• 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!

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

And TI, and Analog Devices and Cirrus Logic... just to name a few of the big ones.

I don't really see a problem in owning multiple DACs. Sometimes you need more than one to have different setups covered. Although, in many cases the "hidden" built in DACs in various source devices would be perfectly adequate.

It's the practice of having multiple DACs at hand, just to switch between them and have a "taste", that I find really bizarre. But to each their own.
True I need an xlr and my current dac only has rca so functionality is a big driver.
Plus another thread blamed fatigue on DAcs output, but over the years differing tweeters gave me more headaches using the same set up.
Speakers are my disease (LOL emoji)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
I'm going to give some people in this thread the benefit of the doubt ... at least at this point.

Every day, we go through our life using biases and emotions. I don't mean that we pick one to use here and choose another one to use there, I mean that our mind is continuously processing information through the use of biases and making judgements based on emotion. They are shortcuts that aid in efficiency, and we depend on them.
But that doesn't mean that biases and emotions are accurate ... it only means that they are efficient, in that the mind uses them to process information.

Inaccuracy is tolerable in many of our day-to-day affairs. Not all of them, but many of them. That is obvious upon examination. But for some things, inaccuracy is intolerable.

The Scientific Method (here) was developed to increase accuracy. Because biases are not accurate, it rejects (or rigorously controls) biases. Because emotion can be misleading, it rejects (or rigorously controls) emotion. Because opinion is unique to the individual, the scientific method includes peer review and retesting, to ensure reproducibility (here).

The success of the Scientific Method can be seen all around us. We have MRI and surgeons instead of witch doctors, precision measuring instruments instead of guesses, and machines instead of back-breaking human labor. Not only that, but its utility was the key for the rejection of cold fusion claims.

Beyond that, there are such breakthroughs as cell phones and television, airplanes, radar, pictures sent from other planets and nuclear power. These things demand precision, understanding, engineering tolerances greater than the eye can discern, and repeatability. Biases and emotions cannot - I repeat cannot - produce them.

Cell phones don't operate on, "Yeah ... that seems good enough to me." Neither do DACs, streamers or amplifiers, nor the equipment manufactured to test them.

Emotion and opinion have their place ... making the music and enjoying the music. But for recording the music and reproducing it, it's science all the way ... the increasingly accurate, unemotional, finely-engineered and reproducible methodology of science.

Two different worlds. It's best not to get them mixed up. :)

Jim
 
Last edited:
I'm going to give some people in this thread the benefit of the doubt ... at least at this point.

Every day, we go through our life using biases and emotions. I don't mean that we pick one to use here and choose another one to use there, I mean that our mind is continuously processing information though the use of biases and making judgements based on emotion. They are shortcuts that aid in efficiency, and we depend on them.
But that doesn't mean that biases and emotions are accurate ... it only means that they are efficient, in that the mind uses them to process information.

Inaccuracy is tolerable in many of our day-to-day affairs. Not all of them, but many of them. That is obvious upon examination. But for some things, inaccuracy is intolerable.

The Scientific Method (here) was developed to increase accuracy. Because biases are not accurate, it rejects (or rigorously controls) biases. Because emotion can be misleading, it rejects (or rigorously controls) emotion. Because opinion is unique to the individual, the scientific method includes peer review and retesting, to ensure reproducibility (here).

The success of the Scientific Method can be seen all around us. MRI and surgeons instead of witch doctors, precision measuring instruments instead of guesses and machines instead of back-breaking human labor. Its utility was the key for the rejection of cold fusion.
Beyond that, there are such breakthroughs as cell phones and television, airplanes, radar, pictures sent from other planets and nuclear power. These things demand precision, understanding, engineering tolerances greater than the eye can discern, and repeatability. Biases and emotions cannot - I repeat cannot - produce them.

Cell phones don't operate on, "Yeah ... that seems good enough to me." Neither do DACs, streamers or amplifiers, nor the equipment manufactured to test them.

Emotion and opinion have their place ... making the music and enjoying the music. But for recording the music and reproducing it, it's science all the way. Increasingly accurate, unemotional, finely-engineered and reproducible methodology of science.

Two different worlds. It's best not to get them mixed up. :)

Jim
Getting them mixed up is the job of marketing. It is an opportunistic endeavor that cares not at all about accuracy.
 
Getting them mixed up is the job of marketing. It is an opportunistic endeavor that cares not at all about accuracy.

It is with a heavy heart that I must admit ... you're right. :(:(

Jim
 
True I need an xlr and my current dac only has rca so functionality is a big driver.
Plus another thread blamed fatigue on DAcs output, but over the years differing tweeters gave me more headaches using the same set up.
Speakers are my disease (LOL emoji)
Ye3s, speakers are to blame. And the room they are in.
 
I will concede the possibility that you have such abilities if you will concede the possibility that you do not have such abilities. Fair enough? ;)

Jim
I'm not saying I have Amir's ears, I'm saying I know what sounds good and have intensely studied sound beyond what most have. I will say most don't so I'm not willing to put myself in the category of most nor am I willing to say I have the same knowledge as Amir. That's my compromise because too many people know nothing about sound quality.
 
Possibly. But most people get royally pissed when you point to the downsides of the brain being a prediction machine. They very easily take it as accusations of schizophrenia.

It backfired in the case of @hwest , and ended up stroking his ego instead, but putting quotes around it could just as well have made @dped90 explode.

It's a fine balance :D
I have done blind testing, but also the difference between many of these units are real. The rating system here shows good graphs and measurements but I'm telling you that's not everything because it's obvious to many with some listening experience. I would put myself in the category of experienced as I said but of course I'm not comparing myself to Amir. I'm only saying that most people have no idea what to listen for in great sound that's why the big box items sell so well, they come here and see great numbers and think that equates to great sound but it simply doesn't, I won't try to convince anyone but that's reality like it or not.
 
I'm saying I know what sounds good and have intensely studied sound beyond what most have.
So, if you "intensely studied sound beyond what most have", perhaps you can tell us how you set up your ears-only controls for listening comparisons.
 
Your brain won't actually let you do that. Not unless you do a proper soul-sucking blind test. Sad fact in life.

Do such a test between well designed AKM and ESS DACs (using comparable reconstruction filters), and I'll pretty much guarantee you'll get your mind blown.
So true. Keeping sight completely out of the equation levels the playing field.
I do understand why many folks have a hard time understanding this, but I would wager it’s down to them either never having tried out a blindtest or indeed because they attended one that wasn’t properly conducted.
I’ve tried a couple of poorly created blindtests myself by folks who couldn’t volumematch properly. In the end we wound up listening to different volumelevels…and well louder is always better.

Never underestimate the power of sight. Imagine two identical tasting tomatoes…and then imagine one of them being blue. I’d wager that most normal people would encounter some strange taste biting into the blue one simply because it looks unnatural.
Dacs that look like Robocop’s coffeetable will have a similar effect if you’re coming from a plain vanilla black box, regardless of the two being indestinguishable in a blind setting.
 
I'm scoring heavily on my bingo card:

System not resolving enough

System not expensive enough

lack of listening experience

Listening for the wrong things

Not listening for the right things


You must be deaf

You must have never done a comparison

Respected professional reviewers all hear a difference

All those people can't be wrong

It costs a lot more, of course it's better!

You need to move up to the £XXXX price bracket to get an audible improvement

I don't need to blind test, I trust my ears

X has been in the audio industry for 30 years how can you say he's wrong?

Measurements won't tell you anything about how something sounds

Everything matters
 
^I haven’t read through the whole thread but I can’t believe noone yet has mentioned the old classic ‘even my wife can hear it!’….which admittedly has gotten a little old by now. It’s new iteration seems to draw other people into the mix like sons, daughters and to get a little ‘heft from authority’ perhaps a professional cello player. As we all know wifes and cello players are among the very best listeners out there.
 
So, if you "intensely studied sound beyond what most have", perhaps you can tell us how you set up your ears-only controls for listening comparisons.
I have access to a lot of different gear that I can have someone switch for me so I don't know in the background what's happening. I also have a method at home for testing systems with the help of my wife and disconnected systems allowing her to make the choice on the connections so I don't know what I'm listening to. I'll use several methods one is to leverage swapping out speaker connections when testing my main units or amps and the other is to change cables on different speakers.
What I'm telling you is a Marantz or Denon against an Anthem AV 90 or Lyndorf simply isn't the same experience and I don't think it ever will be with or without being blindfolded. I have tuned each system to my liking and tried this test as well with the same results. In fact I can't even get the big box brands tuned to my liking because they are not capable of producing great sound. There are standard settings and tweaked settings for testing the main units. Speakers are easy to test, AMP's similar. I'm not running expensive AMP's because of how I have tested them against Emotiva AMPS and found the Emotivas are just as good if not better than much more expensive AMPS. Many ways to do testing, the jewelry look of a unit doesn't impress me to the point where I hear different sound, I think that could be true with many so I do understand that concept. I know I give up some features with the Anthem AVM 90 but the sound is simply better than the AV 10 or Denon so that's why I chose it for my newest unit. I waited to jump from a very good older Onkyo Separate to something that sounded significantly better, nothing made by Marantz or Denon caused me to move away from my original unit until I heard the AVM 90. Numbers wise I see that the AV 10 ranks higher than the AVM 90 which is why I'm saying I don't agree with that ranking per se and it simply proves my point as tons of folks are saying the same about the preference of the AVM 90 over those other units, it's not just me saying this.
 
I'm not saying I have Amir's ears, I'm saying I know what sounds good and have intensely studied sound beyond what most have. I will say most don't so I'm not willing to put myself in the category of most nor am I willing to say I have the same knowledge as Amir. That's my compromise because too many people know nothing about sound quality.

What do you know about psychoacoustics? Or basics of cognitive psychology? Or sensory testing?

These will tell you a lot more about your 'experience'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
I have access to a lot of different gear that I can have someone switch for me so I don't know in the background what's happening. I also have a method at home for testing systems with the help of my wife and disconnected systems allowing her to make the choice on the connections so I don't know what I'm listening to. I'll use several methods one is to leverage swapping out speaker connections when testing my main units or amps and the other is to change cables on different speakers.
What I'm telling you is a Marantz or Denon against an Anthem AV 90 or Lyndorf simply isn't the same experience and I don't think it ever will be with or without being blindfolded. I have tuned each system to my liking and tried this test as well with the same results. In fact I can't even get the big box brands tuned to my liking because they are not capable of producing great sound. There are standard settings and tweaked settings for testing the main units. Speakers are easy to test, AMP's similar. I'm not running expensive AMP's because of how I have tested them against Emotiva AMPS and found the Emotivas are just as good if not better than much more expensive AMPS. Many ways to do testing, the jewelry look of a unit doesn't impress me to the point where I hear different sound, I think that could be true with many so I do understand that concept. I know I give up some features with the Anthem AVM 90 but the sound is simply better than the AV 10 or Denon so that's why I chose it for my newest unit. I waited to jump from a very good older Onkyo Separate to something that sounded significantly better, nothing made by Marantz or Denon caused me to move away from my original unit until I heard the AVM 90. Numbers wise I see that the AV 10 ranks higher than the AVM 90 which is why I'm saying I don't agree with that ranking per se and it simply proves my point as tons of folks are saying the same about the preference of the AVM 90 over those other units, it's not just me saying this.
So no basic controls. I think your "intense study" seems to have missed some rudiments of sensory testing
What do you know about psychoacoustics? Or basics of cognitive psychology? Or sensory testing?
Res ipsa loquitur.
.
 
What do you know about psychoacoustics? Or basics of cognitive psychology? Or sensory testing?

These will tell you a lot more about your 'experience'.
For most of us, you accurately describe the problem. However, this dude is immune from sighted bias:
Many ways to do testing, the jewelry look of a unit doesn't impress me to the point where I hear different sound, I think that could be true with many so I do understand that concept.
:facepalm:
Also this person has more experience than the average ASR member, and better ears too. Plus has the cognitive abilities to make valid comparisons even when not level-matched.

I am so envious of their super abilities, I just put them on ignore.:D
 
What do you know about psychoacoustics? Or basics of cognitive psychology? Or sensory testing?

These will tell you a lot more about your 'experience'.
I understand the mechanical limitations of hearing and perception vs being able to analyze what you hear it comes down to that, we can talk about sensory perception and psychoacoustics all day long and limitations and ranges age etc these topics go off in a direction pointing out all limitations and what people don't pay attention to, you just need to be aware of any limitations and think about what you're hearing not just say that sounds good or bad. As I said most don't do this.
 
So no basic controls. I think your "intense study" seems to have missed some rudiments of sensory testing

Res ipsa loquitur.
.
Don't assume. As I said baseline settings and levels match. Then tweaked settings with levels matched.
 
I understand the mechanical limitations of hearing and perception vs being able to analyze what you hear it comes down to that, we can talk about sensory perception and psychoacoustics all day long and limitations and ranges age etc these topics go off in a direction pointing out all limitations and what people don't pay attention to, you just need to be aware of any limitations and think about what you're hearing not just say that sounds good or bad. As I said most don't do this.
The limitation you seem not to be paying enough attention to is the remarkable power of sighted bias (along with the power of small overall level difference) to confound one's perception of the presence or absence of real, intrinsic audible difference between devices. And, in the case of things that really do sound different, the perception of which sounds better. These aren't minor confounders, these are elephants in the room and science, seeking accurate and reliable data above all, takes great pains to get them out of the room.


tl;dr: ask youself if you could be wrong and think about why
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
The limitation you seem not to be paying enough attention to is the remarkable power of sighted bias (along with the power of small overall level difference) to confound one's perception of the presence or absence of real, intrinsic audible difference between devices. And, in the case of things that really do sound different, the perception of which sounds better. These aren't minor confounders, these are elephants in the room and science, seeking accurate and reliable data above all, takes great pains to get them out of the room.


tl;dr: ask youself if you could be wrong and think about why
Ok. So tell me why Marantz and Denon sound better or as good as let's say an AVM 90 or Lyndorf? I'd like to know how or if you've come to that conclusion somehow.
 
Ok. So tell me why Marantz and Denon sound better or as good as let's say an AVM 90 or Lyndorf? I'd like to know how or if you've come to that conclusion somehow.
I put it into simple terms I've found one system sounds great in a demo room take it home it sounds like pants. That's after I listened to what I perceived as great.
 
Back
Top Bottom