ASR Audio Science Review forum YouTube Channel

[pkane2001]

22 minutes ago, 57gold said:

Interesting, understand that Mytek's "improved" analog volume on Brooklyn+ adds some distortion to "warm up" the sonics.  

ASR disliked that feature, as opposed to just recommending users to stick to "cleaner" digital volume control.

 

Generally, I'd say the same thing: distortion is messing up the accuracy of audio reproduction. And yet, some prefer the "messed up" sound, as long as it's messed up in certain, pleasing ways.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Not hubris, mathematics. 

 

I'm not getting this.  I have no desire to proclaim the "accuracy" of my playback chain based on the use of HQP.  But that claim seems to be of great import to some.

[pkane2001]

40 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I'm not getting this.  I have no desire to proclaim the "accuracy" of my playback chain based on the use of HQP.  But that claim seems to be of great import to some.

 

I think we are talking about different things. I make no claims about HQP filters or the overall chain.

 

A filter is a mathematical construct. It works better or worse for the purpose of reconstructing sampled audio depending on design and implementation. This accuracy can be measured and/or evaluated mathematically -- this is an objective measure, not a preference. Whether or not this is audible, or whether you like or dislike its effect, has little to do with mathematical accuracy. A poorly designed filter can cause all kinds of distortions and errors in the signal. A well-designed (mathematically accurate) filter should not. 

 

[cab33]

But which filter one uses can be based on subjective preferences.

 

As a Subjectivist, I find that sharing subjective impressions with others can be beneficial if there is a group of people who prefer a certain type of sound, even if it is not accurate.

 

 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, 57gold said:

Interesting, understand that Mytek's "improved" analog volume on Brooklyn+ adds some distortion to "warm up" the sonics.  

 

For the original Mytek Brooklyn DAC, the analog volume control added 2nd harmonic distortion -- according to Michal Jurewicz of Mytek Audio, the analog volume control was chosen for its "warm" sound.  OTH, Mytek claimed that for the Brooklyn+ DAC, the analog volume control was "improved" -- I took that to mean less distortion.

[57gold]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The digital volume control on the Brooklyn Bridge is far noisier than the analog VC. Connecting my IEMs to the headphone output and switching between the volume controls without anything playing, the noise floor with the digital very audibly increases. 

 

Numbers don't lie, it's just your imagination or biases or subjectiveness leading you to that delusion.  

 

Did you do a statistically significant double blind test?

 

Seriously, maybe the tests did not include the headphone output circuit.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Whether or not this is audible, or whether you like or dislike its effect, has little to do with mathematical accuracy. A poorly designed filter can cause all kinds of distortions and errors in the signal. A well-designed (mathematically accurate) filter should not. 

 

I was under the impression that a well-designed filter was the same as any other well-designed filter as far as the audible range is concerned.  But, apparently, folks have preferences among the "well-designed" filters.  I cannot reconcile this.

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, 57gold said:

 

Numbers don't lie, it's just your imagination or biases or subjectiveness leading you to that delusion.  

 

Did you do a statistically significant double blind test?

 

Seriously, maybe the tests did not include the headphone output circuit.

 

It's unmistakable. Perhaps someone reading this has one and a pair of very revealing headphones like IEMs. It's a no brainer how much higher the noise floor is with the digital volume control. 

 

If the numbers suggest the digital has a lower noise floor, then something is wrong with the measurements. Anyone can hear this. Seriously, anyone. It isn't an audiophile thing. The analog control is just a lot quieter without music playing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

The other possibility is the digital VC increases the volume quite a bit, thus making a switch back and forth between them apples and oranges. I assumed leaving the levels at the same number and only switching between analog and digital would give me apples to apples. 

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I was under the impression that a well-designed filter was the same as any other well-designed filter as far as the audible range is concerned.  But, apparently, folks have preferences among the "well-designed" filters.  I cannot reconcile this.

I can’t speak to that, having no preference other than a filter with linear phase response, a deep out of band rejection and low in-band ripple. Beyond this, I don’t find filters very exciting ;)

 

[botrytis]

34 minutes ago, 57gold said:

 

Numbers don't lie, it's just your imagination or biases or subjectiveness leading you to that delusion.  

 

Did you do a statistically significant double blind test?

 

Seriously, maybe the tests did not include the headphone output circuit.

 

Numbers can lie, it depends on how they are presented. I will give an example from my past. I was sitting in a thesis defense of a friend, who was doing it on Deer Populations in New York State forests. In his presentation, he showed data that that had a Stats showing +/- 125% data. That means the data showed there was no trends but he pushed that there was. This is what I mean by numbers lying.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I think we are talking about different things. I make no claims about HQP filters or the overall chain.

 

A filter is a mathematical construct. It works better or worse for the purpose of reconstructing sampled audio depending on design and implementation. This accuracy can be measured and/or evaluated mathematically -- this is an objective measure, not a preference. Whether or not this is audible, or whether you like or dislike its effect, has little to do with mathematical accuracy. A poorly designed filter can cause all kinds of distortions and errors in the signal. A well-designed (mathematically accurate) filter should not. 

 

 

Which is the most "mathematically accurate" HQP filter?

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The other possibility is the digital VC increases the volume quite a bit, thus making a switch back and forth between them apples and oranges. I assumed leaving the levels at the same number and only switching between analog and digital would give me apples to apples. 

 

I can add something to this, backing Chris' idea. I have an Audio Research SP-16 Pre-amp. I really like the piece, how it sounds, almost everything, but the digital volume control. In this case, a logarithmic control. It can be quite annoying to set properly. Let's say that is it's foible. The reason to keep this one is it also uses easy to find tubes, 12AX7's, to be exact and a decent built-in phono stage. I will deal with that.

[botrytis]

I can add that my other piece, Bow Tech Wazoo integrated, it is the passive preamp. It seems you need to match things just right, with volume, the output of the pieces connected to it, etc. But, the sound when things align is worth it.

 

What a crazy hobby we have 🤣

[pkane2001]

 

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Which is the most "mathematically accurate" HQP filter?

No idea. I assume most are competently designed based on what @Miska described earlier in the thread. I’d not use a minimum phase filter. 

[fas42]

With regard to volume controls ... any conventional analogue unit always distorts; it's trivially easy to hear its, negative, impact. Digital control, if properly organised, is completely inaudible - one has to oganise a completely unrealistic gain stage structure of the playback elements, to hear artifacts.

 

If a digital volume setup is 'noisy', then there's something wrong with how it's been engineered, or integrated into the chain.

 

My current el cheapo digital speakers have digital volume, of course - at the lowest setting before they completely mute, with my ear right next to the driver I could just pick something - but in any realistic use, zero issues.

[vmartell22]

I like Amir's YouTube Channel - is very informative and interesting.

 

v

[Rexp]

8 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Maybe, maybe not. But if you have better system and better ears, you can hear more than they did.

 

Assuming you could, which playback chain would be more accurate, the PCM chain used by the mastering studio or a DSD upsampling chain? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Assuming you could, which playback chain would be more accurate, the PCM chain used by the mastering studio or a DSD upsampling chain? 

I’m not Miska, but that depends on the DAC used for playback. 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

I can add that my other piece, Bow Tech Wazoo integrated, it is the passive preamp. It seems you need to match things just right, with volume, the output of the pieces connected to it, etc. But, the sound when things align is worth it.

 

What a crazy hobby we have 🤣

 

Just to mention, a good marker of integrity of the setup is that any volume is fine - current actives have this quality already; the volume can be ramped up and down by huge amounts; say, 40dB changes - and the sense of what you hear doesn't change. Just like moving very close to, or right away from, some playing of acoustic live music - the "vibe" of the piece doesn't change.

[Josh Mound]

On 3/11/2021 at 3:53 AM, asdf1000 said:

 

I think we'll have to disagree on interpretations of the measurements...

 

And I'm happy we have Stereophile (JA measurements), SoundStage, HiFi News (lesser extent, limited number of measurements done) , Archimago and now Amir that show the measured performance.

 

We now have many better offerings than the atrocious performance below, by many lower cost Chinese manufacturers and now Schiit themselves.

 

Without 3rd party measurements of lots of products it's hard to know if these kinds of things would actually get improved over time.

 

It's not good (for me) if we only have subjective reviews by paid writers on forums that are sponsored by companies. 

 

We don't want to be sold fake news.... It's natural for these people to be defensive - either their own feelings are hurt by seeing measurements or their sponsors feelings are hurt.

 

But kudos to Schiit Audio for making large improvements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is different from serving as a check on a manufacturer’s claimed specs, though. One needs to perform the same tests as the manufacturer’s specs. The above doesn’t do that. 
 

More importantly, how is paying writers bad, and why would advertisements necessarily lead to more bias than accepting donations?

 

Despite likely being very well-off, Amir is soliciting donations for his reviews. He is a paid writer. He also clearly wants page clicks and attention. Both of these are likely to create sources of bias.

As said above, he obviously figured out early on that slamming “audiophile” brands (except ones he sells) and hyping cheap products was the path to attention and donations, and he’s followed that ever since. Right now he’s claiming he knows more about designing headphones than Abyss’s engineers. I’m not a huge Abyss fan, but at a certain point an ego of that size becomes horrifically comical.

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, JoshM said:

This is different from serving as a check on a manufacturer’s claimed specs, though. One needs to perform the same tests as the manufacturer’s specs. The above doesn’t do that. 
 

More importantly, how is paying writers bad, and why would advertisements necessarily lead to more bias than accepting donations?

 

Despite likely being very well-off, Amir is soliciting donations for his reviews. He is a paid writer. He also clearly wants page clicks and attention. Both of these are likely to create sources of bias.

As said above, he obviously figured out early on that slamming “audiophile” brands (except ones he sells) and hyping cheap products was the path to attention and donations, and he’s followed that ever since. Right now he’s claiming he knows more about designing headphones than Abyss’s engineers. I’m not a huge Abyss fan, but at a certain point an ego of that size becomes horrifically comical.

 

Unfortunately, there are many people like that out there, history will show that.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, JoshM said:

This is different from serving as a check on a manufacturer’s claimed specs, though. One needs to perform the same tests as the manufacturer’s specs. The above doesn’t do that. 
 

More importantly, how is paying writers bad, and why would advertisements necessarily lead to more bias than accepting donations?

 

Despite likely being very well-off, Amir is soliciting donations for his reviews. He is a paid writer. He also clearly wants page clicks and attention. Both of these are likely to create sources of bias.

As said above, he obviously figured out early on that slamming “audiophile” brands (except ones he sells) and hyping cheap products was the path to attention and donations, and he’s followed that ever since. Right now he’s claiming he knows more about designing headphones than Abyss’s engineers. I’m not a huge Abyss fan, but at a certain point an ego of that size becomes horrifically comical.

 

@asdf1000 let me know that he's no longer allowed to post here, so don't expect an answer.

[botrytis]

Not Allowed? Did his mommy stop him? 

 

That is just silly.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I put his account on read only for now. When he started posting the same old stuff again and again and again last night, long after this thread moved on, I’d had it. To me, he wasn’t interested in being part of a community, but rather just pissing in the punch bowl.