Naim Uniti Atom vs NAD M10

[SIY]

Nothing! it was purely subjective testing, no controls no nothing, just listening and trying to figure out wich one would suit for my R3's
Well I did measure SPL with phone mic so it was my only effort to standardize the testing.

Ah, thanks. You might explore doing some basic controls before making "sound" judgements. Unfortunately, the judgements are completely invalid without controls to make the comparison ears-only.

 

[Two-eyed cyclops]

I agree, in fact you would have to have some sort of setting where you are able to switch only the piece you are testing within 4 seconds to maintain your inaccurate echoic memory. It might be quite difficult to change the cables within 4 seconds from amp to amp.
Can we conclude that actually almost not a single person has valid oppinion about sound in this thread?

 

[SIY]

Can we conclude that actually almost not a single person has valid oppinion about sound in this thread?

That is indeed mostly the case.

 

[Two-eyed cyclops]

To form an oppinion about certain device, I have found usefull method to pool oppinions of different equipments from population wide as possible. I have found oppinions on forums quite useful.
When other people compare stuff they hear to other stuff they have heard I can start forming some sort of ranking in my own mind. Then I exclude certain products from my own test and include certain products and lastly conduct my own listeing test to figure out what I want.
I just wanted to provide a tiny bit of data to someone elses equipment selection procedure

 

[SIY]

To form an oppinion about certain device, I have found usefull method to pool oppinions of different equipments from population vide as possible. I have found oppinions on forums quite useful.
When other people compare stuff they hear to other stuff they have heard I can start forming some sort of ranking in my own mind. Then I exclude certain products from my own test and include certain products and lastly conduct my own listeing test to figure out what I want.
I just wanted to provide a tiny bit of data to someone elses equipment selection procedure

Anecdotes =/= data. Even in the plural.

And you have described perfectly how a common source of unconscious bias- and consequent incorrect conclusions- arises. When you have actual data from ears-only evaluation, that would be interesting to look at.

 

[Two-eyed cyclops]

I don't think you can have actual/factual data about anything which is related to human senses. If I'm not incorrect, we can only have data measured by external devices we can agree on, but the translation from external measured data to perceived sensory sensation will be up for debate at least with our current technology. The problem here is the subjective sensory sensation.

Currently it would be the best option to have measurents provided by someone like Amir and a shit ton of ABX comparisons. Sadly it happens to be that most data we have at hand is subjective biased oppinions and we need to do our choices based on that. I think I would divide subjective oppinnions further into different tiers of relevance, my input definitely places in the lower tiers.

 

[SIY]

I don't think you can have actual/factual data about anything which is related to human senses. If I'm not incorrect, we can only have data measured by external devices we can agree on, but the translation from external measured data to perceived sensory sensation will be up for debate at least with our current technology. The problem here is the subjective sensory sensation.

Currently it would be the best option to have measurents provided by someone like Amir and a shit ton of ABX comparisons. Sadly it happens to be that most data we have at hand is subjective biased oppinions and we need to do our choices based on that. I think I would divide subjective oppinnions further into different tiers of relevance, my input definitely places in the lower tiers.

Nonsense. Controlled listening is a vital part of sonic evaluation. Basic controls are the sine qua non.

 

[Two-eyed cyclops]

Most of the people have similar (by similar I mean not identical but same kind of) perception of reality obiviosly but no two person has the exactly the same perception about reality. My red color is not the same as your red color. We can agree both that this color is red but it doesn't change that how our brains perceive it. My brains might associate this red with red hot and red apples while your red is red like love and blood.

When you listen to speaker which has awesome metrics in tests we think correlates to "good speaker", you might love those speakers, or your taste for speakers has co-evolved with poor quality speakers in your childhood and these superb speakers doesn't bring up any big emotions like the speaker your uncle had in your childhood and they feel like meh. Two different and equally correct perceptions.

In the end debates about matter of teste are.. well, are matter of taste, and in reality no physical object is better than other. These are just things we humans like to label, better or worse, they only exist in our minds. Labeling is thing we humas do to get some sort of hold of universe around us, definitive labeling has gotten us quite far but usually it doesn't line up with reality so well.

 

[Two-eyed cyclops]

You know it's quite paradoxical that facts are the things there is any sense to argue about, rather than matters of taste.

I just like listening music and want to help others enjoy the music also.

 

[SIY]

Much handwaving, but still, the need for basic controls before making judgements like "Amplifier A has more dynamics than Amplifier B" remains. Otherwise the judgements carry all the evidentiary weight of claims of alien abductions with anal probing.

Yes, it's a PITA and not as much fun as playing around swapping components. But basic controls are what distinguishes science from make-believe.

 

[Two-eyed cyclops]

I would agree with you if we were talking about how I measured this graph from this amp versus this amp, what methods did I use and what is my source of error ect.
This all loses meaning when we transition to thing called hearing and my perception of which one is better than something else.. You need to look into neurosciences and philosophy of science.
Hey, If you can prove me wrong, you can continue your besserwissering.

 

[SIY]

This all loses meaning when we transition to thing called hearing and my perception of which one is better than something else.. You need to look into neurosciences and philosophy of science.

No. That is where basic controls are even more important.

 

[Beershaun]

Much handwaving, but still, the need for basic controls before making judgements like "Amplifier A has more dynamics than Amplifier B" remains. Otherwise the judgements carry all the evidentiary weight of claims of alien abductions with anal probing.

Yes, it's a PITA and not as much fun as playing around swapping components. But basic controls are what distinguishes science from make-believe.

What method should be used to measure the final output of two competing setups to see what the actual final output differences are. I don't mean double blind hearing tests. I mean actually measuring the final sound waves from a complex piece of music in the listening space to see what is actually sonically different? To either prove or disprove that two setups are different or the same.

 

[Willem]

It is really quite simple. All an amplifier has to do is accept an electrical signal and make it larger without otherwise changing it in any way (i.e. a straight wire with gain). So all we have to do is compare the electrical output signal with the electrical input signal. There is no need to measure sound waves. The tools to compare those electrical signals have improved a lot over the years, and current audio analyzers have a far better resolution than human hearing.
If anyone is still interested in listening tests, the truth is that over the last few decades in controled listening tests nobody has been able to distinguish properly designed amplifiers used within their specification.
The audiophile agony over amplifiers is really quite pathetic. If you want a decent amplifier with digital inputs and enough power for small to medium sized rooms, get something like the Yamaha AS501/701/801 (the AS501 is only 360 euro). If you want more power for a larger room, get a big Hypex based power amplifier with a DAC/preamp of your choice. An RME ADI-2 DAC/preamp and a 2x350 watt March P502 will set you back some 2000 euro. Choose either option depending on your situation, and you are done. Problem solved, and no need to worry for the next twenty years or more.

 

[NTK]

What method should be used to measure the final output of two competing setups to see what the actual final output differences are. I don't mean double blind hearing tests. I mean actually measuring the final sound waves from a complex piece of music in the listening space to see what is actually sonically different? To either prove or disprove that two setups are different or the same.

Agreeing with @Willem.

If we are only talking about amplifiers, then speakers and room can be removed from the equation. Only differences in the signals to the speakers are relevant, and electrical measurements with test signals are all that are necessary — no music required.

Here are the list of performance metrics I myself will look at:

Primary performance requirements:​

1. Frequency response across the audible frequency band
2. SINAD (signal to noise and distortions) vs power across the audible frequency band and across different load impedance

Secondary performance requirements:​

1. Multitone intermodulation distortions
2. Output impedance
3. Stability into (reasonable) reactive loads

Other basic engineering requirements:​

1. Stability with temperature
2. Heat generation / dissipation
3. RFI/EMC and powerline noise immunity
4. Noise — fan noise, transformer hum, coil whine

If speakers are included, then no in-room microphone measurements can tell the true story. That is because we cannot find out the directivity defects of speakers from in-room responses. Speaker sound quality can be judged separately using the spinorama curves and maximum usable SPL measurements (both are in the CTA-2034A standard).

 

[SIY]

What method should be used to measure the final output of two competing setups to see what the actual final output differences are. I don't mean double blind hearing tests. I mean actually measuring the final sound waves from a complex piece of music in the listening space to see what is actually sonically different? To either prove or disprove that two setups are different or the same.

Depends on what you mean by "setup." In this particular case, the differences would be in the electrical signals being fed to the speakers, so that would be the most appropriate measurement.

edit: Willem and NTK got there first.

 

[Beershaun]

Thanks for the responses to my question. I think it is hard for people to correlate the tests listed using things like a 1khz tone or a set of tones to the final music listening experience. since people routinely state that their subjective anecdotal experience listening to music from two different amplifiers or integrated amps yields different perceptible results.

So my question is how do you prove or disprove that these amplifiers are yielding percptively different results for a given piece of music in a measurable way?

 

[SIY]

Thanks for the responses to my question. I think it is hard for people to correlate the tests listed using things like a 1khz tone or a set of tones to the final music listening experience. since people routinely state that their subjective anecdotal experience listening to music from two different amplifiers or integrated amps yields different perceptible results.

So my question is how do you prove or disprove that these amplifiers are yielding percptively different results for a given piece of music in a measurable way?

It's up to the person making the claim to prove that there are audible differences. That's done with level-matched double blind listening tests.

 

[Beershaun]

It's up to the person making the claim to prove that there are audible differences. That's done with level-matched double blind listening tests.

That ultimately relies on a person's ears and perception as the measuring device. Is there a better measuring device to substitute in for this test?

 

[BDWoody]

That ultimately relies on a person's ears and perception as the measuring device.

Since they are claiming they hear a difference, that's how they prove they hear a difference. The rest of the measurements should predict how likely that might be, and under what circumstances, but if a difference can't be detected through a controlled listening test, an audible difference can't be claimed to be there, right?

A measurable differences is not necessarily an audible one. But, if you can hear it, you can measure it. Nothing hidden in there...