Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

That is debatable.  I would say at the high end audio show, more than a small minority demo their equipment with vinyl.  I do believe vinyl is less fatiguing, and suggest many times sounds more natural.   I am not going say that vinyl is superior to cd, but I certainly wouldn't say cd is superior to vinyl either.  You would have to define "superior" first.  Perhaps superior in conveniency and less ticks (although those can be filtered too), but many would argue superiority today.  Pro-ject sold 150K record players last year.  I am not suggesting I am on one side or the other, but i wouldn't say CD is superior to Vinyl, nor would many so-called experts in the business that demo their high end gear with vinyl.

CD has superior fidelity to the signal when compared with vinyl. 

 

 

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

ok, thanks for that...i just wasn't sure that going from analog to analog that it was not possible to be more accurate than going from analog to digital, but i am sure with today's technology, they should be able to....

 

That said, i personally still wouldn't say either vinyl is superior or cd is superior (especially without an agreement as to definition of superiority)...as sometimes when i put on a record, i say to myself...wow that sounds great, and could play the same thing on cd, and be less than impressed...so like everything in audio, nothing is black and white...not even tv's ...

Actually in terms of fidelity it is black and white. CD is superior. Just like my 1967 12 inch vacuum tube analog TV is far inferior to a modern HDTV.

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

That may be true, but i will play a record before i will play a CD....

 

There is a sign drivng from San Diego to Temecula that says "PECHANGA" voted #1 casino in USA TODAY.

Clearly with all the extravagant casinos in vegas, Pechanga can't be voted #1.....may be voted #1 in one aspect...like loosest slots or something other than the obvious.

 

I still ike vinyl and will play vinyl more than a CD (mainly because my digital music is on computer), so for me vinyl is superior than CDs.  Plus i get to use my aesthetic piece of equipment...there is some satisfaction that adds to the mood.  For me, neither reigns as superior...just different for different moods.

Classic case of confusing preference with fidelity or accuracy. Your preference is always inviolate as being correct for what you prefer. Yet that does not change the fact that CD is superior in fidelity. You preferring the process of playing vinyl is also fine and correct for your satisfaction.  That is differently determined than fidelity however.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, though there are enough badly mastered CDs and reasonably mastered LPs, even of the same material, that there will be plenty of instances where the LP might provide a better listening experience.

None of which is illustrative of which medium is superior in fidelity.

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

the original statement did not mention fidelity.

It was just a "blanket statement" suggesting that vinyl is inferior to cd...that is the only thing i said was debateable...and i didn't say which side of fence i was on...just that it was debatable....and now we are debating (wink).

 

It is obvious in context of Lighthouse's post he was thinking in terms of fidelity or accuracy. In his mind and mine there actually is no debate that vinyl can be better. It's the whole point of his post. Such an idea is well past the time when it should be debated. It should simply be accepted and a total non-issue. Preference for vinyl is a whole different thing.

[esldude]

19 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

Explain this method and why it's relevant? What does it prove? 

That a preferred vinyl recording could go thru an AD/DA stage and sound the same as if it didn't. So any preference one had for vinyl is not due to vinyl being a more accurate medium.

 

The method is to have the direct phono preamp output, and an ADA stage signal to switch between and compare.

[esldude]

31 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Toole's listeners were comparing loudspeaker frequency response and if you look at the measurements he published you'll see wildly varying response between samples.

Big differences are easy to spot.

Small ones are not that hard either.

 

When something sounds really different I start trying to figure out why.

 

Item number one to check is level.  Lots of audible differences end up being a level difference in playback.  Get things within a .1 db on level, and many differences go away.

 

Item number two is frequency response.  Blind listening to files of gear I have picked out devices that have a 1/4 db or half db difference spanning a couple of octaves.  Get much closer than this and I can't hear it.  Hearing 1/4 db is rather tough, and some days I can't do that.  

 

After I do these two things it is rare genuine differences that can be perceived are left, and the most common one is an overload or high distortion on peaks. 

 

Now what I do isn't scientific research, but it is repeatable blind.  If you practice blind listening you become comfortable with it though boring and tedious it will be.   If some gear gets thru these checks what is left, could be audible, but it is a very small difference or only occurs under unusual specific conditions. 

 

The short cut is to quit being taken in by all the phoolery.  A good well done set of measurements for basic level, FR, distortion and noise might not catch everything. What is left is small and of little consequence at best.  One can probably find a few unusual things that might be missed by this approach, but it will be a rarity.

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, Lebouwsky said:

Who told you that? If you can led that go you'll notice your "hobby" wil change in an enjoyable hobby (no quotation marks)

 

Saw this after my last post.  Read it.  This other approach to simple definable fidelity without the smoke and mirrors and mystic magic is so much easier, satisfying and calming.  You cross your t's and dot your i's and move on.  No magical suspicious activity required. Much more time to simply enjoy music.

[esldude]

Well here is my old Tact RCS 2.0 being fed via Audiophileo USB to SPDIF converter.  This is the FFT over 7-9 khz during a full scale twin tone IMD test signal.  Pretty massive 8 khz peak of something less than - 140 db.  Oh ADC is on USB too.

 

And for comparison using the same gear except Musical Fidelity Vlink USB to SPDIF converter.  A slightly more massive peak though still below - 140 db. Do you think this qualifies for properly designed USB or well designed USB.  Neither item is current state of the art.

 

I wonder if the Regen were inserted if that 8 khz area would be lower or higher?

[esldude]

33 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

When my DAC is being fed a 12KHz -3dB sine wave at 24bits/48Khz I don't see anything at all above noise floor or around 8KHz.

ADC output is Toslink/SPDIF at 24/96KHz, so no extra USB receiver other than the one in my DAC.

 

 

Well Toslink may isolate it some.  The two examples I posted were for coax connection on the digital side.  The 8khz level is a little lower with a 12 khz tone with the Tact.  The IMD test signal causes a bit of grass in the FFT floor of the Tact.  I have a more recent $350 recording interface which shows essentially nothing related to 8 khz with either signal. 8 khz is around -150 db.  Here is the same 7-9 khz showing essentially the noise floor on the Focusrite 18i20 while a -3 db 12 khz tone is playing.  The point being you don't need exotic gear or isolation to have no substantial issues with 8 khz bleed thru.  Just well designed gear.

 

[esldude]

55 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Record both using a calibrated measurement microphone positioned near the speaker using a quality ADC. Use the same bits and sampling rate as the original. Take equivalent small portions of the two recorded files and compare them to the original. Adjust levels and phase so that the recordings match the original as closely as possible. Whichever one reproduces more of the frequencies and amplitudes correctly is the more accurate one.

 

Recording with a microphone is not going to cut it for comparing electronics unless differences are very large.  You could do it as a first step.  Having the ADC tap the speaker posts while each amp is in use should show you which is more accurate compared to the input signal. 

[esldude]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Which measurements would you want for accuracy, and do you have studies or data on how these correlate with human perception of sound in general or yours (in your system) in particular?

I think others have answered most questions in regard to doing measurements at the loudspeaker posts.

 

I would start with your conventional measures like frequency response (+/- .35 db would be audible btw), THD and IMD, and noise.  A few seconds using something like REW would give you frequency response, distortion vs frequency, and phase all at once.  You could do that at a few different power levels.  The interpretation of the results would be less than black or white though not too unreasonable to do.  With the loudspeaker attached you'll probably uncover most reasons amplifiers sound different with these starting measures. 

 

You might need to do some high level tone bursts for uncovering when the reactive load of the speaker can cause one amp to sound different from another due to output current capabilities.  Still nothing highly exotic testing wise. 

 

If one wished to do null type testing, no reason in this case not to use an ADC/DAC so the clock is the same each and every time.  Or as mansr said use one amp on each channel at the same time.  I don't know if propagation time differs enough to alter results thru different amps.  There are some easy tests to check for that.  A simple one is a two tones of equal level spaced apart by one octave.  With good timing those null to the same level.  With a timing difference the higher frequency tone nulls 6 db higher in level.  Or you can use saw tooth or square waves.  The harmonics should decrease in level with good timing.  If instead harmonics are the same level as the fundamental a timing shift has occurred. 

 

Alternatively one could use the old headphone method.  Connect a headphone with one lead on positive of one channel and the other on positive of the other channel.  Precise level adjustment is needed.  Piece of cake with 64 bit volume control in software now.  Adjust for lowest sound output and listen. 

 

The J2 and M2 mentioned probably sound different.  Both have fairly high output impedance.  One has more power and output current capability vs the other.  One has feedback vs none. 

 

I had an Aleph 3 years back.  30 watt single ended Nelson Pass design.  Sounded very nice with Quad ESL63s I owned.  You had to tread a little lightly on the volume knob.  With some ported Thiels or Mirage speakers it fell apart and sounded awful.  Didn't have enough power nor nearly enough current capability.  Sounded pretty nice with early Maggies again treading lightly on the volume. 

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, rando said:

 

37 pages to get here.  The mind is apt to wander.  Thank you for this unexpected addition that came about by accidentally clicking through and panic scrolling upwards towards the exits.  

 

Given the low chance of disrupting this thread with on topic matters, could you expand ever so slightly on the content one might have discovered in "outlaw" print?  Again, the mind wanders and I would like to center it.  

Sal can answer for himself of course.

 

I imagine Peter Aczel had one such outlaw publication.  Also initially Stereophile and the Absolute Sound were outlaw publications.  Initially neither took advertisements.  Subscriptions rates were rather costly, but it purchased independence of opinion. 

 

Sal can tell you what you might have found. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, rando said:

The alley cat that persists until someone adopts it wasn't an altogether unexpected answer.  Some distant relative who never comes to terms with how closely they're aligned to their less provocatively mannered audiophile kin, matching them equidistant through every curve and curlicue with a complete lack obeisance, should be more apt for the present conversation.  I suppose the ground these organizations covered would determine the worth of continuing to investigate their existence, here.

 

Bedlam never entering the equation.  I doubt I'm the only one who held close the idea CA's "mainstream acquisition" might just provide an enjoyable initial clash that accompanied the fresh air they let in with them.  If we were lucky and they didn't end up resolving to the same opinions shared here already.  

This post makes me think you left an 'm' off your user name.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 Arthur Salvatore's "My Audio Philosophy", updated June 2017, includes a subsection titled "The Problems With Measurements", which concludes "Until it is possible to scientifically measure low-level musical information, we will have to trust our imperfect and unscientific ears and let them choose what component has the most "magic".

 

Hmmmm...here's the argument that precedes that statement:

 

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html

 

Thoughts?

Well if you listen at 80 db peak in your room, which is not uncommon, you need the amp clean to -80 db below that level at the most careful use.  So you could be talking down around a millionth of a watt. Transformer couple devices can and usually do have various non-linearities over different power ranges.  Many tube amps quote frequency response at one watt, because the extremes of response shrink at full power.  Solid state amps wouldn't normally have such issues.  Distortion of course rises at some point.  Typically with SS amps you see distortion plus noise drop until some level (often between .5 and 5 watts) where it then begins a slow rise.  The rise is noise while distortion of the device usually is continuing downward with level.  Usually the THD+N rises around a factor of 3 for every reduction in power by a factor of 10.  With most good modern amps the THD+N would likely be something under .5% at 1 millionth of a watt, and will mostly be noise. 

 

Would a comparison of the performance envelope further illuminate differences in amps if measures were done at 1 millionth of a watt and steps of 10 times that up to 1 watt?  I doubt it would for SS amps, it might for tube/xmfr coupled amps.  Usually if amps really sound different you can find reasons why without going that route. 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This might true, but only if you sit 1m away from the speakers, which is where the speaker sensitivity is measured. At 4m from the speaker (my listening position) the actual amplifier output level will need to be around 0.02 watts to achieve 60dB SPL with 90dB/1W/1m speakers. Hardly 1 millionth of one watt as claimed, and certainly something that can be easily measured.

 

I may have read it wrong, I took him to mean 60 db down from the 80 db.  Not that you turn volume down that far.  Rather that various small little details below the peak are being reproduced at these tiny small levels.  So yes some of those are down at 100,000th of a watt or millionth.  Maybe a more codified test of noisefloor modulation would be worth looking at though with solid state gear of quality I think it would turn out to be a waste of time.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Despite all the talk, no one has approached the question about how one would actually predict accuracy based on measurements ... I don't mean "you could do this ... handwave" ... I mean the actual distinctions that a person can make within minutes by listening.

 

I didn't mean to drag Stereophile into this, aside from the fact that the measurements given tell us nothing that would actually answer the question.

 

AFAIK, the actual amp designers use a combination of researching parts specs, modeling, building & measuring as well as listening. No one has given me an iota of convincing reason why I shouldn't similarly do research including read reviews and lookup measurements, and then actually listen before purchasing.

 

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself. Now if I were building one or the other and the sound wasn't identical to the real thing then yes I would do measurements.

You asked what to measure between the J2 and M2 to find the most accurate.  You said you wanted the most accuracy.

 

The measurements connected to your speaker will tell you which is most accurate.  Depending upon the results we might be able to predict how the sound would differ to you.

 

Now your sighted listening consideration is not accurate in the way the measurements are.  It is the old idea beaten to death that you can listen and know accuracy when you hear it.  You and all humans are pretty lousy at simply listening and knowing accuracy.  I wouldn't consider your evaluation of accuracy worth much at all in terms of accuracy.  In terms of your preference related to what you think accuracy should sound like sure.  Two different things. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

Nope...

The conclusions drawn here can mean different things in a different situation. Is a less resonant cabinet "better" than a more resonant one? The answer is, it is contingent on the room. One of these speaker's is going to be much better in a bigger, live, room.

Bzzzzzzzzt!   Wrong!

 

Yes a less resonant cabinet is better.  If one by happenstance results in a happy coincidence of apparent improvement via resonance, it still is a less good design. 

[esldude]

One millionth of a watt.  Yes, ONE MILLIONTH of one WATT!

 

The link to the rant about low power.  I think the fellow stated it poorly, but in context of his rant, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) he was referring to listening levels of about 80 db and the low level details some 60 db lower than that. 

 

So we have the 90 db at 1 watt at 1 meter speaker.  Someone noted he needed 4 watts at a distance of 4 meters to get 90 db.  True, if one were outdoors or in an anechoic chamber.  Indoors with reflections it would be somewhat less than that.  Also at 80 db one only needs about 1/3 of a watt.  So yes it is quite likely that in room at 3 or 4 meters one will get about 80 db with a watt or maybe 2 watts or maybe not quite a watt. 

 

So what about 60 db lower?  This is where you have low level air, ambience, and fine detail.  It is these details which can give sense of size, and space and dimensionality of sound.  If amplifiers differ in how this is handled vs high level signals these aspects of listening to good recordings could sound very different. 60 db lower is 1/1000th the voltage and will result in 1/1000th the current which both combine for 1/1,000,000th the power.  So with the above speaker depending on room details we would have 1 millionth of one watt or two watts or perhaps a touch less than a watt. 

 

I also would note I once posted some music clips with noise added at various levels.  I think I put up files that had noise at -40 to -90 db in 10 db steps.  I asked people leave their volume in its usual position and listen to see at which level they could hear the noise.  Most answers were for -70db with some at -60 and one at -80 db.  So those levels which would be something like a millionth or few millionths of a watt are audible.  60 db down is near the surface noise of LPs, it isn't far from the noise floor of some tubed gear if of fairly high power.  I think the near audibility of it is part of the reason these have a bit more air, space and 3D quality for some music. 

 

So yes, really, one millionth of a watt is no hyperbole.  You can hear that level of power over many speakers. 

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

no right.....

There are speakers that have a more resonant cabinet, - such as many of the fine  Audio Physic speakers that can sound wonderful..... (in the right context). 

What's "right" for one context, - can be wrong in another.

Poor design. 

 

If want an extreme example of resonant cabinets to tune the sound listen to a Zu. 

 

A speaker may of course have a resonant cabinet within reason and sound wonderful.  A better speaker with lesser resonance will sound better.  Using cabinet resonance as a tune to taste measure is poor design methodology.  The resonance must in principle obscure some detail vs one with less resonance even if you like the resulting apparent balance. 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Dennis, what I was boggled by is where Arthur goes from there. Quoting again:

 

"Which audio "tech/guru" or scientist measures what is happening in an amplifier from 100th to 1,000,000th of one watt?

The Answer: Not even one.

This same basic principle holds true for measuring preamplifiers, speakers and everything else. (It is also a very plausible explanation why some components appear to sound better after some "break-in".) Until it is possible to scientifically measure low-level musical information, we will have to trust our imperfect and unscientific ears and let them choose what component has the most 'magic'. "

 

In general no measures are not done at those levels.  I don't think we have reason to believe we will find much there which isn't known otherwise though as I said before you couldn't be 100% sure unless the measures are done. 

 

There isn't much impossible about measuring such levels there just isn't much incentive to do so.  We can measure pretty easily to -100 db below full scale or even lower.  It has little relevance at lower levels as it would be so low in level ambient noise, masking effects and your hearing thresholds would bury it.

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

However, I saw your post on ASR showing some graphs of noise floor modulation which you commented on & your desire for more of such plots but as you said, no desire shown for doing such plots.

True enough.  When I said I would like to see more plots that was true.  I however only have 4 real DACs and all my quality DACs show little of the effect.  I posted some results of an HDMI switcher that also could function as a DAC which has considerable modulation of the noise floor.  I wish it were a measure more commonly done as part of reviews for large numbers of DACs.  I myself am not buying and measuring tons of DACs.  I think there may something do that effect in DACs.

 

I don't think it is much of an effect in solid state amplifiers.  Here in my recent comments I mostly had in mind amplifiers. 

[esldude]

36 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Right. I selected this example for this reason. FirstWatt in particular is something like a testbed to release a particular design on the market to gain wider impressions after the amp has been designed, measured and passed internal listening tests. This by a designer with many decades of very successful amplifiers spanning from $100s to $10,000s.

 

Of course measurements are done during the design, build and refinement phases. I think you might be able to go back after listening and perhaps glean some explanations from measurements as to why X or Y amp sounds different, but in my experience, when we start out with such a high level it takes much longer time and much more effort to determine these differences by measurement than it does by just listening.

 

There are reasons why human experts are still necessary in the age of measurement robots. There are similarly reasons why some of the best acoustic venues are really old as opposed to really new and why carbon fiber instruments haven't replaced wood etc.

 

Its also good that we have choices.

Well if they sound different a minimum of one is of lower fidelity.  Possibly both differ from fidelity in different ways. You see this in people all the time.  People will pay for or celebrate differences.  They don't want all amps to be full fidelity and all sound the same.  They want to own a 'special' amp.  It can't be special if it sounds like all the others. Add in that most speakers fall far from real fidelity and it is a given that slightly colored amps will match up better with some certain speakers to enhance the coloration or decrease a deficiency.

[esldude]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Can you measure the lower "fidelity" or tell me which has the lower fidelity without listening? This is the whole point. You have 2 great amps that measure well. The FirstWatt M2 and J2. They are different. There will be slight differences in measurements. Which is "lower fidelity" and on the basis of which measurements? Do your ears agree ? ( @esldude: you don't need to answer the last question because you admit not hearing differences between amps like these two, fair enough).

Well for starters how about all your conventional measures done with a speaker attached.  One has feedback, one doesn't.  One has transformers for gain and one doesn't.  One is spec'd to put out 25 wpc into 8 ohms and 40 wpc into 4 ohms.  The other 25 wpc into 8 ohms, but only 13 wpc into 4 ohms.  And for that one reason I am pretty sure with a real reactive load they will show sizeable differences in your conventional measures of bandwidth, IMD, and response with a real load.   It is likely the auto-former droops at higher signal levels at both ends though I don't know this. 

 

The measurements by JA of the J2 show it rolls of the FR differently at different loads.  I notice the IMD test was done at one watt and not the usual measure at rated power.  I would imagine just doing the measures fully would show differences in these.  Doing it with a loudspeaker load even more so. 

 

The design choices are likely to produce a sound that isn't bad even when stressed (over-stressed), and one near limits that will actively color in a way that is actually more pleasing to many vs a clean amplifier.  If you read the manual, Mr. Pass basically describes them this way.  Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.  The type of distortion in all the devices and circuits he has chosen are those that much like tubes will sound better for the non-linearities in some ways.  He is an excellent designer.  He mentions he wanted something with characteristics of tubes without the hassle of tubes.  With that design goal he has done an excellent job.

 

Now without the full regular measures at my disposal, I would venture a guess the J2 is going to be of lower fidelity because it has much more limited current capabilities.  If someone says they listened to both and preferred the J2 that would not contradict this prediction. 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

Of course you can, if you know what aspect of "fidelity" is important to you.

Both of those amps will vary from ideal in different ways and can potentially affect the sound differently.

I highly respect Nelson and own 4 of his designs currently and had 2 more in the past.

But I find his dabbling in the First Watt line curious, he knows and builds highly transparent amps for decades now but I find his sideline in First Watt along the same line as Bob Carvers tube amps and his "voicing" of SS with transfer function tuning possibly a stab at being "good for commerce".  JA's measurements of the J2 I posted earlier,along with just the basic fact that these are very low power amps and will be very load sensitive.

It's like building two very different tube SET amps or two OTL's and saying "see, amps do sound different".  DUH

It's true that amp designers have known for at least 3 decades how to build a fully transparent amp. The fact that many chose not to design along those lines I'll leave to others for debate.

 

Sal I think you have captured what Nelson Pass does in this and similar designs.  He is just playing with various colors to see what they are like.  A truly accomplished artist of the amplifier in that respect.

 

My main complaint, and for some it will seem a stupid complaint, is this approach severely limits the speakers one can usefully connect to such an amplifier.  I have thought for some time building mini-amps of 5 wpc or less and using them as colorful palette pre-amps feeding a clean power amp makes much more sense.  The price could be lower, and most speakers could be used with them.  Of course anyone so honest as to do that would likely find none of the true believers willing to use them that way.  They don't believe the clean SS amp could display the sound of an SET for instance.