Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[MattHooper]

One thing to have a listen to someone else's system and be intoxicated.

Different when you listen to it every day and eventually the same colouration plastered across every recording starts to grate.

I certainly agree there could be a bias effect helping things along in my anecdote.

However, I think the one you mentioned happens to be unlikely in this case.

For one thing, generally speaking, I am rarely “ intoxicated” when listening to other peoples systems. I am always fascinated! But by
“ intoxicated” I mean when I personally find the sound to be gorgeous, where I just want to sit and listen all day, and I want to keep spinning all sorts of music I like on the system - where I go “aahhh” and it’s no longer just a fascination with the sound, but the gorgeousness of the sound merges in my mind with the music in a way that raises my engagement with the music. That actually happens quite rarely for me listening to other peoples systems, or at audio shows (many if not most audiophiles have experienced hearing all sorts of expensive systems that audio shows, and not being that impressed, and actually enjoying their own system more when they get home to spin music).

So even though my friend is an audio reviewer, and these days gets sent lots of expensive and exotic gear (e.g. Top of the line Estelon, Dali, latest B&W 801s, YG), my main experience over decades is being fascinated listening to these systems, without being
“ intoxicated” in the sense of being truly engaged by the sound.

I inevitably come back to my own system and feel “aaahhh… This is more like it!”

This particular instance that I’m thinking through…. purely anecdotal, which is why it’s not offered as proof of anything to anybody…

Is that my pal phoned me a while back and said “ you have to come over here and listen to this, I want somebody to double check. I’m not crazy here.” He often uses me and other people to double check his own impressions.

He’d gotten in the 15 w single ended 300B tube amplifier for a review - normally he uses huge powerful Hegel solid-state amplifiers.

He originally tried the amp with some big Estelon speakers and found the sound character “ sweet but soggy.” Pleasant to listen to in the mid range and highs, but with poor bass quality, lacking definition, and articulation and tight impact. And he could not play music loud at all before the sound just broke down.

So he tried substituting an old pair of Totem Sky - really small, slim floor standings speakers 2-way design. (which she also heard on his solid state amps) and he was floored by the sound quality. After listening for a few days that’s when he called me to check it out. And I was completely blown away as well. I’ve had tons of experience listening to various Totem speakers, at stores and including in his basement before, and this was by far the most engaging sound I’ve ever heard not just from a totem speaker, but it was my favourite sound I’ve ever heard in his system! It was hugely spacious, with vivid and palpable imaging, beautifully, balanced bass, but with a tonal beauty and richness that I found intoxicating. “ organic” is usually the sensation that comes to mind when I experience this lack of mechanical sound. I could’ve listened all day. Both of us were saying “ despite all our experience hearing far more imposing, and expensive gear, I could be happy with this!”

Yet the next time I came back, that 300B amplifier has been sent back and the totem speakers were being driven by a Hegel solid state amp. And it just didn’t seem to be the same. It sounded more like the standard totem sound I was used to with soliciting amplifiers. Still spacious with good imaging, but harder and tighter sounding, less organic, less tonally intoxicating. This was sound that I felt was “ all right” but it certainly didn’t make me want to sit there and keep listening as before.

So of course, there could be various possible biases operating there. But I was curious if, at the very least, it was plausible or likely the speakers actually did sound different powered by the 300B amplifier. That doesn’t untangle all the possible bias effects, but at least it would be a start of “ OK it’s at least plausible the sound was different, and plausible I could’ve preferred the sound with the tube amplifier.”

Cheers

 

[MattHooper]

If Matt wants to try it for himself pretty easy. Put a resistor of comparable value to the output impedance in series with his speakers. Then if it isn't quite the same, use Pkane's distort to add the same level of distortion. Should get you that sound if you find it intoxicated plus it can be switched out with ease if one desires it only on some occasions. I guess if you want to limit yourself to the intoxicating 15 watts at the 10% THD you'll need to restrict output levels with input voltage. So this amp not only changes FR an audible amount it probably has distortion with music that is audible too.

That’s not something I’m able to do at this point in my system.

However, I’m going to take your suggestion to my friend who had that tube amplifier, and who has large Hegel solid state amplifiers.

I doubt he will bother trying the resistors, but if he does it could give him something to write about.

Cheers.

 

[Mart68]

I certainly agree there could be a bias effect helping things along in my anecdote.

However, I think the one you mentioned happens to be unlikely in this case.

For one thing, generally speaking, I am rarely “ intoxicated” when listening to other peoples systems. I am always fascinated! But by
“ intoxicated” I mean when I personally find the sound to be gorgeous, where I just want to sit and listen all day, and I want to keep spinning all sorts of music I like on the system - where I go “aahhh” and it’s no longer just a fascination with the sound, but the gorgeousness of the sound merges in my mind with the music in a way that raises my engagement with the music. That actually happens quite rarely for me listening to other peoples systems, or at audio shows (many if not most audiophiles have experienced hearing all sorts of expensive systems that audio shows, and not being that impressed, and actually enjoying their own system more when they get home to spin music).

So even though my friend is an audio reviewer, and these days gets sent lots of expensive and exotic gear (e.g. Top of the line Estelon, Dali, latest B&W 801s, YG), my main experience over decades is being fascinated listening to these systems, without being
“ intoxicated” in the sense of being truly engaged by the sound.

I inevitably come back to my own system and feel “aaahhh… This is more like it!”

This particular instance that I’m thinking through…. purely anecdotal, which is why it’s not offered as proof of anything to anybody…

Is that my pal phoned me a while back and said “ you have to come over here and listen to this, I want somebody to double check. I’m not crazy here.” He often uses me and other people to double check his own impressions.

He’d gotten in the 15 w single ended 300B tube amplifier for a review - normally he uses huge powerful Hegel solid-state amplifiers.

He originally tried the amp with some big Estelon speakers and found the sound character “ sweet but soggy.” Pleasant to listen to in the mid range and highs, but with poor bass quality, lacking definition, and articulation and tight impact. And he could not play music loud at all before the sound just broke down.

So he tried substituting an old pair of Totem Sky - really small, slim floor standings speakers 2-way design. (which she also heard on his solid state amps) and he was floored by the sound quality. After listening for a few days that’s when he called me to check it out. And I was completely blown away as well. I’ve had tons of experience listening to various Totem speakers, at stores and including in his basement before, and this was by far the most engaging sound I’ve ever heard not just from a totem speaker, but it was my favourite sound I’ve ever heard in his system! It was hugely spacious, with vivid and palpable imaging, beautifully, balanced bass, but with a tonal beauty and richness that I found intoxicating. “ organic” is usually the sensation that comes to mind when I experience this lack of mechanical sound. I could’ve listened all day. Both of us were saying “ despite all our experience hearing far more imposing, and expensive gear, I could be happy with this!”

Yet the next time I came back, that 300B amplifier has been sent back and the totem speakers were being driven by a Hegel solid state amp. And it just didn’t seem to be the same. It sounded more like the standard totem sound I was used to with soliciting amplifiers. Still spacious with good imaging, but harder and tighter sounding, less organic, less tonally intoxicating. This was sound that I felt was “ all right” but it certainly didn’t make me want to sit there and keep listening as before.

So of course, there could be various possible biases operating there. But I was curious if, at the very least, it was plausible or likely the speakers actually did sound different powered by the 300B amplifier. That doesn’t untangle all the possible bias effects, but at least it would be a start of “ OK it’s at least plausible the sound was different, and plausible I could’ve preferred the sound with the tube amplifier.”

Cheers

My point though that this was a one off experience. If that was your system would you still be intoxicated after 1000 hours? Or thinking 'I like what this does but it's a party trick and I'm bored of it now.

No way to know for sure but you must admit this does happen.

 

[MattHooper]

My point though that this was a one off experience. If that was your system would you still be intoxicated after 1000 hours? Or thinking 'I like what this does but it's a party trick and I'm bored of it now.

No way to know for sure but you must admit this does happen.

Oh, OK. That’s a different point.

Hard to say whether I could actually live with the system for a long time. Though if I had to take my chances, I’d select it over many of the more expensive equipment combinations I’ve heard at my friends place, since few of those even get off the ground in terms of engaging me fully.

Your comment brings up something I’ve wondered about too, in terms of testing preferences, in particular to an instance, like the one I’ve been describing.

I’m thinking of the “ Pepsi challenge effect.”
Or what became known more as the “ sip taste problem” or known as the “ small sample bias effect.”

Pepsi had their famous Pepsi challenge campaign, in which they showed people regularly preferred the taste of Pepsi to Coke in sip test under blind conditions.
And yet the market share for Pepsi only temporarily increased, and Coke returned its dominance with consumers.

It was speculated that perhaps the sweeter taste of Pepsi with preferred in direct and short sip tests. However, in real world scenarios where people drink higher quantities of cola, Coca-Cola’s slightly less sweet and more complex flavor might be more enjoyable for sustained consumption. Which might explain why Coca-Cola has historically dominated the market despite Pepsi’s success in blind taste tests.

Even the act of simply comparing A to B can influence how you perceive A. If you are first eating something that is quite salty, and directly compare it to something slightly less salty, the less salty item may taste more bland in comparison. Whereas under the conditions, you were just eating the less salty item, you may have found it salty enough and even just right.

And this might also have something to do with the phenomenon of “ showroom sound” where if you first acclimate to the “smile EQ” frequency response of one speaker, directly following that with a more neutral speaker may make the more neutral speakers sound somewhat dull or bland and comparison. Even though over time you may end up actually preferring the neutral speaker.

Anyway, I seem to experience something like the Pepsi challenge effect whenever I put solid-state amplifiers into my system (I’ve owned SS amplifiers at the same time as owning my tube amplifiers. One of my easiest current ways to compare is that my Home Theatre speakers driven by my AV receiver are sitting just behind my two channel speakers. So it’s a simple matter of plugging the L/R Home Theatre channel cables into my two channel speakers, to drive them with my AV amp).

My experience putting solid state amps into my system follow the same pattern every single time. My first reaction is: “ wow this sounds better!” by that I mean, I immediately latch onto the Sonic elements that seemed better with the solid-state amplification, then with my tube amplifiers: more neutrality, more precision especially with leading transients, slightly cleaner sound, tighter bass, and in someways a greater sense of solidity.

And yet, over more listening time I begin to become less enthralled. I find the sound more stiff, tight and mechanical sounding, slightly more artificial sounding, and I begin to miss the characteristics I perceive with the tube amplifiers. When the tube amplifiers go back in, I always feel “ah, that’s what I was missing!” And I find that it is the tube amplifiers which remain pleasing and satisfying to me over long periods of time.

So it feels like a bit of the Pepsi challenge effect, where the initial comparison favours the solid-state amplifier presentation, but longer term listening (FOR ME) does not.
Which is why I always retreat back to my tube amplifiers.

That’s a bunch of speculation though, with all the obvious caveats. (And I know that at least in principal one could blind test such preferences over time. It would be interesting to see whether my impressions held up over time under blind conditions).

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

The sophistication of test and measurement methods and equipment in the audio industry is rather moribund compared to many other industries. I would conjecture the principle reason is that if a set of audio gear fails to perform flawlessly, there are no significant casualties.
Hello Audio Science Review.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Unless the AVR DAC exhibits a significant channel imbalance, I fail to see how there would be any difference in imaging, which is a product of speaker neutrality, radiation pattern consistency over the frequency spectrum, speaker setup/room acoustics, and program material.

Can you tell us how the DAC would improve imaging?

Well, it is an interesting question if all the typical measurements performed on a DAC is sufficient for a statistically certainty there can be no audible difference under any conceivable situation. Outside of Superman, of course.
I can tell you in other applications, the ones I typically seen conducted here would not be sufficient to quantify the relevant performance. Primarily as they are steady state, magnitude-only frequency domain measurements with maybe post-filtered/process calculated phase diagrams.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Even the act of simply comparing A to B can influence how you perceive A. If you are first eating something that is quite salty, and directly compare it to something slightly less salty, the less salty item may taste more bland in comparison. Whereas under the conditions, you were just eating the less salty item, you may have found it salty enough and even just right.

35 years ago I objected to the naive premise of ABx testing, thou in the opposite direction of most objectors. The knowledge that one is being tested; does in fact, affect oneself.
On the flip side, I did enjoy 'breaking' various tests either by using specifically engineered test cases which maximized detection thresholds to challenging the unspecified assumptions of the test developer.

 

[SIY]

Well, it is an interesting question if all the typical measurements performed on a DAC is sufficient for a statistically certainty there can be no audible difference under any conceivable situation.

"Typical" is a weasel word.

Reality is that despite decades of claims, no-one has been able to demonstrate the ability to distinguish engineered* DACs by ear alone. So if that ever happens, then maybe it's worth looking at more exotic tests than the ones that good reviewers do. Think Bayesian.

* I use the term "engineered" to exclude goofy high end crap that ignores the basics of Shannon-Nyquist. The consequences show up in current testing nonetheless.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

"Typical" is a weasel word.

Reality is that despite decades of claims, no-one has been able to demonstrate the ability to distinguish engineered* DACs by ear alone. So if that ever happens, then maybe it's worth looking at more exotic tests than the ones that good reviewers do. Think Bayesian.

* I use the term "engineered" to exclude goofy high end crap that ignores the basics of Shannon-Nyquist. The consequences show up in current testing nonetheless.

By "typical" I meant the body of test methods (e.g. Audio Precision and the like) which appears to be the general consensus here for Amir and the like.
And by "engineered" I meant things like test stimuli specifically designed to maximize non-null results.
35 years ago, a common one was to have two signals (stereo) each with a sine-wave at 20Hz, -0.1dB, but each 180-degree phase shift; and each with a superimposed 1kHz sinewave modulated by a 1kHz square wave, -0.1 dB, in-phase signal. The maximum instantaneous output for each channel is 0dB (aka, digital max) and so, not clipping. However, the channel imbalances introduced almost always introduced audible differences in the modulated 1 kHz sinewave.
I called that a "gimme" and treated it like a mulligan.
Like I said, I enjoyed breaking tests.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Today? I would be more cruel. Many of the DACs/signal sources I have used in my career would destroy the downstream equipment. Such as a DAC whose 0dB reference level was over 1kV.
Can I come over and test your DAC versus mine on your system?

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

"Typical" is a weasel word.

Reality is that despite decades of claims, no-one has been able to demonstrate the ability to distinguish engineered* DACs by ear alone. So if that ever happens, then maybe it's worth looking at more exotic tests than the ones that good reviewers do. Think Bayesian.

* I use the term "engineered" to exclude goofy high end crap that ignores the basics of Shannon-Nyquist. The consequences show up in current testing nonetheless.

How about another "gimme".
Someone would bring their non-differential ground-referenced output DAC over.
Only to discovery it was being compared to a fully isolated and differential output DAC to a similarly spec'd pre-amp.

 

[DanielT]

These tube amps are toys for (rich) boys and requires a belief system ....
Some seem to love them others don't care. To each their own.
I can't help but love Matt's persistence. I think he knows where ASR stands on this.

Or a collecting hobby. Much like coveted vintage cars.

Pictures from a past event. Based on what they say they are:
Date
Sunday 2nd March 2025.

The UK's largest second-hand and vintage hi-fi event is now in its 33rd year!

On a table. Looks like, well, some old, nothing special tube amp:

But (you might know that make, model?) I looked it up. Appears to be manufactured in 1956:

Avantic DL7-35 Ampl/Mixer Beam Echo Ltd.; Witham, Essex, build |Radiomuseum.org

Avantic DL7-35 Ampl/Mixer Beam Echo Ltd.; Witham, Essex, build 1956, 8 pictures, 2 schematics, 5 tubes, Great Britain , semiconductors, Audio Amplifier or

www.radiomuseum.org

For two Avantic DL7-35 with associated pre amps: US $5,599.99. Then they are not even inspected and serviced according to the seller:

Pardon Our Interruption...

Since it's UK, of course Quad bonaza. They may also be considered collectors' items. Quad II tube amps, plus various other Quad:

Previous events | Audiojumble

Photos and videos from previous Audiojumble events.

www.audiojumble.co.uk

 

[SIY]

1kHz sinewave modulated by a 1kHz square wave

?

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Are we having fun yet?

?

It's just an example of a test waveform I found which increases the test sensitivity to better discern what would be otherwise very similar performing equipment. The resultant superposition of those individual wave forms create a rather demanding scenario for the (stereo) amplifier, but remains just within the maximum range of a Red Book CD.

"1kHz sine wave modulated by a 1kHz square wave"
A square wave modulation scheme can be used to easily gate another signal. Thou looking at the numbers, 100 Hz probably better. Been a while.

 

[MAB]

Are we having fun yet?

It's just an example of a test waveform I found which increases the test sensitivity to better discern what would be otherwise very similar performing equipment. The resultant superposition of those individual wave forms create a rather demanding scenario for the (stereo) amplifier, but remains just within the maximum range of a Red Book CD.

"1kHz sine wave modulated by a 1kHz square wave"
A square wave modulation scheme can be used to easily gate another signal. Thou looking at the numbers, 100 Hz probably better. Been a while.

I guess you didn't get the joke...
"A square wave walks into a bar with a sine wave and asks Fourier for a drink..."

 

[sonitus mirus]

I guess you didn't get the joke...
"A square wave walks into a bar with a sine wave and asks Fourier for a drink..."

Fourier says, "Sorry, I only serve pure tones here. Don’t get edgy with me."

 

[MatrixS2000]

^

The square wave responds “I can get smooth if you give me a chance!"

 

[Speedskater]

There are two types of listening tests:
1] Listening for differences in electronic units that measure the same.
2] Listening for preferences in units (say loudspeakers) that well may sound different.

 

[sonitus mirus]

There are two types of listening tests:
1] Listening for differences in electronic units that measure the same.
2] Listening for preferences in units (say loudspeakers) that well may sound different.

Listening for preference inherently requires that a difference can be identified. I'd suggest at the base, there are controlled and uncontrolled tests.

 

[pablolie]

Listening for preference inherently requires that a difference can be identified. I'd suggest at the base, there are controlled and uncontrolled tests.

Do you test drive a car before you buy it? Why, if you can get the majority of relevant data from the spec sheet?

Don't get me wrong, I *must* establish that a device is competently designed before I develop an interest in it, and therefore measurements are very important. But I *also* must like the device design etc... and that's subjective. In every "hobby", or when buying a consumer product, some degree of subjectivism will play a role, I think.

I also think that's why people get so cagey over disagreements in hobbies, since they perceive criticism of their choice as a personal attack (as the device in question is a personal choice and hence a form of self-expression).