Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[ahofer]

Look at post #12565 in this thread.

Thank you. For some reason I never come up with the right search string to get this when I need it, even though I’ve referenced it a lot.

 

[MAB]

OK, at this point, it's clear you're doing a leg pull.

I recommend:

It is clear the poster is unserious.

 

[ahofer]

Well its simple. One of the values should not be greater than zero, which is impossible in the physical world, only in the mathematical one.
Correct me if this is not accurate.

We are talking about standard audio measurements. Just explain why this is not a flat-to-0.1db frequency response below 12kHz (or higher, depending on filter).

I’m sure @amirm could provide a finer scale if needed.

 

[ahofer]

I recommend:

It is clear the poster is unserious.

I know, I know….

 

[Newman]

Okay. Its not secret that tube amp its a distorted mess compared to any measured well integrated amp. But people say tune amps sound fantastic and they did take pleasure from listening experience or is it not true and they pretend every time or mimic without realizing it?

There is the concept of audible transparency. One might get the impression from reading audiophile media that it is an unattainable theory only and of no practical use (after all, if lifting a wire can make an audible difference….). But in truth it is easily attained with modern audio electronics. 50, maybe 60 years ago, audio engineers had no trouble designing a valve/tube amp with audible transparency, as long as they use sufficient NFB and spend enough on circuit complexities and transformers. It just isn’t that hard.

So, we can combine the concept of audible transparency being easily achievable, with the concept of sighted listening effects being ever-present and counter-intuitively dominant in uncontrolled listening tests.

In plainest English, the average person listens, sighted, to music via gear and is utterly convinced that they are hearing effects that are entirely created by the sound waves. It’s just so logical and obvious that it is in the sound waves. But the science of human perception has clearly shown that this is entirely untrue. But this is too big a revelation for most audiophiles (or at least the vocal majority). I mean, how can the message from science that your ears can’t be trusted* be welcome in a community whose vocal majority claim to live by the motto, “I trust my ears”?

*they can be trusted, but the listening test needs to be controlled for non-sonic variables, unlike the usual hifi enthusiast listening session.

Okay. After some testing suggested here I can change my mind. Why not. I don't mind to sell all stuff and sit on cheap box with EQ.
Why then needed to measure so many dacs that set in similar manner. If they are already measuring well and can give you any sound you want using just eq or dsp without any noticable quality losses. For example topping

A good point. In terms of deciding whether it will sound good, there is no need for these tests, other than to check that the DAC isn’t heroically misconceived to have a non-flat frequency response and audible distortion. Beyond that point, and checking that the DAC has enough voltage and current output to drive the next component in the chain, there isn’t much point to these tests from a sound quality perspective. They serve as engineering reports, eg why shouldn’t a DAC deliver 115+ dB of SNR for $300, why does this one with a similar feature set deliver only 95 dB and cost $2000…how dum IS they?

 

[voodooless]

I think you should clearly be able to distinquish some yamaha basic modern amplifier from their top line amplifier.

That’s one of your problems, right there! Expectation bias. There are many more and you cannot consciously shut them down.

 

[AustreV]

That’s one of your problems, right there! Expectation bias. There are many more and you cannot consciously shut them down.

Okay, got it. When proper arguments took place, you could change your mind. Seems that I was having clipping problem in my rig, that's why I've heard some difference. Anyway defenetly will make a valid test and recheck my previous results. Will thank everybody, if I was wrong and who was patient enough to explain where mistake have been made.

 

[antcollinet]

Okay, good video. But what about cases when visual information doesnt matter for you in particular case? If your are not biased or biases in "opposite way", but still get results that should not be affected by our inner thoughts or not intersecting with our ".real interest/intention".
Here you can see how visual information affects your decisions, you can easily explain it. But my case was different even I understood your basic message.

Don’t think of biases as being like prejudice. It is more like biasing a transistor: a shift of perception wired into your brain by everything you have experienced and learned since the day you were born. They are hard wired and you can’t turn them off.

 

[AustreV]

Can anyone clarify why Amir does so many reviews of DACs, if sufficient maximum quality has already been achieved a long time ago? From the point of view of an ordinary consumer. Just for scientific purposes? What impact does this have then for consumers? (in addition to additional functionality in the device).
Ian sorry if it was explained here somewhere already, but just curious.

 

[AustreV]

We are talking about standard audio measurements. Just explain why this is not a flat-to-0.1db frequency response below 12kHz (or higher, depending on filter).

I’m sure @amirm could provide a finer scale if needed.
View attachment 382467

For human ear its totally fine. If you place question in that perspective.)

 

[Mart68]

Can anyone clarify why Amir does so many reviews of DACs,

He just tests what gets sent to him by forum members and some manufacturers. DACs are usually small and low weight and so are easy and cheap to ship to him. So he gets a lot of DACs to test. Not any more complicated than that.

 

[voodooless]

Can anyone clarify why Amir does so many reviews of DACs, if sufficient maximum quality has already been achieved a long time ago? From the point of view of an ordinary consumer. Just for scientific purposes? What impact does this have then for consumers? (in addition to additional functionality in the device).
Ian sorry if it was explained here somewhere already, but just curious.

One of the major reasons we now see ever more well-performing DACs is that @amirm started testing them. He basically single-handedly changed the industry for the better.

 

[AustreV]

One of the major reasons we now see ever more well-performing DACs is that @amirm started testing them. He basically single-handedly changed the industry for the better.

Well, sure. He did great job. I still using his headphones reviews, as DIY Audioheaven site.
But it seems reviewing new higher quality DACs from users seems got not much sense for human ears then. I can understand situations when "older" gear is measured or some manufactuer wanna "double check" their device performance. I dont know, maybe he like the process itself. (when reviewing another new device/DAC sended by user/ from manufactory that already did good enough models in previous years.) Of course, there is additional functionality in new models, but often it is minimal. Like more input options or output and etc.

 

[voodooless]

Well, sure. He did great job. I still using his headphones reviews, as DIY Audioheaven site.
But it seems reviewing new higher quality DACs from users seems got not much sense for human ears then. I can understand situations when "older" gear is measured or some manufactuer wanna "double check" their device performance. I dont know, maybe he like the process itself.

As others have said, he reviews what he gets in. That happens to be a lot of DACs... I think it's still good to do, just to keep the manufacturers sharp Also note that not all DAC perform equally well. It seems like the higher the cost, the higher the chance is that it's no good nowadays. So as far as consumer information, this is still very valuable. Having said this, I still think they are a solved problem and not much to worry about. It is mostly about engineering excellence at this point. Headphone amps are a little different though. There is a lot more variability in their performance, especially when it comes to output power and voltage. Not every headphone will work equally well with every amp.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, sure. He did great job. I still using his headphones reviews, as DIY Audioheaven site.
But it seems reviewing new higher quality DACs from users seems got not much sense for human ears then. I can understand situations when "older" gear is measured or some manufactuer wanna "double check" their device performance. I dont know, maybe he like the process itself. (when reviewing another new device/DAC sended by user/ from manufactory that already did good enough models in previous years.) Of course, there is additional functionality in new models, but often it is minimal. Like more input options or output and etc.

As an example of what can happen, Amir reviewed some early Schiit gear which had a few issues with not great results. In time, Schiit, saying they could design for better results if they wished to do so, did so. They now offer their own AP test results, most of their gear, unless intended to do otherwise is capable of excellent measured results. Amir has reviewed and confirmed this.

 

[antcollinet]

Can anyone clarify why Amir does so many reviews of DACs, if sufficient maximum quality has already been achieved a long time ago? From the point of view of an ordinary consumer. Just for scientific purposes? What impact does this have then for consumers? (in addition to additional functionality in the device).
Ian sorry if it was explained here somewhere already, but just curious.

Some very few are not well designed and have iimperfect performance. Ironically these are normally expensive “audiophile” models. How would we identify those and know to avoid them if @amirm stopped measuring them.

Even the poor ones though you will normally struggle to tell them apart.

 

[AustreV]

As others have said, he reviews what he gets in. That happens to be a lot of DACs... I think it's still good to do, just to keep the manufacturers sharp Also note that not all DAC perform equally well. It seems like the higher the cost, the higher the chance is that it's no good nowadays. So as far as consumer information, this is still very valuable. Having said this, I still think they are a solved problem and not much to worry about. It is mostly about engineering excellence at this point. Headphone amps are a little different though. There is a lot more variability in their performance, especially when it comes to output power and voltage. Not every headphone will work equally well with every amp.

Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to understand why some expensive devices have distortions in measurements, and in several different ones. Perhaps these distortions give a false sense of “different” sound, which is deliberately and falsely interpreted as quality, for example by the manufacturer itself.
For example, Audio-GD DACs, if I’m not mistaken, had not the best readings, to put it mildly, although this is not the most extreme example.
Anti-noise filters will be an extreme example, but sell this things widely much harder and convince people they are working. To my mind.

 

[voodooless]

Yes, sometimes it can be difficult to understand why some expensive devices have distortions in measurements, and in several different ones. Perhaps these distortions give a false sense of “different” sound, which is deliberately and falsely interpreted as quality, for example by the manufacturer himself.
For example, Audio-GD, if I’m not mistaken, had not the best readings, to put it mildly, although this is not the most extreme example.

I think it's because they spend more money on marketing than on engineering. Hanlon's Razer applies:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[Newman]

I think it's because they spend more money on marketing than on engineering. Hanlon's Razer applies: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Razor.

 

[voodooless]

Razor.

That was on purpose, you figure out if that is true