ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

How does one validate an opinion that something sounds fantastic or terrible?

 

By first checking if it's otherwise broken. Then, by checking if you're really hearing the difference or imagining it.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow. We are on different planets. 

 

I knew that :)

 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

That's quite sweet and you're welcome.

As your response avoided tackling the most important question, I revive it again using your preferred method of copy/paste:

 

 

You forgot to bold the important part, I can't figure out what it is without the bolding ;)

 

Don't know if you, Chris, and even @Jud(!) among others, realize that you are all trolling @asdf1000 after he explicitly and repeatedly asked that his thread be closed. He even quoted himself saying this, multiple times, in bold :) and addressed it to the moderator/owner. His original post had nothing to do with the discussion that ensued, and the back and forth has gotten progressively less constructive to the point of just being silly and immature. 

@The Computer Audiophile, a point of clarification: do the OPs still have moderator privileges on the threads they start? Or can anyone just make up the rules as they go, as long as they hate ASR? Serious question.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don’t take your question seriously because it’s more of a statement than a serious question, even though you use the word serious. 
 

If an OP is reasonable, I’ve never not given him/her moderation rights to a thread. Based on the hidden agenda here, I don’t think it’s reasonable. 

 

No, it was a serious question. I perceive hidden agendas in posts by others, not just by @asdf1000. I don't see any hidden agenda in his original post, but maybe I'm blind. My impression was that he didn't like where the discussion was headed and wanted to stop many pages ago, but you and the others continued on, despite OPs wish. The discussion seems to now have devolved into everyone piling on in accusing the other of hidden agendas, and yet you still have not closed the thread. What possible benefit do you expect will come from it? 

[pkane2001]

15 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

Yeah, you're perhaps right, that's why he may have overlooked it first time. 🙂

 

For the other part, did you suggest he was forced to his postings being trolled by the others? 

Again, for non native speaker he had the air of enjoying the OP's right of having the last word. Obviously, I could have read that incorrectly.

 

Maybe you're right. But I judge people by their actions, and not by what I think might be their hidden motives. OP asked this thread to be closed multiple times, but each time was ignored with more people coming in and piling on. I assume he really wanted it closed. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

And how do you suggest that be done?

Why, use your ears, of course!

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

I suspect we're going to go nowhere ... but, let's try: "something sounds fantastic or terrible" - how do we confirm, with our ears, which it is?

Wait, you don’t know yet??? ;) You listen with your ears. No peeking.

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Peeking at what? ... We have a single version of some product we are evaluating ...

I assume when writing a review you’d be comparing it to something else that others might be familiar with, otherwise your review is not very helpful to anyone else.

[pkane2001]

26 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Based on his posts in the Vaporware thread the OP here can dish it out but can't take it. I've ignored this poster for the most part.

Haven’t been following the MQA thread, I guess I missed it.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Does one have to compare an item with another item, for your opinion about how it performs to have meaning? If I read a motoring magazine, does the writer have to keep referring to another brand of a similar style of vehicle, for his comments and impressions to have meaning for me?

Yes? There has to be a point of reference, Frank, for others to know what you’re describing. You know, like when you compare things to the sound of your laptop speakers? This helps everyone know exactly what you may or may not be hearing ;)

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The point of reference, for me, is the recording. If you have extensive experience having heard it on myriads of variations of systems, your own and others, then that is the foundation from which your comments should spring - in simple terms, the more accuracy the particular item you're reviewing is allowing your setup to have, the greater its value.

 

Of course, if your interest is in using audio gear to season, add taste to recordings, then this falls apart - your comment about my laptop speakers says a lot; to you, I want those speakers to flavour what I hear; for me, they are a means to connect to the sound of something else - I listen "through them", they are a way of hearing something else ... it's like looking through a dirty pane of glass to a view beyond: some will always just see the grime on the glass; others will be able to appreciate the specialness of what's on the other side of the pane ...

Since you’ve never heard the ‘original sound’ of the recording produced by the mastering engineer, your reference is by necessity imaginary — existing in your head — and can’t be communicated to others other than through telepathy.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

And yet again you can't conceive that it's possible to only perceive the nature of the recording, without any sense of the replay chain intruding - if your only experiences have been of rigs that constantly mold what you hear, then this won't make sense ... unfortunately .

 

A very specific source recording is completely fixed, if digital; therefore, it is certainly theoretically achievable that the reproduction of it can be raised to the point where what you hear is repeatably constant - the discussion is then whether current setups can do this; IME, they can - which makes the goal simple: how close do you get to this point, with what's in front of you?

 

From my POV, I read how people experience certain recordings or types of recordings I know, on a very high performing system - and they comment on qualities they hear in that track - which correlate with what I've heard ... "they're hearing, what I hear" ...

You’re missing the point. It’s not that it’s not possible to not hear the replay chain. It’s that you have no idea what the recording is supposed to sound like with a fully transparent system, because it is a hybrid composite of many processing steps, from multi-mic digitization to compression to spatialization to frequency and phase EQ and whatever other things the mastering engineer decides to apply to produce the sound they like or the sound the artist requested.

 

If you think you know what the original recording should sound like — you’re wrong, unless you were there when the recording was produced.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This is an old argument - that the recording is supposed "to sound like something" - well, it's nearly always impossible to know what was in the head of the  mastering engineer, or the artist ... the recording is what it is - to me, it's irrelevant what was in anyone's head, at the time. As a contrast, I know what was in the head of the people making some Amy Winehouse tracks - that she should sound like a chanteuse back in the 1950's ... but, they failed badly, the added vinyl noise is far too obviously 'fake'; the production jars, because they didn't do it well enough.

 

 

Again, I don't care - what I've got is a finished product, which I experience - it stands or falls on its own merits ...

 

So you agree it's all in your head then? How am I supposed to understand or interpret your "experience" with all its "merits" as a reference when you write your next equipment review? Telepathy. I know that's the real (the only) answer ;)

[pkane2001]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Paul, @pkane2001, have you ever been to a concert ? You seem to testify that you don't have a reference in real music. Unlike what you discuss with Frank, this isn't even related to a recording as such. The reference is the real thing (Frank surely implies that). But it takes a few hurdles to enable that reference. With the hurdles still up, it does not work out. Then measurements rule (in your head) ...

 

PS: The car analogy finally doesn't work out; Cars relate to other cars. Music playback refers to the real thing (unamplified); everybody will have experienced that, I assume. No need to go back and listen either. You will have it in you from whatever occasion, no matter from how long back.

 

No, never :) I grew up around a musical family, Peter. I play the piano, my father was a trained opera singer, my mother an accomplished pianist. My wife is a singer with a wonderful voice. I live around live music and go to concerts and have live performances at my house every chance I get. Measurements don't rule, and I never said that. Measurements are the necessary basis for proper sound reproduction because sound is Physics, as is electronics. Without measurements (or a proper reference) you're guessing, and your guess, while possibly completely different, is no better than mine. That was my point to Frank, and the same to you.

 

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

"My" equipment review?? ... I don't tangle with such animals ... 🙂.

 

"It's in my head" that it's possible that I hear, what? What is actually contained in the data bits of the recording - or what the some of the people were trying to achieve when they foolin' around in the studio? What I will say is that a certain combo of bits and pieces gets me closer to the former - I will give that apparatus a tick, and describe what qualities in the recording are being revealed, by that level of accuracy ... I have no interest in how it's manipulating the sound, to take me further away from The Truth - plenty of other people review gear with the focus being on the latter, 😉.

 

But Frank, you were responding to my post about misleading equipment reviews. So you were just talking about your own magical methods ... again??? 😱

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I could only find 4 manufacturers of low cost DACs.  Were there any high-end manufacturers?  What were your keywords for search?

 

Search for "sent to me by the company" without quotes in Amir's posts. You'll need to ignore some where the words are not in the same sentence, but at least six pages of matches. You'll see high-end DACs, headphones, speakers, etc. Obviously, there may be other wording sequences in some of the reviews that this doesn't match.

[pkane2001]

On 3/8/2021 at 11:56 AM, Miska said:

 

Yes. However measuring DACs gets very complex when you imagine all possible combinations of DAC + pre-amp + power-amp + speakers.

 

But for "audible range" I stick to about 120 dB dynamic range and 100 kHz specification. Since it is quite a bit more complex than many people would quickly think. We are not talking about just constant discrete tones, but also various complex transient and multi-tone cases. To reproduce for example the proper TIM test tone, you need at least 100 kHz bandwidth or more. And this test tone was chosen based on audibility of TIM properties.

 

Since the various measurable problems in the DAC output can be fixed, I don't see reason in not fixing those.

 

 

At the risk of taking this thread off of its completely subjective bend, I just came across this paper by everyone's favorite John (Bob) Stuart of MQA fame, reporting that IMD from ultrasonic range is not an audible concern in audio reproduction with speakers. Care to comment, Jussi? 

 

Is High-Frequency Intermodulation Distortion a Significant Factor in High-Resolution Audio?

DOI: 10.17743/jaes.2018.0060

 

A portion of the conclusion from this paper:

Quote

Although more equipment characterization would be needed if considering headphone listening, the spectral levels found in actual recordings suggest that for amplifiers and loudspeakers intended for high-quality applications and, specifically where electronic non-linearity is below –60 dB, IMD is very unlikely to be detectable.

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I have found through "blind test" that any errors or distortions at -120 dB level, and possibly below are audible in audiophile use. THD is less annoying and not as easy to detect while IMD/aliasing very much is.

 

Bob Stuart wants to embrace leaky filters and is claiming that aliasing and IMD is not a problem, I have found the exact contrary.

 

Some of this can be also tested by using MQA recordings vs original hires.

 

 

I assume that's because THD is mostly masked by the signal, while IMD can be far removed from it?

 

Bob's study was fairly small (5 people) so this maybe worth testing with a larger group. I'll see if I can make up some music samples with IMD content from ultrasonic frequencies. This shouldn't be hard.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, that's the case. While aliasing or IMD is related to the signal in a different way, at frequencies below the fundamental.

 

 

Let's say you have a difference tone at 2 kHz, it doesn't matter if it's difference of fundamental and it's image around 22.05 kHz or around some higher frequency. But typically it would be more a sequence of harmonics. Best examples you can see by looking at some audio band measurements of NOS DACs operating at 44.1k sampling rate.

 

Does Distort have an aliasing test? It is usually nicely audible by listening to a frequency sweep, you can hear the alias running around.

 

 

DISTORT simulates the non-linearity that produces IMD. I'll just need to create a signal with some different (realistic) levels of ultrasonic signals and with music in the audible range, and then pass it through the non-linearity. I can also disable the anti-alias filter which will allow for aliases in the audible range. These are two different tests, though.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Miska said:

 

Both produce sub-fundamental tones in a different way. IMD of images vs aliases. But Bob Stuart also claims in relation to MQA that aliasing is not audible. Same way as the IMD.

 

There are two cases of IMD, one is from regular straightforward tones, but these are from high frequencies are much lower level. Then another is IMDs between repeating image pairs which is higher level source signal and has different frequency/harmonic system.

 

Either way, multi-tone and sweep/multi-sweep signals are good way for listening to these.

 

 

I assume that with multi-tones and sweeps (and white noise?) detection should be easier, with music may be a little harder. 

[pkane2001]

37 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Emphasis added.

 

I did the search and after limiting it to AMIRM, the 6 pages of matches turns into 3.  From that I identified 27 companies.  I also identified 2 companies not on this list from my earlier review bringing the total to 29 companies that have submitted items to Amir for review.

 

A very large proportion of the equipment submitted for review were DACs costing $200 USD or less.  Only four companies submitted equipment costing more than $1,000 USD, which included:

• 4 DACs (2 from the same company) for $1,149, $1,299, $1,400, and $3,409
• 1 active monitor for $2,200

With all due respect, this appears to be a far car from your statement, "You'll see high-end DACs, headphones, speakers".

 

I'm not sure what you're arguing. My original statement, as I recall was about two dozen manufacturers that sent in their equipment for review. You disagree, and say that actually about 29 companies submitted their items for review. OK. You're right! It's not two dozen, it's more. I could help you with more keywords and search strings if you really want to find additional items, but I'm too lazy and not interested. Really not sure why you are. 

 

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

This discussion evolved from my question, "What high-end manufacturer is going to submit their gear for measurement?".  Sorry if that was not apparent.  Clearly, manufacturers are not submitting high-end equipment to Amir for review.  Further, precious little mid-range equipment is submitted by manufacturers to Amir for review.

 

Clearly your definition of "high-end" and mine differ. If you're talking about $10K+ DACs and $5K+ headphones, then I agree with you. 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

OK. But even this last statement of yours is somewhat misleading -- the limits are set too high.  Only 2 pieces of equipment exceeding $1,400 were submitted by manufacturers to Amir for review.

• 1 DAC for $3,409
• 1 active monitor for $2,200
• 0 headphones

Again, to be clear, I'm talking about any equipment exceeding $1,500 USD (yes there are 2 outliers), not just $10K+ DACs and $5K+ headphones.

 

Sorry again, I didn't know at what threshold something becomes "high-end". To me, it's high-end if it's more than I would want to pay for it ;)

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, semente said:

My DAC is malfunctioning. Should I send it to ASR for testing? 🤔

 

If it sounds too good to be true, then by all means 🤪

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Summit said:

 

I disagree 100%. You may have no clue but I have how a trumpet, guitar, voice and so on should sound like in a concert hall, in a living room, crowded pub etc etc. 

 

But not on a processed recording.