Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[ahofer]

handle the unavoidable existing distortion profile.

Your premise is wrong. There is no inevitable audible distortion profile [EDIT: except in speakers. We haven’t seen a speaker yet whose distortion can’t be provoked to audible at some achievable level and frequency]. When it *does* exist, it will be highly variable based on level, frequency, and in many cases, electrical loads presented to the distorting component.

 

[ahofer]

I would argue that your own theory is flawed because you, yourself do not like inaccuracies. Best evidence are those who have TWO or more premium systems. Usually there will be one precisely accurate sound system and the second will be the non transparent system. That is, people with turntables also can have 120+ dB SINAD DACs. People with tubes can also have solid state listening rooms.





Again, because you yourself do not like coloration, it is a leap and assumption that it is EASILY simulated.

I agree 100% that you can model everything with a transfer function. Math is math. But using the 300B SET as an example, please show me how EASY it is to apply an inverted loudness curve which is based upon the signal, not the volume knob where louder sounds get more treble boost from softer sounds? And then show me how easy it is to apply that when watching a streaming movie, listening to streaming music, or a CD?

Then, before I published the 300B SET measurements, I don’t think anyone else identified the inverted loudness curve phenomenon…. So you wouldn’t have known what to simulate in DSP.

Right now, most DSP simulations only work in DAW type software, not something that works any source.



Also false. Any vinyl fan who is on ASR recognizes that LPs are inaccurate. Where else do you see a collection of cartridge measurements to show distortion and FR? What an ASR vinyl fan is saying is that it can sound enjoyable enough to invest some money in.



Who is they?


Again, which ones works with something like Amazon Music on the PC? Which plugins? Which DSP?

Your first point doesn’t really go anywhere. So perhaps people like inaccuracies *sometimes*. My preferences have nothing to do with it.

I’ve never met a turntable aficionado who didn’t think there was *something* more accurate about the vinyl presentation. But if you are one, I’ll gladly concede that. However, just open Stereophile or go to a high end store, and you know perfectly well what people will tell you - “this DAC is so good it’s almost as good as vinyl”. Fremer is one of the high priests of this idea.

It’s a fair point that the more erratic inaccuracies of boutique tube amps can’t be simulated, but DISTORT can add harmonics (by far the most discussed type of preferred inaccuracy) and other types of distortion. It does require you start from a digital file on a (windows, I think) computer. And it would certainly be far easier if more audiophiles would admit this is what they want and ask that a version be made for Roon, DSP DACs and preamps, Audirvana, etc. The other major difference of badly engineered electronics and speakers is Frequency Response, which is easily EQ’d. Dispersion in speakers…that can’t be electronically altered, I’ll agree.

I honestly don’t think we disagree too much here, but you seem to have taken this personally.

 

[MattHooper]

Except that the same listening preference tests have often been conducted in stereo, often in mono, and come up with the same preference for uncoloured sound. Each channel is preferred uncoloured.

If the preference for uncoloured sound only applied in 5+.1+ then you might have a case. But no.

In blind testing I overall preferred the slightly colored sound from my tube preamp over my Benchmark preamp.

Individual preferences can still be a "thing." YMMV...

 

[MattHooper]

I’ve never met a turntable aficionado who didn’t think there was *something* more accurate about the vinyl presentation.

Depends what one is referencing by "accurate."

If we are talking about technical accuracy, I don't think there is anything more accurate about what my turntable spits out vs my Benchmark DAC. Not a thing.

I struggle to think of any turntable aficionado I know personally, or that I've seen recently in forums, who thinks vinyl is more accurate than digital. I know there certainly has been a lot of b.s. that has circulated over the years about digital "losing information that analog retains." But in the audiophile forums I rarely see this anymore, and none of my audiophile buddies who have expensive turntables thinks it's more accurate then digital.

 

[thecheapseats]

...or go to a high end store, and you know perfectly well what people will tell you - “this DAC is so good it’s almost as good as vinyl”...

which is always hilarious on its face... thanks for restating that often repeated comparison...

 

[MattHooper]

which is always hilarious on its face... thanks for restating that often repeated comparison...

I'm sorry to inform you: We strongly agree on something.

 

[ahofer]

The window shows the real world behind it, not an artist impression of it.

Or the work of art on the other side.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Individual preferences can still be a "thing."

Individual preferences always were a thing, are still a thing, and always will be a thing. The stickler is the word, "individual". They will always be individual preferences, which implies that they are uniquely so.
I have individual preferences ... I just don't publicize them.

Jim

 

[Newman]

In blind testing I overall preferred the slightly colored sound from my tube preamp over my Benchmark preamp.

Coloured in what objective way?

 

[MattHooper]

Coloured in what objective way?

In a way that, in my set up, apparently produced audible coloration

Conrad-Johnson Premier 16LS preamplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements Measurement-wise, Conrad-Johnson's Premier 16LS was very similar to C-J's Premier 17LS, which Brian Damkroger reviewed for Stereophile in May, in that many of its "static" parameters varied with the setting of the volume control. Fortunately, because of the very high...

www.stereophile.com

Both CJ preamp and Benchmark were going in to my CJ tube amps.

 

[Newman]

Proper answer please.

 

[MattHooper]

Proper answer please.

I presume you acknowledge a Benchmark pre-amp is functionally transparent. If that's the case, all else held equal in the test, and I could detect a difference in the blind test between it and a tube preamp, it suggests the tube preamp was adding some coloration. Correct? I passed the blind test, preferring the tube preamp. If, from the supplied stereophile measurements of this preamp, you can't figure out how it could possibly color the sound you can say so.

 

[GXAlan]

Your first point doesn’t really go anywhere. So perhaps people like inaccuracies *sometimes*. My preferences have nothing to do with it.

What I was commenting on is your claim that people who like inaccuracies sometimes have simply never heard a truly accurate/transparent reproduction in the first place.

I’ve never met a turntable aficionado who didn’t think there was *something* more accurate about the vinyl presentation. But if you are one, I’ll gladly concede that.

I think there are turntable aficionados who fall into the audiophile snake oil and I concede that it’s probably a lot of turntable audiophiles that believe that in the same way we have a lot of audiophiles that believe in audiophile solid state snake oil.

However, just open Stereophile or go to a high end store, and you know perfectly well what people will tell you - “this DAC is so good it’s almost as good as vinyl”. Fremer is one of the high priests of this idea.

+1

And it would certainly be far easier if more audiophiles would admit this is what they want and ask that a version be made for Roon, DSP DACs and preamps, Audirvana, etc.

Or they buy a tube preamp or tube amp that they can use non-exclusively?

I honestly don’t think we disagree too much here, but you seem to have taken this personally.

Not personally — just pointing out that the ASR audience is different than the “general audiophile public.” This also carries on to ASR tube fans and ASR vinyl/turntable fans…

 

[ahofer]

What I was commenting on is your claim that people who like inaccuracies sometimes have simply never heard a truly accurate/transparent reproduction in the first place.


I think there are turntable aficionados who fall into the audiophile snake oil and I concede that it’s probably a lot of turntable audiophiles that believe that in the same way we have a lot of audiophiles that believe in audiophile solid state snake oil.


+1


Or they buy a tube preamp or tube amp that they can use non-exclusively?



Not personally — just pointing out that the ASR audience is different than the “general audiophile public.” This also carries on to ASR tube fans and ASR vinyl/turntable fans…

Well, as for #1, I was stipulating that they *have* heard accurate sound. As I said, I don’t have enough info to know. In fairness, one audio dealer I worked with in NJ said the best sound he’d heard was a pair of room-EQ’d KEF blades. And yet…he eschewed the approach and characteristics of that system in all of his recommendations to me. He felt I need to pair some horrible trebly paradigms with a Primaluna amp to get what I wanted. Talk about an indirect route to something more pleasant than either on their own.

So the spot where I’m not with you was “or they can buy a tube amp”. My point is that the tube amp is probably not the best way to get at the sound they like, and if the industry was built more around well-researched preferences and an admission that the distortion or impedance/capacitance interaction of the tube amp with the speakers is the quality of sound they seek, then I think there are much better ways for the industry to deliver exactoy that. In a relatively cheap box or software.

Which brings us to a key problem. DSP distortion is far less profitable than tube amps. Furthermore most tube amp buyers are after something that goes beyond their strictly audible characteristics (see the quote from Alan Shaw in my signature), so things are unlikely to develop in the direction of my audio utopia.

And indeed, the ASR audience is not like the general audiophile public. But I think the general audiophile public’s sound preferences might resemble ours more if we were all wearing blindfolds.

 

[Newman]

I presume you acknowledge a Benchmark pre-amp is functionally transparent.

Acknowledged, although for a single sample it's best to have its performance tested to be sure it is up to spec. Especially if you want to make "wideranging conclusions".

If that's the case, all else held equal in the test, and I could detect a difference in the blind test between it and a tube preamp,

So many home/shop blind tests are not properly controlled...people think they are and they are not.

it suggests the tube preamp was adding some coloration. Correct?

No. It could just as likely be partially correcting a response error elsewhere in your chain eg speakers/headphones, so the final response at your ears is less coloured.

I passed the blind test, preferring the tube preamp. If, from the supplied stereophile measurements of this preamp, you can't figure out how it could possibly color the sound you can say so.

Already figured out. Twice, no: thrice, see above. Cocky arrogant premature gloating in bold noted.

This is a classic example of people here arguing from ignorance: cherry-pick a single data point of low data quality, get its interpretation completely wrong, and promptly leap to vastly overreaching proclamations about the nature of humanity.

No wonder discussions here are hard to stomach.

 

[JP]

I’ve never met a turntable aficionado who didn’t think there was *something* more accurate about the vinyl presentation.

Pop over and say “hi” sometime…

 

[MattHooper]

Acknowledged, although for a single sample it's best to have its performance tested to be sure it is up to spec. Especially if you want to make "wideranging conclusions".

I didn't make "wide ranging conclusions." I inferred that my tube amp was audibly different from the Benchmark in my system, and hence was adding some form of coloration in the chain the Benchmark was not, which the logic of the blind test suggests.

So many home/shop blind tests are not properly controlled...people think they are and they are not.

Here ya go. All the details...

Blind Test Results: Benchmark LA4 vs Conrad Johnson Tube Preamp

Hey folks, I thought I'd post about a little blind test I did between my two current preamplifiers: Benchmark LA4 vs. Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 tube preamplifier. People are familiar with the Benchmark LA4 I'm sure: https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-la4-line-amplifier A...

www.audiosciencereview.com

(BTW, the levels were double-checked and re-confirmed later on, when I got hold of a different voltmeter).

A lot of ASR members appreciated seeing such a test posted here, and felt it was a good effort. You weren't one of them apparently so I don't expect you to acknowledge much now either. (I've posted about blind testing all sorts of my gear...have you?)

No. It could just as likely be partially correcting a response error elsewhere in your chain eg speakers/headphones, so the final response at your ears is less coloured.

If it is audibly "correcting" for something in a way the Benchmark isn't, then the tube amp is changing - coloring - the sound in my system.

Already figured out. Twice, no: thrice, see above. Cocky arrogant premature gloating in bold noted.

Great, you've speculated that the tube amp can be altering the sound. Which is the point. And...lol at you calling anyone else cocky or arrogant.

This is a classic example of people here arguing from ignorance: cherry-pick a single data point of low data quality, get its interpretation completely wrong, and promptly leap to vastly overreaching proclamations about the nature of humanity.

Is it ever possible for you to interact with my posts without hallucinating?

If you slow down for a moment and actually read my initial response to you, you'd see the claim I made was entirely modest, constrained simply to reporting
the results of my test. It's not "cherry picking" anything nor "leaping to vastly overreaching proclamations."

No wonder discussions here are hard to stomach.

It certainly isn't.

 

[GXAlan]

Well, as for #1, I was stipulating that they *have* heard accurate sound.

Maybe I am missing reading your phrase:

It seems like the debate comes down to "how should we introduce inaccuracies in the reproduction in the pursuit of more pleasing sound reproduction".

My own theory is that people who want to do that haven't heard accurate reproduction in the first place.

I read that as “people who want to introduce inaccuracies in playback for more pleasing sound, haven’t heard accurate reproduction.”

My point is that the tube amp is probably not the best way to get at the sound they like, and if the industry was built more around well-researched preferences and an admission that the distortion or impedance/capacitance interaction of the tube amp with the speakers is the quality of sound they seek, then I think there are much better ways for the industry to deliver exactoy that. In a relatively cheap box or software.

We are in agreement except for “best.”

If “best” is defined as the “ideal theoretical optimal approach in the world of Star Trek with no money and infinite time” then I agree with you. Spend more time researching preferences, characterize those preferences, and make it a menu option or remote control option that is performed in software. 100% agreement.

But if someone has a preference that for something like the 300B SET “sweet treble” sound today, and that someone listens to CDs and streaming devices, without a PC/Mac interface, then the best solution this Thanksgiving 2023 would be a tube amp. Because even though it has been characterized as an inverted loudness effect, there is no commercially available DSP box or software that can do that in playback, the way I can order a 300B SET and have it arrive next week.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you read MattHooper's blind test thread, he seems to do a good job of it. The obvious complaint was using SPL instead of a voltmeter. He made a good effort and using two SPL meters got a match both with a low tone and pink noise, but that would still be the weak point of his test. Also he used a 2AFC test protocol. 75% success rate gives a 5% level of a chance result. His results were correct 14 of 15 and 15 of 15 times. For a home administered test a good effort. Wish he would repeat with a volt meter match at the speakers.

You might also read later in the thread that pkane has done a blind comparison of a CJ preamp vs no preamp, and also identified it. He described it as slightly veiled, soft and less clear iirc.

I owned a CJ and have listened to others including the one MattHooper has. It fits his description, but this is anecdotal only so doesn't mean much.

If I had to guess, I'd say a combination of very slight treble droop, and/or borderline audible distortion levels. Also noise might be a minor thing with some sources as the CJ has lots of gain. Of course the analog volume pot should turn that back down. It also could be with the CJ volume pot so far down a minor channel imbalance would be at audible levels. I don't think that was checked, and it would be more difficult to check using SPL meters vs volt meters.

 

[MattHooper]

If you read MattHooper's blind test thread, he seems to do a good job of it. The obvious complaint was using SPL instead of a voltmeter. He made a good effort and using two SPL meters got a match both with a low tone and pink noise, but that would still be the weak point of his test. Also he used a 2AFC test protocol. 75% success rate gives a 5% level of a chance result. His results were correct 14 of 15 and 15 of 15 times. For a home administered test a good effort. Wish he would repeat with a volt meter match at the speakers.

You might also read later in the thread that pkane has done a blind comparison of a CJ preamp vs no preamp, and also identified it. He described it as slightly veiled, soft and less clear iirc.

I owned a CJ and have listed to others including the one MattHooper has. It fits his description, but this is anecdotal only so doesn't mean much.

If I had to guess, I'd say a combination of very slight treble droop, and/or borderline audible distortion levels. Also noise might be a minor thing with some sources as the CJ has lots of gain. Of course the analog volume pot should turn that back down. It also could be with the CJ volume pot so far down a minor channel imbalance would be at audible levels. I don't think that was checked, and it would be more difficult to check using SPL meters vs volt meters.

Hi Blumlein 88,

As I mentioned in my reply to Newman, later on I actually did get hold of a better voltmeter. My son wasn't around to help me do another test, but I re-checked with the volume controls at the same positions and the levels matched.

Also he used a 2AFC test protocol. 75% success rate gives a 5% level of a chance result. His results were correct 14 of 15 and 15 of 15 times. For a home administered test a good effort. Wish he would repeat with a volt meter match at the speakers.

BTW, Since I did the test twice with the results:

Trial 1: 15/15 correct.
Trial 2: 14/15 correct.

Wouldn't that raise the confidence levels higher than your numbers above? I certainly may be missing something about the math...