What to trust ear or measurement?

[QMuse]

That sounds plausible. Now given that 100 dB is easily achieved in parts of the chain, it is a good idea to maintain that level there so as to offer as much headroom as possible for the more challenging stages.

Well, as typical noise level in room is 35-40dB you indeed do need 100dB to raise that 72dB of SINAD above the noise floor.

As for the THD part, our speakers easilly overrun pretty much any shi*ty electronics.

 

[tuga]

Well, as typical noise level in room is 35-40dB you indeed do need 100dB to raise that 72dB of SINAD above the noise floor.

As for the THD part, our speakers easilly overrun pretty much any shi*ty electronics.

Are there studies focusing on loudspeakers-induced THD masking electronics-induced THD?

 

[tuga]

Audio products don't care or know if you are measuring them, or listening to them. They output what you put in them. The product is also not entertainment. The content is entertainment.

Audiophiles absolutely care about performance of audio gear. They hang around forums and watch his youtube videos even though neither has anything to do with listening or music entertainment. Everyone wants to optimize their hardware for best sound.

Many audiophiles will disagree that the so-called equipment "presentation" is not entertainment, just as they will disagree that best sound is the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal and their way to optimise for best sound is adding euphonic distortions and/or choosing coloured equipment. We and I may disagree with but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[mansr]

Well, as typical noise level in room is 35-40dB you indeed do need 100dB to raise that 72dB of SINAD above the noise floor.

I hope that smiley means your misunderstanding was deliberate. For anyone in doubt, I was referring to 100 dB SINAD being easily achieved in DACs and preamps. This has nothing to do with playback SPL.

 

[tuga]

I would gladly throw out all of my measurement gear if Steve would demonstrate that what he says about the sound, is what I would hear. I am not interested in his business interest getting in the way, or his belief in myths and preconceptions. I wouldn't get medical advice from him no matter how much he says drinking carrot juice cures cancer. He has no expertise in that, or fidelity of audio.

Can you not accept that he may not be looking for high-fidelity or the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal? (which is why he chooses equipment that doesn't perform well in the test bench but sounds good to him)

 

[QMuse]

I hope that smiley means your misunderstanding was deliberate. For anyone in doubt, I was referring to 100 dB SINAD being easily achieved in DACs and preamps. This has nothing to do with playback SPL.

Yes, it was.

Although I do think 72dB of SINAD is pretty much inaudible when listening with loudspeakers in a typical room.

 

[JeffS7444]

The main thing I learn from subjective reviews such as Mr. Guttenberg's is that playing with new toys can be fun!

 

[solderdude]

, just as they will disagree that best sound is the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal

That's taste... you can't argue about taste.... 'best sound to an individual' or 'best reproduction' ?
You can argue about measured technical performance and audibility thresholds and above all how these are determined and if they apply to music enjoyment.

 

[mansr]

Although I do think 72dB of SINAD is pretty much inaudible when listening with loudspeakers in a typical room.

As I said, that seems plausible. Now if you spend your entire distortion budget on the DAC, you'll have to have perfect speakers to keep the total below the acceptable limit. Since low-distortion speakers are hard to make, it makes much more sense to keep the electronics essentially perfect (which is easy), allowing almost all the acceptable distortion to occur in the speakers.

 

[Inner Space]

The fsb said, " ... the measurements crowd could profit from tackling the question of what ... do they want to listen to, which is a fundamentally aesthetic problem ... "

Imagine the mastering engineer playing through his final file one last time ... sitting back, nodding to himself, and hitting "send". That is the file I want to listen to, exactly, with nothing added, nothing altered, and nothing taken away. That's a purely technical issue, not aesthetic. The aesthetics are in the mastered file. I might like them or not, but always the credit or blame lies with the file, not my gear.

The only way I know to achieve what I want is the suite of measurements we have developed. The question of audibility is a good one. I would argue that science per se says go for the max. It's cost-conscious applied engineering that says no, stop when it's good enough. I get satisfaction in getting the best margins available, purely in principle, partly for peace of mind, and partly to reward the efforts of designers I value.

The alternative is like walking up the steps of the Louvre in Paris and having an attendant hand you a pair of rose-tinted glasses, and being told that because some of the paintings look a bit stark, it's better to view the whole collection through the filter.

 

[PRL]

Can you not accept that he may not be looking for high-fidelity or the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal? (which is why he chooses equipment that doesn't perform well in the test bench but sounds good to him)

There is a difference between the affect, atmosphere, excitement - call it what you will - of what the sound produced in that moment and what was recorded and can be play back. Often what people are looking to do is to “get closer” to the moment that may of existed at the time or one that they just believe existed. The recording won’t give you this alone.

Some people us placebo, such as that box of special earth that just makes the silence inky-black, some like less than technically optimal playback and others like speakers with loads of big woofers that create more SPL at given frequencies than actually existed.

 

[DSJR]

I do appreciate that there is a lot of figure chasing around these parts and that most dacs tested for example, are basically now commodities to be chosen on looks, build and facilities. Amps subjectively I reckon, are often chosen by ear on clipping performance, as few UK-popular domestic amps are powerful enough, at least in dem-room conditions, in my experience. This latter is quite measurable I'm sure, but that and possible output-impedance characteristics and 4 ohm load driving ability may well play a part here.

What I and I think most here wouldn't want to see is a descent into mediocrity because we can't really hear it! Look at the tests on AV gear here. Back when I was selling the stuff, some of the top gear was superb in both stereo and multi-channel but I do remember in the mid noughties, prices starting to drop and extra channels and so on being added. I was never a domestic AV fan so it's been a sad eye opener to read how far the quality level has descended, with carelessness creeping in in some exalted brands (I'm putting it down to designers not doing their electrical noise cleaning housework). It'd be tragic to see stereo gear descend this way into mediocrity.

 

[mansr]

The alternative is like walking up the steps of the Louvre in Paris and having an attendant hand you a pair of rose-tinted glasses, and being told that because some of the paintings look a bit stark, it's better to view the whole collection through the filter.

I think a Wizard of Oz analogy would be at least as appropriate here.

 

[tomtoo]

Can you not accept that he may not be looking for high-fidelity or the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal? (which is why he chooses equipment that doesn't perform well in the test bench but sounds good to him)

I accept, but why it should also sound good to me? Maybe better measuring equipment sounds better to me?

Let me explain, mesurements tell me something, not everything but something. But what tell me his opinions? Absolutly nothing than his opinions.

 

[amirm]

Can you not accept that he may not be looking for high-fidelity or the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal? (which is why he chooses equipment that doesn't perform well in the test bench but sounds good to him)

No. He doesn't know what he is hearing. He knows what he is perceiving based on biases (including commercial ones), using his imagination, preconceptions of price, designer reputation, etc. I have tested myself and countless other people this way. The conclusions are almost always wrong.

You have to first do proper listening where you are only judging sound. Only then you can make inferences regarding whether the sound is better or worse, preferred, or not.

I have listened to countless types of tube and high distortion audio products that people say color the sound to one's liking. In vast majority of times the colorations and distortions are beyond just about any audiophile to detect let alone characterize as being coloration. In other times, they make things sound terrible as it harsher, brighter, etc. which no self-respecting audiophile would admit is "good."

Steve used to be an audio salesman so let me tell you a story about that. At our company, Madrona Digital we get reps visiting us representing audio companies all the time. A new rep came over one day and I asked him about his background. He said he knew nothing about audio when he worked at a high-end audio company but quickly rose to be the #1 salesman. I asked him how he did that. He said he would have someone come to buy a cheap CD player (this is years ago). He would show him one but before the deal was done, he would take him to a high-end CD player. All he had to do was push the button to open the drawer. The smooth operation of that mechanical motion was enough to make the customer pay thousands of dollars more for that CD player!

Similar story from years before that: I was talking to engineering VP at a large high-end audio company about supporting new high-def video formats (they also built AV products). He asked if he could get our help to build their own drives. I asked why? He said the sound that the drawer made was everything to them! That they spent huge amount of time researching the gearing and motor used to give that wonderful feeling of quality of that drawer opening.

Here is the kicker: that company's product was what that rep was selling!!!

We eat with our eyes, chefs say. Same for audio. Don't put value on faulty listening tests. Don't be a victim of marketing. Don't believe in people who don't know what they are doing.

 

[Inner Space]

Amirm said, " ... they spent huge amount of time researching the gearing and motor used to give that wonderful feeling of quality of that drawer opening ... "

I might pay thousands of dollars for that drawer, if the numbers were equal. I grew up in a metalworking city and have a kind of baked-in appreciation for well executed precision, and a corresponding horror of cheap and squalid adequacy. I fully appreciate this is where hard science bleeds into the softer sciences, but to use something mechanically pleasurable many times a day for 15 or so years is an enhancement for me.

 

[tuga]

I accept, but why it should also sound good to me? Maybe better measuring equipment sounds better to me?

Let me explain, mesurements tell me something, not everything but something. But what tell me his opinions? Absolutly nothing than his opinions.

I agree, I stopped reading reviews ages ago.

As for measurements, I think that they are helpful for people who enjoy euphonic distortions to track down equipment similar to what they like just as much as they are for those of us who prefer accuracy.

 

[tuga]

Amir, what you wrote is the core of wisdom. People should care more about science and much less about non-science.

There is no science to taste.
We like what we like. We may choose to educate our taste, to modify it, or we may not.

The ultimate goal of a stereo system is to provide listening pleasure. If someone gets pleasure from a flawed or lower-fi system you can't assume that he is deluded or mistaken.

 

[mansr]

If accuracy is irrelevant, why stop at mild distortion? Why not make a "DAC" that always plays your favourite music regardless of what is input?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Amirm said, " ... they spent huge amount of time researching the gearing and motor used to give that wonderful feeling of quality of that drawer opening ... "

I might pay thousands of dollars for that drawer, if the numbers were equal. I grew up in a metalworking city and have a kind of baked-in appreciation for well executed precision, and a corresponding horror of cheap and squalid adequacy. I fully appreciate this is where hard science bleeds into the softer sciences, but to use something mechanically pleasurable many times a day for 15 or so years is an enhancement for me.

I can believe the story about the wonderful drawer mechanism. What surprises me is how many people make something expensive, and have poor performance when it is so inexpensive to get that. You can have near SOTA signal performance and the expensive drawer. But many companies develop a story a spiel that interferes with that. Like pushing no negative feedback.