• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is SINAD important? - "Myths" about measurements! [Video YT]

Some don't care about that though... they just want a device that shows engineering excellence in general.
Where as said just the SINAD value is not a sufficient indicator though.
 
.....SINAD is a technical measurement and not directly related to perception or audibility.
To not confuse readers and give them a stick to beat ASR it could be as simple as embedding those words on top of each SINAD chart.
Problem solved and the whole SINAD thing is clear to everyone even if they link to the chart only.

That said, if one had a choice between 2 devices with the same functions/connectivity, decent aesthetics and the same price range, yet one was 110dB SINAD and the other was 55 SINAD... what would be the reason to pick the lower SINAD device?
That is a tricky question.
It is highly likely most ASR members (with the exception of a few) would pick the high SINAD number DAC even if that dongle costs < $20,-.
It is also highly likely that if that low SINAD number DAC would be a DAC with a tube buffer having high amounts of 2nd (and a bit 3rd) harmonics and maybe even be filterless NOS and be very expensive and the comparison was up in your average high-end shop and the DAC would be from a 'high-end' brand and the cheap DAC was from some eastern manufacturer then the choice for them would be really easy... the SINAD 55 DAC would certainly be preferred over the 110 SINAD.

Chances are it would sound great as well as the SINAD is likely to improve at lower levels than 0dBFS and the 'roll-off' it might have is liked by those individuals and they might like/prefer the effects which cause the poor SINAD number.

So ... it would depend on who you ask and who gets to see the SINAD number and puts some level of faith in it.
your stipulation, however, was same price range, functionality and connectivity... now it gets tricky. My thesis above would still hold in the situation where the price range is say ... $ 500.- or so but not in the $ 20.- price range. Reason being ... audiophools are not cheapskates. Cheapskates will look for technical performance and would be scared shitless when they saw SINAD below 100.

And that right there including the 'education' of the buyer is the problem.
Also not a really big problem as the owner of the low SINAD and high SINAD DACs will both love them and how they sound to them.
One person because they know the SINAD (and most likely other measurements) are fine which sets their mind at ease.
The other person loves their tube DAC and enjoys their R2R filterless NOS sound knowing it is musical and probably never looked at any specs or even dared to look at ASR website (is disgusted) and just went on their audition at a high-end store, read some of his/hers favorite subjective reviewers website articles praising it into the heaven and adores it.
 
Last edited:
I might be willing to place a bet on a blind listening test.
Cameron still owes us one .... :D

I am sure that when those DACs differ in more important aspects than SINAD and using the right music and transducers for the job at higher SPL it especially if the 'right' devices are chosen that could be really simple to pull-off.

It might be harder when using one of the higher quality dongles and a 'not sound FX-y' more expensive DAC that measure pretty similarly.

Sooo... depending on what is used for the blind listening test one could easily place a bet on it.


On the question "Is SINAD important' the answer can be both yes and no... simply because... it depends.
Should one buy based on SINAD numbers ? Could be wise (when the difference is big enough) but may not be if one is looking for 'not technically transparent' sound 'signatures' that are pleasing to the owner.
Taste/preference is funny that way.
Technical excellence is easy to prove with measurements.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why it is left open to interpretation?
Because we are intelligent beings who are capable of understanding what we have read and watched without it needing spelled out everywhere the term is found.
 
The full dynamic range of a live concert is objectively not something we should be recommending to end users, because it implies peak and rms levels exceeding safe recommendations for human exposure.
Where do you get that from and is there a health warning at such concerts?
 
Where as said just the SINAD value is not a sufficient indicator though.
It is an incredibly good indicator of such. I know, because I see it every time I review something.
 
So I'm trying to reconcile these three paragraphs - in and of itself, paragraph one makes sense as an argument: one can show an ordinal list without implying that falling to one end of said list is good or bad.
Of course it has that implication. The point is that we did not invent sinad. Nor did we invented the notion of showing its relative value to others. The value, what it measures, and how it looks are facts. Folks had not seen them in this manner. Now that they have, they infer logical conclusions from it. The companies that produce sub-part SINAD are the ones that created the outcome you seem to not like. It is not our doing.
 
In order to use more than approximately 100dB of DNR - assuming that the content which we played back had such dynamic range to begin with, I should note - we would require either extremely high crest factors or RMS levels unsuitable for sustained exposure without hearing damage.
This is wrong on both fronts. I can have digital silence and then peaks of 120 dB in the same program. Crest factor has nothing to do with it. You are confusing short-term DNR with system required DNR. Nor is hearing damage going to occur due to short peaks of music. See this video of mine:

 
Where do you get that from and is there a health warning at such concerts?
Assuming that this is the paper of Louis's that you're referencing, the peak levels he gives are 129 and 123dBSPL. Based on the WHO assessments of noise-induced hearing loss risk, this would imply that the sum of peaks in a given day's exposure must be meaningfully less than 1 minute to avoid exceeding Leq75dB, which was the threshold for hearing loss risk. Perhaps more pertinently, the crest factor would need to meaningfully exceed 30dB (which would be, for music, quite high) for the average level to not be in the range of threatening permanent hearing loss over album-length exposure.

Concerts are absolutely a risk for hearing loss, although if we're talking about acoustic orchestral arrangements that would heavily depend on your seat. I'm probably safe enough sitting in the nosebleed section, I reckon.
 
Of course it has that implication. The point is that we did not invent sinad. Nor did we invented the notion of showing its relative value to others. The value, what it measures, and how it looks are facts. Folks had not seen them in this manner. Now that they have, they infer logical conclusions from it. The companies that produce sub-part SINAD are the ones that created the outcome you seem to not like. It is not our doing.
I mean, you definitely didn't invent SINAD, since it's just THD+N. I would argue that the value of THD+N as a measure was well-assessed decades ago as "limited", but that's neither here nor there. I'm not sure at what point you perceived me to be asserting that you invented THD+N as figure of merit, nor why you seem to think that my concern is products I "like" having "bad" SINAD. I kind of suspect that we've reached the point in this dialogue - and this does seem to be a recurring theme of us trying to talk - where we are talking past each other, so I guess I'll stop feeding into a cycle of miscommunication, my apologies for being unable to find consensus here.
 
Until then, pointing the arrow at us as if we have created a problem is totally out of line. Your favorite product has too low of a SINAD? Go ahead and prove to me its efficacy regardless. Don't complain about SINAD itself. And certainly don't create FUD around how it is measured, etc.
I appreciate you very much, @amirm, and think you have done wonders for the community. But I don't see anything remotely out of line with what @Mad_Economist has said here. IMO even at ASR people pay too much attention to SINAD, and on Reddit it's worse. I agree that it's better that they look at SINAD than "luscious blacks and rhythmic, soulful bass," but it does take on more meaning than it should. This also goes for ASR's detractors on Reddit, who accuse ASR about fixating on SINAD far more than ASR actually does. Which @Mad_Economist goes out of his way to acknowledge.

You are not hearing me and repeating exactly what I was responding to. The SINAD is just a number in the dashboard. I simply put it in a table so that members know how that number compares to other numbers. That is all it is. A way to organize presentation of a number. I organize other numbers like this such as sensitivity of headphones. Are you going to say just because I do that, we rate headphones by their sensitivity???
I really disagree. SINAD is the first measurement of note that is reported, every time. And it's not just a raw table. You say "higher is better," and you color code different sections with "Excellent," "Good", "Fair," and "Poor." I don't think it's disingeneous to call that a ranking. Your headphone sensitivity ratings don't say "higher is better," or color code the measurements into Excellent-to-Poor categories.

Moreover in your very good and informative "how to" Youtube videos you talk about how SINAD isn't the end-all-be-all of measurements, but that in your experience it is an excellent first-approximation proxy for the full suite of measurements. Which I agree with, particularly when we get out of the 57dB example Cameron used and into the 100 dB+ territory. As you say, there's nowhere to hide bad stuff once the SINAD is sufficiently high.
 
I really disagree. SINAD is the first measurement of note that is reported, every time. And it's not just a raw table. You say "higher is better," and you color code different sections with "Excellent," "Good", "Fair," and "Poor." I don't think it's disingeneous to call that a ranking. Your headphone sensitivity ratings don't say "higher is better," or color code the measurements into Excellent-to-Poor categories.

This really resonates with me.
 
Concerts are absolutely a risk for hearing loss, although if we're talking about acoustic orchestral arrangements that would heavily depend on your seat. I'm probably safe enough sitting in the nosebleed section, I reckon.
Musicians seating in front of the brass sections very often wear earplugs, but I haven't seen yet a first violinist or a conductor with ear protection.
 
I really disagree. SINAD is the first measurement of note that is reported, every time. And it's not just a raw table. You say "higher is better," and you color code different sections with "Excellent," "Good", "Fair," and "Poor." I don't think it's disingeneous to call that a ranking.
Why is that a bother to people?
 
Why is that a bother to people?
Because far more people want to associate the chart with SQ and audible "differences" than good engineering.
At some DAC threads there's parties going on about how better a 115dB SINAD DAC sounds in comparison to a 110dB SINAD,6 months older one for example.
 
Musicians seating in front of the brass sections very often wear earplugs, but I haven't seen yet a first violinist or a conductor with ear protection.
Okay, this one I have to jump back in for, I know a concert violinist who has already experienced meaningful hearing loss in his 30s, and not just in the ear next to his instrument. Concert musicians should absolutely wear hearing protection during performance and rehearsal, and it's tragic to me how many people who love music are getting hearing damage in the process of creating it.
 
Why is that a bother to people?
It generally isn't. People love rankings.

I think ASR has an implied hypothesis that high SINAD is both useful in itself (to an extent) and that it likely serves as a first order proxy for better engineering.

The strawman is that ASR believes ONLY SINAD matters.
 
Because far more people want to associate the chart with SQ and audible "differences" than good engineering.
At some DAC threads there's parties going on about how better a 115dB SINAD DAC sounds in comparison to a 110dB SINAD,6 months older one for example.
I ask again: why do folks create videos over and over to complain about this?
 
Back
Top Bottom