Why is audio objectivism so frequently focused on all the wrong things?

[oivavoi]

@oivavoi (...) appears to be pursuing an important line of questions quite sincerely.

Thanks... I guess?
(and yeah, I really have no axe to grind in audio... I'm basically just a science-oriented music lover who had the misfortune of falling into the quagmire of online audiophilia by getting too interested in the technical aspects of music reproduction; and who still attempts in vain to achieve an audio system which gets as close as possible to mimicking the real thing)

 

[pozz]

There are no audible differences between (non-broken) DACs and amps, such that you could buy basically anything above a certain quality level, and it'd be audibly indistinguishable from anything else.

This is the case we are dealing with. It would be fairly easy to draw a line on the SINAD chart above which there is no audtible difference, but this would take away a lot of the fun and a lot of grown men would lose a favourite hobby and excuse to spend their hard earned money.

I read a lot of the arguments on the previous 10+ pages and was struck by the frequency of a simple question and problem being turned into something unknown and complicated.

The line at the SINAD chart is 120dB and is worth $2000 for DACs, and between $150—$3000 for headphone amplifiers, depending on what you need. There are also two preamps which reach 120dB SINAD, one $350 (with a few problems) and another for $3000.

For (headphone and speaker amps), the main issue is less SINAD than power delivery and how it affects noise/distortion behaviour across different loads and levels.

There are a lot of nuances to this which a single number and a single chart won't convey (room noise, listening level, error spectrum, human subjective loudness sensitivity). Please take that into account.

 

[rodtor]

Thanks... I guess?
(and yeah, I really have no axe to grind in audio... I'm basically just a science-oriented music lover who had the misfortune of falling into the quagmire of online audiophilia by getting too interested in the technical aspects of music reproduction; and who still attempts in vain to achieve an audio system which gets as close as possible to mimicking the real thing)

Didn't mean to equivocate about your intentions. I have a lot more questions than answers, perhaps like you, and share you goal, budget permitting. The 'problem' is that this topic can also be an awful lot of fun.

 

[Robin L]

"Why is audio objectivism so frequently focused on all the wrong things?"

Why is discussion of objective vs. subjective frequently focused on all the wrong things in internet discussions?

Because discussions of just about anything in social networking usually devolve into tribalism.

 

[nhunt]

There are no audible differences between (non-broken) DACs and amps, such that you could buy basically anything above a certain quality level, and it'd be audibly indistinguishable from anything else.

This is the case we are dealing with. It would be fairly easy to draw a line on the SINAD chart above which there is no audtible difference, but this would take away a lot of the fun and a lot of grown men would lose a favourite hobby and excuse to spend their hard earned money.

I read a lot of the arguments on the previous 10+ pages and was struck by the frequency of a simple question and problem being turned into something unknown and complicated. It isn't. Digital audio is a solved problem. For some reason, people are very slow to accept this, but look at the still and video performance of the current crop of smart phones and the gap to "professional" grade equipment - it is now small to non-existent. We live in a fabulous age where for even relatively modest sums of money you have access to essentially perfect equipment. I am personally just enjoying that and slowly off-loading all of my audiophile gear...

I wonder if there are more interesting frontiers in audio right now where this energy could be applied. But, that's just my personal point of view since as you say, DACs and AMPs are mostly solved for me as a consumer. I accept that this is still interesting for many people, though, and more power to everyone!

 

[Juhazi]

^Loudspeakers and the room, or headphones!

The problem is that everyone has different rooms, earlobes and canals. Taking measurements is easy, but how they sound depends very much on the room and placement. So, making conclusions from measurements and discussing is problematic.

 

[Julf]

^Loudspeakers and the room, or headphones!

The problem is that everyone has different rooms, earlobes and canals. Taking measurements is easy, but how they sound depends very much on the room and placement. So, making conclusions from measurements and discussing is problematic.

True for speakers and headphones. Anything else is a different case. What goes in should come out just the same.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks... I guess?
(and yeah, I really have no axe to grind in audio... I'm basically just a science-oriented music lover who had the misfortune of falling into the quagmire of online audiophilia by getting too interested in the technical aspects of music reproduction; and who still attempts in vain to achieve an audio system which gets as close as possible to mimicking the real thing)

Yeah that oivavoi. Always asking the hard questions. (darn you oivavoi )

Seems quite reasonable and sincere to me. Always has on ASR.

 

[Frank Dernie]

@GrimSurfer has been banned for inappropriate language and insulting rude behaviour. Combined with dissent of management.

I ignored him a few days ago so missed the recent spats, but he did go on a bit and I tend to ignore all the people who do that...
Sad to see something like this happen but it is thankfully pretty rare here.

 

[Ron Texas]

I agree with this decision, but it is too bad, as @GrimSurfer's past contributions have been valuable, certainly to me. But @oivavoi certainly deserved much better. He appears to be pursuing an important line of questions quite sincerely.

I will not miss him. He was the only member here I had to put on ignore.

 

[oivavoi]

Yeah that oivavoi. Always asking the hard questions. (darn you oivavoi )

Seems quite reasonable and sincere to me. Always has on ASR.

That's great praise coming from you, @Blumlein 88 !
(ok, my ego has been stroked enough by now for some weeks to come, I think. back to topic)

 

[Blumlein 88]

I will not miss him. He was the only member here I had to put on ignore.

I found him to contribute here. I'm sorry he got banned. Seemed to get a bee under his bonnet in recent days. I wished that hadn't happened. I've been there myself. Maybe a couple weeks holiday from the discussion would have helped.

 

[oivavoi]

I found him to contribute here. I'm sorry he got banned. Seemed to get a bee under his bonnet in recent days. I wished that hadn't happened. I've been there myself. Maybe a couple weeks holiday from the discussion would have helped.

In spite of my recent spat with him - fully agreed.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The line at the SINAD chart is 120dB

For all audible sound and maybe film soundtrack special effects yes.
OTOH I have no music recordings amongst the 7000 I own which needs this much and I don't bother watching many films. I consider anything with CD level performance more than adequate for music, and tape and LP good enough to be enjoyed despite audible distortion and noise between tracks making the audibly imperfect. It is difficult enough to hear a sound at -120dB alone in a system set with the volume so 0dB is actually 120dB spl, never mind hearing a distortion product at that level whilst actually listening to a sound at 120dB, which is what requiring a distortion of -120dB implies.
It is impressive 120dB Sinad has been achieved though

 

[Thomas savage]

It's unfortunate, let's move on and back to the OP.

I do think the objective/research based approach has traction, if you look at the big tech companies like apple they are research based and in a very focused way.

I think where it comes tricky is when the more subjective folks try to relate their experience of audio to the kind of things that get discussed here.

There's a cult of subjectivism and a cult of objectivism neither serve audio well.

We need to stay on the side of reasoned minds.

 

[Ron Texas]

I found him to contribute here. I'm sorry he got banned. Seemed to get a bee under his bonnet in recent days. I wished that hadn't happened. I've been there myself. Maybe a couple weeks holiday from the discussion would have helped.

All I can say is my last encounter with him was extremely unpleasant, and I noticed he was being rude to others. Note that I did not see these latest posts which led to his ouster, so I played no part in it.

 

[Julf]

We need to stay on the side of reasoned minds.

The way to do that is to continue to question claims.

 

[DonH56]

I keep posting this old one of mine but it keeps ringing true:

People like to help each other, and do not like it when their help is questioned. Beliefs enter into it, people get riled, conversation degenerates.

Example:

A: I just added a new Pet Rock to my system, the imaging is better, a veil was lifted, bass is better, you have to get one of these!
B. I do not see how a pet rock can do any of that. Have you measured the system?
A: Why would I care about measurements? I can hear it!
B. There's no way a pet rock can do that. Without measurements, you have no proof.
A: What do you mean "no proof"? Didn't I just say I can hear a difference?
B: That is not proof. You need to run a controlled test, have somebody place and remove the pet rock several times and see if you can tell when it is there.
A: I don't need some test, I can tell it works! And I just had my friend over and he heard it too so there!
B: That's ridiculous you are both nuts. I'm just trying to save you money.
A: OK, I found an article by the Pet Rock Sound chief engineer. I don't understand it, but he says it aligns the molecular flow of the universe inside my room and that's why it works.
B: Sounds like marketing. What measurements did they take?
A: There's a graph, it shows ripples in the force without the Pet Rock that are gone when it is added. Happy now?
B: No, that is meaningless. You are all mad.
A: Well, prove it! Measure the molecular flow with and without a Pet Rock and see the difference! Then you can see and show us all why it works.
B: That is nuts and I don't have anything like that kind of equipment.
A: Then you can't prove it doesn't work! You're a geek with no ears!
B: You have so much expectation bias it is running out of your ears. No wonder you think you hear something.
A; Snooty objectivist scumbag.
B: Ignorant gullible subjectivist.
<Thread closed>

THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE! No relation to any actual people, audio systems, or Pet Rocks is implied. No Pet Rocks were harmed in the making of this post.

 

[Thomas savage]

The way to do that is to continue to question claims.

Looking beyond what ' individuals' believe and onto what we can test and observe through repeatable experiments and testing.

 

[Blumlein 88]

But at the point where ideological purity takes over practical necessity, it becomes a dog chasing its tail.



And this is exactly where it starts to lose the plot (and relevance to the world). Like the guys for whom the chase is more important than what you do with the relationship...

Not to say no one should do this... no different from wanting that perfect tennis racquet or golf club as a hobby. But it would be hubris to imply the world is doing it wrong for not catering to that obsession.

Not to mention the inherent contradictions often heard in such views:

16 bits is more than sufficient to capture the dynamic range that we can hear but we will fault equipment whose measurements indicate it does not cater to any higher resolution. This in a nutshell is the thesis of the OP.

@audimus

So trying to find out what would satisfy your questions about this. Even though it is more than we need, would you agree with good gear should meet 16 bit levels of performance? It generally can be met in any level of gear except maybe power amps. (I'm leaving out transducers for this discussion). All of our music sources even compressed ones are geared toward 16 bits at least.

BTW, I don't know gear that 'merely' met 16 bit performance has been faulted other than to say better performance is available. If better is available for less money than a given piece of kit I don't see it being worthy of much praise. The big thing I believe is when rather expensive gear makes promises of being so much better, and testing reveals it performs in a pedestrian manner. Even if it borders on inaudible why would you recommend gear that promised what it couldn't deliver and cost 3 times or 5 times or 10 times the money of other better gear? There is room for taste in controls, or appearance or convenience, but inferior if inaudible performance at greatly increased cost is worth pointing out. One may still purchase the other gear like some purchase expensive watches, but it'll not be for better performance.

Also I think it was pozz who wrote "there is no Audible Precision 555x". Is that sort of result what you are looking to find?

Several have mentioned variable conditions. I think of a K-horn in a large room with proper solid corners. Noise and hum issues are a whole different thing. At the other extreme would be something like my large ESLs. You need about 500 watts to get 99 db or 100 db SPL out of them and you won't get more. Those are two rather different situations to draw limits upon. The proper approach of course is to draw the limits in the room at the LP or at the speaker output. Then any combo of gear giving adequate results is good enough.