Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[nagster]

About the difference due to the digital filter.
As you know, if it is different, even a simple frequency response will not be a similar measurement.
There are no Meitner DAC measurements, but TOPPING D90SE, for example.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

About the difference due to the digital filter.
As you know, if it is different, even a simple frequency response will not be a similar measurement.
There are no Meitner DAC measurements, but TOPPING D90SE, for example.
View attachment 212002

Now! That's what I call a graph.
Good one.
I STILL CAN'T HEAR ANY DIFFERENCES.

 

[elvisizer]

addictedtoaudio.com.au/blogs/how-to/how-to-pick-the-best-filter-setting-for-your-dac

I wrote “all DACs that measure well don’t sound the same”. In fact, I expect they would measure different if they sound different. And I would expect much of the difference for DACs that measure well (but not identically the same) would be from different filters, that will measure differently.

yeah the way you're talking about this most people are going to not understand that you're talking only about filter implementations not the 'dac' per se. if you mean filter, say filter- not dac.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

M. F(remmer?) Surely not! Too polite.

 

[Cote Dazur]

it’s impossible to prove something to somebody with a double-blind test on an Internet forum.

We are in agreement here, luckily, we do not have to prove anything to anybody on the internet, of all places, or any where else. Only to our selves.
Again, I believe you hear what you say you are hearing and until we both listen in a blind test listening to the same 2 cable, no point arguing about it.
If someone or yourself would do a null test we would know better if there something to hear to start with, but only a blind test can really settle this.

 

[dc655321]

About the difference due to the digital filter.
As you know, if it is different, even a simple frequency response will not be a similar measurement.
There are no Meitner DAC measurements, but TOPPING D90SE, for example.
View attachment 212002

Where/who is that from?

 

[krabapple]

Hi everyone!

New member, first post, so hello!

I've been debating with myself whether join this forum or not, but in the end I couldn't resist, even though I'm sure I'm going to get flamed! Just to be clear, I haven't come here to troll or for the sake of having an argument, but to offer a (hopefully informed) alternative to the majority opinion, and also to learn.

So, full disclosure. I am 58 and a musician by profession - classically trained, went to Trinity College of Music in London and have worked mostly in orchestras and shows, playing wind instruments. I have also had, unusually for a musician, a lifelong interest in Hi-Fi. My first experience of the wonders of reproduced music, other than the kitchen radio, was my Dad's record player. And I mean record player, not turntable. It had its own built in speaker. I remember listening to Tchaikovsky 1812 and other works on the old Decca Classics label at the age of 6 or 7. My Dad let me use the record player. I was very careful!
Fast forward to the 90's and I had the means to buy a decent Hi-Fi, which, after many upgrades, culminated substantially in the system which I still have today. I won't bore you with the whole inventory, but the CD reply side has been, Marantz CD12/DA12, Mark Levinson 38, ATC SCM100A SL. Until recently that is, when my CD12 finally gave up the ghost after 30+ years. (It still works, but you have to manually help it read/spin the disc). So, what to replace an iconic and state of the art/reference balanced (to go with my fully balanced system) CD player with? Yes, you guessed; the SA-10.

This is where I'm going to have to start to choose my words carefully, but as I said, I'm curious to learn rather that simply argue and alternative viewpoint. It seems that the majority here think that measurements are more important than anything else, is that correct? So if a piece of equipment measures better than another then it must sound better, and if it doesn't, then either you are deceiving yourself (due to cost and appearance for example) or your opinion of which sounds better must be wrong?

Personally I have to confess that I don't fully understand all of the measurements in amirs's review, or what the sonic implication of any given measurement is. I've spent my whole life and career honing and trusting my listening skills. The only thing that matters to me is how something sounds, and to my (if I say so myself, experienced) ears, the SA-10 sounds phenomenal. As to whether it justifies it's asking price, well that would have to be up to the purchaser. I bought mine at a substantial discount before the price point is where it is now. Would I pay the current asking price? No, but only because I couldn't justify it. When you look at the reviews of the SA-10 and compare it to it's competition it looks rather competitive. But yes, it's overpriced - rather like a Rolls Royce is.

So, a few additional questions; Has anyone here (apart perhaps from the one person who said he had an SA-10) done any listening comparisons to the the much cheaper DAC's which measure better? And if not, how can you say that they sound as good or better? Second, does anyone think (as I do) that reproduction from different formats/sources (DAT, CD, USB etc) sound different, despite the fact that they are all digital?

This thread cries out for a sticky post to answer common newbie requests and misconceptions. Unless we just want to reinvent the wheel over and over.

 

[krabapple]

Over time we’ve learned that what we thought were all the relevant measurements were in fact lacking.

"We" have?

Is this royal we? Because you sure don't mean me.

 

[krabapple]

‘There has not been a single instance, ever, anywhere, by anyone that has identified an audible difference that wasn't measurable.’

But if your only method for discerning a difference is measurement then this is just self fulfilling, isn’t it? i.e. There is no difference because I can’t be measured........

You've got it backwards.

Prove you actually heard it, first. It's is hilariously easy for people to 'hear' differences that aren't real. It's why any scientific study of whether something is audible, uses double blind listening tests. (Not instrumental measurements alone)

After proving it in a listening test, find the measurable reason for it. (It's sure to exist.)

This is all Psychoacoustics 101. It *should* be Audio Hobbyism 101

 

[Goodman]

I have a scale for how much measurements matter for each category of products:

DACs: 100%
Amplifiers (headphone and speaker): 80 to 90% due to variability of available power. Hard to internalize how much power is available/enough without listening tests.
Speakers: 70 to 80%
Headphones: 50 to 80% (measurements too variable)

This is why you see me do listening tests for the last two categories and half of second (headphone amps).

This post makes a lot of sense and is long overdue, especialy the speaker measurement wich makes me think of no limit Texas hold'em. 70 to 80% luck 20 to 30% skill.

 

[Thomas savage]

Yo Woody, you're fixin to build the longest thread in forum history. LOL

That should ( if men were men still ) been the beer thread .

Really we should start with beer then argue the toss then after 3 or 4 beers , well no one gives a toss thusly a natural end to the cycle .

What we have here is a never ending cycle of one person's inquest, discovery or misconception vs responses that have in their entirely been put forth before but given the inquirer often can't be arsed to read and often desperate to be validated ... .

Well it just never fucking ends dose it .

Ask a question you don't have a reasonable expectation to understand the answer, down a blue ribbon and a shot of Canadian club ..

Wait a moment...

Do you still require a answer?

No , fabulous...

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

I think keeping this thread on and on is not too bad after all. Newcomers and people who want to debate or discuss to have a broader understanding will come here (because they cannot just keep asking about stuff in review threads) and this thread serves both as a relief thread for people who needs debating/explaining, as well as a thread for general arguments as we can already see how many different types of arguments happened in this thread.

Personally I've had a few questions and arguments in the back of my mind but scrolling through this thread I've found compelling counterarguments and probable answers for them

 

[nagster]

Where/who is that from?

It is from me.

 

[Mike F]

You've got it backwards.

Prove you actually heard it, first. It's is hilariously easy for people to 'hear' differences that aren't real. It's why any scientific study of whether something is audible, uses double blind listening tests. (Not instrumental measurements alone)

After proving it in a listening test, find the measurable reason for it. (It's sure to exist.)

This is all Psychoacoustics 101. It *should* be Audio Hobbyism 101

The problem is that if I could pass a blind test and hear a difference (with sufficient statistical reliability to suggest that I wasn’t guessing) but 2 other people sitting with me couldn’t hear the difference, would you accept that there was an audible difference, or would you assume that I just got lucky?

It doesn’t really matter, as I can’t prove anything on an Internet forum, but, in case you’re interested, there’s some good and fun ‘blind tests’ on the following site with which you can test your own skills.

Free Online Audio Tests, Test Tones and Tone Generators

Tests your audio equipment, speakers, room acoustics and hearing. Audio signals and test tones playable online. High resolution sound test files available for free download.

www.audiocheck.net

 

[dc655321]

It is from me.

Cool.
Is that AC coupled?
Would be helpful to see full input and analysis parameters.

 

[dc655321]

The problem is that if I could pass a blind test and hear a difference (with sufficient statistical reliability to suggest that I wasn’t guessing) but 2 other people sitting with me couldn’t hear the difference, would you accept that there was an audible difference, or would you assume that I just got lucky?

That’s a different and straw-like problem.

 

[krabapple]

The problem is that if I could pass a blind test and hear a difference (with sufficient statistical reliability to suggest that I wasn’t guessing) but 2 other people sitting with me couldn’t hear the difference, would you accept that there was an audible difference, or would you assume that I just got lucky?

How is this a 'problem'? It's no more a problem than it would be for an actual scientific study.

If your blind test is designed and conducted with enough rigor, then it's possible to relegate 'luck' to a vanishingly small possibility.

'enough rigor' means 'double blind' (and other stuff)

It doesn’t really matter, as I can’t prove anything on an Internet forum, but, in case you’re interested, there’s some good and fun ‘blind tests’ on the following site with which you can test your own skills.

Free Online Audio Tests, Test Tones and Tone Generators

Tests your audio equipment, speakers, room acoustics and hearing. Audio signals and test tones playable online. High resolution sound test files available for free download.

www.audiocheck.net

I'm already familiar with self-conducted blind tests, thanks.

You could, also, provide good evidence of a measured difference that is plausibly audible, and save a lot of fuss.

 

[chych7]

I'm all for measurements, but why don't electronics (amps, DACs, etc.) here get acoustic measurements? Sure they may have differences that are measurable on a scope, but does it show up on a microphone? That's the closest measurement tool to what we would be able to hear. Of course this would now involve a speaker and room, adding variables (and may need multiple controlled environments for statistical confidence), but if differences in electronics do not show up (i.e. speaker baseline distortion is way higher than amplifier distortion), then it would put things better into perspective of what really matters and deserves $$ in a system, for one who is building up an audio system.

 

[voodooless]

then it would put things better into perspective of what really matters and deserves $$ in a system, for one who is building up an audio system.

It’s not as if we don’t already know the answer to that question: speakers and room. All the rest is a very long way behind.

 

[nagster]

Cool.
Is that AC coupled?
Would be helpful to see full input and analysis parameters.

yes. AC coupled.
I forgot to change to DC. But I didn't start over.