“Gaming” measurements

[March Audio]

17 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

Erm, so there’s already an analog volume control available in this chip - 
DRE is about input levels, not output levels. As I stated in pretty much my very first post the benign view of this is that you have an upstream volume control, but as you say, you shouldn’t use that if you’ve got an analog one downstream. 
 

And the VW analogy stands - why would you want the analog gain to change with the *input* when listening? Assuming the input is full scale? Would you at least agree that this feature could be used to game a DR measurement?

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

Which can be used in conjunction with digital control to optimise performance.

 

DRE_VOLUME_CTRL When enabled, the analog volume control and digital gain will be adjusted to optimize 
output performance in DRE mode.
1’b0: The analog volume control will not be affected by the DRE (default).
1’b1: The analog volume control will be set to its minimum value when the DRE mode is 
engaged. A digital gain will be applied in this mode of operation to ensure the total gain 
of the DAC is nominal at 0dB.
 

No I don't agree it could be used to game the snr measurement. It optomises performance. Not just when it's on test but also when in normal use.

 

As such the VW analogy does not stand.   

 

I'm sorry but you are seeing conspiracy theories where there are none.

[semente]

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

I would refer to that as incompetence.

 

It is your opinion. If the "euphony" was a design goal then it is not incompetence.

 

2 hours ago, March Audio said:

You are reinforcing my point.  Any one individuals random preferences (for high distortion in this case) can't be a reason to judge the performance of a piece of equipment.

 

Judging performance is a technical assessment. Most audiophiles don't do technical assessments, they listen, sighted and not level matched, and they choose. It's an unscientific method of determining preference. It's the real world.

 

 

[idiot_savant]

*sigh*

this is a feature *designed* to operate under steady state conditions. 
how is performance optimised when the noise floor could jump up under loud passages then jumping down during a quiet passage?

you keep making claims this would show up in anything but an SNR measurement, but this technique is used by e.g. an AP in *every single measurement it does* - you monitor the average signal and adjust the gain, which is brilliant for steady state things but not music. 
 

If it was as benign as you claim, why do ESS disable it by default?

 

so let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s imagine our DACs doing DRE. We’re playing an orchestral piece, which begins with the noise of the orchestra, so our DAC whacks up the digital gain and reduces the analog gain ( eg via a resistor network ). Those scraping of chairs etc. The violinist starts to play, and the gains are reversed - so the incidental noise is still there, but the noise floor is different - is this change perfect? Is this a good thing? Or would we rather our DAC treated all the bits in the same way?
 

Your friendly neighbourhood idiot

 

[semente]

2 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Right, so thought experiment time: 

you’ve got a DAC with a -100dB noise floor at 0dBFS - DNR 100dB

 

reduce the signal by 30dBFs, noise floor stays where it is, so signal -30 noise -100 so 70dB SNR but we add back in 30 for DNR - 100dB

 

DAC detects -30, adds 30dB digital gain but reduces analogue gain by -30dB. 
Analog gain moves down signal AND noise, so signal -30, noise -130, DNR is -130…

assuming the analogue gain is perfect in this case 

 

now under test conditions, this is a steady state condition so nothing will show up in measurements. 

 

 

Your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

ES9219_Datasheet_v1.0.4.pdf 1.78 MB · 4 downloads

 

That sounds like VW-style cheating.

 

Is it a DAC (equipment) you are testing or a D/A chip?

[idiot_savant]

So…

thread starts, it’s agreed cheating is a bad thing but widespread. 
 

I demonstrate a way to game the DNR measurement

 

I then provide the section of a datasheet  explicitly allowing this to be done, with the feature even named after the test it’s trying to game

 

I’m the one with conspiracy theories 🤔

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[idiot_savant]

As I said at the very start, I’m not accusing any manufacturer of cheating, but if this feature is available in one chip, it’s possible it can be turned on, possibly with the best intentions, and other chips/implementations could do the same. 
 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[March Audio]

16 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It is your opinion. If the "euphony" was a design goal then it is not incompetence.

 

 

Judging performance is a technical assessment. Most audiophiles don't do technical assessments, they listen, sighted and not level matched, and they choose. It's an unscientific method of determining preference. It's the real world.

 

 

You are missing the point.  What any individual thinks is irrelevant to the actual equipments performance.  Person A likes it, person B doesn't.  Who is right?

 

Now you can argue as much as you like about individual preferences in the subjective part of the forum but this is the objective area.

[March Audio]

24 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

*sigh*

this is a feature *designed* to operate under steady state conditions. 
how is performance optimised when the noise floor could jump up under loud passages then jumping down during a quiet passage?

you keep making claims this would show up in anything but an SNR measurement, but this technique is used by e.g. an AP in *every single measurement it does* - you monitor the average signal and adjust the gain, which is brilliant for steady state things but not music. 
 

If it was as benign as you claim, why do ESS disable it by default?

 

so let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s imagine our DACs doing DRE. We’re playing an orchestral piece, which begins with the noise of the orchestra, so our DAC whacks up the digital gain and reduces the analog gain ( eg via a resistor network ). Those scraping of chairs etc. The violinist starts to play, and the gains are reversed - so the incidental noise is still there, but the noise floor is different - is this change perfect? Is this a good thing? Or would we rather our DAC treated all the bits in the same way?
 

Your friendly neighbourhood idiot

 

No it's not.  It works with the analogue volume control setting to maintain a nominal 0dB setting.

[March Audio]

23 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It is your opinion. If the "euphony" was a design goal then it is not incompetence.

 

 

Judging performance is a technical assessment. Most audiophiles don't do technical assessments, they listen, sighted and not level matched, and they choose. It's an unscientific method of determining preference. It's the real world.

 

 

Yes I would say that deliberately adding distortion is an incompetent design goal

[March Audio]

26 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

So…

thread starts, it’s agreed cheating is a bad thing but widespread. 
 

I demonstrate a way to game the DNR measurement

 

I then provide the section of a datasheet  explicitly allowing this to be done, with the feature even named after the test it’s trying to game

 

I’m the one with conspiracy theories 🤔

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

No it was not agreed that cheating was widespread.  It was stated that measurements need understanding.  Paying attention to specific test parameters.  Ie that they can be misinterpreted by the less technically literate.

 

You haven't demonstrated anything.

 

Instead of speculating can you show us some actual evidence of an snr measurement that is "gamed".  That is incongruous with other measurements?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Yes I would say that deliberately adding distortion is an incompetent design goal

 

Which definition of incompetent are you using?

 

The DAC was designed to perform best using the Measurement setting. The designer, and many listeners prefer the sound a bit different, so they created the Listen setting. I call it a great option for people. 

[March Audio]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Which definition of incompetent are you using?

 

The DAC was designed to perform best using the Measurement setting. The designer, and many listeners prefer the sound a bit different, so they created the Listen setting. I call it a great option for people. 

I fundamentally disagree that adding distortion improves sound.  I don't buy the "euphonic distortion" line.

 

I have never heard distortion sound good.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, March Audio said:

I fundamentally disagree that adding distortion improves sound.  I don't buy the "euphonic distortion" line.

 

I have never heard distortion sound good.

 

Your preferences have nothing to do with competence. This is an objective thread. Prove it's incompetent design, or keep the subjective opinion to yourself. 

 

Plus, your claims of incompetence about a competing manufacturer are unbecoming. Perhaps your reputation as a perpetual line-stepper is deserving. 

[March Audio]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Your preferences have nothing to do with competence. This is an objective thread. Prove it's incompetent design, or keep the subjective opinion to yourself. 

 

Plus, your claims of incompetence about a competing manufacturer are unbecoming. Perhaps your reputation as a perpetual line-stepper is deserving. 

It's not a preference.

 

So are you saying a product that distorts is a competent design?

 

My comments were generic, it was another member that mentioned a specific product.

 

Let's not forget the actual definition of hifi.

 

High fidelity - faithful to the original.

 

I'm not sure that deliberately adding distortion fits in with that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, March Audio said:

So are you saying an amplifier that distorts is a competent design?

 

Now you're making thing up. We are talking about @Ryan Berry / Ayre's QB-9 DAC with a switch for Measure and Listen positions. 

 

 

Just now, March Audio said:

My comments were generic, it was another member that mentioned a specific product.

 

No.

[March Audio]

Hang on, is this the objective section of the forum?

 

Can I not have the opinion that adding distortion in a product is the wrong thing to do?

 

Can we have some data that shows adding distortion actually sounds better?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Hang on, is this the objective section of the forum?

 

In your own words ...

 

24 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Now you can argue as much as you like about individual preferences in the subjective part of the forum but this is the objective area.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Can I not have the opinion that adding distortion in a product is the wrong thing to do?

 

Have all the opinions you want, but not in the objective forum and not by disparaging another manufacturer calling their opinion incompetent. 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Can we have some data that shows adding distortion actually sounds better?

 

Ayre has data in the form of sales and customer feedback. 

[March Audio]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

In your own words ...

 

 

 

 

 

Have all the opinions you want, but not in the objective forum and not by disparaging another manufacturer calling their opinion incompetent. 

 

 

 

 

Ayre has data in the form of sales and customer feedback. 

As I said it's not a preference. Adding distortion is the antithesis of high fidelity.

 

Ok, I apologise if my comments have come across as criticising Ayre.  Not the intention to disparage Ayre.  

 

Sales are not any indicator of objective performance.

 

Let's keep this completely generic and objective.

 

If the assertion is that adding distortion sounds better, do you have any controlled  listening tests that support this?

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Can we have some data that shows adding distortion actually sounds better?

 

 

Just now, March Audio said:

Sales are not any indicator of objective performance

 

 

Stop with your nonsense. Look at your two statements. This is getting ridiculous. I advise you to stop digging a hole. 

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I fundamentally disagree that adding distortion improves sound.  I don't buy the "euphonic distortion" line.

 

I have never heard distortion sound good.

 

Finally, something that you and Frank agree on... 👺

 

[March Audio]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

Stop with your nonsense. Look at your two statements. This is getting ridiculous. I advise you to stop digging a hole. 

Sorry but I really don't understand.

 

Are you saying that sales indicate/proportional to product objective or even subjective performance?

 

So if we identify the best selling amp or dac that they are therefore the best performing amp and dac out there?

 

Are you saying that sales have nothing to do with marketing effectiveness?

 

All I asked for is some objective evidence to support the assertion that adding distortion sounds better.  Some controlled listening tests for example.   

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, March Audio said:

Sorry butvI don't understand.

 

Are you saying that sales indicate product product performance?

 

So if we identify the best selling amp or dac that they are thereforenthe best performing amp and dac out there?

 

Are you saying that sales have nothing to do with marketing effectiveness?

 

You're purposely not following. 

 

I can't help you. Stop moving the goal posts. 

[idiot_savant]

*pedant alert*
The QB-9 doesn’t add distortion in “listen” mode - it doesn’t remove as many aliasing products as in “measure” - all of which are guaranteed to be above 22.05kHz. This trade off is done to minimise ringing, a bit like ….

 

 

MQA

 

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, idiot_savant said:

a bit like ….

 

 

MQA

But totally free :~)

[idiot_savant]

And user-selectable 😉

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot