• 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]

And speaking of no patience: 6 people asked for the video summary. Short fuses all around:)
That's a courtesy. Don't post a link to a 40 minute vid without a clue as to why it might be of interest. The terms of the site actually ask for no links to monetized vids which I'm pretty sure this is. As it stands , at least a summary should be given to allow members to decide if they want to spend time watching to join the discussion. And I will double down on the requirement when it's a video about audio / audio science.
 
On the few positive things of current AI language model algorithms is that they can quickly create some decent text summaries, exemplary for the discussed video:

Importance of Understanding Measurements​

The video begins by emphasizing the need for a balanced perspective on audio measurements, stating that while measurements hold value, they shouldn't be deemed absolute. It encourages viewers to appreciate the limitations of both objective measurements and subjective preferences.

Limitations of SINAD​

GoldenSound delves into SINAD (Signal to Noise and Distortion Ratio), explaining its characteristics and limitations. While it quantifies total harmonic distortion and noise, it cannot predict how devices will sound to listeners as different types of distortion can lead to varying perceptions of sound quality.

Misinterpretation of Frequency Response​

The disparity between a headphone's frequency response measurement and individual listening experiences is discussed. GoldenSound stresses that small deviations from the Harmon Target should not be considered negative, as listener preferences vary widely.

Variation in Headphone Performance​

The discussion includes variations in headphone performance due to differences in measurement rig setups and listener anatomy. GoldenSound points out that headphone measurements can vary significantly among different individuals, making single measurements less reliable.

Encouragement of Healthy Discussion​

The video concludes by encouraging the community to engage in constructive discussions about audio measurements. It stresses the importance of scientific rigor in tests and the interpretation of results, advocating for an open-minded approach to understanding audio quality.
 
I'd argue that, like most anything generated by "AI" language models, that that summary doesn't really tell us anything useful about the content of the video even if it is superficially reasonable.
 
That's a courtesy. Don't post a link to a 40 minute vid without a clue as to why it might be of interest. The terms of the site actually ask for no links to monetized vids which I'm pretty sure this is. As it stands , at least a summary should be given to allow members to decide if they want to spend time watching to join the discussion. And I will double down on the requirement when it's a video about audio / audio science.

As a further note, if the YouTube did not reference ASR, the OP probably would not have posted it and saved us all.:)
 
I'd argue that, like most anything generated by "AI" language models, that that summary doesn't really tell us anything useful about the content of the video even if it is superficially reasonable.
While I agree with you about the "usefulness" of current AI language models I find the summary quite good having watched the video, have you watched it? Being an engineer my text summary would probably not be really better at least. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
I'd argue that, like most anything generated by "AI" language models, that that summary doesn't really tell us anything useful about the content of the video even if it is superficially reasonable.
I disagree. That is exactly the sort of summary I'd like to see accompanying any link to a video.

It is only missing one point:

Bloviation​

Goldensound takes 40 minutes to discuss a subject that could reasonably by covered in 10 or 15.

:p
 
His demonstration with three different SINADs clearly shows that the same figure can sound quite differently and why people shouldn't use that figure alone to rank things or base their purchase on.
Why do you say that? All three of those devices (if they were real) would be categorized as poor/trash, not deserving a purchase. In that regard, SINAD would have absolutely done its job to tell you that designer has not done his job to produce a high fidelity product. He wants to tell you that the one with 2nd harmonic deserves to be purchased because random audiophiles say it sounds good but we all know, or better know, that is not true. And certainly not an objective, provable matter.

Net, net, SINAD is extremely good predictor of overall performance. Its power is actually demonstrated by him in how you should reject any any device in 59 dB range as it clearly has audible artifacts.
 
they see a clear ranked list of stuff that's "Excellent", "Very good", "Fair" and "Poor" and might not buy that thing when they see that it's only on the yellow part of the scale, while in reality they probably won't hear a difference between even something on top of the list and something on the red.
And what do they get for buying something in the "yellow" section? They certainly won't save money because there are dirt cheap counterparts in the Excellent blue section.

SINAD is very powerful in the way it lets you discard ton of poorly engineered devices. Within the excellent ones, then you can choose based on features, support, etc. There is no reason to settle for lower grades in most categories.

In areas such as AVRs where excellent products are hard to find, the graph and ranking is motivating companies to do better -- at no cost to you.
 
So even though I really appreciate what Amir is doing with all these measurements I do think this ranking is misleading, at least if it's not made very clear that it's about how good the engineering might be and not the actual audible sound quality.
No valid alternative is provided in that video other than measurements of electronics to determine "actual audible sound quality." My electronics measurements advise you on how to build a system that is fully transparent to its source and capabilities it has (e.g. how much power an amplifier has). Once there, the question of "what sounds better" is moot. All of those products are transparent. If you want a flavor of sound, bring that in through headphone or speakers, or equalization.

In other words, you don't have to worry about make up of the THD when it is below threshold of hearing. Two dacs with different spectrum but both below threshold of hearing will sound identical.
 
And speaking of no patience: 6 people asked for the video summary. Short fuses all around:)
It just seems like a common courtesy for a mostly text based forum. At least the line before the video was more explanatory than the often used "What do you think of this?" before a video clip.

Would you walk up to someone in person and just hold up your phone to show them a 40 minute video and expect them to watch and then comment to you about it? Or would you talk to them about what you saw in the video and your thoughts on it and then share the link so they could watch at their leisure if they wanted?
 
Last edited:
Yeah what Amir is saying is what I just don't get in the whole hubbub about this video -- there's no reason to look at devices with SINADs in the 50s, where there are obvious audible artifacts. If that was the best we could do, sure, maybe we'd be concerned about figuring out how to differentiate between better-sounding devices and worse-sounding devices in that range. But it's trivial to get devices that are in at least the 70s, and generally 80s and up nowadays, where audibility is from dubious on the low-end (at best) to simply no longer having to worry about whether noise or distortion are an audible consequence of your electronics chain. Those with super sensitive horns might want to pay a little more attention to the noise aspect.

There's already plenty of talk right around here at ASR about whether chasing SINAD higher than the 80s is worthwhile, and plenty of agreement that other measurements and features take priority past that point. But if there's two otherwise equivalent devices and one has a higher SINAD, there's certainly no harm in your electronics being even more transparent.

Edit: I guess I should clarify I was thinking of amps/AVRs where that SINAD is the amp/end-of-the-chain before the signal is passed to the speakers. I think Amir likes higher SINADs of 90+ for DACs and the like to make sure there's headroom and it's not a "choke-point".
 
Last edited:
Yeah what Amir is saying is what I just don't get in the whole hubbub about this video
I didn't watch more than a minute of the video but I'm guessing the purpose of making the video was to create hubbub. And the posting style of basically "check this out" seems to also be to for the purpose of hubbub. And I have to say I really like typing hubbub.
 
It just seems like a common courtesy for a mostly text based forum. At least the line before the video was more explanatory than the often used "What do you think of this?" before a video clip.

Would you walk up to someone in person and just hold up your phone to show them a 40 minute video and expect them to watch and then comment to you about it? Or would you talk to them about what you saw in the video and your thoughts on it and then share the link so they could watch at their leisure if they wanted?

In any case video can be watch at your leisure. Some people asked for the summary after Solderdude provided it.

I was merely comparing that like new members anxious to post their question (that have already been answered), we also have no patience.

This is now a strict rule, so no need to discuss further.
 
The worst thing about the video is that it is, using measurements and somehow convincing language, casting doubt on the value of measurements altogether. And this is very different from pointing out their limitations. Amir frequently stresses that headphone FR above 10 kHz should be read with a huge grain of salt, that his Audio Precision analyser has it's own noise floor or distortion below a certain theshold will not be audible. But all this does not discredit measurements in total. GoldenSound, on the other hand, wants some justification for using tube amps with high distortion or headphones with a quirky FR to color his music, which most here would correctly dismiss as not being high fidelity. He has an agenda and it is very open and not to be accepted.
 
I don't think they or anyone criticises ASR of using just SINAD which Amir correctly doesn't but the problem of less experiences viewers who concentrate on such single metric like also the Harman score on loudspeakers. This slide of the presentation shows the main points which are well stated, valid and proven:

View attachment 419112
I am generally a little suspicious of this mode of rhetoric that I call the Malcolm Gladwell style, in which X is posited as a commonly held idea that's wrong. Gladwell in his first big-selling book was great at dressing up common sense or the obvious (when you think for a moment) as tremendously insightful by contrasting it with some straw man about "what most people think" without providing evidence supporting the claims about what most people think.

To me it is often unclear if this mode of rhetoric it is intended more to educate or to flatter the audience. It seem to me an indirect way of saying "you, gentle reader/listener/viewer, are not so dumb as most people who think the following wrong thing." You don't need the "most people believe dumb idea X" stuff to educate people, so what's it for?
 
From what little I watched would not rely on ole Cameron's opinion of any headphone unless he gets a proper haircut. ;)

He cannot possibly get an even fitment with hair that is so lopsided. SINAD is less of an issue here than excess BEDHEAD. :D
Perhaps someone can do a deepfake of the video with Tom Cruise and using his voice :p. otoh, can also use our host :eek:
 
The worst thing about the video is that it is, using measurements and somehow convincing language, casting doubt on the value of measurements altogether. And this is very different from pointing out their limitations.
Absolutely... he's tried this on before too. A bit odd for someone who purchased an AP with viewers and sponsors money... I think many contributed hoping to see more measurements of devices.

This video isn't informative really... it's a more "look at me, I need some clicks" video.

I would have thought after he was threatened to be sued and Amir offered to assist, ASR in general provided support etc., that this approach would have ceased.


JSmith
 
I am generally a little suspicious of this mode of rhetoric that I call the Malcolm Gladwell style, in which X is posited as a commonly held idea that's wrong. Gladwell in his first big-selling book was great at dressing up common sense or the obvious (when you think for a moment) as tremendously insightful by contrasting it with some straw man about "what most people think" without providing evidence supporting the claims about what most people think.

To me it is often unclear if this mode of rhetoric it is intended more to educate or to flatter the audience. It seem to me an indirect way of saying "you, gentle reader/listener/viewer, are not so dumb as most people who think the following wrong thing." You don't need the "most people believe dumb idea X" stuff to educate people, so what's it for?
In general, tilting at a strawman or an extremist is a really robust rhetorical method - I wasn't directly involved in this video, but I've explicitly used (and referenced) that fact in my own related presentations. When your audience is probably at least half-wrong on a topic¹, a way to avoid making them defensive is to say "well you good people, I know you're better than this, but there are folks out there who are just truly incorrect", and then you crucify the strawman and hope that people shift their incorrect impressions without ever having felt they were the target of an attack, because you're mixing in correcting their misimpressions with indictments of someone who they've never been and will never be.

I wouldn't call this a particularly charitable method of rhetoric, since it's basically assuming that the audience can't stand to be told they're incorrect about something, but I've also observed it to be very effective with large, mixed groups. I probably wouldn't use this style when talking to my peers, but...I mean, it is a youtube video, that's about as low of common denominator as one is likely to get.

1: My baseline assumption is that the youtube audience is going to be >90% wrong on pretty much any arbitrarily chosen topic

I would have thought after he was threatened to be sued and Amir offered to assist, ASR in general provided support etc., that this approach would have ceased.
This video is based on a presentation Cameron gave at Canjam SoCal 2023 and NY 2024 - I believe there might be a recording somewhere online with me heckling him from the stage about some of the framing, in fact.

Why do these things almost always seem to devolve into being some kind of a competition, or get assigned some nefarious intent?
Humans are political creatures, and viewed through a lens of tribal politics, something is usually either "with us" or "against us"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom