• 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!

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
This is a variant of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

It is more than that.

I pointed out that since "high fidelity" was first attempted to be formalised in terms of numbers that form engineering targets, these targets have moved and additional formalised specifics have been added.

So over time engineers found additional fidelity impairments and charaterised them.

I think it show incredible mental arrogance to claim that we can be certain nothing more remains to be uncovered.

As a minimum, if someone claims the existence of unmeasured impairment of fidelity, a valid hypothesis ought to be presented.

Well, I do not claim any such things, you see. I observe and state my observations and suggest that to me it seems more investigation is needed, which was outside the remit of my own work.

No claim. No hypothesis.

Just "if I do A I relibly get one set of preference and a different one one for B". Note this does not even claim that there was any audible difference, merely that persistent preference could be established under blind conditions.

I offer no explanation.

If you were to press me, I would admit that logic and old Bill of Occam's razor suggest an actual audible difference as root cause and that it may be useful to investigate further to see if this hypothesis can be confirmed. But I am not making such claim in any scientific sense.

I do not even suggest "unmeasured" anywhere, but merely not covered by an extremely limited set of common metrics.

I appreciate that some others here might find implications arising from my observations in disagreement with deeply held believes and feel the need block any such idea that some doubts remain and that there may be something not fully or sufficiently understood in audio.

In this case it may be easiest to ignore such observations as disagree with ones prejudices and refuse to acknowledge them. Alternatively it would be as easy to simply admit that there may be things that remain to be yet understood and wish investitors good luck, but reserve any final judgement until a more complete picture is available.

Challenging them in the way it is often done here is counter productive, if the interest is the investigation and understanding of Audio, fidelity impairments and how they affect listening experience, in other words, if we actually are doing science.

Thor
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,954
Likes
8,701
Location
New York City
I did not do these tests to make a scientific publication.

I made them to develop a product that I had solid reason to believe many listeners would have a reliable preference for, over other alternatives.
It sure would help your product, though, if you had published them. Why did you decide not to?
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,954
Likes
8,701
Location
New York City
will ultimately be debunked just as the ‘academy’ always is seen to be stuffy and conservative in science itself with resistance to new and ground breaking discoveries.
We just need some evidence. I think most of the people you are addressing would be excited, if any had been presented (ie not 'stuffy and conservative', just normally skeptical). And it seems like whoever produces it should have some significant commercial success, so we're not lacking incentives. What gives?
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
It sure would help your product, though, if you had published them. Why did you decide not to?

You think it would help sales to publish:

"We tested several configurations and went with a configuration that measures worse than we are capable to deliver but was preferred by listeners over the better measuring one, here is the data:"

Interesting.

I must note that I rather entertain doubts on that point.

Or what do you mean by "help your product "?

Thor
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,954
Likes
8,701
Location
New York City
You think it would help sales to publish:

"We tested several configurations and went with a configuration that measures worse than we are capable to deliver but was preferred by listeners over the better measuring one, here is the data:"

Interesting.

I must note that I rather entertain doubts on that point.

Or what do you mean by "help your product "?

Thor
If you can show a lot of people preferred something blind, wouldn't that be worth advertising? You wouldn't even have to bring measurements into it.
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
If you can show a lot of people preferred something blind, wouldn't that be worth advertising? You wouldn't even have to bring measurements into it.

Well, I did not do sales and marketing for iFi, but even I would not advertise what we did.

It WOULD be worth advertising (wherever allowed) if an independent third party (say Consumer Reports) did such a blind comparison against a super expensive product currently considered the "G.O.A.T." and independently published a result that favoured "my" much cheaper product in such a blind test.

There are good reason why no magazine (or website) would do that. Even when they did blind group listening tests, the European Mag's that did never mixed price groups.

Too embarrassing to have a 100 UK Pound japanese integrated Amp beat a 2,000 UK Pound British made Pre-Power combo who's maker was running double page adverts in each issue.

Thor
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
Precisely why the mags are such rubbish, and why ASR is cool.
Keith
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,954
Likes
8,701
Location
New York City
Too embarrassing to have a 100 UK Pound japanese integrated Amp beat a 2,000 UK Pound British made Pre-Power combo who's maker was running double page adverts in each issue
That’s for sure.

Although the original 1987 Stereo Review had a similar comparison that ended up with no difference. Pioneer vs Hafler vs Audio Research vs Hafler. Even the Stereophile test (Adcom, Hafler, VTL) only allegedly had one person who could more reliably, sometimes, tell the difference. I don’t believe either test was ABX by the way.

My point being that *preferring* one blind would be a step up from what’s been shown so far, and would cause some waves and publicity.
 
Last edited:

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,954
Likes
8,701
Location
New York City
I am sure that scientific evidence do not exist in this case.
Well, I’m skeptical too, but I find the question of incentives interesting.
 

pma

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,592
Likes
10,728
Location
Prague
Well, I’m skeptical too, but I find the question of incentives interesting.
Well, if we have “something”, we try to use it. I had very good results, during listening sessions, with the class A low distortion amplifier, and to support it I would use this


and it supports my theory that cleanliness of spectrum and absence of high order harmonics is a key. I believe that if @Thorsten Loesch had something similar in his hand, he would use it ;).
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
It is important to realize that the audio industry (manufacturers, sellers, (online & paper)audio magazines) runs on the perpetuation of the belief that there is still something mysterious that can not be measured but somehow all designers/brands know something others don't and manage to engineer it in their gear (using available electronic components every manufacturer can buy) where other manufactures supposedly can't do it (that well).

Engineering can be measured, analyzed and quality can be proven.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,525
Likes
37,058
You do not have to. However, empirically established audibility limits for jitter as "fidelity impairment" exist and have been documented. This is regardless of your agreement or not.

323888802_5584518801670199_3886520853393252434_n.jpg


Note that this strictly "phasesnoise" and NOT discrete components.

I tend to agree that Jitter, like Harmonic Distortion, Noise etc. are overrated as fidelity impairment at very low levels, which is what we nowadays find in most equipment we test. .

Which is why always ask for context to numbers, that is what number of a given fidelity impairment is actually reliably audible and which level is reliably inaudible (p=0.05) to most people and how do these numbers compare to the number provided by the Device under Test.



I referenced tests I performed in the process of product development. I commented elsewhere on details of methodology.

I made that clear. If you find this to be insufficient evidence to convince you, you are free to say so.



I gave such an example of a device I designed and which was actually measured here at ASR.



If my tests showed such a preference and they were done adequacy controlled, I consider this evidence sufficient for me personally. And they do.

I did not do these tests to make a scientific publication.

I made them to develop a product that I had solid reason to believe many listeners would have a reliable preference for, over other alternatives.

I mention my experiences here in specific conversations aimed at specific individuals and their part of the conversation.

I further find it funny that when a certain objectivist designer after adding extra NFB to an existing amplifier resulted in what I can only describe as "miraculous" sonic improvements, without providing evidence, methodology or anything else about the test, still all of ASR rally behind him against any criticism and claim it all as good and scientific and when I do something similar with a lot of detail on test and outcome I am told it is all terribly unscientific. Pot, kettle, black? But I cannot be arsed to do anything to do about it. I actually genuinely don't care, even though I might point it out and point a finger and say at times "Look, Cargo Cult Science in action!".

Thor
Yes well we are back to tests you did, that you say were adequately controlled, but not details. They satisfy you, and of course not anyone else. I have said more than once this evidence does not convince me. How could it? You have provided none other than you saying so. Hard to discuss anything about it as not much is divulged.

Jitter has pretty much never been a problem with audio in general. That is why I called it a bugaboo and yes I was aware of the info you posted on it.

As for an amp and designer with miraculous sonic improvements, I have no idea what amp or what designer you are referring to in this case. Then again, this is typical of you. Lacking details to be useful.
 

bboris77

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
444
Likes
931
It is important to realize that the audio industry (manufacturers, sellers, (online & paper)audio magazines) runs on the perpetuation of the belief that there is still something mysterious that can not be measured but somehow all designers/brands know something others don't and manage to engineer it in their gear (using available electronic components every manufacturer can buy) where other manufactures supposedly can't do it (that well).

Engineering can be measured, analyzed and quality can be proven.
Agree with you 100% when it comes to the first statement. I would also add to it the fact that there is this aura of secrecy when this mysterious knowledge is questioned. It is almost as if some of these designers are hesitant to disclose their secret sauce/formula that gives their gear the absolute sonic supremacy. It’s either that or they “design by feel” which is basically “Use the force, Luke.” approach.

Your second point about the ability to measure, analyze and prove good engineering and quality is very important. I would love to see a concerted effort made within this community of enthusiasts to use this kind of thinking to come up with some standardized testing for not only SINAD but things like RF and EMI noise rejection, thermal performance/stability of amplifiers, coil whine/acoustic performance and, most importantly, accelerated durability testing using some type of torture testing.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,954
Likes
8,701
Location
New York City
Jitter has pretty much never been a problem with audio in general. That is why I called it a bugaboo and yes I was aware of the info you posted on it.

I don’t really have a dog in the “when was jitter a thing” debate, but it seems that a) it takes quite a lot to be audible and b) a lot of the bad-sounding early CDs didn’t sound bad because of jitter but because they were bad recordings. But jitter made it about the equipment. I’m not sure how to support (b) but (a)-

 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Your second point about the ability to measure, analyze and prove good engineering and quality is very important.
This does require opening up equipment and as most of it is drop shipped by customers it is not possible to do so without breaking warranty or running the risk of damage.

I would love to see a concerted effort made within this community of enthusiasts to use this kind of thinking to come up with some standardized testing for not only SINAD but things like RF and EMI noise rejection,
This requires an EMC lab with accompanying very expensive test equipment and reading up on standards as well as creating lab test conditions.
Just winging it or 'doing something' or only a few tests is not doing it properly.
Testing an AVR for every aspect would literally take days.

thermal performance/stability of amplifiers,

and, most importantly, accelerated durability testing using some type of torture testing.

The problem is some of these tests are potentially destructive and we are dealing with loaners being tested.
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
I am sure that scientific evidence do not exist in this case.

Pavel, we have been over this. What I did was aimed at a specific purpose. That was not a publication in sa scientific journal. You can let it be.

Keep that stuff in the thread for it.

Thor
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
That’s for sure.

Although the original 1987 Stereo Review had a similar comparison that ended up with no difference. Pioneer vs Hafler vs Audio Research vs Hafler. Even the Stereophile test (Adcom, Hafler, VTL) only allegedly had one person who could more reliably, sometimes, tell the difference. I don’t believe either test was ABX by the way.

Actually European Magazines (British and German among them) used to do several blind listening group tests in each issue. I even participated in a few.

My point being that *preferring* one blind would be a step up from what’s been shown so far, and would cause some waves and publicity.

Really? We had many cases of such publications that had zero impact. For example Mr. Ackermans test at the Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst is routinely ignored, why? Nobody liked the result?

Thor
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
Well, I’m skeptical too, but I find the question of incentives interesting.

IN YOUR MIND, showing such a result SHOULD help sales. That does not make it so.

Publishing what we found would have been either ignored or been subject to a massive attack, requiring a long drawn out fight to defend the work.

Would it have meant more people buy the product?

Those opposed to the ideas represented will still not buy it.

Those already convinced will still buy it.

Those looking will just be turned off by all the mudslinging.

Bottom line, sales will not be improved, most likely the opposite is true.So why spend a lot of time and effort on this?

It may come as surprise to you, but bad reviews by Amir do not really affect sales at all, good reviews in stereophile on the other had do, a lot.

Thor
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
It is important to realize that the audio industry (manufacturers, sellers, (online & paper)audio magazines) runs on the perpetuation of the belief that there is still something mysterious that can not be measured but somehow all designers/brands know something others don't and manage to engineer it in their gear (using available electronic components every manufacturer can buy) where other manufactures supposedly can't do it (that well).

That is not quite correct.

Engineering can be measured, analyzed and quality can be proven.

Absolutely. Even "good sound" can be quantified. By listening tests. I have learned to take typical AP Test results (or similar) as a proxy, but I have not found te result reliable enough to make a reliable rule.

There are enough outliers to my own view of "this should sound good" to suggest that rules I use are insufficient. It is easier to predict "bad sound" from measurements but even this is not 100% reliable.

To me this suggests a hidden variable that is not quantified. That is not saying it cannot be quantified or is mystical, it is just outside current scopes. I might even have a rough idea and a hypothesis. In part Hawkesford's works points the way ("Fuzzy Distortion") I think. Do I want to work on it? Why not, if someone foots the bill.

Thor
 
Top Bottom