Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Werther44210]

Keith,

What's the reconstruction filter you're quoting ?

I don't know

Keith,

You said: "The only possible difference is the choice of reconstruction filter".

OK, the filter I'm using is the minimum slow phase attenuation is indeed this one, perfect, I'm well set....

 

[Deleted member 21219]

In summary: all devices above 100db SINAD sound the same, get the cheapest 100db SINAD device, all the rest is a scam

This website should be much shorter, I see a lot of discussions about different gear, when it is simple: above 100db SINAD? All the same

Connectivity?
Reliability?
Voltage level?
Filter type?
Feature set?

SINAD is only one of many aspects to be measured.

Many planes can achieve supersonic flight. By that single, simple metric, the ones that can are all the same. But I assure you, they are definitely not the same.

Jim

 

[Fofocho]

Sorry we should go back to the subject of the thread: Eversolo DMP A6

I am quite busy now burning-in the new cables to open the soundstage and the dac to bring smoothness, to get involved in other discussions

 

[BDWoody]

And a bunch more...

 

[solderdude]

In summary: all devices above 100db SINAD sound the same, get the cheapest 100db SINAD device, all the rest is a scam

I am sure you were just making fun so I suggest to add an emoji to make that more clear.

If serious ...SINAD, sound quality and tonality are very different things.
SINAD has nothing to do with any of those aspects and is just a metric that combines distortion at 1kHz at 1 specified signal level combined with hum and noise.

 

[Newman]

Sorry we should go back to the subject of the thread: Eversolo DMP A6

Don’t worry, your posts are no longer off-topic since they got moved into the “teach people about what measurements really tell us” thread.

I am quite busy now burning-in the new cables to open the soundstage and the dac to bring smoothness, to get involved in other discussions

I take, I hope I can safely take, this to be tongue in cheek…

 

[Esprit]

I trust measurements. I do not trust that all devices measuring well sound the same. And also, measurements do not tell if it sounds well or bad to me. I come here just to check if a specific device measures very poor to discard it. If it measures well, I stop reading and go somewhere else to read reviews about sound

Bon voyage

 

[HarmonicTHD]

…..


I take, I hope I can safely take, this to be tongue in cheek…

I fear not.

 

[Lasker]

Sound signature of Akm based DAC and Ess DAC for example is a bit different in my opinioni, this is my thinking. It's not important a sinad more than 110 db or not, to me a good akm DAC sound more relaxed vs a good Ess DAC. Ess based DAC expecially in long term session Is not for me. I like ASR forum for member suggestion and Amir review, but no, to me all not sound the same.

 

[fpitas]

And a bunch more...

 

[fpitas]

I take, I hope I can safely take, this to be tongue in cheek…

You never know around here. Lucky us.

 

[ahofer]

This website should be much shorter, I see a lot of discussions about different gear, when it is simple: above 100db SINAD? All the same

Please point us specifically where we made even that claim, let alone made it the only claim. This is just you responding to the misleading vividness of a chart that appears in many reviews. If you *read* more here, you'll see frequency response gets more attention as coloring or not coloring sound.

Sighted comparisons give rise to similar problems. Worth thinking about.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Sound signature of Akm based DAC and Ess DAC for example is a bit different in my opinioni, this is my thinking. It's not important a sinad more than 110 db or not, to me a good akm DAC sound more relaxed vs a good Ess DAC. Ess based DAC expecially in long term session Is not for me. I like ASR forum for member suggestion and Amir review, but no, to me all not sound the same.

And what procedure did you employ to determine this?

Jim

 

[Lasker]

And what procedure did you employ to determine this?

Jim

My ears, every time I listened an Ess DAC for long term I have effort with Akm no. This appened with various sabre DAC some quite expensive, maybe I am allergic to Ess chip

 

[Blumlein 88]

My ears, every time I listened an Ess DAC for long term I have effort with Akm no. This appened with various sabre DAC some quite expensive, maybe I am allergic to Ess chip

With respect, this is a very poor methodology. One nearly certain for you to mislead yourself. One thing you can learn from here is such approaches are fraught with the likelihood of misleading results.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

With respect, this is a very poor methodology. One nearly certain for you to mislead yourself. One thing you can learn from here is such approaches are fraught with the likelihood of misleading results.

This is the polite understatement of the year!

My ears, every time I listened an Ess DAC for long term I have effort with Akm no. This appened with various sabre DAC some quite expensive, maybe I am allergic to Ess chip

If you use only your ears in a uncontrolled and non-rigorous comparison, then your opinion is just a subjective "impression". Subjective "impressions" are worthless, because 1) our ears are not calibrated (or able to be calibrated), 2) our brain is short-circuiting any attempt at instrumental-grade accuracy by using manipulative tricks to ensure that we pay attention to survival cues. This is called "bias", and it's very effective. It's also impossible to eliminate, control or even in some cases, detect.

The only way for us to compare any sounds is, ideally, a double-blind test. This is a test that is scientifically constructed to eliminate bias ..... as much as possible.

Here is a how-to primer:

And in case you think that it's easy, or can be done accurately with no training, watch this also:

Many people are quite violently disturbed by the assertion that their ears are relatively useless to use for comparisons. They become defensive and even hateful if the thought is advocated by someone. They think it's a personal accusation, aimed at them. They don't realize that there is nothing "personal" in science; the Scientific Method was devised specifically to eliminate that.

Reality trumps wishful thinking, every time.

Jim

 

[Axo1989]

This is the polite understatement of the year!

For people who have trouble being polite, or require overstatement/hyperbole to get/make a point, I guess. Otherwise it's accurate, comprehensive and serviceable.

Many people are quite violently disturbed by the assertion that their ears are relatively useless to use for comparisons.

Anyone who reacts that way to @Blumlein 88's formulation is being defensive/overracting. Other formulations which state or imply that all sighted listening is uninformative may well trigger justified disbelief.

The linked how-to videos are informative (and not hyperbolic, from memory) and especially helpful for people unfamiliar with controlled testing concepts and methods.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

For people who have trouble being polite, or require overstatement/hyperbole to get/make a point, I guess. Otherwise it's accurate, comprehensive and serviceable.



Anyone who reacts that way to @Blumlein 88's formulation is being defensive/overracting. Other formulations which state or imply that all sighted listening is uninformative may well trigger justified disbelief.

The linked how-to videos are informative (and not hyperbolic, from memory) and especially helpful for people unfamiliar with controlled testing concepts and methods.

You are absolutely correct!

Jim

 

[Mulder]

In @jan.didden magazine "Linear Audio" no. 4 there is an interesting article: "The case for subjective listening tests" by Dr. Hans R.E. van Mannen. In the text, he claims that blind listening tests give much more difficult results to interpret than is often assumed and that listening impressions that cannot be verified in blind tests can nevertheless provide convincing evidence that differences actually exist. The introduction of the text can be found here: https://www.linearaudio.net/case-subjective-listening-tests. The text in its entirety can be read here https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Audio...?asin=9490929050&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1 (The article is a sample from No. 4 by Linear Audio.) What does the forum think about this?

 

[fpitas]

In @jan.didden magazine "Linear Audio" no. 4 there is an interesting article: "The case for subjective listening tests" by Dr. Hans R.E. van Mannen. In the text, he claims that blind listening tests give much more difficult results to interpret than is often assumed and that listening impressions that cannot be verified in blind tests can nevertheless provide convincing evidence that differences actually exist. The introduction of the text can be found here: https://www.linearaudio.net/case-subjective-listening-tests. The text in its entirety can be read here https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Audio...?asin=9490929050&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1 (The article is a sample from No. 4 by Linear Audio.) What does the forum think about this?

I'd sure have to know a lot more than that blurb. He talks about some CD/MP3 comparison test without telling us the MP3 bitrate, for example. Then darkly hints our systems aren't resolving enough.