Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

4 hours ago, tmtomh said:

If you are going to put forth that argument, the burden is on you propose some type of factor or aspect that would need to be measured, which currently isn't. Absent that, we're left with open-ended "it could be anything and I have no idea what it could be but I know it's something and if you disagree you are just close-minded" arguments -

Well to take an amateur stab at it:. THD is a gross measurement (fft window, averaged over time I believe).  Perhaps differences in non averaged distortion are audible.  Also it's almost always done into a resistor no?  Do transducers effect real world performance?

If you have a 911 and a Corvette with essentially the same 0-60 and skid pad numbers, is a novice (to say nothing of a pro) driver going to say they drive the same around a track?  Perhaps we can admit that balance, the subtlety of chassis tune, and the like are not easily captured in gross measurements.

Acknowledging these realities  does not necessarily lead us to an open ended, magical thinking, radical subjectivism...the fact that it does in audiophiledom so often is a result of culture, not reality.

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Well to take an amateur stab at it:. THD is a gross measurement (fft window, averaged over time I believe).  Perhaps differences in non averaged distortion are audible.  Also it's almost always done into a resistor no?  Do transducers effect real world performance?

 

If you have a 911 and a Corvette with essentially the same 0-60 and skid pad numbers, is a novice (to say nothing of a pro) driver going to say they drive the same around a track?  Perhaps we can admit that balance, the subtlety of chassis tune, and the like are not easily captured in gross measurements.

 

Acknowledging these realities  does not necessarily lead us to an open ended, magical thinking, radical subjectivism...the fact that it does in audiophiledom so often is a result of culture, not reality.

I understand your point - except that THD is merely one measurement. When combined with other measurements, a much clearer picture emerges - for example phase measurements can fill in some of what is missed by time-insensitive measurements that average performance over time. Transducers do impact performance - but there are tests that measure gear using more complex loads, wide frequency ranges, multitone signals, and so on.

My point is that while measurements cannot tell us everything, we tend to forget that the state of human knowledge about audio is greater than the state of our own knowledge (assuming we're not professionals or unusually knowledgeable amateurs) - so is it that the measurements we have are gross measurements - or is it that we are perhaps not fully aware of the full suite of available measurements and that we perhaps lack full knowledge of just how much those measurements can tell us when interpreted in concert with one another?

7 hours ago, Wilderness said:

If I understand you correctly, I find that sometimes exactly the opposite happens.  I went to a audio dealer this summer to listen to some speakers from a respected brand thinking I would like them.  I didn't.  They sounded somewhat dull and congealed.  Then the dealer played the same songs I requested with a different set of speakers, and I thought I would not like them.  I did.  They sounded dynamic and balanced and had good tone and a fantastic soundstage.

 

We don't always have expectation bias when we listen without double blind testing.  Sometimes we are surprised by what we hear.  And when we have a chance to compare, we wind up getting what what we want or close to it.

 

I have experience using the scientific method with studies, and so I understand the argument for using it.  If I submit a study to an academic journal, I will have used the scientific method with coders, rigor, etc. to keep my opinions out of it as much as possible.  When I listen to music, however, I want to feel something.  Emotion.  Goosebumps.  Awe.  Acoustic instruments and vocals played over equipment that can convey good tone, decay and attack make me feel compassion and appreciation for the artistry and the audio equipment.

 

I'm listening to Sondra Sun-Odeon right now, and she is carrying me away.  That can't be measured (or can it?).  I think it would be cool if someone would invent a device that could measure how we are affected by music and the equipment we use to listen to it.

If you understand science, then you should understand that you don't know what expectation biases are operating on you. It's really simple: repeated tests show that all of are subject to bias from sighted listening. What that bias is, is a different question- and it can be different biases at different times.

23 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

@mansr, often says a product "meets specs" or is within a given specification.  So if a amplifier that meets specs with all its possible building components that create that amplifier, yet is made from different types of building materials (cooper, silver, aluminium, plastic ect..) but still meets specs, could this be the difference in what we hear, given the amp meets spec and current standard measurements?

You're missing the context where I've usually used that phrase. For things like USB and Ethernet cables, there are well-defined specs that a cable must meet, and any two that do will work equally well. There is no single specification for amplifiers; that would be ridiculous. Moreover, since an amp is an analogue device, there is no simple distinction between working and not working.

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'd say this began soon after the first phonograph was invented for home use. There just wasn't an online forum for people to complain back then.

I've no doubt many a bar fight around the sound a player piano makes over the type of paper the punch hole reel was made out of.

They dont make them like they use too, oh they do...

Custom hi end job.....

This is my alarm song for the morning, just love the tune and this crazy guy...

A visual metaphor of audiophilia...

14 hours ago, ShawnC said:

So, to expand on that, given say 4 amps from 4 different manufacturers that all meet the same criteria (class, power rating and gain) what could possibly be the reasons some may hear a difference?  Would it be different types of capacitors, wiring, grounding ect,.  What would be the the logical check list to figure out why we may hear a difference in amplifiers if it does exists? 

 

@mansr, often says a product "meets specs" or is within a given specification.  So if a amplifier that meets specs with all its possible building components that create that amplifier, yet is made from different types of building materials (cooper, silver, aluminium, plastic ect..) but still meets specs, could this be the difference in what we hear, given the amp meets spec and current standard measurements?

 

Then we can move on to Pre amps, DACs ect..

Frequency response, often from an amplifier interacting with the speaker impedance would be a reason they sound different.  I think the old saying is still correct..............85% of hifi is frequency response.

BTW, I've mentioned it already, you guys need to play with pkane's Distort software.  

https://distortaudio.org/

On 12/13/2019 at 9:01 PM, 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 very much appreciate that you took time the time to provide such a thoughtful response.

On 12/13/2019 at 9:01 PM, tmtomh said:

 

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).

Great example!  I'll admit that it took some time for me to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I made some sub-optimum choices in my early years - but I don't regret any of those choices as I learned a ton from those experiences.

At one time I had a Krell FPB-300 driving my Aerial 10T speakers.  I ended up making the move to Spectral after being blown away by what I heard from a Spectral system.  I couldn't then explain fully why the Spectral system sounded so right to me.  There was more to it than the fact that it was one of the most transparent systems I had heard up to that point. I took a gamble on that Spectral amp - it was half the power of my Krell amp - and also the Krell amp was on Stereophile's recommended component list.  That gamble paid off big time. The Spectral amp was far more transparent then the Krell, but it was also far better in the time domain.  The differences had me begin to appreciate how important time domain performance is to me.  As a drummer the reproduction of drums and cymbals was always most important to me - and this experience helped me to better match equipment to my listening preferences.

Fast forward to maybe four years ago when I got to hear the DAVE for the first time at a friend's. That was by far the best reproduction of digital I had heard to that point.  That got me interested in learning more about Chord so I started following the posts on headfi where Rob Watts actively participates. Rob will often talk about the importance of time domain performance.  You can read that here:  https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hugo-m-scaler-by-chord-electronics-the-official-thread.885042/page-2#post-14383243

I'm not able to determine from either Spectal's or Chord's specs how good their products would be at reproducing drums.  Fortunately both companies have spilled a lot of ink on how important excellent time domain performance is to achieving lifelike sound.   But the proof was ultimately still in the pudding - the listening.

At one point I actually borrowed a friend's Playback Designs MPD3 DAC (then priced around $6K) and put it up against a Chord Mojo, then priced around $600.  I had never heard such a profound difference in time domain performance between too components.  The Mojo was lively and had my toe tapping.  The MPD3 DAC, while having the richest and most colorful tone, sounded so slow and boring.  Rise and fall times of transients were smoothed over relative to the Mojo.  I mention all this because in this case I agree that the experiences of others aren't always going to point us in the right direction.  But objective results were even less helpful here.

On 12/13/2019 at 9:01 PM, tmtomh said:

 

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.

I totally agree that there is often a need to supplement with additional info. I just wish that measurements and technical information could provide more guidance.

My Spectral amp was purchased back in 2002.  Other than my speakers, everything else has been upgraded multiple times.  There remains a harness in massed strings that I'm inclined to believe is the fault of my amp.  I wish I could use objective or technical information to help me find another amp that gives me all the positives of my Spectral amp but also gives me more natural string tone?  (Recently I discovered that it's actually been my room that had been harming string tone. It's been stunning to realize how good my amp actually is at string tone.  Crazy hobby, huh?)

On 12/13/2019 at 9:01 PM, tmtomh said:

 

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.

Chord DACs have often been reported to have among the best measured performance.

On 12/13/2019 at 9:01 PM, tmtomh said:

 

The links in the chain with the biggest nonlinearities and the most noise and/or distortion should IMHO be sorted out first.

Smart

On 12/13/2019 at 9:01 PM, tmtomh said:

 

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.

Our so-called "objectivists" here would be welcome to join our subjective threads if they'd actually help to try to explain why it could be that we're hearing what we're hearing.  There would be no debate between objectivists and subjectivists because we'd be working together to help each other better appreciate the music we love.  Again, I really appreciate your thoughtful replies.

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Wouldn't you agree with that?

Not necessarily.  Context needs to be considered.

Note the claim that @plissken made:  "When products are championed in the market place that are proven empirically to have no possible impact on audio."  

This is an exaggerated and false claim based on a misunderstanding of the proper application of null results.  

Now is what he did unethical?   It depends on his intentions so we must consider the context.  Did he just misspeak or maybe was not aware of the proper application of statistical results and, if so, what actions did he take when called out on this?  Did his ethics lead him to revise his statements?  Or did his ethics lead him to repeatedly using this as the basis for smearing and attacking others?

Most high-end audio manufacturers encourage you to try their products before buying. The context there points to ethical intentions as they leave it to the prospective buyer to make the final call on the veracity of their claims.  Some, like Uptone, will fully refund purchases within 30 days if a buyer is not fully pleased with the product.  That's what ethical looks like.  Smearing them with malicious intent - that's what unethical looks like.

9 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Does that mean you approve of plissken's use of pseudoscience to make his outlandish claim?

Have you stopped beating your wife?