-based sales which actually consume wealth rather than create or secure it.

This conversation is an OT sideshow, folks can make their own informed decisions.

 

[watchnerd]

BS. There's no fetishism when companies are shipping shit and charging 6 grand for it.

If you're a golden ear, -116db in the worst of situations. Probably not even close to that for 99% of us in the worst of situations. What's so hard about that? Shall I come to your house with a ruler and a magic marker?

I honestly can't parse what you're getting at.

Are you saying you can hear differences in performance at -116 dB?

 

[digicidal]

This conversation is an OT sideshow, folks can make their own informed decisions.

Isn't the very topic of discussion the idea that the majority actually don't/won't? At least, no more so than they do with various forms of audio snake-oil...

 

[digicidal]

I honestly can't parse what you're getting at.

Are you saying you can hear differences in performance at -116 dB?

I think he's saying that it would be impossible at that point for anyone... so beyond that is a useless metric. Personally I'd put the line above that... but I'm a "16/44.1 is enough" kind of guy so my opinion is irrelevant.

 

[nscrivener]

100% agree.

The ASR community seems to have drifted into "measurement fetishism", focusing on inaudible SINAD differences, in a way that isn't really supported by psychoacoustic science's understanding of listening thresholds.

Which is not particularly scientific, really.

Oh, ASR, how ironic you have become.

Which is why I've lobbied for an "audibility threshold" line on the SINAD graph, but nobody else seems to like the idea.

Maybe because people don't want to recognize it / hear that story, similar to @Blumlein 88 greyhound better example. Don't bust the narrative.

What's the point of putting an "audibility threshold" line on the SINAD graph, when Amir's measurement is only a snapshot of the total picture? THD+N frequently varies across frequencies and the graph is just showing the figure at 1khz. Noise is generally thought to be more benevolent than distortion.

Which is why Amir frequently repeats that SINAD is not everything, but good SINAD measurements tend to be a good sign of overall good engineering, and therefore more likely to sound good. It's only a proxy; putting a line on the graph as you suggest would only be misleading.

 

[watchnerd]

I think he's saying that it would be impossible at that point for anyone... so beyond that is a useless metric. Personally I'd put the line above that... but I'm a "16/44.1 is enough" kind of guy so my opinion is irrelevant.

16 bit / -96 dB is probably easy to justify just based on the CD standard alone.

Heck, round it up to -100 dB if people like triple digits better.

 

[digicidal]

Especially since it's then a "commitment" of sorts. If you distill the data down to a simple "five-star format" - how is that much different than simply going off a subjective reviewer's recommendation? Referring back to the OP - if high fidelity isn't the market's desire (just our subset of it) - then only the very worst offenders will be anything other than a joy to listen to. As long as SINAD is the only significant problem, and it's still better than -75dB(ish)... the average consumer wouldn't notice at all.

 

[watchnerd]

What's the point of putting an "audibility threshold" line on the SINAD graph, when Amir's measurement is only a snapshot of the total picture? THD+N frequently varies across frequencies and the graph is just showing the figure at 1khz. Noise is generally thought to be more benevolent than distortion.

Which is why Amir frequently repeats that SINAD is not everything, but good SINAD measurements tend to be a good sign of overall good engineering, and therefore more likely to sound good. It's only a proxy; putting a line on the graph as you suggest would only be misleading.

My anecdotal observation is that a significant number of (in many cases more recent) members don't know all the caveats or pay attention.

They just seem to look at the rankings chart.

BTW, this is not helped when Amir himself makes big accolades when we get a new SINAD king.

 

[watchnerd]

As long as SINAD is the only significant problem, and it's still better than -75dB(ish)...

Sorry, but the color commentary on ASR reviews does not reinforce this at all.

Manufacturers are sometimes chastised for less than stellar performance, even if the commentary sheepishly admits it's probably not audible. But they still get slapped for being less than perfect engineers.

Witness the recent Minidsp SHD review:

"Oh, no! Why did you do this to us miniDSP? You were doing so well and then hand us this graph which indicates a ton if interference from rest of the unit (DSP?) causing the myriad of noise and jitter spikes.

Fortunately the highest level is below -120 dB so not an audible concern. But what a way to ruin great response of this DAC."

"Ruin a great response" for something that isn't even audible....

That, to me, is measurement fetishism.

Measurements are great, and thank goodness ASR is doing so much, but I think it's starting to take over the narrative, and not in a way that is particularly intelligent, nor science oriented.

 

[JJB70]

I agree with Watchnerd on this, I do think that there is a risk of becoming fixated on measurement to the point where it almost becomes another form of subjectivism. To me the objective of amplifiers and DACs should be audible transparency, once you reach transparency then going further and further to improve measured performance is an interesting technical exercise for a design engineer but pointless in terms of audible performance. I think that provided that an amplifier is correctly specified for the intended load then it is more difficult to find a bad amplifier than one that just does its job of amplifying the input. I suspect most consumers are much more interested in build quality, industrial design, functionality, brand perception and price than going to extreme measured performance values. I would actually question whether it is even good engineering to go to such lengths as why continue developing a design beyond the point of audibly differing performance? In my own field of engineering I would be allowed to do such optimisation if it was at zero additional cost, I would not get away with it if it cost more.

I think that the if you want great sound then the most important thing is to get good recordings, then get good speakers (or headphones) then set them up well. Do that and you pretty much just need to to check that the amplifier is appropriately specified to drive the speakers at your desired listening level. Which is not to say that I wouldn't pay for good build quality and industrial design etc.

 

[digicidal]

That's a good example... and I agree with you. It's definitely a very exaggerated statement, and poorly worded at best - but I took it for what it is (I think) - a comparatively poor showing relative to the superlative results everywhere else.

To most the entire audio-enthusiast community is largely fetishistic... whether subjective or objective. If the gear is of even nominal importance... you're already a freak in the eyes of the average consumer.

 

[BillG]

"Ruin a great response" for something that isn't even audible....

That, to me, is measurement fetishism.

Those are engineering targets Amir is addressing I'd assume, and as an engineer myself (software) I see nothing wrong with emphasizing them.

As a consumer I'm always on the look out for the best performance my chosen budget will allow for. Yeah, I'm well aware that at a certain point I won't be able to hear the difference, but it's very satisfying and reassuring to know that I've gotten the best I could buy...

 

[watchnerd]

I do think that there is a risk of becoming fixated on measurement to the point where it almost becomes another form of subjectivism.

Well...

Yeah, I'm well aware that at a certain point I won't be able to hear the difference, but it's very satisfying and reassuring to know that I've gotten the best I could buy...

QED?

At least if we put an audibility line on the SINAD graph those who aren't so educated on the matter will know where that "certain point" is and can make an informed decision.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Sighted listening "tests" combined with decades of writing by guys who knew a thing or two about persuasive writing has created it's own reality.

Couldn't agree more. One of these own reality being:

It sounds better than products costing three times as much!

And there you go. The product costing three times as much is, of course, never mentioned. And once a product costing three times as much is reviewed: It is also better than products costing three times as much... And so on...

That works for anything: Cables, DAC, Amps, Speakers, Headphones etc.

 

[beefkabob]

I honestly can't parse what you're getting at.

Are you saying you can hear differences in performance at -116 dB?

I can't. My understanding is that, maybe, a few trained listeners can hear specific differences in that range, so that's the worst case scenario.

The reason, as Amir has stated countless times, is that if it's SINAD and other measurements are great even beyond audibility, then the product is finely engineered. Hence it probably is superior sounding. And his experience, at least, proves that true.

 

[BillG]

QED?

At least if we put an audibility line on the SINAD graph those who aren't so educated on the matter will know where that "certain point" is and can make an informed decision.

I don't believe that I'm fetishisizing measurements, though...

As for that certain point, from a post here regarding thresholds:

 

[KozmoNaut]

measurement fetishism.

I agree, there is too much focus (mostly from the peanut gallery) on SINAD, sometimes seeming to elevate it to the only metric worth considering when choosing a DAC or amp. As a technical exercise and show of engineering skill, it's certainly impressive what can be squeezed out of modern DAC designs, but beyond a certain (easily achievable) point, it's completely superfluous for listening to music.

I agree that there should be a line at 96dB on the scale, to mark the limits of 16-bit audio, which is what matters most.

 

[Fluffy]

I think he's saying that it would be impossible at that point for anyone... so beyond that is a useless metric. Personally I'd put the line above that... but I'm a "16/44.1 is enough" kind of guy so my opinion is irrelevant.

16/44.1 people assemble! I also don't see (and hear) any point to higher resolution than this.

I agree with the notion that putting a clear audibility threshold in the measurements is a good sanity check when reading a review. Also the post regarding thresholds quoted by @BillG should be constantly in the back of our minds.

I think there is nothing wrong with chasing engineering perfection, even passed the point of audible diminishing returns. Just as there is no wrong in buying expansive gear for the bling. As long as you are aware of what you are actually looking for, and finding the thing that is most cost effective given your means, everyone should buy whatever the like. I think @amirm is doing a good job reviewing products based on their engineering competency, whilst constantly reminding us that not everything is audible, so we shouldn't concern ourselves with tiny nuances.