Is it audiophoolia to care about SINAD differences which have no correlation in blind listening tests? H2/H3 distortion 'enriches the sound'?

[Multicore]

Just it doesn't seem convincing that fussing over the inaudible sonic qualities of equipment designed for music reproduction is more rational than doing it over the color of the cardboard box it was delivered in.

I agree. In May I tried to represent this in a humorous way with the idea for the TV game show called Can you tell the difference? No! But the trained eye can see it under a microscope.

Let's try another way of looking at it: the word audio has to do with hearing. Amir's rankings of devices with higher SINAD to the left and lower to the right implies that higher is better, even when, as far as we know, there is no audio, i.e. audible, difference between most of them. So putting them in a ranking like this and calling it audio science is a bit of a stretch. It's the kind of stretch that requires us to imagine that some people have golden ears that can actually hear these measured SINAD differences (as opposed to seeing them under the AP microscope) and thereby justify talking about them as audio differences. I don't usually like to use the term audiophool because it is condescending. But if we need golden ears to make the difference between green and blue devices audible then...

 

[Mnyb]

Modern DACs and solid state amps working within their limits (below clipping) are transparent enough you shouldn't be able to hear distortion in blind tests. Richard Clark's 'Amplifier Challenge' still has an unclaimed prize. Clark said even 2% THD is hard to reliably detect. Most of the amps measured on this site fell between 0.01% and 0.0001%.

yes i understand .

We can have inaudible distortion and even more inaudible distortion buying modern electronics....

But i interpreted the OP as it was an argument for having actual audible distortion ? instead of a transparent device ? that was what i thought i responded to ?

 

[Chr1]

Sometimes I think that "High Fidelity Review" would be more apt. High fidelity, being objective and measurable. "Good Audio" (and thefore the science thereof), seems to me to be just as relevant and real, but highly subjective and difficult to quantify/define.
The two are frequently conflated here unfortunately...

 

[Mnyb]

Using sinad as a proxy again .

If you find really high levels of THD in modern amp or DAC , you can bet that it is one of those hair brained contraptions from so called high end brands where normal engineering is thrown out of the window and replaced with myths and cargo cult engineering

 

[daftcombo]

Low order harmonic distortion might be more compared to outlines highlighting an image. Much of Western music is built on harmonics, they sound 'harmonious'.

So with additional harmonics, you change the sounds of the instruments, as you can change the colors or shadows of objects with Photoshop.

And you change them always in the same way.

Where's the high fidelity?

 

[Mnyb]

So with additional harmonics, you change the sounds of the instruments, as you can change the colors or shadows of objects with Photoshop.

And you change them always in the same way.

Where's the high fidelity?

That was my objection to , but you said it better in an ideal world this should be done during the artistic process and monitored with transparent electronics and good speakers so that the desired colouration can be set there and then .

 

[Multicore]

Audibility... not transparency to the source in comparison to better measuring devices. Respectfully, this type of discussion has been done to death.

And yet the ranking of inaudibility in reviews goes on together with all the applause for new devices with very high SINAD or some other impressive test score. It therefore seems likely to me that some forum newcomers might stick around, do some background learning, and think a bit about it, and of them some might wonder "Why all this emphasis on inaudibility? Isn't that the domain of audiophools?"

My answer to that would be: It's probably just an artifact of the measurement equipment; the streetlight effect. But so long as we keep this up we can expect the endless agonizing doing to death of this type of discussion.

 

[Chr1]

I agree to a certain extent in so far as : if you choose to change the frequency response with harmonics, you should not claim it to be hi-fi.
However, I find it curious that most here would say that it is ok, and still hi-fi to do so with EQ. Personally I think that there's an argument that changing the frequency response with EQ (beyond room-correction) is also altering the sound away from how the artist intended.
And therefore not specifically high-fidelity either. Suppose it really comes down to semantics...However, both are simply tailoring the reproduced sound to your own personal and subjective taste.

 

[Ze Frog]

In my view anything below the threshold of hearing is perfectly fine. However with the measurements we are given here, it's more about how well engineered a product is. I think that's kind of lost on people that mock ASR regarding the detailed analysis. Yes, beyond a certain point it's not really beneficial in hearing terms, but who doesn't want something a design/engineering team hasn't really made the effort on?

Same goes for frequency response, wether somebody appreciates a flat response or a Hi-fi type EQ, that's not really the point, it's about having a known base upon which you can then tailor to your own liking if you feel the need. Having a well engineered product that can really have impressive graphs gives you the confidence and ability to know where you are starting from and the impact of any adjustments made.

What Erin and Amir do is brilliant, really allows highly engineered products to be identified in a world of snake oil and so called reviewer's just hyping a product for the industry. Cheap Audio Man for instance, it's a shame, he started off as different but has fallen into the trap, they all do. Sadly a lot of it is the more views they get the more their ego's inflate to the point they genuinely believe they are the absolute authority based on nothing but subjective nonsense that isn't even honest, even honest subjectivity is pretty useless at the best of times.

 

[Ze Frog]

I agree to a certain extent in so far as : if you choose to change the frequency response with harmonics, you should not claim it to be hi-fi.
However, I find it curious that most here would say that it ok, and still hi-fi to do so with EQ. Personally I think that there's an argument that changing the frequency response with EQ (beyond room-correction) is also altering the sound from how the artist intended.
And therefore not specifically high-fidelity either. Suppose it really comes down to semantics...

'the artist intended' bit is something I find quite funny, a very audiophile tropes that sadly we have likely all been victim of at some point.

I say this, because in the studio and such, does the artist really think about how we each as individuals hear the end product. To a point, i.e testing mixes on various systems and mediums yes, but beyond that I'd imagine there's very little thought as to wether someone is listening on a high end system or a cheaper one etc, you would never release any music over toiling about who is using what in almost infinite combinations.

Don't get me wrong, I am here because I appreciate the science and facts, also I happen to like a flat response for most genres. However sometimes I do like to alter EQ and see nothing wrong in that whatsoever, surely the real intention of the artist is enjoyment and people to interpret their art as they so wish. I always recommend flat measuring speakers though even if someone likes the smiley face curve, far better so when you do EQ, you then know that the EQ applied on say a multi band equaliser is then actually the shape you have set largely aside from room interactions and other variables, but 99% aren't going to factor that in and go down that rabbit hole, that's largely for the die hard enthusiast.

 

[Chr1]

Agreed. Also, this is why my main system is essentially a two in one. One highly transparent (Neumann KH310s), and the other "flavoured" (Tannoy V12s, VTL tube amp). Both use the same twin 12" subs and MathAudio RoomEQ.
As this is a hobby, I like to use both, but will only ever claim that the Neumanns are actually properly hi-fi.

I am still trying to fully understand why I like the "low-fi" valve based system just as much though!

 

[Multicore]

I agree to a certain extent in so far as : if you choose to change the frequency response with harmonics, you should not claim it to be hi-fi.
However, I find it curious that most here would say that it is ok, and still hi-fi to do so with EQ. Personally I think that there's an argument that changing the frequency response with EQ (beyond room-correction) is also altering the sound away from how the artist intended.
And therefore not specifically high-fidelity either. Suppose it really comes down to semantics...However, both are tailoring the sound to your own personal and subjective taste.

I think the fidelity premise was shown to be bankrupt decades ago. The fact that we measure preference scores and gave that practice the fancy scientific name psychoacoustics acknowledges that subjectivity is the goal, not fidelity.

I suppose the emphasis on coloration comes from our sensitivity to it and the fact that loudspeaker designers, who pioneered much of the psychoacoustic research, can control it. If humans, in some alternate reality, humans were very sensitive to non-linearities and loudspeaker designers could control these perhaps your ideas about what's acceptable as a practice in hi-fi would be reversed. And instead of all the audio player apps in my phone having an EQ feature, they might have a distortion control feature.

Anyway, I'm the one here that argues that we are all subjectivists in the end. I think science and measurements are very important in the engineering of good subjective experience. That seems obvious to me. And I think the idea that we're aiming for fidelity is long obsolete and unhelpful.

 

[daftcombo]

However, I find it curious that most here would say that it is ok, and still hi-fi to do so with EQ. Personally I think that there's an argument that changing the frequency response with EQ (beyond room-correction) is also altering the sound away from how the artist intended.

EQ can be switched on/off at will in free software and knowing exactly what you do.

 

[daftcombo]

Agreed. Also, this is why my main system is essentially a two in one. One highly transparent (Neumann KH310s), and the other "flavoured" (Tannoy V12s, VTL tube amp). Both use the same twin 12" subs and MathAudio RoomEQ.
As this is a hobby, I like to use both, but will only ever claim that the Neumanns are actually hi-fi.

I am still trying to fully understand why I like the low-fi valve based system just as much though!

Defects of a particular set of speakers can make them sound better in your particular room than flat speakers.

 

[Multicore]

I am still trying to fully understand why I like the low-fi valve based system as much though!

It's very interesting. Doesn't it make you wonder if a linear system with controllable and carefully crafted non-linear effects would sound even better than the amp that just happens to sound like that? And what about using a different setting for different music. Perhaps a pop singer's voice sound best with such-and-such distortion and a string quartet with a different one.

The trouble is that it is very time consuming to explore this space in a scientific manner.

 

[JohnBooty]

Within reason, it's not audiofoolery.

In this hobby we certainly do see people who seem to have spent the majority of their budget on "high SINAD" electronics stacks, who might have been much better served by simply upgrading their speakers instead. But as long as we stay grounded in facts and keep things in perspective it's not necessarily foolish to think about small differences in objective measurements.

There are several steps in your signal chain, e.g:

source -> DAC -> amp -> speaker

or whatever your particular setup is. Distortion is going to compound at each step of the way. So "inaudible" distortion at each step can add up to something audible.

Whether or not it does add up to anything audible depends on a lot of factors like listening environment and so on. A lot of this distortion is going to be masked by noise floor in the room, the distortion inherent in one's speakers, etc.

 

[Ze Frog]

Agreed. Also, this is why my main system is essentially a two in one. One highly transparent (Neumann KH310s), and the other "flavoured" (Tannoy V12s, VTL tube amp). Both use the same twin 12" subs and MathAudio RoomEQ.
As this is a hobby, I like to use both but will only ever claim that the Neumanns are actually hi-fi.

I am still trying to fully understand why I like the low-fi valve based system just as much though!

I think a lot of why I do like tube amps is largely the feeling of being more in tune with the equipment. A tube amp usually has good old fashioned switches, like proper switches of yesterday, the build, the look, having to physically interact with it to check bias and maintenance etc. All things that kind of make it all seem it's more part of you because it's requires interaction and care.

I think those kind of things really shape the perception of sound as a result. Everything has it's place and it's own magic that's for sure.

 

[DSJR]

DSJR - your writings are always relevant and interesting because you know how good it can sound from 2 channels.

Im convinced that our ears like a sound that slightly distorted and noisy, just because of the flawed stereo system . With two channels, two ears and a brain, there is no such thing as accuracy.

Just look at the original Linn klimax DS player that have excellent lundahl transformers on the low distortion lm4562 outputs, making the sound distort even worse than the Rega Dac with its ” discreete ” analog output….. still the sound is considered excellent by most people who hear the player.

I think we can tolerate and even like slight background *noise* but I believe there are distortion artefacts which create a 'grain' or slight 'dirt.' Heck, in my childhood, most people had table radios with a 'mellow tone' or console/stereograms with a very coloured sound from the huge wooden box everything was sitting in including speakers. Contrast that with the clinical stark tones of a modern top dynaudio speaker with lifted lower kHz region making the perceived tones cold as ice and masquerading as extra 'detail.'

I for one do NOT like added distortion, or at least, added character i can hear as i can't trust my ears at all these days. having said that, I liked the top Rega Isis Valve CD player (Lord knows what crap it was adding on its output), the top Naim cd players (same again, but it was addictive) and my own main player, which has transformer coupled balanced outs (and came with cables to convert 'back' to rca). There's a kind of subjective 'wholesome' quality to them which I now know is wrong due to added bass distortion and I'm certain it's measurable too although i don't think any of these players have been properly tested away from ignorant subjectivists. My SU1 dac took a little bit of getting used to and i quite understand that some weaned on 'colourfully distorted' digital sources may find this kind of presentation a bit 'stark,' but I'm pleased that it can easily reproduce recording differences and so on, not seeming to get in the way at all so I can notice.

Nah - I for one NEED good sinad figures for my digital sources and amps as they can give fair guidance on the objective side. speakers are anyone's guess as the room is so important and these days with less finances I'm getting to resent hugely profitable brands trading on a back-story, one of which recently discovering and stating that the retail cost doesn't seem to matter in the wider scheme of things, or words to that effect (Gawd only knows how much their forthcoming new range will sell for despite no doubt being very good indeed as the market won't care how much it is it seems

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I said it before in the “crave distortion” thread.

Personally, if I want to add audible distortion or any effects to the music, I do that with a DAW and not with some DACs or amps as neither are great effect machines and one can not control the effect.

But that I wouldn’t call Hifi anymore but part of my personal preference or part of another artistic process like eg DJs do it in their live performances.

 

[Tangband]

I said it before in the “crave distortion” thread.

Personally, if I want to add audible distortion or any effects to the music, I do that with a DAW and not with some DACs or amps as neither are great effect machines and one can not control the effect.

But that I wouldn’t call Hifi anymore but part of my personal preference or part of another artistic process like eg DJs do it in their live performances.

You presume that 2 channel playback in stereo is a perfect system but its not - there is no accuracy or high fidelity to be found with only two channels, and two ears with a brain. Its a painting with broad brush strokes. This, at least for me, are opening up the field to add some nice colorations with your gear in the listening room. I think Toole would agree.