Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

11 hours ago, thyname said:

Based on your first post @tmtomh , who is right and wrong in the following situation?

 

Person A owns The Amp. She likes it a lot, and goes online in a forum sharing her experience with this Amp. She has owned many amps over the past 25 years, and is an avid hobbyist 

 

Person B does not own this Amp, and never lead her eyes on it. She does not even own an audio system. However, she read the measurements of this Amp that His Majesty posted in his website. Graphs and all. Person B goes to the same forum, and tells person A that she is being scammed, and the Amp is rubbish, measures pretty bad, and sounds terrible 

 

Was the person A wrong to share her experience with her fellow hobbyists? Or was Person B wrong to spoil her party? 

I think this is an excellent example!  Was person A "wrong"?  Mostly yes.  Was Person B wrong?  Mostly yes.

Neither are probably worth listening to because neither has established that they get the objective/subjective balance.

Person A, despite her "experience", is an impressionist and does not have the objective discipline to contextualize her preference/experience into something she understands, can describe, can repeat, and then (for the purposes of forum communication) accurately and repeatedly describe to others so that they can understand how her preferences agree or contrast with their own.  She is just another example of an old fart audiophile walking into "the big crazy" and being sold.  The next amp she has will be the greatest, and the next one after that will be even better, and the next...

Person B, despite his "objectivity" he has no sense of what is measurable, what is not, how it relates to the subjective experience of sound, what and what is not audible, etc.  He is as likely to say that .01% THD is "audible" as he is to say that "ringing" is audible.  In a real sense, he is as much of a subjectivist as the first person - more even probably because he slavishly follows personalities such as Amir over at ASR.

11 hours ago, thyname said:

This reminds me of my friend who was enjoying his Border Patrol DAC for months. He kept telling me this is the best DAC he had ever owned. Until Stereophile posted those measurements, at which point my friend decided he did not like the DAC anymore, and sold it

Welcome to the big crazy. He is not really at fault - he is just a victim of the subjective/objective divide, and the inadequacy of the "radical" versions of both.

Audiophiledom could use some insight and leadership to bring us out of the big crazy, but no one - least of all "the industry", wants to do it.

6 hours ago, thyname said:

 

For some reason, whenever I start typing in my iPad, the auto-correct inserts that quote mark upfront. Only in my iPad. Too laze at times to go back and delete it, and it's annoying, as it does it again, even after I delete it, so I have to try a few times. I just gave up dealing with it. Hopefully this satisfies your curiosity

Thanks for reminding me why dealing with computer software has given me immense pleasure over the years - ahh, the joys of a program doing some really, really stupid thing; and then spending a staggering amount of time and effort trying to track it down ... but never finally squashing it ... hmmm, did someone mention, printer queues ... ?

solder the buffers in, Frank

18 hours ago, thyname said:

This reminds me of my friend who was enjoying his Border Patrol DAC for months. He kept telling me this is the best DAC he had ever owned. Until Stereophile posted those measurements, at which point my friend decided he did not like the DAC anymore, and sold it

Your friend didn’t consider that John Atkinson could be wrong and is biased against products by Gary Dews.  I would not accept his findings without measuring it myself and playing my reference albums and reference recordings. And I like John, he has an open invitation to visit me in the Copper State.

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course it is - the classic type as found in forums most certainly is; they rely on a subset of all possible measurements that are relevant, because the other stuff is "too hard!" - and they never measure a complete system, in operation.

 

Until this is sorted, people will have to rely on their ears; no other way around it - and what subjectivists object to is objectivists being aggressively "sarcastic and dismissive", hurling stones from their ivory towers - when the flaws in how the objectivists think are patently obvious, to the other crowd ...

So very well said that I had to quote it.

6 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

The post I quoted below is an example of that kind of thinking.

Yep, @mansris wrong - "Frequency response, noise level, and distortion {and all other currently known methodologies}" is not the sum total of the sound of equipment.  In fact, I would say this is "objectively wrong" because the variability of the sound signatures of even DACs (to say nothing of amps & transducers) that otherwise measure just about the same in these sorts of gross measurements is obvious.  Lots of reasons of course but let's not derail (or start another thread).

That said, the Big Crazy is not built upon an emphasis upon real and problematic radical objectivism.  It's the opposite.  Beyond this, @tmtomhpoint stands in that your particular experience with the TT2 vs. DAVE is by itself limiting, and unless you account for many variables particular to your system (e.g. peculiar system interactions), and your preferences (e.g. what you like as far as tonal, timbre, and the like), and the system/preferences of those you are communication with, then your impressions would be too subjective to be of any value to anyone else.  It is this impressionism that is the status quo in Audiophiledom.

40 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

That said, the Big Crazy is not built upon an emphasis upon real and problematic radical objectivism.  It's the opposite.  Beyond this, @tmtomhpoint stands in that your particular experience with the TT2 vs. DAVE is by itself limiting, and unless you account for many variables particular to your system (e.g. peculiar system interactions), and your preferences (e.g. what you like as far as tonal, timbre, and the like), and the system/preferences of those you are communication with, then your impressions would be too subjective to be of any value to anyone else.  It is this impressionism that is the status quo in Audiophiledom.

Do you have objective proof backing up your assertion?  I think if what you said were actually true, audio forums would have little participation by subjectivists.  What would be the point if the observations of others wouldn't be of any value to us?

As I see it, there are three parts to subjective assessment:  1) observation, 2) interpretation, 3) application.  When we read a report where someone presents their subjective observations, it's important that we consider their system and biases in order to reach the appropriate interpretation of what's been reported.  From there we can then decide how best to apply what we've learned to our situation.  Further we can improve our ability to do a correct interpretation and application by seeking out additional observations from other listeners.  

I have to admit - and I say this jokingly - I'd love to be able to spend some time with family members who are closest to our "usual suspects" here.  I have so many questions to ask.  Like how difficult it is to chose a restaurant to go to?  Certainly reviews on Yelp can't be trusted since no blind testing is done.  And how often are blind tests actually conducted at home to help decide which products to buy?  Even deciding on a toothpaste might be a painstaking process as there would be no way to trust that "extra whitening" would actually get us whiter teeth, right?   And given how expensive premium coffees are now, how extensive was the blind testing to arrive at which coffee is actually favored?  Gosh if only we were equipped with discernment abilities.. 

@joelha, may I ask you sir where you got the inspiration from to write that short editorial? 

47 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

As I see it, there are three parts to subjective assessment:  1) observation, 2) interpretation, 3) application.  When we read a report where someone presents their subjective observations, it's important that we consider their system and biases in order to reach the appropriate interpretation of what's been reported.  From there we can then decide how best to apply what we've learned to our situation.

I don't disagree with this, though I don't need to tell you the devil is in the details.  

The rest of your post is majoring in the minors.  

I actually don't mind the radical objectivist, in that they are minority who just by their existence highlight the size of The Big Crazy status quo.

42 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@crenca

 

The Big Crazy (TM)

 

There, you can’t use it anymore. Have a good weekend 😁

Sorry, most of the rest of the industry has u beat 😋

 In life 90% of the time I try and give an answer in the most holistic, rounded way i can think of, drawing on my  experiences, limited knowledge and hypotheticals with the most positive outcome.

90% of the time people don't want advice.. Just reassurance of what they have already decided 3 days ago....

For me knowing this takes away the frustration as a normal act of human nature.  I have a collection of items unused, making me just as blind to my initial desires.

A thousand warnings about a kick in the nuts... The real lesson is learned after the fact.... What the fancy term? 'Operant  conditioning' ? 

Ironic after the initial 'pain' at the start, whats left is interesting intelligent debate, so thank you for broadening my horizons gents, always a pleasure and a pleasant suprise.

Sorry i can't add much than uneducated school boy humour.

Have a lovely weekend all

Dave 

10 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

I appreciate your comment and thank you for your kind words. I don't know that I can provide any more insight than anyone else here.

 

I don't know that measurements would be useful to you in the situation you describe, because you feel confident in Rajiv's listening report, combined with your own experience listening to the DAVE, plus the added reinforcement of what are apparently multiple similar listening reports on head-fi.

 

I have no problem with that as a method for deciding what to buy. It's just not a method that I personally find sufficient. Don't get me wrong - others' listening impressions are potentially useful to me, especially if I see a large number all saying the same thing, across sites and over a period of time. But I've also seen how gear can garner a reputation that appears to come from a groundswell of experiences but ends up having been influenced by just one or two key reviews or posts. Maybe not the best example, but the first one that comes to mind is the mini-cult that arose around the original Sony Playstation 1 as a "secret budget audiophile-level" CD player, based on an article in Stereophile, if memory serves amplified by a couple of other follow-up write-ups. It later transpired that the unit measured appallingly badly for a CD player (in fairness, I believe Stereophile was one of the places that eventually published such measurements) - and that what folks were hearing was not audiophile sound quality but rather nonlinearity aka coloration aka deviation from proper fidelity reproduction, which some folks happened to find pleasant (probably because the unit had some high-frequency roll-off).

 

As I noted in one of my responses to thyname, I have zero problem with someone liking the Playstation 1 as a CD player despite or even because of its coloration. But when I bring measurements into the picture, it tells me that I'm not going to bother picking one of those units up, because I have found that I enjoy my music system best when neutrality aka maximum possible fidelity is the goal. It's also why I don't have much interest in tube gear: measurements tell me that it is unlikely that tube gear provides special high-fidelity qualities that outweigh its higher distortion and lower linearity. Instead, measurements suggest to me that its positive (to some people) sonic qualities are products of its higher distortion and lower linearity. Ditto for something like the new Schiit 3rd-gen Magni budget DAC - they have come out with an op-amp version and a discrete-stage version. Audiophile convention says discrete is better, and you can find many, many listening reports online claiming that op-amp gear sucks. But the op-amp based Magni DAC measures better, and so I would be inclined to get the op-amp version of the Magni. Of course if I got the op-amp based Magni and didn't like it, I wouldn't try to convince myself that I did like it. I'd get rid of it - but I wouldn't buy the discrete-stage Magni instead, because the measurements suggest to me that if I don't like the Magni op-amp version, it's probably not the op-amps that are causing the sonic problem, and so the discrete-stage version would not solve the problem. Put simply, measurements help me avoid seeking higher fidelity from equipment that measures worse.

 

More generally, I've had too many experiences listening to highly touted gear that sounded good but not great or special to me, to trust others' listening impressions. I will always supplement that info with whatever measurements and technical info I can find; and of course with my own personal listening audition if that is an option.

 

Now, in the case of something like a Chord DAVE DAC, the listening impressions I've seen via some brief Googling suggest that I likely would like that DAC since all the listening reports seem to say how neutral it sounds. Of course, the DAVE could still turn out to measure poorly. But given the nature of all those listening reports, plus what I know about the build quality of Chord products, I would hypothesize that they measure very well indeed.

 

For something like a similarly priced DAC from, say, PS Audio, I would steer clear because I've seen at least one multi-thousand-dollar PS Audio DAC that measures horribly considering its price and what such a unit could be capable of - measures sufficiently bad that its deviations from high fidelity could be audible. In that case, I don't care about the many satisfied PS Audio customers' and reviewers' raves about this unit. I'm glad they enjoy it, but I'd never consider it myself. (Not to mention that Paul McGowan is IMHO a source of frequent misinformation that harms our hobby.)

 

Even though the Chord DAVE would no doubt be an awesome DAC to have, I still would not be in the market for it or many other Chord products, because they are out of my price range. I would not contemplate improving my overall system sound with a $10,000 DAC or even a $2,000 DAC until I had laid down comparable amounts of money on system components that in my experience (and based on measurements) have a more dramatic impact on sound quality: room treatments, speakers, and amplification. The links in the chain with the biggest nonlinearities and the most noise and/or distortion should IMHO be sorted out first.

 

I also think measurements and related technical information are important because they can help give us some understanding of why a unit like the Chord DAVE might sound so good or perform so well. And the reason is important if you are considering multiple DACs and are interested in figuring out if you might be able to get DAVE-level performance (at least to your ears) for less than $10k.

 

So to me it would be important to try to learn about DAVE's analogue circuitry and power supply, and to see what its noise and distortion profiles look like. This would be important to me because based on my current best understanding of DAC technology, I believe these factors are likely to be more determinative of DAVE's audible sound characteristics than the 1 million (or whatever) tap custom filter that is central to Chord's brand and apparently a major factor in why DAVE costs so much. If DAVE sounds good because of high-quality analogue-stage and power supply components, then that suggests I might be able to get similar performance for a fraction of the price. If it sounds like it does because of its proprietary filters, then I might consider saving up for a Chord DAC. So the measurements and technical info are meaningful and useful to me.

‘One thing not to forget, reading what other people hear and measure is only an initial part of the story, including from those who we are familiar with and trust. Nothing replaces our own experience of owning and listening to something in our own listening environment. Do you disagree? And of course, we can only consider what’s available in our comfort level budget wise.

Having said this, although I disagree with some of your writings, I applaud you for a polite well written post. I wish all radical “objectivists “ would write this way.

Speaking of DACs, what is your current DAC if you don’t mind me asking?

8 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Thanks for your reply. I absolutely agree with you that other people's information - both listening reports and measurements - never tells the full story, and never can predict with certainty how we will experience a piece of gear. If we think our system sounds better (or worse) with a particular piece of equipment in the playback chain, that's all that matters.

 

The only caveat I will throw into the mix is that for me, measurements and technical information are very important to helping me achieve a level of confidence that I know what is going on if I like or don't like a particular component in my system. For example, if like many members here, one uses only digital sources, one of the easiest ways to make your system sound different is to experiment with an analogue preamp in or out of your system. In other words, if your digital source components have volume controls, you can feed them directly into a power amp, or you can connect them to a preamp and then to a power amp. 

 

If you run such a comparison, all you need is your ears to tell you which configuration sounds the best to you. But IMHO your ears are in no way sufficient to tell you why your preferred configuration sounds better. Does the preamp reduce clarity and impact that gets revealed when you let your DAC feed your power amp directly? Does the preamp's nonlinearities euphonically mask harshness in your DAC's analogue stage, improving the overall sound? Does the DAC have different output impedance than the preamp, presenting a different load to your power amp and therefore changing how the power amp performs? How about the performance and sonic impact of the DAC's digital volume control vs the preamp's analogue one? Are there differences in how closely the DAC's and preamp's volume controls match L and R channels, and if so, might that be degrading or improving your perception of the soundstage depending on which configuration you listen to?

 

Measurements can't give you 100% certainty, but without them it's hard to see how you could possibly make an educated decision about whether you should upgrade the DAC, get rid of the preamp, buy a different preamp, and so on.

 

I don't say this to be combative - it's just something I feel is important based on experience.

 

As for my current DAC, it's the one in my Oppo UDP-205. In addition to playing discs with it, I use its USB asynchronous DAC input with my computer-based audio setup. 

Spot on the preamp example. Not sure I can personally tell that stuff from reading some third party measurements, or impossible to find measurements for all preamps in the market, but I have experimented and experienced this myself on hand. I remember at one time I had a Parasound P5 preamp after my DAC, mostly for its subwoofer output. I removed it from the chain, just to experiment, and it was like a curtain was removed. Astonishing improvement in the chain, and details that were totally masked or murky before. Another opposite example: my then Ayre QX-5 Twenty DAC direct in the Amp: much better with the Ayre KX-5 Twenty preamp in between. So yeah, it all depends. I am currently using an Integrated Amp, which simplifies things quite a bit. Only my DAC is separate

You probably know this, but if you have Roon, your Oppo 205 is capable of streaming via its Ethernet input. No computer attached to its USB.  I used to own an Oppo 205. I still own an Oppo 203 for my HT

39 minutes ago, thyname said:

Spot on the preamp example. Not sure I can personally tell that stuff from reading some third party measurements, or impossible to find measurements for all preamps in the market, but I have experimented and experienced this myself on hand. I remember at one time I had a Parasound P5 preamp after my DAC, mostly for its subwoofer output. I removed it from the chain, just to experiment, and it was like a curtain was removed. Astonishing improvement in the chain, and details that were totally masked or murky before. Another opposite example: my then Ayre QX-5 Twenty DAC direct in the Amp: much better with the Ayre KX-5 Twenty preamp in between. So yeah, it all depends. I am currently using an Integrated Amp, which simplifies things quite a bit. Only my DAC is separate

 

You probably know this, but if you have Roon, your Oppo 205 is capable of streaming via its Ethernet input. No computer attached to its USB.  I used to own an Oppo 205. I still own an Oppo 203 for my HT

 

 

Cool! Yes, I had a similar experience and removed my preamp from the chain - I found the sound clearer and more satisfying with my Oppo feeding my power amp directly.

Speaking of which, I've just (mostly) sorted out basic room treatments and speaker placement in my new listening room in my new house, and now that I've done that, I am thinking about a power amp upgrade. I have an Adcom GFA-5400 which I like a lot, but given its specs and its age I am fairly confident I could improve upon it by getting a newer amp since there are now several somewhat reasonably priced options whose performance measurements are sufficiently better that they could result in an audible improvement.

If I had $3,000-$4,000 laying around, the upgrade decision would be easy. I'd get a Bryston 2.5B3 or a Benchmark AHB2 and be done with it. But I'd feel a lot more comfortable spending 1/3 to 1/2 that amount, so the search, while encouraging, continues. In the meantime, I feel fortunate that while I know I could improve the sound, I find the current sound fully satisfying. So I'm in no rush.

3 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Cool! Yes, I had a similar experience and removed my preamp from the chain - I found the sound clearer and more satisfying with my Oppo feeding my power amp directly.

 

Speaking of which, I've just (mostly) sorted out basic room treatments and speaker placement in my new listening room in my new house, and now that I've done that, I am thinking about a power amp upgrade. I have an Adcom GFA-5400 which I like a lot, but given its specs and its age I am fairly confident I could improve upon it by getting a newer amp since there are now several somewhat reasonably priced options whose performance measurements are sufficiently better that they could result in an audible improvement.

 

If I had $3,000-$4,000 laying around, the upgrade decision would be easy. I'd get a Bryston 2.5B3 or a Benchmark AHB2 and be done with it. But I'd feel a lot more comfortable spending 1/3 to 1/2 that amount, so the search, while encouraging, continues. In the meantime, I feel fortunate that while I know I could improve the sound, I find the current sound fully satisfying. So I'm in no rush.

Well... knowing you well from ASR forums posting, I believe your Amp choice is a no brainer! The Benchmark AHB2. 😉. And since you are satisfied with current sound, you can simply wait and save the money for your primary choice. By then, maybe there is a new and improved AHB