Is Audio Science Review going about it all wrong? Or partly wrong? Or all right?

[watchnerd]

His view is that listening to music through stereo equipment is an emotional experience and 'accuracy' is a goal not worth pursuing and measurements are largely pointless because they will never reflect the users experience of listening to music through his equipment.
There are quite a few 'audiophiles' who adopt this reasoning.

I don't think this is necessarily bad or a philosophical issue as long as one is intellectually honest that enjoyment doesn't mean technically superior.

I like listening to my LPs. It's fun. But to claim it's technically superior to my digital front end is just counterfactual nonsense.

 

[watchnerd]

It can make what better? I know of severe distortion added to guitar amps and such but no case of music being done and then in mastering dialing in more distortion to make it sound better.

Actually, at the mixing level, it's fairly common these days using a bunch of digital plugins that emulate old analog gear, whether tape saturation, tube based compressors, or a whole host of other stuff.

Jack White uses such techniques fairly frequently, and there is a bit of it used on Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories" (although most of that analog distortion is from genuine vintage instruments).

 

[watchnerd]

There are lots of special microphone preamps (or so called channel strips) just for the purpose of making voices sounding better/more musical/richer/whatever.

Case in point with a dial that adjusts tube vs solid state:

 

[Daverz]

I love Bryston gear. I had the pleasure to test one when I was assembling my system. That is some seriously good stuff.
Sadly it is to expensive for me.

Yeah, I got the 3B-SST used from Audiogon. I think the SST2 series was out by then. I did have to send it in for service once (under warranty), which was a very easy process and turnaround was quick. I think it still has a few years left on the warranty.

Oh, I also have a Bryston B-60 integrated. The only problem with it is that it would hum whenever my HVAC kicked in, I assume because the smaller power supply couldn't handle the momentary drop in voltage.

 

[BillG]

Actually, at the mixing level, it's fairly common these days using a bunch of digital plugins that emulate old analog gear, whether tape saturation, tube based compressors, or a whole host of other stuff.

Jack White uses such techniques fairly frequently, and there is a bit of it used on Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories" (although most of that analog distortion is from genuine vintage instruments).

IZotope made a analog simulation DSP plugin for Winamp that was quite popular during its prime - I actually still use it to this very day with MusicBee:

https://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Ozone-for-Winamp-2-33163.shtml

Some of the features were later incorporated into their professional mastering suite software:

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/master-and-deliver/ozone.html

 

[MrGoodbits]

Could you give some more detail on the DBTs you ran involving the Conrad Johnson amps?
(I use CJ tube amps myself, so I'm curious).

This was many years ago. I wouldn't want to use my experience to draw any conclusions about current CJ components. That said, the CJ test I do remember was in a friend's home system. Another friend brought in a CJ tubed integrated, and the three of us DBT'ed it against a Sansui AU-717 integrated. The CJ had a little more hiss when nothing was playing, and a barely audible HF rolloff that we attributed to the tubes probably being old, but that was just a guess. We could not tell the rolloff in normal listening (which was interesting in itself, a case where DBT revealed a difference we would not otherwise have been aware of). We assumed the Sansui to have the correct HF response because we had already tested it against several other components that all sounded the same in DBT. When we tested in the stores I don't remember if we ever listened for hiss.

The CJ integrated looked kind of like their old PV9a preamp which is the closest looking thing I can find, but maybe back then CJ had an integrated in the same styling? It might have been a stacked preamp and amp, and in my memory it's run together into an integrated.

 

[Blumlein 88]

CAV 50 I think it's the only CJ integrated tube unit.

 

[amirm]

Actually, at the mixing level, it's fairly common these days using a bunch of digital plugins that emulate old analog gear, whether tape saturation, tube based compressors, or a whole host of other stuff.

I am familiar with all that but none are pure harmonic distortion generators. And at small levels that occur in audio electronics.

 

[watchnerd]

I am familiar with all that but none are pure harmonic distortion generators. And at small levels that occur in audio electronics.

I don't understand the distinction you're making.

In my mind, a digital filter or physical HW piece that intentionally introduces 2nd or 3rd order harmonic distortion is an effects box, with the effect being mild distortion.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am familiar with all that but none are pure harmonic distortion generators. And at small levels that occur in audio electronics.

So what about a tape emulator?

https://theproaudiofiles.com/tape-machine-plugins/

 

[Blumlein 88]

Now in regards to really noticeable distortion, check out youtube. Look at some old movie clips from the 1950's or earlier. Many of those have audible distortion, despite all tube pathways, you'll hear treble with a shredding sound, and voice with some motorboating or other wrong modulation.

from the early 1930's.

from the early 1940's

from the early 1950's.

 

[LTig]

Case in point with a dial that adjusts tube vs solid state:

And this thing costs 800 € for just one channel!

 

[Shadrach]

I don't think this is necessarily bad or a philosophical issue as long as one is intellectually honest that enjoyment doesn't mean technically superior.

I like listening to my LPs. It's fun. But to claim it's technically superior to my digital front end is just counterfactual nonsense.

I don't think its bad either. It's not my view but I find it easier to accept than many others.

 

[RhubarbXIV]

Actually, at the mixing level, it's fairly common these days using a bunch of digital plugins that emulate old analog gear, whether tape saturation, tube based compressors, or a whole host of other stuff.

Jack White uses such techniques fairly frequently, and there is a bit of it used on Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories" (although most of that analog distortion is from genuine vintage instruments).

As an avid DIY-er having dsp -> hypex amps -> linkwitz Lx521, I sometimes think there oughtta be a law against this. Whenever I hear something clipping/distorting/hissing, my first thought is never "oh, cool, a vintage feel," my neuroticism always makes me worry a speaker is breaking up/a cap is about to go/I'm getting EMI from somewhere/something is wrong. I have to stop whatever I'm doing and double-check it's supposed to be like that through my reference headphone setup before I can relax. So many modern pop recordings are clipping or distorting heavily on some channel pre-mixdown, it really makes me wonder what the engineer was going for. A recent Sia recording comes to mind- can't remember which one.

Am I the only one who fears audio component apocalypse when he hears signs of distortion/clipping/etc? Thankfully, I've only ever been right once- it was the night after a guest almost put their elbow through a midrange driver.

 

[amirm]

I don't understand the distinction you're making.

In my mind, a digital filter or physical HW piece that intentionally introduces 2nd or 3rd order harmonic distortion is an effects box, with the effect being mild distortion.

The level of distortions I am measuring which are being questioned are well below any effects algorithms as they are very hard to hear. Why would anyone master in such low levels of detail?

Here is for example Adobe Audition's tape mastering effect using default parameters as applied to a 10 kHz tone:

The 14 kHz anharmonic tone added is at -40 dB or so. This is many dBs higher than many low performing DACs.

Put another way, unless it is shown that music creation relies on distortion levels as low as -80 dB, the argument that these electronic devices are effect boxes doesn't hold.

 

[SmarterthanU]

How can you be sure these double blind test are not only a measure of memory retention/loss? Most likely that most people do not have an exact enough memory to even remember what they heard previously to a sufficient detail in order to draw any conclusions. So these test would only prove that most people lack sufficient auditory memory to perfectly reconstruct the sound in their mind. Real world evidence backs this up as well as only a very few people have perfect pitch or are capable of virtuouso musicianship.

 

[SIY]

How can you be sure these double blind test are not only a measure of memory retention/loss?

Because of a century and more of their use in sensory science. And in audio, specifically, in how they manage to demonstrate great human sensitivity to changes in level, frequency response, localization, polar pattern, and data compression.

If you want to argue that null results for the "magic things" that engineers and scientists can't measure indicate test issues, go for it. We call that "special pleading." If you can't hear it without peeking, you can't hear it.

 

[amirm]

How can you be sure these double blind test are not only a measure of memory retention/loss? Most likely that most people do not have an exact enough memory to even remember what they heard previously to a sufficient detail in order to draw any conclusions. So these test would only prove that most people lack sufficient auditory memory to perfectly reconstruct the sound in their mind.

We minimize such issue by making the switching time very small. Ideally it would be well under a second. I have been able to perform ABX tests for example on just a note or two in the music. And indeed my ability to find small differences markedly improves with small switch-over time.

This has been studied and I reported on it a while ago: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

 

[Blumlein 88]

How can you be sure these double blind test are not only a measure of memory retention/loss? Most likely that most people do not have an exact enough memory to even remember what they heard previously to a sufficient detail in order to draw any conclusions. So these test would only prove that most people lack sufficient auditory memory to perfectly reconstruct the sound in their mind. Real world evidence backs this up as well as only a very few people have perfect pitch or are capable of virtuouso musicianship.

Which also backs up the idea people can't make super fine discriminations of sound quality based upon listening done for several weeks under variable conditions.

 

[SmarterthanU]

We minimize such issue by making the switching time very small. Ideally it would be well under a second. I have been able to perform ABX tests for example on just a note or two in the music. And indeed my ability to find small differences markedly improves with small switch-over time.

This has been studied and I reported on it a while ago: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

Extremely short to zero auditory memory in the great majority seems to make as much sense as not. Also explains a lot of the discrepancy in hardware opinions.