How do we know if the sound quality of anything is good?

[徐中銳]

What my friend, Karl-Heinz Fink, a respected speakers consultant, just publicly shared :

« Difficult: After some weeks for playing with my Computer Audio in our listening room, I finally got a version I like a lot. So my final system (for now) is a MacMini, 2009 with the old outside power supply, El Capitan, 8GB memory and a 64 GB SSD for the OS. Playback software is Audirvana with remote control via IPAD. The hardrive is a 6TB Firewire 800.....makes the USB port free for the Audio streaming. The MacMini runs on a linear power supply we made in house...HUGE difference compared to the SMPS that came with the Mac. Even the hard drive runs on a linear power supply (Conrad, 12V 2A around 55€) I'm 100% sure, SMPS are evil and responsible for a lot of problems in a Computer Audio setup. The computer connects via the QED top USB cable to a Wired4Sound USB signal conditioner. The conditioner runs on a linear power supply (BOTW). The QED has a Ferrite sleeve and was the best choice on the computer side. Next device is a MUTEC De-Clocker - the best invention since sliced bread for Computer Audio. It also converts DSD to PCM (sounds better than using no MUTEC into my DAC with DSD support). The cable in between is a Audioquest Diamond (hard to beat !) and the 5V power is decoupled with a BOTW adapter, as MUTEC uses the 5V for the input block. SPDIF with a Walter Fuchs special digital cable connects to a AURELIC Vega DAC. Sounds complicated? Yes, it was complicated. More complicated than analog »

 

And details of his recent design, FinkTeam WM-3 Loudspeakers

[徐中銳]

Next device is a MUTEC De-Clocker - the best invention since sliced bread for Computer Audio. It also converts DSD to PCM (sounds better than using no MUTEC into my DAC with DSD support).

 

Andrew Everard happened to have posted his review of the Mutec MC-3+ USB overnight' date=' extract :[/font']

« So (deep breath), does it work? The simple answer is yes, and with every single device with which I’ve tested it. In the past few months I’ve had through my room a bewildering variety of DACs, from those built into a number of integrated amplifiers all the way up to big-ticket non-oversampling audiophile models, and in every case the Mutec has brought sonic gains which are immediately apparent, from cleaner detail in even the subtlest nuances of recordings through to a tighter sense of rhythm and timing, and – my persoanl favourite – enhanced presence.

 

In other words, recordings played from the MacMini using Audirvana+, which is my go-to set-up for DAC testing and increasing amounts of my listening, simply sound more real. It’s not a subtle improvement, even with relatively inexpensive DACs such as those built into some sensibly-priced amplifiers, it appears to be consistent across a wide range of recordings, and I’m yet to find a DAC whose performance doesn’t benefit from the inclusion of the Mutec in the chain.

 

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that... »

[徐中銳]

What my friend' date=' Karl-Heinz Fink, a respected speakers consultant, just publicly shared :

« Difficult: After some weeks for playing with my Computer Audio in our listening room, I finally got a version I like a lot. So my final system (for now) is...

And details of his recent design, FinkTeam WM-3 Loudspeakers

 

Consider this new Karl-Heinz observation :

« Even small things can make a big difference in bloody Computer Audio Remember that I decided to use a Firewire drive to keep the USB bus for the Audio streaming? And of course I use a 12V linear power supply to feed the disk. But the day before yesterday, I removed the power cable of the disk by accident and was very surprised to hear the music still playing. Yepp, there is still bus power on the Firewire cable and that's not wanted at all. So this little adapter from Firewire 800 to Mini Firewire female socket and a cable from Mini Firewire to Firewire 800 did the job (no bus power on Mini Firewire). The difference? Crazy. It was a lot more than moving the disk from USB to Firewire. It's again all about power supplies. Did I mention already that I hate Computer Audio? Why can all those people not be right, who are telling me, there is no difference in Digital Audio and it's only my imagination? »

[gmgraves]

I use the sound of live, unamplified music as my reference point. I've been attending classical and jazz concerts regularly for 40 years so I have a pretty good idea of what to listen for when doing any critical listening.

 

 

It's the only REAL reference. Everything else is artificial. With studio music, you'd almost have to have the same speakers that the music was mastered on to know what it's supposed to sound like. and there are just too many variables to use it as a reference.

+1

[徐中銳]

George, from an engineer's perspective, consider what I had quoted :

Q&A of where Ken's coming from with his testing tracks :

« How do you measure quality?

KI: Of course we have instruments. But these can only measure ‘sonic parameters’ in a static way. Instruments can only measure instantaneously – it’s like taking a still photograph of a dancer: it is precisely accurate but shows nothing of the dynamism' date=' speed and rhythm of the dancer. Music is also dynamic. Its tone, volume, pitch and intensity continuously change. That’s why every time I work on a product I measure its quality by referencing a piece of music that I absolutely know sonically and perceptually from its original source [having been there during its recording and mastering']. Only then can I relate the character of each component as part of a whole.

 

It is essential to understand what quality in original music really means. I believe this is the only way to reference the design process. You can’t just take a commercial CD as a reference point, because you can’t know the authenticity of its origins. At [his company], we understand this importance as an absolute necessity. »

[gmgraves]

George' date=' from an engineer's perspective, consider what I had quoted :

 

And I agree. Humans don't have much of a longterm memory when it comes to sound quality. We developed to recognize sounds such as voices, the sounds of danger, etc. But it's not part of either the human bag of tricks survival-wise or in our social development to tell if the sound we heard at another time, in another place is being accurately recreated in the here and now. But, if one hears a lot of live, unamplified music, it does tend to keep one from going "open-loop" with one's audio system. For instance, I have found (YMMV) that left to our own devices, when we build an audio system in a "reference vacuum" we tend to go for bright, exaggerated highs and heavy thumping, loud bass. If someone who has built a system like that would actually go and listen to a live orchestra or a concert band concert, they would come home and fire-up the old stereo system only to say to themselves: "Gee, real music doesn't sound like this, does it?" Of course, this doesn't alter the fact that someone might LIKE the unrealistic sound, but that's another discussion, altogether.

[徐中銳]

I've queued a YouTube interview to start where Ken talks about how and what he listens to, segment's only 2 minutes long

. I trust you'll find it interesting, especially (have you heard of) Apocalyptica Link you some good recordings I've found of their live performances next time (am gonna go now, do some listening myself), happy weekend

[Hailey]

Here's what I do.

 

Whenever I'm in Boston, I try to attend a concert by the Boston Symphony in Symphony Hall. I do this not just because it's a great orchestra in a great hall, but because, having grown up in Boston, studied violin there, attended Tanglewood as a student, etc., I'm intimately familiar with Symphony Hall's singular acoustical character.

 

Those of you who know Symphony Hall probably know what I mean. I would describe its quality as "effervescent"--a kind of burnished liveliness. (Von Karajan said it was his favorite hall, with a character similar to Vienna's fabled Musikverein but, he contended, superior as Boston's reverberation times are a bit shorter.) In any event, it is distinctive.

 

By attending several times a year, I maintain my familiarity with the hall's acoustics. When auditioning audio equipment, my go-to sources are recordings by the orchestra in that hall...particularly recent high def downloads off the BSO's website--for example, the 96/24 FLAC of its performance of Wagner's Tannhauser overture and Sibelius' 2nd Symphony, or of Brahms' German Requiem, or the high def download available on Qobuz of their recent Shoshtakovich release.

 

And then it's just a matter of comparing what I hear to what I know.

 

Specifically, does the system...

 

A) convey that ineffable character that makes Symphony Hall unique?

 

Or

 

B) does it just convey a really awesome sounding hall with an amazing sounding orchestra?

 

Most everything so far has been (B).

 

Strange thing happened the other day, though...installed UpTone Audio's Regen USB, and replaced my Mac Mini's switching power supply with their JS-2 linear power supply and...

 

For the very first time, I heard a bit of the hall. I know I'm not imagining it. When you know your "control" so well, you know the real deal when you hear it.

 

Which means I am now staring down the precipice...the chase for that perfect sound.

[booaaaa777]

What my friend' date=' Karl-Heinz Fink, a respected speakers consultant, just publicly shared :

« Difficult: After some weeks for playing with my Computer Audio in our listening room, I finally got a version I like a lot. So my final system (for now) is a MacMini, 2009 with the old outside power supply, El Capitan, 8GB memory and a 64 GB SSD for the OS. Playback software is Audirvana with remote control via IPAD. The hardrive is a 6TB Firewire 800.....makes the USB port free for the Audio streaming. The MacMini runs on a linear power supply we made in house...HUGE difference compared to the SMPS that came with the Mac. Even the hard drive runs on a linear power supply (Conrad, 12V 2A around 55€) I'm 100% sure, SMPS are evil and responsible for a lot of problems in a Computer Audio setup. The computer connects via the QED top USB cable to a Wired4Sound USB signal conditioner. The conditioner runs on a linear power supply (BOTW). The QED has a Ferrite sleeve and was the best choice on the computer side. Next device is a MUTEC De-Clocker - the best invention since sliced bread for Computer Audio. It also converts DSD to PCM (sounds better than using no MUTEC into my DAC with DSD support). The cable in between is a Audioquest Diamond (hard to beat !) and the 5V power is decoupled with a BOTW adapter, as MUTEC uses the 5V for the input block. SPDIF with a Walter Fuchs special digital cable connects to a AURELIC Vega DAC. Sounds complicated? Yes, it was complicated. More complicated than analog »

 

And details of his recent design, FinkTeam WM-3 Loudspeakers

 

Where can I get a hold of that macmini power supply. I have the exact old mac mini and have been looking to change the psu.....

[gmgraves]

Where can I get a hold of that macmini power supply. I have the exact old mac mini and have been looking to change the psu.....

 

 

Try Here:

 

Mac Mini Power Supply Adapter 85W - A1105

[MR]

Here's what I do.

 

Whenever I'm in Boston, I try to attend a concert by the Boston Symphony in Symphony Hall. I do this not just because it's a great orchestra in a great hall, but because, having grown up in Boston, studied violin there, attended Tanglewood as a student, etc., I'm intimately familiar with Symphony Hall's singular acoustical character.

 

Those of you who know Symphony Hall probably know what I mean. I would describe its quality as "effervescent"--a kind of burnished liveliness. (Von Karajan said it was his favorite hall, with a character similar to Vienna's fabled Musikverein but, he contended, superior as Boston's reverberation times are a bit shorter.) In any event, it is distinctive.

 

By attending several times a year, I maintain my familiarity with the hall's acoustics. When auditioning audio equipment, my go-to sources are recordings by the orchestra in that hall...particularly recent high def downloads off the BSO's website--for example, the 96/24 FLAC of its performance of Wagner's Tannhauser overture and Sibelius' 2nd Symphony, or of Brahms' German Requiem, or the high def download available on Qobuz of their recent Shoshtakovich release.

 

And then it's just a matter of comparing what I hear to what I know.

 

Specifically, does the system...

 

A) convey that ineffable character that makes Symphony Hall unique?

 

Or

 

B) does it just convey a really awesome sounding hall with an amazing sounding orchestra?

 

Most everything so far has been (B).

 

Strange thing happened the other day, though...installed UpTone Audio's Regen USB, and replaced my Mac Mini's switching power supply with their JS-2 linear power supply and...

 

For the very first time, I heard a bit of the hall. I know I'm not imagining it. When you know your "control" so well, you know the real deal when you hear it.

 

Which means I am now staring down the precipice...the chase for that perfect sound.

 

For me, an emotional response (feet moving) and an appreciation of the beauty of the musician's sound make it 'right.' Analytical listening is an excellent way to go broke. If I decide to change anything, it's at need (somethng broke) or format changes. When i moved from transport to computer, I tried many audio cards until I hit on a great USB-spdif converter that put the music back in the 'zone.' I have about a dozen 'reference' tracks. If i find myself rapidly switching aming them hoping I will like the next one better, then the component under test is a goner. If I delay listening to the next ref track because I am absorbed in the music, or better, I want to listen to the whole CD because I find the music beautiful and the performance engaging, then we're still in the zone. There are a lot of things that can rob music of its beauty (bouncy bass, symbols that sound like steam, thin 'breath-y' female vocals, massed strings that sound like hash, as examples). When I am instead reacting to the beautiful sound of the performance and getting the emotional intent, we're in the zone. You can move the needle a few percentage points one way or the other by spending tens of thousands of dollars, but if you find the music beautiful, why? I don't prescribe for everyone. Just sharing my experience over 30 years. I spend time, aim high (buy the best I can at the time), find the 'zone,' and then keep my wallet in my pocket.

[Hailey]

For me, an emotional response (feet moving) and an appreciation of the beauty of the musician's sound make it 'right.' Analytical listening is an excellent way to go broke. If I decide to change anything, it's at need (somethng broke) or format changes. When i moved from transport to computer, I tried many audio cards until I hit on a great USB-spdif converter that put the music back in the 'zone.' I have about a dozen 'reference' tracks. If i find myself rapidly switching aming them hoping I will like the next one better, then the component under test is a goner. If I delay listening to the next ref track because I am absorbed in the music, or better, I want to listen to the whole CD because I find the music beautiful and the performance engaging, then we're still in the zone. There are a lot of things that can rob music of its beauty (bouncy bass, symbols that sound like steam, thin 'breath-y' female vocals, massed strings that sound like hash, as examples). When I am instead reacting to the beautiful sound of the performance and getting the emotional intent, we're in the zone. You can move the needle a few percentage points one way or the other by spending tens of thousands of dollars, but if you find the music beautiful, why? I don't prescribe for everyone. Just sharing my experience over 30 years. I spend time, aim high (buy the best I can at the time), find the 'zone,' and then keep my wallet in my pocket.

 

Smart.

 

And I don't disagree. It's one of the reasons why I won't be swapping my Mac Mini for a MicroRendu.

 

The other reason being that, for the life of me, I can't figure out just what an mRendu does or how it works.

 

Ironic, given the fact that it is supposed to be to digital music what a toaster is to bread.

[17629]

Well, comparing sound to video, video is quite easy. You get a nice display driver, a standard projection device, and you can have a really clear, rich, crisp display. You can see that the video is of high quality by it's color correctness, resolution and what not. But, coming to sound, what is quality sound? I mean sure, you can buy DAC's and monitors, and play FLACs. But what's the difference? Because unlike video, which can be of shitty quality in shitty devices, and high quality in powerful devices, sound can be played on every speaker/audio device.

 

High end audio and high end video are usually held to 2 different standards. Most audiophiles use un-amplified acoustic instruments played in a live setting, to serve as a reference. Video is different. All you can do is set your picture up to known specs like color, sharpness, black levels, etc.... And that's where it stops. There's no attempt to have a picture quality that resembles the original event. If you set your video system up in the same location where a movie was filmed and compared the video to the real life setting, the 2 wouldn't even be close. And the reason for that is film directors don't even try to achieve fidelity to the original event. If they did, the picture would probably look similar to a news broadcast. I doubt that would go over well with viewers, professional or amateur. Expectations are completely different for audio.

[gmgraves]

High end audio and high end video are usually held to 2 different standards. Most audiophiles use un-amplified acoustic instruments played in a live setting, to serve as a reference. Video is different. All you can do is set your picture up to known specs like color, sharpness, black levels, etc.... And that's where it stops. There's no attempt to have a picture quality that resembles the original event. If you set your video system up in the same location where a movie was filmed and compared the video to the real life setting, the 2 wouldn't even be close. And the reason for that is film directors don't even try to achieve fidelity to the original event. If they did, the picture would probably look similar to a news broadcast. I doubt that would go over well with viewers, professional or amateur. Expectations are completely different for audio.

 

 

+1. Go to an appliance store where there is a wall of TVs all showing the same program. Notice that, for example, when a red car drives across the screen, it's a different shade of red on just about every TV in the store. They are closer with LCD screens than they were with CRTs (because of the difference in phosphor colors from CRT to CRT), but still, even with LCDs, they vary wildly. And unless the red car in question were actually sitting there on the appliance showroom floor for you to compare directly,, you'll not be able to tell which of those TVs is displaying the red paint on that car the most accurately!

[plissken]

One can teach themselves what clipping, types of distortion, comb filtering, HP/LP cut, etc.... sounds like. Also there are measurements.

 

Going back to the video analogy: I've walked into installs where the owner thought the display looked great to them. After measuring and dialing it in it was even better. There was performance left on the table.

 

Same for audio. I walked into a $17,000 HT install just to find out they didn't get a spectral, FR, CSD plots of the room. There were some stored energy issues that we quickly got sorted out. There is no one here, including me, that were going to get it 'by ear'. If there is the 'Not everything we hear is measurable' then the inverse is true: not everything we see with measurements we can quantify by hearing.

 

After the tweaks it was easy to A/B.

[whoozwah]

Good is different for different people from my experience. Some people aim to make their stereo sound as close to a live performance as possible. Some people aim to make their stereo sound as pleasing to them as possible. These goals seem similar but they aren't. Accurate is not always pleasing. Pleasing is not always accurate.

 

I personally think there are too many variables to take into account to realistically think someone can make their stereo accurate to any given recording. That is to say, I think accuracy as an end game is impractical. Pleasurable is much more attainable. I can identify pleasing. The thing about pleasing is, it can't be measured. It has to be felt. It has to be experienced. No one tell you what's pleasing to you but you.

[semente]

I have no interest in home theatre so my knowledge is null; are there any high definition TV models offer display calibration?

 

I did this with my Trinitron CRT display many years ago and the results were pretty impressive.

 

[semente]

Good is different for different people from my experience. Some people aim to make their stereo sound as close to a live performance as possible. Some people aim to make their stereo sound as pleasing to them as possible. These goals seem similar but they aren't. Accurate is not always pleasing. Pleasing is not always accurate.

 

I personally think there are too many variables to take into account to realistically think someone can make their stereo accurate to any given recording. That is to say, I think accuracy as an end game is impractical. Pleasurable is much more attainable. I can identify pleasing. The thing about pleasing is, it can't be measured. It has to be felt. It has to be experienced. No one tell you what's pleasing to you but you.

In my view "good" is related with performance or accurate reproduction of the recorded signal and depending on who you ask may or may not be "pleasurable".

The former is objective and quantifiable, the later has to do with personal taste.

 

And whilst describing how much one enjoys sound is a pretty straight forward task for any human being (after all it's just a personal opinion) assessing sound performance through listening is a far more difficult exercise which requires a comprehensive set of listening skills and an effective methodology which includes comparing the sound of adequately recorded live acoustic music with the real thing.

 

I find taste-driven opinions on sound to be worthless but unfortunately a selfless, observation-based assessment is very hard to come by...

 

R

[booaaaa777]

In my view "good" is related with performance or accurate reproduction of the recorded signal and depending on who you ask may or may not be "pleasurable".

The former is objective and quantifiable, the later has to do with personal taste.

 

And whilst describing how much one enjoys sound is a pretty straight forward task for any human being (after all it's just a personal opinion) assessing sound performance through listening is a far more difficult exercise which requires a comprehensive set of listening skills and an effective methodology which includes comparing the sound of adequately recorded live acoustic music with the real thing.

 

I find taste-driven opinions on sound to be worthless but unfortunately a selfless, observation-based assessment is very hard to come by...

 

R

 

Selfless observation is indeed very hard to come by......

[vladimirb0b]

People use 3% THD tube amps with 70dB SNR and play vinyl. It sounds good.

I had a Panasonic XR-45 with 0.3% THD and ar.com DIY EFE speakers. It sounded good.

I now have a DAC pushing 0.0003% THD with composite LM4780 bridged chip amp. It sounds good.

A friend has a fairly high distortion TEAC amplifier with Polk Speakers, and analog out from a TV. It sounds good (without ABing...)

 

Compared to the KEF LS50 and Magnepans, the ar.com speakers are better to my ears, with SP-FS52 beating all three, and NEAT Elite-SX beating all of them. But they could all be described as good.

 

It is easy enough these days to make a good system. Especially considering that the hearing threshold is what, 90dB?

 

A saying comes to mind: "Perfect is the enemy of the good"

 

All that considered, yes, you can make changes and hear incremental differences, and it's fun, to a point. "Good" does not necessarily mean "good enough" for audiophiles

[Hailey]

People use 3% THD tube amps with 70dB SNR and play vinyl. It sounds good.

I had a Panasonic XR-45 with 0.3% THD and ar.com DIY EFE speakers. It sounded good.

I now have a DAC pushing 0.0003% THD with composite LM4780 bridged chip amp. It sounds good.

A friend has a fairly high distortion TEAC amplifier with Polk Speakers, and analog out from a TV. It sounds good (without ABing...)

 

Compared to the KEF LS50 and Magnepans, the ar.com speakers are better to my ears, with SP-FS52 beating all three, and NEAT Elite-SX beating all of them. But they could all be described as good.

 

It is easy enough these days to make a good system. Especially considering that the hearing threshold is what, 90dB?

 

A saying comes to mind: "Perfect is the enemy of the good"

 

All that considered, yes, you can make changes and hear incremental differences, and it's fun, to a point. "Good" does not necessarily mean "good enough" for audiophiles

 

Remember CRT monitors? Most people were fine with the standard 60hz. But for a few us, it looked like a kinescope or something. The flicker was craze (and migraine) inducing. So we had to cough up the extra dough for a special 72Hz monitor.

 

It sucked but that's just the way it was.

 

I suspect audiophilia is not all that different.