ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Or can anyone just make up the rules as they go, as long as they hate ASR? Serious question.

 

It's clearly just this.

 

He's nicely tried to dodge the key and on-topic questions.

 

The Denon AVR example - how did ASR's measurements not benefit the consumer?

 

The Vinnie Rossie Ultracapacitor power supply example - how did ASR's proof that this did not do what the manufacturer claimed, not help consumers?

 

If he actually addresses these I can give more examples...

 

 

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

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 ;)

 

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 ...

[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.

[JoeWhip]

The Denon AVR did benefit the consumer, providing that the measurement which revealed a part not operating up to spec really made a difference in sound quality. I have no idea if it did or not. The issue for me is that a part not operating at its rated spec does not indicate a poor design. With The Yggy, some measurements that Amir wasn’t happy with meant that it was a poor design and that the product was crap, even though he never listened to it, never determined if the measurement issues were audible and the circle jerk over there went on and on. The Yggy has been reliable for me now for 6 years and provides a wonderful audio experience each time I listen. That is what I want in an audio product. It has been worth every penny regardless what Amir thinks about his measurement prowess. That is my issue with ASR.

 

 

 

 

[asdf1000]

48 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

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

 

Over there, for years he's been posting about how his connected "golfing buddies" (his actual words) have said Spotify will never go into lossless. And that Spotify did their market research. Clearly their market research didn't factor in one of the other Big 4 making the first move like I told him many times years ago...  He was also told by PC Audiophile in that thread to stop making things up. See below.

 

So I'm amused that he's chimed in here.

 

On this ASR thread here, I've asked PC Audiophile to comment on specific examples of measurements... not chats with golfing buddies... but he makes up replies like "I'm not going over there". 

 

So he shouldn't ask questions and ignore the answers. He would have been better off doing things over on other threads and not commenting here.

 

 

 

 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

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.

 

Ah, no, thanks Paul - came in late.  Hadn't planned on replying further anyway.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

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.

 

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" ...

[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.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

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.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

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

[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 ;)

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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 ;)

 

"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, 😉.

[PeterSt]

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.

[vmartell22]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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

 

AHH - Pages and pages of  discussion... Opposing sites, many flame wars... THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE BISCUIT (to quote Frank Zappa)

 

IMHO -  Hasn't been done. Very hard to do without the rigor that such a thing requires.  It remains an opinion.

 

You hit it right int he head.

 

v

 

[vmartell22]

16 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm not banning you even though you insinuate that I'm on the take, without any evidence, and leave disparaging remarks about me. Not that big of a deal to me. 

 

I just think you'd be in heaven over at ASR reveling in the schadenfreude disguised as science. 

 

Have to chime in - schadenfreude is an emotion. Science is  a systematic approach to knowledge. Totally valid to use science to uncover knowledge/facts to feed the schadenfreude. In fact is useful.  Not saying that  schadenfreude is good, but if measurements show that there is no difference between a $10K dac and a $100 one, there will be schadenfreude about the peep that spent the $10K - specially if he (and will be a he) equates economic ability with superior hearing, or worse, taste or even worse, goodness...  so yes, schadenfreude thru science... not disguised, a tool for schadenfreude... that said, it is IMHO not OK to get joy from the pain of others... 

 

That said I applaud you letting such completely opposing views be included in your site.

 

v

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

A quick keyword search on ASR shows about two dozen or so manufacturers that sent in their devices to be measured by Amir. Not all of them received glowing reviews.

 

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

[John Dyson]

4 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.

I have been to concerts, I have actually done real recordings, and very few consumer recordings sound ANYTHING like a real instrument or a real mix of vocals/instruments.   Likewise, I have heard 2nd hand comments from those recording engineers doing the mix that they are especially happy when a CD sounds something like what they had created.

 

Trying to guess what was mixed into a recording by listening to most consumer materials is a wild guess.   One can *estimate* based upon knowing the kind of processing being done, but even then -- it is easy to guess wrong.

 

The 'artists work product' is often VERY different that a consumer recording, and that is sad.   My own guess why it happens is IP protection, but even then -- WHY?

 

 

 

[Rexp]

1 hour 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?

 

Careful, if you hang around on that site too long you might get infected..

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have been to concerts, I have actually done real recordings, and very few consumer recordings sound ANYTHING like a real instrument or a real mix of vocals/instruments.   Likewise, I have heard 2nd hand comments from those recording engineers doing the mix that they are especially happy when a CD sounds something like what they had created.

 

An easy one with pop recordings is to listen to the voices - with below par playback, the vocals won't sound like it's real people singing; when the system gets into the zone, the singer becomes 'real' - if an effects unit is used on the voice, at some point in the track, it can be quite disconcerting; as the quality of it being human evaporates.

 

21 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

Trying to guess what was mixed into a recording by listening to most consumer materials is a wild guess.   One can *estimate* based upon knowing the kind of processing being done, but even then -- it is easy to guess wrong.

 

The better the playback, the easier it is to 'see' everything that's going on - this can become very, very complicated, as the producer plays with, and blends a whole array of musical and sound ideas - it turns out that nothing is there because someone forgot what they were doing, 🤪 - every tiny scrap of sound in the whole makes sense; and this is what makes it magical, in the listening.

 

[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.

 

[Miska]

33 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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:

 

 

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.

 

[asdf1000]

3 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.

 And that includes above 20 kHz and up to 100 kHz, at -120 dB level?

 

[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.