SINAD table colour brackets

[martijn86]

As a slight introduction: I'm a new member. I've been following along every review since the Google Pixel adapters which, looking back, was a only on a ti-ny SINAD list! Thanks @amir for all your hard work. Before ASR, I had little to no proper foundation on what DAC to buy other then pricing and manufacturer measurements. And congrats on the APx555!

To business! Your famous SINAD table uses colour coding and that's important to offer some clarity in the data. However, I feel that the current colour brackets lack relevance. They can tell you if a product is in the top 25% of products previously tested, but what meaning is there in that? I would like to suggest 10dB brackets, just like now, but with a little more relevance.

1. █ >116dB Superior. Performance exceeds human hearing threshold.
2. █ 115dB-106dB Excellent. Performance is capable of higher resolution output.
3. █ 105dB-96dB Proper. Performance fully covers 16-bit (CD) resolution.
4. █ 95dB-86dB Mediocre. Performance does not meet 16-bit (CD) resolution.
5. █ <85dB Low. Avoid if you take any interest in audio performance.

Hopefully this will make it easier for less tech-savvy users to make sense of the chart and apply meaning to the rather abstract SINAD value.

 

[astr0b0y]

Nice work. Can we go a step further and make the DAC name in the graph a hyperlink to the review post?

 

[Veri]

Nice work. Can we go a step further and make the DAC name in the graph a hyperlink to the review post?

That would be rather difficult.

 

[martijn86]

Nice work. Can we go a step further and make the DAC name in the graph a hyperlink to the review post?

That would be rather difficult.

That will require the table to be in a different format. Not difficult. The question would be if it's worth losing the ability to save it as an image.

Embedding a CSV file or Google Sheets is possible but that might be a better fit on the master review post.

 

[digicidal]

I don't think that would be necessary... however, perhaps a nice page with a simple HTML table of links below the graph with text colors corresponding to their bracket. That wouldn't be difficult at all (though requires updating two locations per review - so not completely insignificant either time-wise).

 

[FooYatChong]

With the ever expanding number of reviews it may be worth thinking of something like this:

https://www.compander.net/asr-sinad/

 

[August]

With the ever expanding number of reviews it may be worth thinking of something like this:

https://www.compander.net/asr-sinad/

View attachment 32440

The availability is great, keep improving it!

 

[pozz]

Before we jump into changing the charts, I'd like more people to weigh in on the ranges and descriptions. The main reason I went with quartiles for colour coding was to avoid the semantic issue of defining a performance target and its relevant spectrum. Once you have enough samples, as you do for DAC SINAD, measured excellence defines itself.

Also, DAC SINAD has the most entries and captures the widest spectrum of the available market. But what about SINAD for amps or phono preamps? They won't easily fall into the ranges that @martijn86 defined. What would be reasonable for those products? Having SINAD ranges differ by product type seems impractical as well.

@digicidal That's creative. I don't see it as more practical than looking at the chart pics and then hitting ctrl+F to find an entry. You could easily do that with the master review index in a separate tab.

@FooYatChong How does that site work? When I go to compander.net there's just a symbol of the companding process and no apparent way to interact.

 

[FooYatChong]

Hi @pozz At this point it's just a simple hand-coded html page with some javascript and css. It's not linked to a database, doesn't use a programming language like php and has no backend. Ofcourse that would be more convenient for updates but then we would have to look at how to set it up on your server.

I didn't put much thought into that yet. @martijn86 's post just got me wondering how one could recreate that chart in html and make it a bit more user-friendly.

 

[martijn86]

Before we jump into changing the charts, I'd like more people to weigh in on the ranges and descriptions. The main reason I went with quartiles for colour coding was to avoid the semantic issue of defining a performance target and its relevant spectrum. Once you have enough samples, as you do for DAC SINAD, measured excellence defines itself.

Also, DAC SINAD has the most entries and captures the widest spectrum of the available market. But what about SINAD for amps or phono preamps? They won't easily fall into the ranges that @martijn86 defined. What would be reasonable for those products? Having SINAD ranges differ by product type seems impractical as well.

I too am interested to know if anyone has some thoughts on the ranges and descriptions. Maybe the 'excellent' and 'proper' descriptions are too subjective. My thought was that the current brackets only explain where a DAC sits compared to the previously tested DAC's. Things like the threshold of human hearing and the most common 16-bit audio are fixed reference points that can help make sense of the numbers. Since these reference points (-116 and -96 respectively) are conveniently spaced 2x 10dB apart and 10dB is subjectively twice as loud, it made sense to me. But.. Just throwing a ball up here. Curious to see what others think.

 

[pozz]

Hi @pozz At this point it's just a simple hand-coded html page with some javascript and css. It's not linked to a database, doesn't use a programming language like php and has no backend. Of course that would be more convenient for updates but then we would have to look at how to set it up on your server.

I didn't put much thought into that yet. @martijn86 's post just got me wondering how one could recreate that chart in html and make it a bit more user-friendly.

That will have to involve @amirm. Right now the process doesn't require very much: I compile the measurements when they're released, generate a chart and attach a pic to the post. There's nothing dedicated or specialized happening behind the scenes, and it's only my time on the line.

 

[amirm]

1. █ >116dB Superior. Performance exceeds human hearing threshold.
2. █ 115dB-106dB Excellent. Performance is capable of higher resolution output.
3. █ 105dB-96dB Proper. Performance fully covers 16-bit (CD) resolution.
4. █ 95dB-86dB Mediocre. Performance does not meet 16-bit (CD) resolution.
5. █ <85dB Low. Avoid if you take any interest in audio performance.

Hopefully this will make it easier for less tech-savvy users to make sense of the chart and apply meaning to the rather abstract SINAD value.

I like this description if it doesn't get us into defending it in page after page.

 

[Thomas savage]

I like this description if it doesn't get us into defending it in page after page.

It probably will attract those special folks who feel starved of attention and seek us out as their remedy.

 

[Feargal]

However @FooYatChong 's idea is achieved, rotating it so that it's vertical makes it a lot easier to read the labels, and a lot easier to have text links for the labels.

 

[Matias]

With the ever expanding number of reviews it may be worth thinking of something like this:

https://www.compander.net/asr-sinad/

View attachment 32440

This is definitely the best way to show this rank: vertical, with links to the reviews, ideally on the first post of a new topic and being updated with every new review.

 

[pozz]

I get the impression that the master chart thread might be overlooked.

 

[Matias]

I get the impression that the master chart thread might be overlooked.

I know it exists, but the links to the reviews make all the difference.

 

[pozz]

I like this description if it doesn't get us into defending it in page after page.

Let's have all the fights now, please.

SINAD is not perceptually-linked. It is largely a measurement of engineering quality.

The 96dB dynamic range of CDs is a good starting point and is often mentioned in Amir's reviews. Other descriptors should follow in kind.

1. █ >116dB
2. █ 115dB-106dB
3. █ 105dB-96dB. Performance fully covers 16-bit (CD) resolution.
4. █ 95dB-86dB. Performance does not meet 16-bit (CD) resolution.
5. █ <85dB

If a hyperlinked interactive chart is feasible I would be up to learning how to maintain it.

 

[Matias]

Maybe group them in bits of resolution?
20+
18-20
16-18
16-
Or something.

 

[watchnerd]

Let's have all the fights now, please.

SINAD is not perceptually-linked. It is largely a measurement of engineering quality.

The 96dB dynamic range of CDs is a good starting point and is often mentioned in Amir's reviews. Other descriptors should follow in kind.

If a hyperlinked interactive chart is feasible I would be up to learning how to maintain it.

I think the descriptors have just as much potential to be misleading as anything.

For example...

>116 dB. Absolute engineering overkill, you're paying for extra performance that doesn't make an audible difference.

...is just as true as calling it "Superior".