So this thing costs 43k....

[Sal1950]

I say again - I get the rubbish measurements - but they're not lying to anyone - they tell you the measurements suck - Peter said the DAC's "measure a bag of nails" but if they feel it sounds better - and so do people who buy their gear - then what's the problem.

Some people love the sound of various distortions, this is a lesson we've learned over and over. Couple that with components that are ridiculously expensive, mix in some voodoo science, magic dust ramblings that no one understands, and throw some big advertising money at the various audiophool media, now you have a award winning combination.
But garbage remains garbage and a phoool and his money are easily parted. These are the real lessons to learn here.

 

[ahofer]

If people prefer the distorted sound or the appearance of the gear, I’m not going to get in the way.

But I think it is liberating, for those of us who listen to a lot of live music, to understand that you can get accuracy for much less, and you might be able to simulate the same broken sound for a lot less.

The thing that remains offensive is when vendors of kilobuck gear a) promote pseudo-science, b)proclaim that they have achieved greater accuracy in some unmeasurable way or c) suggest that other listeners simply don’t have the aural skills or refinement to appreciate the difference in their bad-measuring equipment.

(a) and (b) are snake oil, but if it comes to (c), as it so often does in the forums, they can F right off.

 

[anmpr1]

If people prefer the distorted sound or the appearance of the gear, I’m not going to get in the way.

Distortion is fine if we are talking electric guitars. On a home system? I don't even think what these 'reviewers' are 'hearing' is distortion. Possibly in some cases. But I really think they are just making stuff up. Imagining it. I think they are just fooling themselves. Does that make them and those who follow them fools?

Those types, the true believers, will continue to drink the Kool Aid regardless of what anyone says. And, after all, it's not like Jim Jones is doing the mixing. High-end idiocy might make one poorer. It might make one appear ridiculous. But I don't think anyone's ever been killed by it.

 

[ahofer]

Distortion is fine if we are talking electric guitars. On a home system? I don't even think what these 'reviewers' are 'hearing' is distortion. Possibly in some cases. But I really think they are just making stuff up. Imagining it. I think they are just fooling themselves. Does that make them and those who follow them fools?

Those types, the true believers, will continue to drink the Kool Aid regardless of what anyone says. And, after all, it's not like Jim Jones is doing the mixing. High-end idiocy might make one poorer. It might make one appear ridiculous. But I don't think anyone's ever been killed by it.

i dont feel the need to call anyone a fool-unless and until they cross one of the three lines I drew above.

I used distortion loosely, not strictly as harmonic or IM distortion. Right now my strong null hypothesis is that we can measure the dimensions that make for accurate sound reproduction, and things that sound differently will measure differently. Therefore, components that measure less accurately are ‘distorting’ the signal in some way.

 

[Soniclife]

I don't even think what these 'reviewers' are 'hearing' is distortion. Possibly in some cases. But I really think they are just making stuff up. Imagining it. I think they are just fooling themselves.

The complete absence of proof that they can actually hear a real ears only difference between things, after decades of this waffle looks conclusive to me.

 

[Richard Austen]

There was a term used by reviewer Kevin Fiske now of Hi-Fi Critic under martin Colloms who owned $20k or $30k worth of PMC and Bryston who went to an all Audio Note system - and he said that people often note that tube based systems like AN - are Euphonic. A mix of various distortion - second harmonic - that appeals to the ear.

And that is ultimately what happens - when Reviewer Chris Redmond sits down in front of his Revel loudspeakers and his brilliant measuring SS amplifiers and then brought home Audio Note speakers and SET amplifiers - he was shocked that he preferred greatly the latter. At some point you do actually have to listen to your stereo system rather than just try to win audio forum arguments by calling everyone who actually went to the trouble of listening to the equipment a rube. I personally grew up with Solid State amplifiers, CD players and have no nostalgic attachment to tubes and vinyl. Yes the AN DAC price is high - they make DACs under $2k and speakers under $1k. What you find is most of these upper priced items are a demand side economic platform.

They have been selling the OTO integrated amplifier now for 28 consecutive years and people badgered them to make a suped up version. Use higher grade parts they demanded - make an ultimate version of the amp. So they did.

The reality is I am not really defending them - because they don't need a defense. No one holds a gun to your head to buy the stuff. The measured response is what it is - it won't compete with my Rotel Power amps or my old KEF LS50s or the Revels.

Still I had the KEF LS-50 in my room for 4 years playing almost everyday - and I also have three Audio Note speakers - one of which is 2/3 the price and sounds better than the KEF LS-50.

The reality is that all the internet discussion can't really compete when the needle drops or the play button is pushed - If Amplifier A or Speaker A generates a Gestalt sensation when listening to music and amplifier and speaker B do not - then how do you expect a person to throw out the listening experience and say - well I read a white paper that says speaker B or amp B is superior so that's it - that's the gold standard - forget any listening experience - that experience is just you being affected by bias.

Bias goes both ways.

Price bias - on the one hand people have a bias that the more expensive something is the better it is.
But, this works the other way.
Speaker X has good measured performance and costs $1500 and all I can afford is $1500 - so I am going to convince myself that anyone who spends more is an idiot with more money than brains. I feel good about myself because I am SMART and a SHREWD audiophile because I chose the perfect amp and the perfect speaker and anyone else who spends more is a kook who drank the Kool-Aid"

And it almost always comes from people who have never bothered to actually listen to stuff. I get it - I used to say the same things. Tubes suck - look at the measurements. That speaker sucks - look at the measurements.

Being an Atheist - I sort of hate being on the side of trying to defend Single Ended Triodes, High efficiency and horn speakers and Non Oversampling DA Converters - it is all very Religious - Voodoo Cult like. There is no forum banter that changes people's minds on this - and the only way for the SET /Tube makers to be able to convince anyone is in the listening room - and if the people you are trying to convince won't listen to it - then that's the end of the discussion. I don't think anyone will argue the merits of the measured results. They are what they are.

In other words it's actually okay to like and prefer a highly euphonic tube system with copious amounts of second order distortion. It's okay to feel that this sounds better or more real etc. I posted the video from AV Showrooms earlier because the ex Stereophile and ex Absolute Sound Reviewer Peter Bruninger who conducted the walkthrough has covered perhaps more audio shows than anyone else. He has heard pretty much everything in the industry. At some point it's okay to actually audition gear - and if you don't trust your biases - listen blind and level matched.

 

[pozz]

Some people love the sound of various distortions, this is a lesson we've learned over and over.

I really think this is something we've actually proved false and another opinion we should count as misinformed. On top of what we usually say—that at least as far as playback gear is concerned we shouldn't worry about distortion audibility—we also shouldn't spend time considering what character could given to the signal by tiny spectral fluctuations. The levels of noise/distortion that boutique manufacturers advertise are squarely in the realm of inaudibility, and the "distortion character" thing is another product of the hearsay passed about in the overall community.

The main issue is simply (and demonstrably) good vs. bad engineering in practice and in mind.

 

[Soniclife]

At some point it's okay to actually audition gear - and if you don't trust your biases - listen blind and level matched.

To convince us that reviewers are to be listened to, they are going to have to put controls in place, but they don't, why is this?
First review of your's I found on line.
https://www.dagogo.com/cambridge-audio-cxc-transport-review/

The sound quality was immediately a big step up over my $1,500 Line Magnetic CD215 being used as a transport.

How did you control for sighted bias in this review?

 

[scott wurcer]

In other words it's actually okay to like and prefer a highly euphonic tube system with copious amounts of second order distortion. It's okay to feel that this sounds better or more real etc.

Yes it is, so there is not much left for discussion. Reviewers for the likes of TAS, etc. have stated that amps like Bryston, Boulder, etc. sound "clinical" and unengaging for years. I've listened to SET amps and >100dB efficient horns, you don't need DBT to hear the difference. OTOH I suspect the effect is reproducible for very little cash outlay.

If you are, for instance, selling NOS DAC's made from obsolete R2R converters where is the value being added to justify the stupid prices?

 

[Blur]

I prefer inorganic tonal balance personally. :-}

Buzz word central. Best to steer clear.

Some of this sales jargon reminds of of this sales rep at a local meet trying to show off his Final Sonorous X. In case you don't know it's an ungodly ugly headphone costing $5000 USD. He was trying to convince me it was unique because it was binaural? Aren't all headphones binaural by design? lol. As in two separate speakers independent of each other capable of reproducing binaural recordings? That company makes me laugh every time I see a product from them.

 

[NTomokawa]

Final Sonorous X

Final Audio Design. That name should have told you everything you needed to know about them: They're a FAD.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Audio Note UK is evil for so many reasons. The guy who created the company did it off the success and hard work of a Japanese man who originally created Audio Note. He was originally just a distributor for him and because he was so far away and little oversight was given to his process, he managed to establish a successful operation. All based on the hard work or another person. The man is a thief.

Did I mention he (among many they companies nowadays) has moved labour to east Europe to take advantage of and exploit the extremely cheap labour market? It’s cheaper to manufacture goods in countries like Poland then China... hence all the audiophile companies that have done out of east Europe.

 

[Blur]

Hah, never realized that!

 

[Sal1950]

The reality is that all the internet discussion can't really compete when the needle drops or the play button is pushed - If Amplifier A or Speaker A generates a Gestalt sensation when listening to music and amplifier and speaker B do not - then how do you expect a person to throw out the listening experience and say - well I read a white paper that says speaker B or amp B is superior so that's it - that's the gold standard - forget any listening experience - that experience is just you being affected by bias.

If they are at all interested in listening to what the source was expected to sound like, that's exactly what should be done.
Otherwise if they're just interested in something that sounds good to them, they have every right build a rig that does that.
The fly in the ointment is if you build a rig around parts that can deliver true accurate HiFi, you can always add in a little something here to there to add those pleasing but distorted effects.
If you build a rig using a bunch of "sounds good to me" stuff, you will never be able to use it to hear the true HiFi playback. You're forever forced to listen to the tone controls you chose.

And it almost always comes from people who have never bothered to actually listen to stuff. I get it - I used to say the same things. Tubes suck - look at the measurements. That speaker sucks - look at the measurements.

A typical subjectivist mis-statement. I don't know anyone of a scientific bend in this hobby that doesn't listen and pay attention to the sound of music delivered by his and others gear. But if component A delivers truly audible bad measurements, it sucks, that's just the fact of it. If you like the way it sucks, that's up to you. But it still sucks.

I really think this is something we've actually proved false and another opinion we should count as misinformed. On top of what we usually say—that at least as far as playback gear is concerned we shouldn't worry about distortion audibility—we also shouldn't spend time considering what character could given to the signal by tiny spectral fluctuations. The levels of noise/distortion that boutique manufacturers advertise are squarely in the realm of inaudibility, and the "distortion character" thing is another product of the hearsay passed about in the overall community.

If it's audible, it's audible. If not, then not.
But we discuss many components who display very audible&measureable distortions that some people love. Do I really have to list them here? My original statement remains true "Some people love the sound of various distortions, this is a lesson we've learned over and over."

 

[pozz]

If it's audible, it's audible. If not, then not.
But we discuss many components who display very audible&measureable distortions that some people love. Do I really have to list them here? My original statement remains true "Some people love the sound of various distortions, this is a lesson we've learned over and over."

I'm saying we should challenge the prevailing opinion that distortions are the key factor when it comes to audibility and preference (or even reported difference), not that you held that opinion yourself.

There's definitely a distinction to be made between "distortions" (as in added spectral content) and what people say they love. Too quick a jump has connected one to the other. From the audibility side, the "$43k thing" of this thread and a good majority of boutique playback gear offers only small modifications to the signal which are definitely not worth the money paid for them (an issue of good engineering, which includes cost-effectiveness, not audibility).

With speakers for example the main audible issues are linear distortions: spectral tilts, resonances and on- and off-axis response characteristics. None of which refer to what people tend to think of as "distortions" (added pure tones or groups of pure tones). And with small-signal electronics nonlinear distortion is barely any kind of differentiator at all. @Richard Austen please take note.

Edit: To expand, with small-signal electronics the differentiator is engineering quality, inclusive of cost, marketing segment, and function. The measured distortion is so low as to be an indication only of the level of care and attention, not any audible quality.

 

[Mnyb]

What would the noise levels be on this is it even possible to ABX ?

 

[pozz]

What would the noise levels be on this is it even possible to ABX ?

https://www.audionote.co.uk/dac5
They don't say, unfortunately, though there's little point of looking at the spec sheet for that information.

I'd assume THD of 100dB +/-20dB for good/bad manufacturers, lowering the bar by about 20dB for power amps specifically and another 20dB for boutique stuff. So here maybe 60dB—80dB SINAD comprised of an immense hash of stuff around the main tone in the typical 1kHz test.

Maybe we should start placing bets on extremely expensive gear to see which gearhead guesses best in case someone does send it in for a review.

 

[Sal1950]

I'm saying we should challenge the prevailing opinion that distortions are the key factor when it comes to audibility and preference (or even reported difference), not that you held that opinion yourself.

Sorry but I can't begin to follow your thought process/reasoning???
What's to challenge? If we use a scientific approach, first we will use bias controlled DBT to determine if a reported difference is real or imagined. If it is real then measured performance will reveal the distortions responsible. I don't believe in magic dust or unmeasurable component differences. If they exist, show me, using a scientific investigation path.

 

[Thomas savage]

Come on guys , this thread is a graveyard of the mind.

Let's not bother lol

 

[Sal1950]

Come on guys , this thread is a graveyard of the mind.

What?