Measurements & What We Hear?

[HD MOVIE SOURCE]

Hi,

I've been watching video reviews from Amir on YouTube. I think they're amazing, I've watched every one of his videos and can't get enough. However, there's one thing that has been on my mind lately after watching the Denon receiver interview with FOMO. It's things not sounding different or technically worse on higher-end equipment. I'd like to talk about it and get some feedback from you guys.

I'm going to talk about something I know, so I want you to know that I'm talking from my own experience with 2 products.

I used to own an Oppo 203 4K Player, however, Oppo stopped making 4K players, and stopped supporting the product. I bought a Panasonic UB9000 because I heard that the picture quality was better. Picture quality is my main focus, audio is secondary to me, the picture quality is indeed better. However, the audio difference between the 203 and the UB9000 was instantly obvious, the UB9000 was much better.

To give you an idea of the differences.
Oppo 203 - brittle sound, thick sloppy bass, tinny sound.
Panasonic UB9000 - smooth midrange, smooth bass, strong pinprick treble, maybe too sharp on treble.

On my system - a Denon x6500h and 11,2 Elac Unifi speakers the difference between these players was obvious, and to my ears, the Panasonic sounds so much better.

Now, if Amir reviewed these 2 players, would the 20hz to 20k sweep be flat? Would the UB9000 look worse? I'm not saying I don't believe measurements, I do, I look for measurements in reviews. I want to see why something is technically better than another. However, if these players measured equal from 20hz to 20k, that would tell me one thing, and that is, a machine cannot measure sound quality.

I hear a difference between these 2 4K players. Now, somebody out there may have measured them and say, yeah, there is a difference, then this would negate this post entirely and measurements are 100% the way to go. The reason I'm making this post is because these are 2 products that I've owned and the difference is obvious.

I'd like some feedback on the idea, can we measure sound quality? I don't care about 20hz to 20k, I'm talking actual sound quality, can it be measured, and is there a measurable difference between these 2 players?

Thanks for listening.

 

[SIY]

Hi,

I've been watching video reviews from Amir on YouTube. I think they're amazing, I've watched every one of his videos and can't get enough. However, there's one thing that has been on my mind lately after watching the Denon receiver interview with FOMO. It's things not sounding different or technically worse on higher-end equipment. I'd like to talk about it and get some feedback from you guys.

I'm going to talk about something I know, so I want you to know that I'm talking from my own experience with 2 products.

I used to own an Oppo 203 4K Player, however, Oppo stopped making 4K players, and stopped supporting the product. I bought a Panasonic UB9000 because I heard that the picture quality was better. Picture quality is my main focus, audio is secondary to me, the picture quality is indeed better. However, the audio difference between the 203 and the UB9000 was instantly obvious, the UB9000 was much better.

To give you an idea of the differences.
Oppo 203 - brittle sound, thick sloppy bass, tinny sound.
Panasonic UB9000 - smooth midrange, smooth bass, strong pinprick treble, maybe too sharp on treble.

On my system - a Denon x6500h and 11,2 Elac Unifi speakers the difference between these players was obvious, and to my ears, the Panasonic sounds so much better.

Now, if Amir reviewed these 2 players, would the 20hz to 20k sweep be flat? Would the UB9000 look worse? I'm not saying I don't believe measurements, I do, I look for measurements in reviews. I want to see why something is technically better than another. However, if these players measured equal from 20hz to 20k, that would tell me one thing, and that is, a machine cannot measure sound quality.

I hear a difference between these 2 4K players. Now, somebody out there may have measured them and say, yeah, there is a difference, then this would negate this post entirely and measurements are 100% the way to go. The reason I'm making this post is because these are 2 products that I've owned and the difference is obvious.

I'd like some feedback on the idea, can we measure sound quality? I don't care about 20hz to 20k, I'm talking actual sound quality, can it be measured, and is there a measurable difference between these 2 players?

Thanks for listening.

If what you claim you hear is real, the differences will be instantly obvious on measurements.

Note the "if."

 

[nerdstrike]

I would lay odds on a stronger voltage signal from the Panasonic unit, and might have a better dac in it.

I trust you are taking analogue from the device.

 

[HD MOVIE SOURCE]

I would lay odds on a stronger voltage signal from the Panasonic unit, and might have a better dac in it.

I trust you are taking analogue from the device.

No, all differences are from HDMI only.

 

[Taddpole]

Let's all wildly speculate on unmeasured things.

 

[Katji]

I'd like some feedback on the idea, can we measure sound quality? I don't care about 20hz to 20k, I'm talking actual sound quality, can it be measured,

"Quality" cannot be measured because it is not defined. So you see "low quality," "poor quality," "high quality."

So what to measure? We have SNR, we have SINAD - signal over noise and distortion. Higher signal level and lower noise/distortion level means higher fidelity, closer to the source material, more accurate. Which you can take to mean higher quality.

Here it is about DAC - Digital [to] Analog Converter. The output is electrical impulses...which goes to the loudspeaker to be converted back to sound energy. Until that point, it is not sound, not music, it is electricity. In the case of DAC, we test the accuracy of the conversion.

Maybe what you want to do is change DAC and measure the output of the loudspeaker, looking for differences. Then you know what to do - refer to A/B testing etc.

actual sound quality, can it be measured, and is there a measurable difference between these 2 players?

However, if these players measured equal from 20hz to 20k, that would tell me one thing, and that is, a machine cannot measure sound quality.
[...]I'm talking actual sound quality, can it be measured, and is there a measurable difference between these 2 players?

What is "actual sound quality?"
It is undefined - until you define it, and then it can be measured accordingly, with tool/s designed to measure according to that definition.

Oppo 203 - brittle sound, thick sloppy bass, tinny sound.
Panasonic UB9000 - smooth midrange, smooth bass, strong pinprick treble, maybe too sharp on treble.

What is "brittle sound"? We know the meaning of brittle, but how does it apply to sound?
"Too sharp on treble"? Treble = higher frequencies. The definition of treble is defined as a range of frequencies. Decide on a range.
Too sharp? Too much sound energy in that frequency range? ...Check [SINAD etc. information.
...Then after that it is a matter of acoustics, and then it is a matter of individual hearing sense perception. ...Measuring relevant neurological stuff, maybe check again after about 20 years or so. And then there is still the problem of individual psychology. We could use some or other reference points. But not an absolute standard - because we are not machines.

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

You can't measure sound quality, you need a definition of quality including some measurable parameters. Even if you wanted to try to give one, despite the fact that research says that we humans, on average, tend to like the same sound, individual preference is unavoidable.
Maybe the two units actually sound audibly different, maybe not, but you happen to prefer the second.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Besides what has already been pointed out, consider that apart from measurements showing some functional deficiency, you'd need to demonstrate you actually HEAR a difference in a competently constructed blind listening test to a statistically significant degree. Placebo effect, confirmation bias, and other psychoacoustic aspects come into play with sighted listening that need to be controlled for. Simply being aware these exist does NOT obviate the need to control for them.

 

[Wes]

the Oppo has an xlnt DAC

Describe how you did your listening comparisons in detail.

 

[HD MOVIE SOURCE]

"Quality" cannot be measured because it is not defined. So you see "low quality," "poor quality," "high quality."

View attachment 131334

So what to measure? We have SNR, we have SINAD - signal over noise and distortion. Higher signal level and lower noise/distortion level means higher fidelity, closer to the source material, more accurate. Which you can take to mean higher quality.

Here it is about DAC - Digital [to] Analog Converter. The output is electrical impulses...which goes to the loudspeaker to be converted back to sound energy. Until that point, it is not sound, not music, it is electricity. In the case of DAC, we test the accuracy of the conversion.

Maybe what you want to do is change DAC and measure the output of the loudspeaker, looking for differences. Then you know what to do - refer to A/B testing etc.




What is "actual sound quality?"
It is undefined - until you define it, and then it can be measured accordingly, with tool/s designed to measure according to that definition.



What is "brittle sound"? We know the meaning of brittle, but how does it apply to sound?
"Too sharp on treble"? Treble = higher frequencies. The definition of treble is defined as a range of frequencies. Decide on a range.
Too sharp? Too much sound energy in that frequency range? ...Check [SINAD etc. information.
...Then after that it is a matter of acoustics, and then it is a matter of individual hearing sense perception. ...Measuring relevant neurological stuff, maybe check again after about 20 years or so. And then there is still the problem of individual psychology. We could use some or other reference points. But not an absolute standard - because we are not machines.

Yeah, thanks for in-depth response. I think you're right with the DAC, I'd like to test everything, with the same equipment but replace the DAC. Is that where the "quality" of sound is coming from? Possibly right?

 

[HD MOVIE SOURCE]

the Oppo has an xlnt DAC

Describe how you did your listening comparisons in detail.

I used an Oppo 203 for 2 to 2.5 years. I bought a Panasonic UB9000. Did some DSD music, CD music and movie comparisons, just playing one after the other. There was no in-depth testing. But, we agree in our house that we all wanted to listen to music on one vs the other.

DSD music has a smoother and less harsh sound on the Panasonic vs the Oppo. This is even using HDMI, and not the XLR outputs on the UB9000.

 

[Jim T]

Hi,

I've been watching video reviews from Amir on YouTube. I think they're amazing, I've watched every one of his videos and can't get enough. However, there's one thing that has been on my mind lately after watching the Denon receiver interview with FOMO. It's things not sounding different or technically worse on higher-end equipment. I'd like to talk about it and get some feedback from you guys.

I'm going to talk about something I know, so I want you to know that I'm talking from my own experience with 2 products.

I used to own an Oppo 203 4K Player, however, Oppo stopped making 4K players, and stopped supporting the product. I bought a Panasonic UB9000 because I heard that the picture quality was better. Picture quality is my main focus, audio is secondary to me, the picture quality is indeed better. However, the audio difference between the 203 and the UB9000 was instantly obvious, the UB9000 was much better.

To give you an idea of the differences.
Oppo 203 - brittle sound, thick sloppy bass, tinny sound.
Panasonic UB9000 - smooth midrange, smooth bass, strong pinprick treble, maybe too sharp on treble.

On my system - a Denon x6500h and 11,2 Elac Unifi speakers the difference between these players was obvious, and to my ears, the Panasonic sounds so much better.

Now, if Amir reviewed these 2 players, would the 20hz to 20k sweep be flat? Would the UB9000 look worse? I'm not saying I don't believe measurements, I do, I look for measurements in reviews. I want to see why something is technically better than another. However, if these players measured equal from 20hz to 20k, that would tell me one thing, and that is, a machine cannot measure sound quality.

I hear a difference between these 2 4K players. Now, somebody out there may have measured them and say, yeah, there is a difference, then this would negate this post entirely and measurements are 100% the way to go. The reason I'm making this post is because these are 2 products that I've owned and the difference is obvious.

I'd like some feedback on the idea, can we measure sound quality? I don't care about 20hz to 20k, I'm talking actual sound quality, can it be measured, and is there a measurable difference between these 2 players?

Thanks for listening.

Remember flat frequency response can sound awful, as did the first CD players. The analog output stage matters greatly and takes great engineering to get right. Cheap parts, poor sound.

Borrow a friends outboad DAC and attached it to the OPPO and see what you think. I added 2 Project Audio S2 DACS to my systems, one on the computer with a headphone/preamp out, and the other is just the basic DAC for a disc spinner with analogue out. Both are huge improvements sound wise and I now have output filter choices. For $300 to $500 they are a steal and can bring any disc spinner into the 21's century sound wise.

 

[Wes]

I used an Oppo 203 for 2 to 2.5 years. I bought a Panasonic UB9000. Did some DSD music, CD music and movie comparisons, just playing one after the other. There was no in-depth testing. But, we agree in our house that we all wanted to listen to music on one vs the other.

DSD music has a smoother and less harsh sound on the Panasonic vs the Oppo. This is even using HDMI, and not the XLR outputs on the UB9000.

you will need to do a blind test to be sure

or... just use the Panny

 

[Katji]

Yeah, thanks for in-depth response. I think you're right with the DAC, I'd like to test everything, with the same equipment but replace the DAC. Is that where the "quality" of sound is coming from? Possibly right?

What it comes down to, is listening test. If there is an audible difference - that is, a physical difference, actually difference in tones/whatever from the speaker - like you describe, as definitely hearing it - then it would likely show on the usual measurements as noise/distortion. iow, at some point, higher frequency tones sound like that because the noise/distortion is high there.
Listening tests as said already - "blind" as in you don't know which you are hearing. Someone else must change it, several times. Otherwise the mind can do anything.

 

[Jim T]

you will need to do a blind test to be sure

or... just use the Panny

I have never needed a blind test to know that DSD/SACD is better than CD or 2496 files. What one has to be careful of is the mixing and mastering of DSD and then put out retail as an SACD. I have a SACD that was recorded DSD, mastered and mixed to tape, and then brought back to DSD. You can hear it as it has lost the crispness and some air and detail.

But saying that, if you are remastering something from a high quality master tape recorded well, then putting out a SACD of that makes sense to preserve more of the original performance. I have many of those from RCA's Living Stereo collection.

 

[Wes]

really? never needed eh?

could your wife hear the difference from the kitchen?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have never needed a blind test to know that DSD/SACD is better than CD or 2496 files. What one has to be careful of is the mixing and mastering of DSD and then put out retail as an SACD. I have a SACD that was recorded DSD, mastered and mixed to tape, and then brought back to DSD. You can hear it as it has lost the crispness and some air and detail.

But saying that, if you are remastering something from a high quality master tape recorded well, then putting out a SACD of that makes sense to preserve more of the original performance. I have many of those from RCA's Living Stereo collection.

Did you know you have to go DSD to PCM to DSD is you do any real mixing? Usually it is converted to DXD which is high rate PCM before converted back to DSD.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I have never needed a blind test to know that DSD/SACD is better than CD or 2496 files. What one has to be careful of is the mixing and mastering of DSD and then put out retail as an SACD. I have a SACD that was recorded DSD, mastered and mixed to tape, and then brought back to DSD. You can hear it as it has lost the crispness and some air and detail.

But saying that, if you are remastering something from a high quality master tape recorded well, then putting out a SACD of that makes sense to preserve more of the original performance. I have many of those from RCA's Living Stereo collection.

Because through sheer mental prowess you can stave off any confirmation bias, placebo effect or other psychoacoustic ramifications.

 

[Beave]

No, all differences are from HDMI only.

Quoted for emphasis. He's not even using the DACs in his universal players. He's using the HDMI output.

The differences you think you heard are almost certainly due to sighted comparisons and time lag.

 

[Beave]

Remember flat frequency response can sound awful, as did the first CD players. The analog output stage matters greatly and takes great engineering to get right. Cheap parts, poor sound.

No it doesn't. Just following the manufacturer's reference design is usually all that's needed to get excellent DAC performance. There is no magic or even challenging engineering involved.