A proposal: the Objectivist Audio Review magazine

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

In other words, good measurements are probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Yep, I fully agree, and I am not interested in highly colored, high distortion/noise playback gear.  Although I am not interested in criticizing those who do love such equipment, as long as they acknowledge the colorations.

[crenca]

17 minutes ago, barrows said:

 I have yet to see anyone be fully capable of correlating measurements with sound quality at anything more than a very coarse level....Anyone who has been involved in high end audio for very long, either as an audiophile/enthusiast or as a member of the industry has had the experience of comparing two products with near identical measurements, which sound hugely different.

 

12 minutes ago, barrows said:

I must say I really do not understand the above?  What audio components are designed this way?  I can assure you that most are not.  The high end audio companies I am aware of have engineering staffs made up of actual engineers, and own and regularly use highly technical testing gear.  Who are these so called "artisanal" producers?  This sounds like a myth? 

 

The emphasis I highlighted above is wrong, at least according to men like Andrew Jones (won't provide links to several youtube and print interviews where he explicitly disagrees with your assertions).   He designs by measurements and experience, and only tweaks with the ear at the end.  

 

As to the second quote, I am thinking of a small company who has recently produced a certain cube shaped product which has a very vague purpose, apparently has not been tested (indeed, it is up to the end users to experiment and try to find a specific use), etc.  Your probably getting ticked off right about now but let's not turn this thread into a referendum on this specific example...

[barrows]

11 minutes ago, crenca said:

He designs by measurements and experience, and only tweaks with the ear at the end.  

This is exactly the approach I am talking about.  Do proper engineering, build protos, measure, and then listen.  The final step is listening and tweaking the result at the listening stage.  Even Bruno Putzeys engineers components this way: the final step is listening, and if it does not sound right at that step he goes back and tries to find the problem and engineer his way to a solution.

Although I was speaking more in terms of electronics rather than loudspeakers.

 

As to you other comment, honestly you know not of what you speak.  Indeed, Sonore has invested a not inconsiderable sum in very high quality measurement equipment.  But let's not derail this thread talking about non-components (small tweaks, etc).

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

This is exactly the approach I am talking about.  Do proper engineering, build protos, measure, and then listen.  The final step is listening and tweaking the result at the listening stage.  Even Bruno Putzeys engineers components this way: the final step is listening, and if it does not sound right at that step he goes back and tries to find the problem and engineer his way to a solution.

Although I was speaking more in terms of electronics rather than loudspeakers.

 

As to you other comment, honestly you know not of what you speak.  Indeed, Sonore has invested a not inconsiderable sum in very high quality measurement equipment.  But let's not derail this thread talking about non-components (small tweaks, etc).

 

We agree!  However, if we really do then describing this process that Andrew Jones, Bruno Putzeys, and others (which is the "norm" or "standard" in consumer electronics from an engineering perspective) as "very coarse" and "hugely different" is not really correct.  

 

There always seems to be a rush to de-emphasize measurements in general and to overemphasize their very real limitations in discussions such as these....but then that leads us back to the subjective/objective divide.

[barrows]

@crenca,  I agree, mostly.  As mentioned above my comments were mostly about electronic components and not loudspeakers which are a very different engineering challenge.

I do hear very large differences between, for example, DACs, even when the DACs in question present a set of measurements which are nearly identical.

My point being that, in my experience, high end companies do engineer their components this way: now designs are almost always simulated first, then a proto is built and measured, changes are made until the measured performance is where it is designed to be, and then the listening starts, and further changes are made.  I am not aware of companies which design electronic components solely by listening, this just sounds like a myth to me.

[Shadders]

Hi,

As per the original poster - we could all contribute - someone doing the testing of the equipment - others listening, someone commenting on the technology. Someone commenting on the ease of use etc.

Will people get bored, or have the time ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Personally, I would have little interest in something which claimed to be "objectivist" only.  While I love to see a full suite of measurements of a given component, I have yet to see anyone be fully capable of correlating measurements with sound quality at anything more than a very coarse level.

Measurements are great, and necessary, for engineering products, to make sure that one has not made any simple errors, and has no gross problems with their engineering......

 

+1

measurements are necessary to engineering for reasons stated...but they are also good for the consumer to "create a shortlist".   There's a lot of difficulty creating shortlists due to every reviewers being compensated and rarely see bad reviews except for big-box products that won't offer anything for free.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

As per the original poster - we could all contribute - someone doing the testing of the equipment - others listening, someone commenting on the technology. Someone commenting on the ease of use etc.

Will people get bored, or have the time ?

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Actually this does happen all the time....you may just have to go to more than one site to get all the data you are seeking.

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I do hear very large differences between, for example, DACs, even when the DACs in question present a set of measurements which are nearly identical.

 

I don't doubt you, but can you provide actual examples of dacs you speak of (or are you referring to diy)?

[Snowmonkey]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

Although I think it is quite possible for something to measure well but sound terrible, I'm not sure there are many examples of the opposite -- things that measure quite poorly but sound wonderful (unless it is euphonic distortion, so maybe we should add in accurate reproduction).  

 

In other words, good measurements are probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

 

Bose? (at least to many ears).

[barrows]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I don't doubt you, but can you provide actual examples of dacs you speak of (or are you referring to diy)?

I have heard a lot of DACs, including DIY...  Everyone needs to listen for themselves, I am not a reviewer and have no desire to throw various manufacturers under the bus based on my own subjective opinions.  Suffice it to say, that if one is interested in a new DAC, please, please, please make the effort to hear it in your system yourself, in comparison to a known quantity (another DAC with which you are familiar).

I know, lots of people will complain that this approach is too hard for them, etc, etc...  But it is the only way to know for sure what is going to be right for you.  Get a short list, and then do some listening.

Or, find what you think is your best option, and then listen to it, and if you can listen for long periods, and it consistently draws you into the music, to where you are not thinking about the "system" and are only engaging in the music (with a wide variety of music) then keep that one and be happy.

[beerandmusic]

31 minutes ago, barrows said:

I have heard a lot of DACs, including DIY...  Everyone needs to listen for themselves, I am not a reviewer and have no desire to throw various manufacturers under the bus based on my own subjective opinions.  Suffice it to say, that if one is interested in a new DAC, please, please, please make the effort to hear it in your system yourself, in comparison to a known quantity (another DAC with which you are familiar).

I know, lots of people will complain that this approach is too hard for them, etc, etc...  But it is the only way to know for sure what is going to be right for you.  Get a short list, and then do some listening.

Or, find what you think is your best option, and then listen to it, and if you can listen for long periods, and it consistently draws you into the music, to where you are not thinking about the "system" and are only engaging in the music (with a wide variety of music) then keep that one and be happy.

 

i was hoping for specifics, but i was kind of expecting this type of answer...thanks for nothing...typical of both mfr's and reviewers not to share their complete honest opinions....at least superdad will say he likes Holo Spring for money.

[Confused]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

Although I think it is quite possible for something to measure well but sound terrible, I'm not sure there are many examples of the opposite -- things that measure quite poorly but sound wonderful (unless it is euphonic distortion, so maybe we should add in accurate reproduction).  

 

In other words, good measurements are probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Turntables?

[Snowmonkey]

21 minutes ago, Confused said:

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

Although I think it is quite possible for something to measure well but sound terrible, I'm not sure there are many examples of the opposite -- things that measure quite poorly but sound wonderful (unless it is euphonic distortion, so maybe we should add in accurate reproduction).  

 

In other words, good measurements are probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Read more  

Turntables?

 

I think turntables would qualify as euphonic distortion, but there's the rub: to an objectivist, "measure well" and "accurate reproduction" are surely synonymous.

"Euphonic distortion" is a kind of get out of jail card for objectivists when they are enjoying a recording even though it is technically inaccurate.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

Although I think it is quite possible for something to measure well but sound terrible, I'm not sure there are many examples of the opposite -- things that measure quite poorly but sound wonderful (unless it is euphonic distortion, so maybe we should add in accurate reproduction).  

 

In other words, good measurements are probably a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

 

I don't know - I still love music from my LPs.

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

 

I do hear very large differences between, for example, DACs, even when the DACs in question present a set of measurements which are nearly identical.

 

perhaps you aren't doing all of the right measurements....are you measuring the outputs?  how do you measure depth and soundstage?

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

perhaps you aren't doing all of the right measurements....are you measuring the outputs?  how do you measure depth and soundstage?

Exactly, please see my posts above...  Certainly it "should" be possible to measure all aspects of audio performance, but so far  no one knows how to do this.

My experience suggests that soundstage depth, in particular, is achieved by very low level resolution, but I have never been able to demonstrate this understanding and correlate it with low level resolution measurements.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

i was hoping for specifics,

https://www.passlabs.com/press/audio-distortion-and-feedback

 

read this. No nonsense discussion of measurements.

 

I find that among well made DACs , the output stage probably is what distinguishes the SQ. 

 

I like what I list. I have a bunch of cheap -> Topping ESS based DACs that I’m underwhelmed by (but measure well). Good measurements are necessary but not sufficient. Good design is essential.

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

https://www.passlabs.com/press/audio-distortion-and-feedback

 

read this. No nonsense discussion of measurements.

 

I find that among well made DACs , the output stage probably is what distinguishes the SQ. 

 

Probably, but I suspect that among the predominant SD chip implementations (i.e AKM, ESS, etc.) there is a bit of a "house" sound.  Fact is just about all competently made DAC's these days measure well.

 

In any case more to the topic of this thread, I wonder what review methodology could insert a bit of objective verifiability in these kinds of assertions?

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

https://www.passlabs.com/press/audio-distortion-and-feedback

 

read this. 

 

I find that among well made DACs , the output stage probably is what distinguishes the SQ. 

 

+1...and I agree with "output stage" being distinguisher...i think input stage is pretty mature, and the output stage is more of personal taste of subtleties..., but where differences are more likely to be heard.  I am convinced that it's not all about measurements, mainly because i am not convinced all of the right things are measured or measured properly....i was mostly curious if barrows would either recommend for anything less than crazy priced dacs, or say anything bad about any medium priced dacs...he is quick to say that he can hear large differences, but i was pretty sure he wouldn't specify.

[beerandmusic]

25 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I like what I list. I have a bunch of cheap -> Topping ESS based DACs that I’m underwhelmed by (but measure well). Good measurements are necessary but not sufficient. Good design is essential.

 

I trust you and would try what you "list"?  but if i recall correctly, the only thing you have mentioned before was a DIY, and I am not into that....

 

edit to add....I just checked your about page...i see you list ifi micro...I have tried one and it was fine...about the same as everything else i have tried....

[mansr]

59 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

how do you measure depth and soundstage?

Those are mostly the result of room reflections.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Those are mostly the result of room reflections.

I don't doubt that, but swapping just the amp back and forth, i clearly have more depth and separation with the mac than other amps i have tried.  Passlabs threshold came in second to about 30 different amps i have tried.

[semente]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

One measurement I would love to see would be distortion levels of loudspeakers, as this is an area where there really is a lot of variance, but of course it is quite difficult to measure (microphones, etc).

Soundstage publishes THD+N measurements. They don't break it down by second, third, but it's a start.

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Those are mostly the result of room reflections.

 

I don't doubt that rooms play a very large role. Yet there are recordings that perform very specific depth, soundstage, etc., "tricks," that do these things consistently in a variety of rooms. I'd suppose therefore that phase and timing are also involved.