Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Guettel]

I can't assure that. What I can assure is that if you matched their levels, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart reliably in 10 trials. If so, then to you, they are audibly identical and hence, no reason to buy the Dave DAC. You don't need our help to do any of this. Buy the $100 DAC, match levels and do the 10 tests. Once you do and trust what you have experienced, you will be following what we do.

I agree. If I couldn't tell them apart reliably, it would be silly to spend more money for the same result.

And I do the test every day. I listen to the equivalent playlists on my phone's DAC, which is probably roughly $100 worth of DAC and audio componentry. And there is no occasion on which I would ever mistake my phone for the Dave.

 

[DonR]

Then how do you account for the fact that 95% reviews of the Dave are glowingly positive? Are all those people wrong about what's better?

Obviously, they're not. What's wrong is saying that measurements are what matter about a DAC. This is patently wrong, as DACs are made to subjectively sound good, not only measure well.

But you are of course free to define what matters about DACs in your own way. I just point out that your definition differs from that of nearly everyone else. Nearly everyone else wants a DAC that sounds good to them, regardless of any measurements.

Most people cannot tell the difference between DACs if they are listening blind. I know I cannot. They sound very different to me when sighted though.

 

[amirm]

Then how do you account for the fact that 95% reviews of the Dave are glowingly positive? Are all those people wrong about what's better?

Of course. It is all due to faulty evaluation of sound. I too "hear" differences with every new piece of gear. Make the test blind though, and that difference disappears.

Your hearing is bi-directional so changes behavior all the time. When you attempt to test new gear, it focuses harder and hears more detail, air, etc. Lay logic than associates that with the new, expensive gear. Once that sets in the other gear sounds bad now.

The solution to above is to test blind. Then the ear+brain focuses similarly on both and result is a random outcome.

 

[Guettel]

Most people cannot tell the difference between DACs if they are listening blind. I know I cannot. They sound very different to me when sighted though.

I totally agree. It can be very hard to tell the difference. And certainly a lot of people buy expensive stuff just to have expensive stuff. No question about it. Rolexes measure a lot worse than Seikos!

 

[Guettel]

Of course. It is all due to faulty evaluation of sound. I too "hear" differences with every new piece of gear. Make the test blind though, and that difference disappears.

Your hearing is bi-directional so changes behavior all the time. When you attempt to test new gear, it focuses harder and hears more detail, air, etc. Lay logic than associates that with the new, expensive gear. Once that sets in the other gear sounds bad now.

The solution to above is to test blind. Then the ear+brain focuses similarly on both and result is a random outcome.

Right - this is why I wish I could do the test on video on your site. Because there's no way I can convince you I can hear the difference between the Dave and my $100 phone DAC. And there's no way you can convince me I couldn't. So I guess absent doing that video, we can't resolve it.

I should add that I'm a professional recording engineer and have very, very well-tuned ears. So, to be fair, I suspect the essence of your point that 1) blind, 2) most people can't tell is pretty close to right.

But also, this is why this stuff matters to me but not to my brother, who probably couldn't tell, and to be honest, couldn't be bothered to even try.

 

[amirm]

And I do the test every day. I listen to the equivalent playlists on my phone's DAC, which is probably roughly $100 worth of DAC and audio componentry. And there is no occasion on which I would ever mistake my phone for the Dave.

Dave's output is three times higher than what your phone outputs. You must match those levels. Do the test blind. And repeat at least 10 times. See:

Without the right protocol, you are just going to land on wrong results.

 

[amirm]

Right - this is why I wish I could do the test on video on your site. Because there's no way I can convince you I can hear the difference between the Dave and my $100 phone DAC. And there's no way you can convince me I couldn't. So I guess absent doing that video, we can't resolve it.

I will trust you to perform the first step without the video. Get that result, document what you did and how you ran the test. If you pass the first hurdle, then yes, the next step would be a video.

 

[Guettel]

Dave's output is three times higher than what your phone outputs. You must match those levels. Do the test blind. And repeat at least 10 times. See:

Without the right protocol, you are just going to land on wrong results.

Right - I'm a recording engineer. We do matched levels all the time (with SPL meters, btw).

 

[staticV3]

with SPL meters, btw

You shouldn't match DACs or Amps with an SPL meter. Way too inconsistent results. Better use a multimeter to measure the output voltage.

 

[MAB]

Then how do you account for the fact that 95% reviews of the Dave are glowingly positive?

Because those people enjoyed listening to music on it, despite the massive price. Dave sounds fine. Dave's issues are minor. Except the price is huge. And, it visually looks desperate for attention. People give positive reviews to all sorts of garbage products. Dave benefits from the fact that people play their favorite music on it, and it sounds fine.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You could download pkanes Distort software and build any distortion profile you wish and switch between them.

 

[voodooless]

Then how do you account for the fact that 95% reviews of the Dave are glowingly positive? Are all those people wrong about what's better?

What about those reviews of cable lifters? Power cables? Audiophile fuses? Audiophile Rocks?

 

[fpitas]

What about those reviews of cable lifters? Power cables? Audiophile fuses? Audiophile Rocks?

It's depressing in a way that only this forum (and a couple technical forums I can think of) are honest about such arrant nonsense. I guess that makes us outliers there, too.

 

[solderdude]

it was (years ago) commonly held that 2nd order and even multiples were less harmful because they added to the amplitude of the center of the base frequency’s waveform, just making a sinusoidal base frequency a little “richer”.

With harmonic distortion also comes IM distortion which is not harmonically related and generally not sound quality enhancing.
Instruments already have harmonics. You would be adding more harmonics, harmonics to the harmonics and IM products as well.

Here we have some really nice sounding tube harmonics that enrich the sound.

Ignore the hum... tubes are picking it up most likely or it is the heater (AC fed) or a poor layout.
Anyway... what happens around the fundamental and harmonics is your IM distortion.
Fundamental + and - 60Hz and the harmonics of harmonics etc.

Look what happens to the same lovely sounding and musical amp when not 1 tone at a high level is introduced but a bunch of tones that are not harmonically related.

And note that this is at a level far below the maximum output where distortion is less anyway.
You see all the grass ? Those are harmonics and IM products that should not be there.
Enrichment ? To you and tube amps probably. Fortunately this is 50dB down so nearly inaudible as the tones are masking that grass and it is some kind of 'extra noise' that would modulate along with the music and is gone when there is no music.

Some people may like this, others don't. Higher fidelity... my a$$.... it is a substantial degradation of sound quality.

 

[voodooless]

I should add that I'm a professional recording engineer and have very, very well-tuned ears.

I wonder how well you’ll do on this:

Listening Test

www.klippel.de

 

[xaviescacs]

Harmonics = Original musical content. Good.
Harmonic distortion = Added content. Bad (not hifi).

Someone placed the word "distortion" there for some good reason.

 

[tmtomh]

I never claimed this review and others are the same kind of data!

But Merry Christmas to you too . Hope you had/are having a good one, even if you can't measure it.

Thanks for the holiday wishes - I am definitely enjoying! (And BTW, my enjoyment level can indeed be measured through a number of well-established scientific and social-scientific methods.)

RE whether you claimed this review and others are the same kind of data: when you put forth a claim that the ASR review is an outlier in the data, that claim depends on the underlying claim that all the reviews are comparable types of data, and within that data set, the ASR review is an outlier, meaning that it should be discarded or at least viewed with skepticism.

If you don't think the ASR review is the same kind of data as the other reviews, that's of course fine and totally your prerogative - but in that case, your claim that the ASR review is an "outlier" ceases to make any sense.

You can have it whichever way you like - but you can't have it both ways.

Cheers!

 

[ahofer]

The premise "anything that matters can be measured" is myopic.

In 1930, frequency response couldn't be measured. But it sure does matter.

To claim that whatever standards of measurements happen to exist at this moment capture everything relevant about audio is simply ignorant.

Science progresses. http://proaudioencyclopedia.com/the-history-of-audio-and-sound-measurement/

The fact that we used to have trouble measuring (with high resolution, not "couldn't") does not hinder us from understanding what is, or is not, part of a sound signal before and after it goes through processing today. It is well established that sound waves are fully described at any point in time by frequency and amplitude. Certainly the electric signal that we use to carry and amplify it is made of same. Our understanding of these is strong, and our measurement technology is very high resolution, far beyond the sensitivity of the human ear in both frequency, amplitude, and time.

Any relation to Adam Guettel?

 

[BDWoody]

Then how do you account for the fact that 95% reviews of the Dave are glowingly positive?

They are salespeople. If you think of them as producing infomercials it suddenly isn't so crazy.

 

[RonSanderson]

With harmonic distortion also comes IM distortion which is not harmonically related and generally not sound quality enhancing.
Instruments already have harmonics. You would be adding more harmonics, harmonics to the harmonics and IM products as well.

Here we have some really nice sounding tube harmonics that enrich the sound.

Ignore the hum... tubes are picking it up most likely or it is the heater (AC fed) or a poor layout.
Anyway... what happens around the fundamental and harmonics is your IM distortion.
Fundamental + and - 60Hz and the harmonics of harmonics etc.

Look what happens to the same lovely sounding and musical amp when not 1 tone at a high level is introduced but a bunch of tones that are not harmonically related.

And note that this is at a level far below the maximum output where distortion is less anyway.
You see all the grass ? Those are harmonics and IM products that should not be there.
Enrichment ? To you and tube amps probably. Fortunately this is 50dB down so nearly inaudible as the tones are masking that grass and it is some kind of 'extra noise' that would modulate along with the music and is gone when there is no music.

Some people may like this, others don't. Higher fidelity... my a$$.... it is a substantial degradation of sound quality.

Thank you for the analysis.

Heaven forbid I would be advocating the addition of more harmonics or distortion.

My comments have a much smaller domain. In the earlier discussion there was a comment about a circuit that sounded dull vs. one that people liked better. The charts were presented to show the latter had more odd-order distortion (by a very little bit).

I propose a mechanism why that may sharpen the leading wavefronts and produce music with a little more punch as a result. Add this to the rhythm chords, and you may find the music has more drive. (Or not - we could test!)

This is a far cry from advocating that this be done on purpose. But I would still like to know if that teensy bit of odd-order distortion, already present in the circuit, could account for the reported difference.

If it does, it could be one more way to correlate a measurable artifact with the effect on the listener. After that is understood, then we can figure out if it is good or bad, and what to do about that.