I'm amazed that I can't find a thread discussing this

[Ron Texas]

He suggests that the limits of human audibility are THD+N of -115 dB and SNR of 108-114 dB. I’m sure he’s right - the limits of human hearing are well-documented.

But the A500 falls some distance short. So what we’re into is the gap between the theoretical limits of human hearing (presumably listening to distortion of a sine wave on a pair of headphones - probably closed back, so no other sounds) and the real-world limits when listening to music.

When I read Amir’s reviews, I’ve always focussed on those figures for DACs amps. But I’d like to see more focus on real-world limits, as well as theoretical ones.

The limits of human hearing are likely for young people. In a normal listening environment there is a bunch of noise. Usually we don't notice it. One erudite member of this forum did some research and came up with a SINAD of 72 dB (12 bits) as being inaudible for most people and 78 dB (13 bits) for a few. Speakers have far more distortion than most modern amplifiers. What you really have to watch out for is noise. That's why there are complaints about hiss from inexpensive powered monitors when used near field. In a teardown on this forum the amp chip in a sought after active speaker was found to be in the 75 to 80 dB range. Many here chase after these active speakers as they have high measured preference scores forgetting a passive speaker with good dispersion can have its preference score boosted with a little EQ. Try to enjoy the music without going nuts over the numbers. Try EQ before buying new speakers. Don't worry about your electronics. There's probably nothing wrong with it.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

what we can extrapolate from it is that you have to work pretty damn hard to make really notable audible differences with equipment other than speakers. You aren't going to do it by buying more expensive speaker wiring or a boutique usb cable.

Yup. That’s me, too.

A good example of real world vs ‘lab conditions’ here c.17:00-20:30.

Audio Blind Tests and Listener Training (video)

I see so many people claiming to have done blind tests in youtube videos recently without knowing what it means to perform one. Also, the topic of training comes up with many abusing the term. So I decided on a whim to create a video on it. It is rather long at 44 minutes but you can speed it...

audiosciencereview.com

So Amir ABX tests 16 v 24 bit (so that’s 96 vs 144 dB). He passes the test, but only by using a trick. Listen to the very end of a fade out with the volume cranked up - again, this is on IEMs, so good sound isolation.

So on the one hand, that’s evidence of human hearing being better than 16 bits. But on the other, only in circumstances you’ll never find in real-world listening.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Yup. That’s me, too.

A good example of real world vs ‘lab conditions’ here c.17:00-20:30.

Audio Blind Tests and Listener Training (video)

I see so many people claiming to have done blind tests in youtube videos recently without knowing what it means to perform one. Also, the topic of training comes up with many abusing the term. So I decided on a whim to create a video on it. It is rather long at 44 minutes but you can speed it...

audiosciencereview.com

So Amir ABX tests 16 v 24 bit (so that’s 96 vs 144 dB). He passes the test, but only by using a trick. Listen to the very end of a fade out with the volume cranked up - again, this is on IEMs, so good sound isolation.

So on the one hand, that’s evidence of human hearing being better than 16 bits. But on the other, only in circumstances you’ll never find in real-world listening.

exactly. By no means should anyone see the fact that Amir, a person who's been trained to note very particular artifacts, can under carefully-controlled conditions identify something like that as proof that they themselves can identify the same thing while they are listening to their car stereo sitting at a train crossing with the windows down as a mile long freight train passes in front of them. lol...

 

[DVDdoug]

In the analog days we would have killed for 60dB SINAD. By the end of the analog era, certainly studios could beat that but records & cassettes weren't that good. I'd be happy with 60dB now... but we can do better.

I'm all-in for blind listening tests. But they are not easy and they are time consuming (they have to be repeated to get statistically valid results). There are other weaknesses too but sighted tests have all of the same weaknesses, and more. I can't think of anything that makes a sighted test better (more valid). ("Audiophiles" will sometimes give their reasons, or make excuses, but blind is never worse and often much better.)

I'll ignore any sighted test/review where they use "audiophile nonsense", like "a veil was lifted", or the speaker is "musical". If they say something more specific or "scientific", like "the bass was weak", or "there was a buzz", or "there was no sound from the left channel", I'd be inclined to believe them. Even better if they can back-up their claims/observations with measurements.

Our host, Amir, takes the opposite approach... Taking measurements first and then backing them up, or "following-up" with a listening test.

...On the HydrogenAudio forum, I once asked Arnold B. Krueger (RIP), one if the "inventors" of the ABX Test or ABX box, if he expected as much push-back from the audiophile community. He was not surprised. To me the whole idea seems perfectly logical.

 

[sergeauckland]

It might be a good place to repost this:-

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

As I said then, I've not seen anything to change my mind.

S.

 

[TurtlePaul]

I agree that it is easy to "round up" the audibility of SINAD when choosing electronic components. Personally, with music or video material, and in my real world living room, I think that 80 dB THD and 100 dB SNR is more than enough to reach transparency in my system.

 

[WillBrink]

It was a good read for me that came to expected findings. I was curious about the ATC SCM 12. I have had 11's and 19s, never heard of the 12. Looks like an older model. We all know if you post such an article on various forums, they will find some reason to deny those findings.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

My apologies, there is one area that really got me thinking, and it’s not been mentioned. And I think it’s more important than all the discussion about whether they should have been able to tell the difference. To quote from the end of the article:

Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?

The difference in price between the two systems. Let’s say you didn’t have the speakers yet. And you could buy the expensive front end and amp, but you’d only have enough left for a pair of £150 bookshelf speakers. Or you could buy the cheaper set up, but you’d have enough for the ATCs. Let’s say that’s it, and it’ll be a few years (if ever) that you get enough spare cash to upgrade anything in either system.

Would anyone go for the more expensive front end? In all honesty?

It’s not really a question of whether there’s a chance they got it wrong, and missed some small but subtle difference. For it to be worthwhile buying the more expensive amp (etc.), by definition the difference would need to be at least as great as the difference between the bookshelf speakers and the ATCs.

And if they couldn’t hear any difference here, then if there is a difference they’ve missed, it’s tiny, and would probably disappear in a system costing half way (or less) between the two.

It’s not whether there’s a difference. It’s a question of what’s the absolute maximum that difference might potentially be, and is the money worth such a small difference.

 

[voodooless]

The difference in price between the two systems. Let’s say you didn’t have the speakers yet. And you could buy the expensive front end and amp, but you’d only have enough left for a pair of £150 bookshelf speakers. Or you could buy the cheaper set up, but you’d have enough for the ATCs. Let’s say that’s it, and it’ll be a few years (if ever) that you get enough spare cash to upgrade anything in either system.

Would anyone go for the more expensive front end? In all honesty?

Yes, plenty of people would do this, even though common sense logic would dictate that money is best spent on speakers by a very wide margin. Blame (the media arm of) the industry for making people ignore that fact.

It’s not really a question of whether there’s a chance they got it wrong, and missed some small but subtle difference. For it to be worthwhile buying the more expensive amp (etc.), by definition the difference would need to be at least as great as the difference between the bookshelf speakers and the ATCs.

And if they couldn’t hear any difference here, then if there is a difference they’ve missed, it’s tiny, and would probably disappear in a system costing half way (or less) between the two.

It’s not whether there’s a difference. It’s a question of what’s the absolute maximum that difference might potentially be, and is the money worth such a small difference.

Stop equating the price with performance. With electronics, there is very little correlation between audio performance and price. With a speaker, the correlation is much better, or at least, more money gives you more potential to get a good product.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Yes, plenty of people would do this, even though common sense logic would dictate that money is best spent on speakers by a very wise margin. Blame (the media arm of the) industry for making people ignore that fact.


Stop equating the price with performance. With electronics, there is very little correlation between audio performance and price. With a speaker, the correlation is much better, or at least, more money gives you more potential to get a good product.

I wasn’t really correlating. More commenting on those who do.

But yes, point absolutely taken.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This kind of thinking starts with the idea if your source is less than SOTA it compromises everything after it. So the most important components are the ones that are sources. They'll be the bottle neck to ultimate quality. Then of course if on the way to the speakers you corrupt the source then you've wasted your money on great speakers. Thought about this way, having it hammered on this way by magazines and websites it doesn't sound foolish. In fact with turntables there was even a little bit of truth in it. Back when a TT was the source for most people's music.

Now the big take home is transducers are nowhere near perfect fidelity which includes TTs, tape heads, microphones and speakers/phones. Everything else is if not perfect much closer to perfection. Speakers are the worst transducers of the lot. They make the most difference obviously.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

This kind of thinking starts with the idea if your source is less than SOTA it compromises everything after it. So the most important components are the ones that are sources. They'll be the bottle neck to ultimate quality. Then of course if on the way to the speakers you corrupt the source then you've wasted your money on great speakers. Thought about this way, having it hammered on this way by magazines and websites it doesn't sound foolish. In fact with turntables there was even a little bit of truth in it. Back when a TT was the source for most people's music.

Now the big take home is transducers are nowhere near perfect fidelity which includes TTs, tape heads, microphones and speakers/phones. Everything else is if not perfect much closer to perfection. Speakers are the worst transducers of the lot. They make the most difference obviously.

I’ve thought about your first point long and hard; I remember it being explained to me that each step in the chain (turntable, amp, speakers) is like a bucket which might leak water before being poured to the next; no matter how leak-free the latter, you’ll never get back what was lost in the former.

Very true. But frankly, so is this. It doesn’t matter how efficient at holding water the former is, if the latter leaks 90% of it, you’re also wasting your time.

The logical approach is to lose as little as possible, start to finish. And spend your budget on leak prevention wherever it occurs, as efficiently as possible.

Frankly, you lose less in audible ‘water’ in your DAC and amp then speakers. Spending hundreds more than necessary to leak only 0.5cl in your DAC instead of 0.55cl is ridiculous when spending the same amount on speakers would save many more cl at that stage.

And when an £80 DAC is transparent and loses 0cl, then spending £800 more on a ‘better performing’ DAC which also loses 0% (of audible) and limiting yourself to £200 on speakers instead of £1,000 is nonsense upon stilts.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Didn't you say you had a Denon M41? For passive speakers that could be endgame for small rooms. The way to have a noticeable upgrade from your current system is to move from passive speakers to active speakers with active crossovers.

 

[ahofer]

I've been meaning to post on this for quite a while. The only (very brief) discussion I can see on it is in the thread on @amirm's review of the Behringer A500.

Ripe for discussion at a forum like this.

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

www.matrixhifi.com

I have personally linked that test in here a dozen times or so. Certainly in my Catalogue of Blind Tests, but a couple of times in the dump threads (DAC sound signatures and measurements)

 

[Talisman]

This kind of thinking starts with the idea if your source is less than SOTA it compromises everything after it. So the most important components are the ones that are sources. They'll be the bottle neck to ultimate quality. Then of course if on the way to the speakers you corrupt the source then you've wasted your money on great speakers. Thought about this way, having it hammered on this way by magazines and websites it doesn't sound foolish. In fact with turntables there was even a little bit of truth in it. Back when a TT was the source for most people's music.

Now the big take home is transducers are nowhere near perfect fidelity which includes TTs, tape heads, microphones and speakers/phones. Everything else is if not perfect much closer to perfection. Speakers are the worst transducers of the lot. They make the most difference obviously.

An old audiophile legend handed down from father to son and which I have always struggled to tolerate.
In the most extreme case, a Bluetooth receiver with its analog output and used with the sbc protocol, which sends its poor signal to a pair of Genelec 8361A https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/genelec-8361a-review-powered-monitor.28039/
will sound orders of magnitude better than a wonderful flac file sent in bit perfect and converted by the best dac possible to a pair of JBLs like these
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...l-4312m-ii-3-way-studio-monitor-review.51226/

 

[ahofer]

Well, that's me being stupid not searching the actual URL - many thanks.

Funnily enough, whilst I've looked at most of those results and found mention of the Matrix HiFi test, I didn't see much discussion per se. Sometimes it's one post with no reply, or just the odd one or two replies.

Thanks again for taking the time to look it up.

The people who need convincing have no interest in discussing it.

 

[pinger]

As we know other than speakers ALL audio components for all practical purposes sound the same. They should be purchased on features, build quality, aesthetics, size, resale value etc. Thats it. Its Science. The rest is $cience

 

[Palladium]

In the same world, we have developers ABX testing every possible killer sample to tune codecs to the point that 192kbps opus is completely transparent, and on the other golden ears who can somehow hear the crystal structure of their speaker cables.

 

[RayDunzl]

I've been meaning to post on this for quite a while.

It's at least 15 years old now...

 

[kemmler3D]

spend your budget on leak prevention wherever it occurs, as efficiently as possible.

If taken literally, this is great advice.

The problem is it's hard to compare the importance of improving frequency response, noise, and distortion. I am not aware of any single quality metric that accounts for audibility of each source of distortion.

If my amp budget goes up by $2000 then I should be able to improve distortion by at least 20dB or so. If not, you're overspending IMO.

If my speaker budget goes up by $2000, then I may be able to expect a similar improvement in distortion. But I'll also get improvements in axial frequency response, phase response, and directivity. What's a better use of $2K?