Archimago Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 49 minutes ago, jabbr said: This is the issue: measurements are only useful if they predict sound quality. They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing. This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. tmtomh 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 41 minutes ago, Archimago said: This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. Is that really the issue? They may want to believe this, but they know that measurements do not necessarily predict sound quality. Listening remains the final arbiter. 🙂 Teresa, sandyk and audiobomber 2 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Rexp Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 37 minutes ago, Archimago said: They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing. This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. The majority of solid state amps, for example, measure the same within the limits of human hearing. Correct or not? Link to comment
lucretius Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 29 minutes ago, Archimago said: They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing. This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. In much of the discussion at ASR, appropriate pricing of equipment is an implicit theme. Why should we tolerate high priced equipment that measures no better than inexpensive equipment? And even why pay significantly more for a piece of equipment that does measure better but those measurements "go far beyond the limits of human hearing"? I admit that I like aesthetically pleasing components, thick aluminum cases, fancy knobs and meters, etc. and am willing to pay a premium for that when I can afford it -- but how much should that add to the cost of electronics that measure "well enough"? Teresa 1 mQa is dead! Link to comment
lucretius Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, Allan F said: Is that really the issue? They may want to believe this, but they know that measurements do not necessarily predict sound quality. Listening remains the final arbiter. 🙂 I keep hearing that measurements do not necessarily predict sound quality and I have to take that at face value. But it would help me immensely if you can provide some examples from currently produced equipment. Thanks. mQa is dead! Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 29 minutes ago, lucretius said: In much of the discussion at ASR, appropriate pricing of equipment is an implicit theme. Why should we tolerate high priced equipment that measures no better than inexpensive equipment? Aesthetics aside, the most obvious answer is because it sounds better to them. How much an individual is willing to pay for diminishing returns is a personal decision, based on how important it is to them and, presumably, their ability to pay for it. Teresa, sandyk and Albrecht 2 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, lucretius said: I keep hearing that measurements do not necessarily predict sound quality and I have to take that at face value. But it would help me immensely if you can provide some examples from currently produced equipment. Thanks. I can't offer any examples from personal experience. But I place a high value on the credibility of people like designer John Curl, who virtually always expresses reservations about the relationship between measurements and sound quality in his talks at seminars. He offers examples of electronic components that measure the same, but do not sound the same. While measurements obviously play a very important role in his design process, the fine tuning that results in his final designs is always the product of listening. Teresa, lucretius, 4est and 1 other 4 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post tmtomh Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 27 minutes ago, Allan F said: Aesthetics aside, the most obvious answer is because it sounds better to them. How much an individual is willing to pay for diminishing returns is a personal decision, based on how important it is to them and, presumably, their ability to pay for it. 18 minutes ago, Allan F said: I can't offer any examples from personal experience. But I place a high value on the credibility of people like designer John Curl, who virtually always expresses reservations about the relationship between measurements and sound quality in his talks at seminars. He offers examples of electronic components that measure the same, but do not sound the same. While measurements obviously play a very important role in his design process, the fine tuning that results in his final designs is always the product of listening. It's interesting that your second comment emphasizes the lack of correlation between measurements and sonics, while your first comment - "How much an individual is willing to pay for diminishing returns" - presumes a fairly smooth and reliable correlation between price and sonics. Personally I have found the reverse - that the price-sonics correlation is weaker and less reliable than the measurement-sonics correlation. lucretius and esldude 2 Link to comment
fas42 Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Archimago said: They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing. This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. People don't believe this, because of personal experience ... like myself, 😉. Between the system that I first assembled over 3 decades ago, which delivered very decent sound from digital source, but nothing particularly noteworthy; and the tweaked one many, many months later, which ultimately bowled me over with its presentation, there was nothing technically altered - by 'objectivists' standards. The most radical variation was that the internal wiring of the speaker, which was the typical flimsy cabling found in low end units, was replaced with some decent solid core stuff, at very moderate cost. What measurements would have picked what was going on? I still have very little idea of what to look for ... Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 52 minutes ago, tmtomh said: "How much an individual is willing to pay for diminishing returns" - presumes a fairly smooth and reliable correlation between price and sonics. Personally I have found the reverse - that the price-sonics correlation is weaker and less reliable than the measurement-sonics correlation. I did not intend to imply any such correlation. I certainly agree that price is in no way a guarantee of sound quality. My post assumes that the buyer has satisfied himself that the more expensive product does, in fact, sound better. Within product lines from reputable well established manufacturers known for sound quality, their more expensive lines almost invariably sound better than less expensive ones. And it is in that context that my comment regarding price/performance and diminishing returns arises. Teresa and tmtomh 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 5 hours ago, Archimago said: They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing. This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. I specifically asked there if other than features and/or looks there is any SQ reason to buy a DAC that costs more than $500, if a $500 DAC like a some of the Toppings measures "state of the art", according to the measurements Amir does. I couldn't get a straight answer out of them. Some of them seem to acknowledge that the filtering on a DAC can make a small difference. They haven't slagged off on the expensive DACs Amir has measured like the Holo or the Mola Mola, because they measure so well. But the comments there are mostly "it still isn't worth the money b/c it doesn't sound better than my $500 Topping DAC, or my Benchmark DAC" variety. I'd like to believe that's true. My unscientific testing/listening indicates it isn't, even though I agree that the difference in SQ is not as dramatic as audiophiles tend to describe it, and for that a large premium is paid. Confused, Teresa, Allan F and 2 others 4 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post ARQuint Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 Hats off to Chris Connaker for finessing—so far!—the tension between the need for civility in a hobbyist community and everyone's desire for substantive discussions that allow for the full expression of different ideas. He's figured out what many fifth grade teachers figure out early in their careers. That separating individuals that push each other's buttons will reduce bad behavior and allow education to happen. The dialog on this particular discussion in the General Forum has been enlightening and edifying. And I find the growing number of threads on the "Objective-FI" sub-forum to be helpful as well, even if I don't always agree with the analytical approach there. The point is that people on both sides of the subjective/objective divide can best develop their ideas publicly if they don't feel that they have to pull over to the side of the road every so often to shout insults at the oncoming traffic. Andy Quint Bill Brown, Teresa, Albrecht and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Iving Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 10 hours ago, jabbr said: This is the issue: measurements are only useful if they predict sound quality. ... *might* predict SQ? 🙂 Teresa 1 Link to comment
Popular Post StephenJK Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 14 hours ago, Shimei said: I was considering joining a local audio club. I've been told by a member of one that they as you shared have casual conversations while having a beer or brandy during listening of a member's system each go around. The way some people here talk to one another. I'm a little hesitant now because if in-person someone stated something like they do here I'd toss them out of the house onto their head. I guess, it isn't always what we say but how we say it? Having a good conversation while listening to an enjoyable system among friends with shared interests. That appeals to me! I suspect that what people are willing to post online is not something they would ever say to someone in real life. Isn't there a term for this, "The bravery of online anonymity?" Bill Brown and Iving 2 Link to comment
Allan F Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 43 minutes ago, SJK said: I suspect that what people are willing to post online is not something they would ever say to someone in real life. Isn't there a term for this, "The bravery of online anonymity?" This New York Times piece by Richard Bernstein appeared almost a dozen years ago. The growing cowardice of online anonymity Bill Brown 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post jabbr Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 10 hours ago, Archimago said: They generally do for many devices including contentious stuff like cables! And many measurements already go far beyond the limits of human hearing. This is the issue: some people don't want to or cannot believe this 😉. The flip side of this is that you cant expect that every aspect of SQ in every setting is predicted by a single set of measurements in a single setup. There are interactions between components and a measurement in one configuration may fail to predict the behavior of another configuration. For example, the speaker forms part of the electronic circuit with the amplifier. Measuring an unloaded amplifier is not accurate. Since we aren’t looking for new hadrons here, we settle for “good enough” measurements. The problem is that if you are trying to prove that all DACs sound the same, that’s not good enough. I do wholeheartedly agree that the possible measurements go well beyond the limits of human hearing. sandyk, Teresa and Albrecht 2 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
StephenJK Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Allan F said: This New York Times piece by Richard Bernstein appeared almost a dozen years ago. The growing cowardice of online anonymity That was an interesting read. I do agree with his choice of the word cowardice. AudioDoctor 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Confused Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 11 hours ago, lucretius said: In much of the discussion at ASR, appropriate pricing of equipment is an implicit theme. Why should we tolerate high priced equipment that measures no better than inexpensive equipment? And even why pay significantly more for a piece of equipment that does measure better but those measurements "go far beyond the limits of human hearing"? I admit that I like aesthetically pleasing components, thick aluminum cases, fancy knobs and meters, etc. and am willing to pay a premium for that when I can afford it -- but how much should that add to the cost of electronics that measure "well enough"? Very often, the casing, fancy nobs etc. can cost far more than the electronics. sandyk, fas42, The Computer Audiophile and 1 other 4 Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade. Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Confused said: Very often, the casing, fancy nobs etc. can cost far more than the electronics. Plus we must think about the companies selling the stuff who offer health care to employees, retirement benefits, duplicate stock for issues that arise decades down the road etc... Last time I was at Audio Research the company had over a million dollars in new old stock parts, just incase something breaks on an old unit out in the field. There are so many things that come into play that most people don't think about. 4est, Confused, sandyk and 4 others 4 3 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Archimago Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 12 hours ago, Rexp said: The majority of solid state amps, for example, measure the same within the limits of human hearing. Correct or not? Yes, they measure well. Whether it's within the limits of human hearing is a different matter. Try out the THD blind test and I'll have some information for you in May :-). This is because I have incorporated some thoughts about this in the choices I made for the test based on what I know of actual modern amplifier distortion levels. Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Shimei Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Allan F said: This New York Times piece by Richard Bernstein appeared almost a dozen years ago. The growing cowardice of online anonymity Hi Allan, Thanks for sharing the article. Haven't read the article yet [will momentarily] while commenting on the title which I know I shouldn't. The article title is rather ironic coming from the New York Times when hiding behind anonymous sources now-a-days. Don't ya think? Note: Now I've read the article and think it even more ironic especially in consideration of the 1st amendment. Was it the intent of America's forefather to ensure the right of the People to lie, slander, bear false witness, gossip, blaspheme, etc in the name of the press? Yet the author complains about the anonymity the internet provides as the free press does in ensuring the anonymity of certain persons whistleblowers etc. Given the source and/or reference of the principles in which our country's foundation was laid if only truth was emphasized to the degree of endearment in which everyone cherishes. I mean can you imagine if certain principles were "reestablished" in modern society? That is, if a witness is found bearing falsehood, slandering, etc the very same penalty in which the innocent party faced must be applied to the false witness. Can you imagine the impact upon our society? I imagine many would not "say" as much as they do without actual proof or 1st hand testimony. Lastly, there was a movie I saw years ago in which the name escapes me now. An alien race observed the earth and experimented on people as long as recorded time. Among the aliens existed a certain ethical standard if one brought up a question etc that individual alien was accountable and responsible for finding the answer and if they failed they were severely punished. The very burden an unanswered question had on the aliens was dreadful. Imagine that, a principle debaters should know. If you make an assertion, statement, etc it is your responsibility, that is, the burden of proof is on you and not your opponent to supply evidence etc of your position. Too many times in the audio circle I am running into people making sensational claims yet they offer no clear objective proof. They then shift the burden upon other people's shoulders even going so far as to sell their products so others may test them. esldude and Teresa 1 1 SMSL M400 DAC Bluesound Node 2i Sony 65 inch OLED A8G, Sony 4k Blue Ray X700 Parasound Halo A31 Amplifier Tekton Ulfberht Speakers w/ Be high frequency upgrade [4 ohms ea.] Two Tekton Active [300 watts rms] 4-10 Subwoofers Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Shimei said: Haven't read the article yet [will in a moment] and commenting on the title which I know I shouldn't. The article title is rather ironic coming from the New York Times when hiding behind anonymous sources now-a-days. Don't ya think? Note: Now I've read the article and think it even more ironic especially in consideration of the 1st amendment. Was it the intent of American's forefather to ensure the right of the People to lie, slander, bear false witness, gossip, blaspheme, etc? Yet the author complains about the anonymity the internet provides as the free press does in ensuring the anonymity of certain persons whistleblowers etc. Given the source and/or reference of the principles in which our country's foundation was laid if only truth was emphasized to the degree of endearment in which everyone cherishes. I mean can you imagine if certain principles were "reestablished" in modern society? That is, if a witness is found bearing falsehood, slandering, etc the very same penalty in which the innocent party faced must be applied to the false witness. Can you imagine the impact upon our society? I imagine many would not "say" as much as they do without actual proof or 1st hand testimony. Lastly, there was a movie I saw years ago in which the name escapes me now. An alien race observed the earth and experimented on people as long as recorded time. Among the aliens existed a certain ethical standard if one brought up a question etc that individual alien was accountable and responsible for finding the answer and if they failed they were severely punished. The very burden an unanswered question had on the aliens was dreadful. Imagine that, a principle debaters should know. If you make an assertion, statement, etc it is your responsibility, that is, the burden of proof is on you and not your opponent to supply evidence etc of your position. Too many times in the audio circle I am running into people making sensational claims yet they offer no clear objective proof. They then shift the burden upon other people's shoulders even going so far as to sell their products so others may test them. With all due respect, I don't think we need to bring politics into this forum. The Computer Audiophile, lucretius, sandyk and 1 other 4 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, Shimei said: If you make an assertion, statement, etc it is your responsibility, that is, the burden of proof is on you and not your opponent to supply evidence etc of your position. Too many times in the audio circle I am running into people making sensational claims yet they offer no clear objective proof. They then shift the burden upon other people's shoulders even going so far as to sell their products so others may test them. This is certainly a popular way to look at it for many, but completely misses the point of why many are here. People are here to enjoy a shared hobby and have fun along the way. There should be no burden of proof for anyone who just wants to hang out and talk to friends about something s/he enjoys. Talk about buzz killing. The new Objective-Fi area is perfect for those who think proof must be provided. Find a claim in the other areas of the forum, then demand proof in the obj forum. Live and let live. In addition, to suggest a consumer has the engineering burden of proof for anything is a bit over the top. Wit all due respect of course @Shimei :~) Allan F, Teresa, sandyk and 1 other 1 3 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted February 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2020 13 hours ago, lucretius said: I keep hearing that measurements do not necessarily predict sound quality and I have to take that at face value. But it would help me immensely if you can provide some examples from currently produced equipment. Thanks. I think it's true that measurements do "not necessarily predict sound quality". But that qualifier "necessary" is a big one. With whose ears and brain are we going to judge that "sound quality" with? If we're simply talking about "enjoyment" of the sound to the point of feeling good about it, heck I can enjoy an AM radio just fine. Does that mean all the "necessary" sound quality I need can be found in a Bose Wave radio because I can feel good about the song and the sound coming out of that? Of course not! We're arguing about much better devices, right? Things with "high fidelity" that achieve a level of transparency and accuracy to the recording, aren't we? Objectivism is literally about taking this concept of the "sound quality" outside and consider whether it measures up to an "ideal". That "ideal" might not be for everyone but at least it provides a level playing field from which we can judge devices using a common yardstick. Furthermore, that ideal exists outside of whether a person's hearing might be failing, or if that person's perception is idiosyncratic, if that person is not an "expert listener", or even if that person lacks insight and may be biased toward a wonderful ad they saw an hour ago or what the salesman just said a few minutes ago before they changed to the expensive cable 🤨. I have of course measured stuff over the years and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the two come together when you pay attention to what you measure and take time to listen both before and after the process: Synergistic power cables like these sound no different than other power cords. They appear cheaply made and not good value. A "Modded" Oppo like this is a bad deal. Some might like the sound but the measurements are terrible and they've ruined what was pristine high-resolution sound. The highly praised Vitus Audio amplifier in Class A adds nothing to the sound. Despite high price, a 1:1 comparison even to my Emotiva amp, shows that it's noisier objectively and when listening to music in a quiet room. Human perception has its limits and our attention to things also can be limited, missing out on what we actually CAN hear but didn't notice. For example, look at all the positive comments about the recent AudioQuest Dragonfly Cobalt. From my perspective, it totally sucks as a USB DAC at this price point. Good that Mans found similar issues with distortion that I saw. Once one is tipped off to these anomalies, one can start picking out examples and select music that can bring out the anomaly that one might have missed before. This is what "perfectionist audio" IMO is about. If I am going to pay big(er) bucks, it certainly would be nice to be clear about what performance I'm buying. The opinion of any specific listener is nice, but IMO, not as strong as what objective means might reveal. Teresa, tmtomh, esldude and 1 other 2 1 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Shimei Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: This is certainly a popular way to look at it for many, but completely misses the point of why many are here. People are here to enjoy a shared hobby and have fun along the way. There should be no burden of proof for anyone who just wants to hang out and talk to friends about something s/he enjoys. Talk about buzz killing. The new Objective-Fi area is perfect for those who think proof must be provided. Find a claim in the other areas of the forum, then demand proof in the obj forum. Live and let live. In addition, to suggest a consumer has the engineering burden of proof for anything is a bit over the top. Wit all due respect of course @Shimei :~) Gotcha, the current or new sub-forum makes more sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the burden of proof I really appreciated the data a past automobile manufacturer brought to my attention. I purchased a 1997 Callaway Impala SS back in the day. Lots of sensational claims were made. Here's the kicker, Callaway [a division at the time of GM] received one Impala SS from the GM assembly line. They worked their magic, pulled the engine and put their slug into its place along with other modifications. The objective data was supplied [dyno runs], that is, before delivery to the dealer I picked up the car from they actually ran the car around a race track test facility included the speed and times as well as drag strip information to me the new owner. I suppose audio manufacturers actually test their gear? Is it really asking too much from them to post various signal graphs and charts? That is, rather than relying on a reviewer the manufacturer simply supplies the data in which reviewers may verify. Or is there Mr. Guy Tester that sits in every room and when you hit the power button on the remote his mouth opens and tells everyone in the room how the system sounds? 🤣 Drives me insane that my Tektons aren't supplied with such data nor in the case of my amplifier. In my ideal audio world such data would be readily available as manufacturers are transparent about their products 😀 Enjoy, William The Computer Audiophile 1 SMSL M400 DAC Bluesound Node 2i Sony 65 inch OLED A8G, Sony 4k Blue Ray X700 Parasound Halo A31 Amplifier Tekton Ulfberht Speakers w/ Be high frequency upgrade [4 ohms ea.] Two Tekton Active [300 watts rms] 4-10 Subwoofers Link to comment
Recommended Posts