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

[Chr1]

Is there any system that is perfect? I'd say not.
Just personally preferred compromises.

Personally, I think that the key is to be able to switch back to flat and/or transparent from any preferred "flavouring", be it analogue or digital relatively easily...

 

[HarmonicTHD]

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.

What? You put words in my mouth. Where did I say any of that?

 

[Repdetect]

If you think text quotes with all capital letters like 'human PREFERENCE for THD distortion' would be used in published research then reading 'misleading' citation formats on an internet forum is the least of your worries. It's a text written by Geddes with the date given. He's writing informally, he uses a more exaggerated writing style than in an academic paper. He's writing with ALL CAPS to show the weight he gives to the finding. He found a preference for lower order distortion. We review with different assumptions as SINAD includes lower order distortion. Distortion with those components below 0.1% is not going to be audible. DACs/amplifiers with more than 0.1% THD+N don't seem common enough to be an issue.

"he uses a more exaggerated writing style than in an academic paper"

That's called bending the truth, in other words lying.

 

[daftcombo]

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.

To admit that a situation is not perfect is one thing. It's not a reason for doing random nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

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.

No accuracy? None? None whatsoever? None at all? Zero, zilch, nada and nichts?

Then ... why are you here?

Jim

 

[MAB]

Ok they are run at high enough gain. Most manufacturers of studio monitors don't seem to focus on the hiss as their customers don't seem to care. When actives like Genelecs are repurposed for home listening it becomes more of a problem.

No. Nothing about 'high enough gain'. Efficient drivers, and this isn't even the most efficient. If I add signal chain with gain and noise, it just gets worse. Noise is a problem. Part of your responses make me think you don't know noise is part of SINAD??? Also, problematic noise isn't because people repurposed studio monitors.

Thanks. My question wasn't clear. I opened the topic saying 'most of the variability found in DACs and amplifiers wouldn't correlate with findings in blind listening tests'. I confused the issue mentioning preferences for low order distortion which also lowers the audibility of some of the components that are measured in THD+N.

Amplifiers. Most of the amplifiers have THD+N less than 0.01%. 'Most of the variability found in amplifiers' is below 0.01%.

DACs. Very few have THD+N more than 0.01%. Almost all of 'the variability found in DACs' is below 0.01%.

We all agree THD+N less than 0.01% is not audible at normal listening levels with normal gain levels. My question 'Is it audiophoolia to care about SINAD differences which have no correlation in blind listening tests?'

Agreed, the question was slightly unclear, and also agreed that to just stare at the SINAD ranking charts isn't very informative. Same for speaker preference scores. Same for a ranking by bass extension, although that actually works for subs with caveats. I do agree that sweeping everything into a score is not sufficient. Which is why I wondered why you are similarly focusing on one aspect (SINAD) and focusing on the distortion part of the metric.

I can hear the amp noise at 3kHz just fine. I can also hear certain types of distortion fairly well, others not so much.
But I can't hear +1dB at 20kHz, even when I was young and could hear the CRT TV whine in the next room, I still wasn't able to discern +1dB at 20kHz:

If you want my opinion. Our focus could be more on things we know 'correlate with findings in blind listening tests'. For the Fosi ZA3 the THD+N is well below audibility like most modern amps when run at normal gain levels. The more probable thing young people with sensitive hearing might perceive is the load dependency of the frequency response.

I probably don't have too much more to say, if I show a noisy amp making audible sounds in reproduction in the most sensitive part of human hearing and have to then deal with excuses new arguments, the conversation becomes unproductive. Perhaps you could get some young people who can still hear at 20kHz, and do a blind test to see if they can hear that +1dB at 20kHz Fosi amp.

 

[goryu]

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.

What is your definition of "accuracy" and "high fidelity"?

 

[goryu]

I can't see the issue with people weighing objective performance measures in their purchase decisions. If you want a "hi fidelity" system, why wouldn't you want to start with components that are as pure to the input signal as possible? Of course people might prefer some distortion products to more accurate signal, and surely there are controllable ways to add as much or little as one likes. There are people who value state of the art engineering and objective performance for its own sake as well, and it has nothing to do with the color of the box. In science it is always best for any process or evaluation to establish a baseline. When we start with components that are as true to the input signal as possible, we have a benchmark.

 

[daftcombo]

I can imagine someone prefering to purchase a car that naturally drifts to the left. But in very, very special situations. ;-)

 

[kemmler3D]

To give a more simple and direct version of my answer to the original question:

Is it audiophoolia to care about SINAD differences which have no correlation in blind listening tests?

No, it's not. Even leaving aside potentially audible noise levels, it can be rational to value performance beyond what you can hear:

• Gives a margin of error for incorrect / suboptimal integration with other components, i.e. peace of mind and ease of use
• Proves the device is well-engineered, which establishes a high likelihood that other, audible or functional aspects of the device are also well-engineered
• Very high performance allows one device to be used for measuring another device, if the need arises

 

[BobbyTimmons]

No. Nothing about 'high enough gain'. Efficient drivers, and this isn't even the most efficient. If I add signal chain with gain and noise, it just gets worse. Noise is a problem. Part of your responses make me think you don't know noise is part of SINAD??? Also, problematic noise isn't because people repurposed studio monitors.

The hiss is audible on actives because of the high gain setting, it's not very common in passive systems. That's usually a complaint with repurposed studio monitors which have a high gain setting. We all know noise is part of SINAD I'm wondering why you wrote that in bold with three question marks. Most of the amplifiers tested fell between 0.01-0.0001% THD+N. You can see how many times you need to multiply it on most amplifiers before audibility.

Agreed, the question was slightly unclear, and also agreed that to just stare at the SINAD ranking charts isn't very informative. Same for speaker preference scores. Same for a ranking by bass extension, although that actually works for subs with caveats.

Speaker preference scores are based on frequency response which correlates with listener preferences in blind listening tests.

I do agree that sweeping everything into a score is not sufficient. Which is why I wondered why you are similarly focusing on one aspect (SINAD) and focusing on the distortion part of the metric.

I can hear the amp noise at 3kHz just fine. I can also hear certain types of distortion fairly well, others not so much.
But I can't hear +1dB at 20kHz, even when I was young and could hear the CRT TV whine in the next room, I still wasn't able to discern +1dB at 20kHz:

I probably don't have too much more to say, if I show a noisy amp making audible sounds in reproduction in the most sensitive part of human hearing and have to then deal with excuses new arguments, the conversation becomes unproductive. Perhaps you could get some young people who can still hear at 20kHz, and do a blind test to see if they can hear that +1dB at 20kHz Fosi amp.

Only your dog will hear it at 20kHz. Just the effect on the frequency response of the load dependency of those amps seems audible in the 10-15kHz range. Can you hear 0.5dB increments in the 10kHz range? I think I can although like most of this I haven't tested it in a blind way so I could be wrong.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

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.

There's plenty of snake oil in the high end part of the industry.

Just a $500 amplifier from Marantz, Denon or Yamaha is probably not snakeoil. There are posts on here saying they can't buy them, they are 'woeful' as their distortion is 0.01%. You read people saying 'Unreal how poorly most major brands measure.' It's a $500 amplifier which conceivably won't sound any different to the best measuring ones in a blind listening test. Folks writing 'I guess this could be relegated to casual listening/background duty with a pair of sensibly-priced bookshelf speakers. For that task, not too awfully bad.' You could probably swap it out and they wouldn't notice in a listening test.

 

[Mnyb]

To give a more simple and direct version of my answer to the original question:



No, it's not. Even leaving aside potentially audible noise levels, it can be rational to value performance beyond what you can hear:

• Gives a margin of error for incorrect / suboptimal integration with other components, i.e. peace of mind and ease of use
• Proves the device is well-engineered, which establishes a high likelihood that other, audible or functional aspects of the device are also well-engineered
• Very high performance allows one device to be used for measuring another device, if the need arises

You also have more than one device in series why compound stuff ?
And if you is room correction or eq you probably need to sacrifice 10dB of noise performance there and then and possibly need more amp power than otherwise .

Btw I think tone controls are also needed due that we don’t live in a perfect world “ artist intention “ they could be deaf and high and used terrible monitors there are records with terrible tonal balance.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

You also have more than one device in series why compound stuff ?
And if you is room correction or eq you probably need to sacrifice 10dB of noise performance there and then and possibly need more amp power than otherwise .

Btw I think tone controls are also needed due that we don’t live in a perfect world “ artist intention “ they could be deaf and high and used terrible monitors there are records with terrible tonal balance.

Compounding small numbers still ends up with small numbers. 8th generation ADC/DAC loop vs the original.....can you hear it?

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I dunno. It's like buying a car that will go 200mph. There's no point in it in the sense that you'll never get to go that fast on public roads. Hobbyists and collectors aren't necessarily concerned with practical concerns related to utility. I've always written with a fountain pen. For writing I'm perfectly happy with steel nibbed pens that cost under $50. Some people spend hundreds of dollars or more on fountain pens. For audio equipment I'm in the utility group. Human hearing, what can be done with the weakest link in the chain, and price are the important things to me. I want the best audible thing I can afford. Some people have a larger budget and enjoy having the best thing available regardless of the limits of human hearing.

 

[kemmler3D]

Taking a step back: Yes, in some ways the SINAD chart is a little absurd. However, if you ask almost anyone on this site, they will agree you don't need to get the absolute maximum SINAD, it doesn't affect audible quality most of the time, and you should focus way more on speakers or headphones. I don't know of anyone on this forum that is SINAD-mad and pushes it for no reason.

Does this mean Amir should stop measuring SINAD? I would say no. I think there's a perception, probably true to an extent, that it's pushing the industry toward actual better performance and away from snake oil. Overall I think most of us agree that's a good thing, all in all.

 

[Mikig]

Yes, humans like distortion... If I mount a postcard on the fork of the bike that touches the spokes of the wheel, I produce a noise (distortion), it could be pleasant and could give you the feeling of running faster. But this is not the case; this preference does not have a real and objective response to performance, in fact it probably worsens it, but it could, for someone, increase subjective involvement in the experience. This is a Preference!
Jokes aside! The example may be trivial but I think it can address the problem.

We measure everything to give a logical context, and that context is normally used to maximize performance, thus providing us with evidence of what is appropriate for the purpose we seek.

it makes sense to think that the best real system should guarantee the absolute best performance in every parameter, linearity, distortion, adequate power, SINAD, jitter, phase, etc etc even if not audible, to have a reasonable certainty of “process” as close as possible, to the "original message", and therefore to High Fidelity .
And this can only happen with a construction based on objective measurement data.
And certainly not of personal preference. Personal preference does not necessarily coincide with the reality of the facts.

It seems that the scientific research of recent years in the audio, has revealed that, the greater the spectrum of action of our systems, the greater the objective involvement in making a message as faithful as possible.
otherwise we wouldn't have succumbed to the temptation to evolve from the gramophone!!

 

[goryu]

I dunno. It's like buying a car that will go 200mph. There's no point in it in the sense that you'll never get to go that fast on public roads. Hobbyists and collectors aren't necessarily concerned with practical concerns related to utility. I've always written with a fountain pen. For writing I'm perfectly happy with steel nibbed pens that cost under $50. Some people spend hundreds of dollars or more on fountain pens. For audio equipment I'm in the utility group. Human hearing, what can be done with the weakest link in the chain, and price are the important things to me. I want the best audible thing I can afford. Some people have a larger budget and enjoy having the best thing available regardless of the limits of human hearing.

I think it is more like drinking water with a fecal chloroform level below that which is deemed harmful. You can't taste it but do you really want to drink it?

 

[Deleted member 21219]

One thing that has not (at least in the fast scan I've given this thread) been mentioned is the use of EQ. Some situation may require quite a bit of EQ, and the performance of the amp under those conditions would make noise and distortion more apparent ... no? At least those conditions would raise the SINAD to a level more closely approaching audibility, although I admit that the situation would be different for different amps.

Not every amp has a SINAD in excess of 90dB.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I think it is more like drinking water with a fecal chloroform level below that which is deemed harmful. You can't taste it but do you really want to drink it?

No, it's more like wanting water where the level of contamination is several orders of magnitude less than the safe level.