Help GoldenSound / GoldenOne Get An Audio Precision Analyzer

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys, I can't say I've ever done this in the past, but I'm so impressed with the work of @GoldenOne and just learned that he is saving for an APx555 from Audio Precision, through his Patreon page. I highly recommend that people subscribe to his Patreon and help him in this effort. His analysis is truly objective and his approach is a breath of fresh air. 

 

I would love to be a sponsor or sign up to his Patreon for the AS community, but I really don't want people to think I had anything to do with his mQa videos and opinions, because I really had nothing to do with any of it. 

 

Here's a link to his Patreon page, please sign up if you can - https://www.patreon.com/goldensound

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

P.S. I just reached out to my contact at Audio Precision. Not sure he can help, but it's worth a shot. 

[GoldenOne]

Thank you so much for the support Chris!

I think an APx555 would open the doors to so much interesting content. And I don't just mean "What THD+N spec does X product I'm reviewing have".
It would open the doors to all sorts of experimentation of everything from digital sources, power, cables, setups, software, everything.
Not just seeing 'which measures better', but actually, PROPERLY looking into how things might be DIFFERENT. Which is something that honestly seems to be completely missing from most other objective testing and reviews.

And of course anything that others might suggest or want answered. It would be an immensely valuable tool and so I'm eager to make it happen.

Thank you!

[SoundAndMotion]

12 minutes ago, GoldenOne said:

Not just seeing 'which measures better', but actually, PROPERLY looking into how things might be DIFFERENT.

First off, I watched both MQA videos and want to commend you and say well done.

 

As for donating, I’m not so much cheap, as just very picky about where I spend money. But I’m very interested in your plans wrt the above quote. Please elaborate here or pm... I might like to $how my intere$t in a practical way...

 

[GoldenOne]

28 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

First off, I watched both MQA videos and want to commend you and say well done.

 

As for donating, I’m not so much cheap, as just very picky about where I spend money. But I’m very interested in your plans wrt the above quote. Please elaborate here or pm... I might like to $how my intere$t in a practical way...

 

Thank you very much!

Plans for content will evolve over time and be shaped by viewer feedback. But the use for the analyzer will be fairly extensive.

Firstly and perhaps most plainly, I'd like to use it to provide objective information with my reviews. This won't form the basis of any opinions and I will always measure a product AFTER subjective testing to avoid having it influence my thoughts. There are plenty of products I love that sound far from neutral and are not the epitome of measurement prowess..., and it'd be really interesting to explore more in-depth why they sound different. Why is it that the bifrost 2 sounds the way it does? It doesn't measure great but sounds so much fun.

But I'd also like to test things a bit more extensively than just "Here's THD+N goodbye".
Testing the jitter on different digital inputs, USB vs Coax vs AES etc. As many dacs have varying performance here. A recent example I tested being the schiit modius where the jitter on SPDIF/Coax/AES was poor regardless of the source device.

The analyzer could also be used to measure the jitter performance of DDCs directly as well, as the APx555 can completely demodulate the jitter from the signal itself and present it independently.

 

 

DDCs are a product area that I am particularly interested in, and there seem to be hardly any objective testing of.
Some examples of stuff I did on DDCs previously can be seen here:

Furthermore, products would be tested in 'normal' situations as well as test conditions. Different dacs might have poorer performance when connected directly to a PC vs a more ideal source for example. (As shown in the above video).

And even things such as cables. Previous testing I did showed that there was a repeatable, measurable difference between a generic 1m BNC cable and an Audioquest Carbon 1m BNC cable, even though the source device and DAC were unchanged.
I'd love to explore stuff like this further.

I think the idea would be to try to be as thorough as possible, testing stuff every which way, and seeing what changes performance.
And then looking at what the differences in measurements between products X and Y are and trying to get an implication of what measurements might be impacting the audible differences even though they are measuring to a degree that many would considder "transparent".

And of course, any theories or ideas that viewers might have. I thought actually it might be fun to do a video every month or so where I just quickfire test stuff from suggestions.
"Does dac X behave differently when upside down", "does the ifi ipurifier change anything on dac X", "how does a headphone impedance adapter for speaker amps change FR" etc.

So much interesting stuff that could be looked into. 

[SoundAndMotion]

Thanks for the thorough and enthusiastic response. I think I’m in.... going to watch a couple more of your videos, figure out what Discord benefits are, and discuss with the Finance Minister (it’s my money, but she decides) before deciding what level.

 

Sorry for being a dick, but I have to ask: do you know how to use the AP?

[GoldenOne]

18 minutes ago, SoundAndMotion said:

Thanks for the thorough and enthusiastic response. I think I’m in.... going to watch a couple more of your videos, figure out what Discord benefits are, and discuss with the Finance Minister (it’s my money, but she decides) before deciding what level.

 

Sorry for being a dick, but I have to ask: do you know how to use the AP?

Thank you very much!
Of course if I can answer any questions then do let me know.
In terms of videos with objective content, I'd recommend taking a peek at the DDC video, active vs passive preamps, and Bifrost 2 review.

As to the AP. I know how to use it yes, and also actually had a two hour call with a rep from audio precision walking through some of the more advanced features of the software.
I'd be lying if I said I knew EVERYTHING about it, but that's cause quite frankly the level of flexibility that device and software has is....beyond insane. Hence the nearly 800 page manual. I doubt there are many people who actually know how to use all of what the 555 offers.

But I do know how to use the AP software properly and how to correctly operate, prepare and discuss the measurements as well as identifying potential issues in tests and what may be causing them etc.

(Also have done plenty of measurements of stuff on the past though of course limited in performance by the hardware)

[fas42]

3 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

And even things such as cables. Previous testing I did showed that there was a repeatable, measurable difference between a generic 1m BNC cable and an Audioquest Carbon 1m BNC cable, even though the source device and DAC were unchanged.
I'd love to explore stuff like this further.

 

This is where the real movement in properly evaluating the behaviour of audio systems will come from - there is an audible change; therefore, there will be something to measure. The problem then becomes the determined blindness by many who do have access to the equipment, to not see anything meaningful in the measurements.

 

3 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

I think the idea would be to try to be as thorough as possible, testing stuff every which way, and seeing what changes performance.
And then looking at what the differences in measurements between products X and Y are and trying to get an implication of what measurements might be impacting the audible differences even though they are measuring to a degree that many would considder "transparent".

And of course, any theories or ideas that viewers might have. I thought actually it might be fun to do a video every month or so where I just quickfire test stuff from suggestions.
"Does dac X behave differently when upside down", "does the ifi ipurifier change anything on dac X", "how does a headphone impedance adapter for speaker amps change FR" etc.

So much interesting stuff that could be looked into. 

 

Fabulous thinking ... I'm looking forward to what you will come up with ... 👍👍👍.

[GoldenOne]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This is where the real movement in properly evaluating the behaviour of audio systems will come from - there is an audible change; therefore, there will be something to measure. The problem then becomes the determined blindness by many who do have access to the equipment, to not see anything meaningful in the measurements

Exactly! It's incredibly frustrating when a discussion can't be had because it goes something along these lines:

 

A: I think these two products sound different

B: impossible they both have 120dB sinad. 

A: I did an assisted double blind test and was able to correctly determine between them 

B: well the test must be wrong then. 

 

I just don't get it. Surely if there is a difference itd be in everyone's interest to explore what might be causing it? It seems that far too many people are determined not to find any reason that they could be different as you said. 

 

Personally I'd quite like to find out why these differences are present, and I'm sure others would too! 

[Currawong]

2 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

I just don't get it. Surely if there is a difference itd be in everyone's interest to explore what might be causing it? It seems that far too many people are determined not to find any reason that they could be different as you said. 

That's because those people aren't truly interested in science or objective truth, but only in validating their beliefs.  As we all know, people who put their beliefs over the truth (and self-discovery) do a disservice to everyone.

[opus101]

Colour me rather skeptical that an AP is going to uncover measurements which correlate with SQ differences in cables. An AP is great for verifying that a piece of kit is functioning within its design parameters but its a device for testing a piece of kit in isolation and that's both its supreme strength and its primary weakness. Many SQ differences are due to interactions between devices - in particular how they respond to CM noise - as far as I'm aware the AP has no means of quantifying CM noise.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let’s not turn this thread into a referendum on AP worthiness. 

[manisandher]

7 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

A: I think these two products sound different

B: impossible they both have 120dB sinad. 

A: I did an assisted double blind test and was able to correctly determine between them 

B: well the test must be wrong then.

 

Haha... sounds familiar 😉.

 

Best of luck with your endeavour.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

B: impossible they both have 120dB sinad.

 

11 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Haha... sounds familiar 😉.

 

Erm, you don't need that analyser to show differences. You need an other mindset than "but you won't be able to hear this" (under -120dB etc. etc. etc.).

 

Just saying : my mindset has been all right as long as I work on this stuff. I have that analyser as well; We create cables and DACs and what not, so I know what to expect. GoldenOne, by the time you need some pointers, just let me know. As long as you (or Chris) don't think I'm raining on your parade, it is fine.

 

I would have many first pointers, and I chose this one for today:

 

You won't get far without the experience of listening. Hence, you could see all kinds of spuria in contrary directions. It could take 10 years of reasoning out in writing to qualify them. For example, I wrote a few pages of essay on the subject of how the ultra lowest jitter clock (as in less than 1fs) sounded by far the worse (Mani may recall it). Later I proved with my own normal NOS1 ((rated at a theoretical 200fs) that tapping on the floor already implied jitter-changes (rated at a theoreticsl 200fs). I think I have screenshots of that. Again later I visited a university and observed a whatever it was low jitter requiring tiny device (I think it was telescope lense), assembled in a 5 meter wide and 7 meter high shock-absorber assembly, weighing a couple of tons. The jitter to achieve in there was higher than what I tried out with that ultra low jitter clock. ... I returned that clock.

 

So you see, like with the easy to understand turn table, DACs already can't be measured in a static environment. It requires music to play in order to catch the hammering of the sound waves via the floor and cabinet on to the oscillator(s). Measure without that and you'd having nothing of value. For Mani ... the NOS1 floating on water ... (many many pages of fun to begin with).

Leave out these more or less prerequisites and you'd measure the wrong thing.

 

Not-so-much-doable.

But from me too, the best of luck !

And most certainly ready to help, because the idea most certainly is fresh.

[Iving]

9 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

Exactly! It's incredibly frustrating when a discussion can't be had because it goes something along these lines:

 

A: I think these two products sound different

B: impossible they both have 120dB sinad. 

A: I did an assisted double blind test and was able to correctly determine between them 

B: well the test must be wrong then. 

 

I just don't get it. Surely if there is a difference itd be in everyone's interest to explore what might be causing it? It seems that far too many people are determined not to find any reason that they could be different as you said. 

 

Personally I'd quite like to find out why these differences are present, and I'm sure others would too! 

 

Yes - long-awaited fresh air blowing through an opened window.

 

There is, indeed, a yawning twilight zone in which SQ effects, reported by spontaneous consent around this Forum and elsewhere, *could* be attributable to expectation bias and other "brain phenomena", but which *may equally* be attributable to effects not yet unveiled in the objective realm.

 

Absence of evidence for something is not proof that the same thing does not exist. This kind of false logic is familiar to most of us. The researcher may have been turning over the wrong stones/misreading the theoretical map/insufficiently imaginative to date/short of resources etc. We may have condescended and laughed at the struggle  - but ridicule is no argument at all.

 

I had hoped that "top down" listening tests might close the gap. But such listening tests would demand reasonable numbers of impartial listeners preferably in a single geographical location ("lab"). Do-able. But probably a vain hope.

 

Armed with your clear technical credentials, your reasonable and human approach, your exceptional ability to articulate a position - and now an APx555 possibly - well consider me a moral subscriber. All power to your Audio Precision Analyzer elbow!

[GoldenOne]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Erm, you don't need that analyser to show differences. You need an other mindset than "but you won't be able to hear this" (under -120dB etc. etc. etc.).

 

Just saying : my mindset has been all right as long as I work on this stuff. I have that analyser as well; We create cables and DACs and what not, so I know what to expect. GoldenOne, by the time you need some pointers, just let me know. As long as you (or Chris) don't think I'm raining on your parade, it is fine.

 

I would have many first pointers, and I chose this one for today:

 

You won't get far without the experience of listening. Hence, you could see all kinds of spuria in contrary directions. It could take 10 years of reasoning out in writing to qualify them. For example, I wrote a few pages of essay on the subject of how the ultra lowest jitter clock (as in less than 1fs) sounded by far the worse (Mani may recall it). Later I proved with my own normal NOS1 ((rated at a theoretical 200fs) that tapping on the floor already implied jitter-changes (rated at a theoreticsl 200fs). I think I have screenshots of that. Again later I visited a university and observed a whatever it was low jitter requiring tiny device (I think it was telescope lense), assembled in a 5 meter wide and 7 meter high shock-absorber assembly, weighing a couple of tons. The jitter to achieve in there was higher than what I tried out with that ultra low jitter clock. ... I returned that clock.

 

So you see, like with the easy to understand turn table, DACs already can't be measured in a static environment. It requires music to play in order to catch the hammering of the sound waves via the floor and cabinet on to the oscillator(s). Measure without that and you'd having nothing of value. For Mani ... the NOS1 floating on water ... (many many pages of fun to begin with).

Leave out these more or less prerequisites and you'd measure the wrong thing.

 

Not-so-much-doable.

But from me too, the best of luck !

And most certainly ready to help, because the idea most certainly is fresh.

An analyzer isn't strictly necessary, but most certainly of immense help.
Though in this situation it's actually not entirely the hardware which would be the benefit. But the software. To be honest an ADI-2 Pro and 1khz notch gets you all the performance you could ever need for most 'standard' measurements.

But its the flexibility and configurability of the AP hardware/software package that makes them so immensely powerful and the reason why they're the industry standard even with many much much cheaper options available.

I appreciate the offer for help, I'm sure i'll be giving you a shout in future! Thank you!

[GoldenOne]

6 hours ago, Iving said:

Armed with your clear technical credentials, your reasonable and human approach, your exceptional ability to articulate a position - and now an APx555 possibly - well consider me a moral subscriber. All power to your Audio Precision Analyzer elbow!

Thank you very much! 
I really appreciate the support.

Though I would like to be clear that whilst I do like to think my communication skills are good, and I try my best to be reasonable and level-headed whenever I can, my technical credentials are only in the form of what is effectively hobbyist experience. 
I do not have a degree in EE and don't want to give anyone the false impression that I have that or something similar.

I've had my fair share of experience with related stuff, from building and racing electric cars to working for a company designing a smart-home lighting system, plus of course all of the audio stuff that I've done, but I want to be completely transparent that it is at the end of the day just experience and not professional qualifications.

Though I also don't think that professional qualifications are necessary for much of what I'm aiming to achieve. And I think that credentials top trumps is a bit of a problem in some other audio forums and not constructive in the slightest.
We should be encouraging EVERYONE who has an interest to try this sort of stuff.

[idiot_savant]

@GoldenOne I applaud your efforts to provide objective measurements and try to provide more in-depth analysis. I would be happy to offer advice/insight, so I’ll start with this:

As unpopular as this may be, I’d really recommend looking to the efforts John Atkinson has provided over the years - he’s truly done exceptional work, trying to keep measurements consistent and I believe him to be a thoroughly decent man. 
 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[GoldenOne]

Just now, idiot_savant said:

@GoldenOne I applaud your efforts to provide objective measurements and try to provide more in-depth analysis. I would be happy to offer advice/insight, so I’ll start with this:

As unpopular as this may be, I’d really recommend looking to the efforts John Atkinson has provided over the years - he’s truly done exceptional work, trying to keep measurements consistent and I believe him to be a thoroughly decent man. 
 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

I couldn't agree more.
I disagree with John on MQA but the work he's done over the years is exceptional and he's provided immense insight both into the objective performance of various products as well as the reasoning for and explanations of his own and other testing methodology and the impacts of what is being shown.

His work is a hugely valuable resource.

[opus101]

10 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

Though I also don't think that professional qualifications are necessary for much of what I'm aiming to achieve. And I think that credentials top trumps is a bit of a problem in some other audio forums and not constructive in the slightest.
We should be encouraging EVERYONE who has an interest to try this sort of stuff.

 

I agree - the people who impress me the most in audio are those who have zero establishment credentials. An excellent example of being self-taught is Paul Frindle - the most imaginative, curious and determined audio guy I've come across.

[Confused]

7 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

@GoldenOne I applaud your efforts to provide objective measurements and try to provide more in-depth analysis. I would be happy to offer advice/insight, so I’ll start with this:

As unpopular as this may be, I’d really recommend looking to the efforts John Atkinson has provided over the years - he’s truly done exceptional work, trying to keep measurements consistent and I believe him to be a thoroughly decent man. 
 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

In terms of a large number of consistent measurements, it is also worth looking at the work of Paul Miller.  (Hifi News / AVTech Miller Audio Research)

 

Interestingly, he started out as a chemist. 

(and he worked out that MQA was not all it was claimed to be)

[GoldenOne]

On 5/28/2021 at 7:17 AM, Confused said:

In terms of a large number of consistent measurements, it is also worth looking at the work of Paul Miller.  (Hifi News / AVTech Miller Audio Research)

 

Interestingly, he started out as a chemist. 

(and he worked out that MQA was not all it was claimed to be)

Yep paul miller certainly has some excellent stuff. Though I do wish the measurement suite was a little more thorough.

Which actually I suppose is a good question, what are some measurements that people wish were taken of more products?

[idiot_savant]

Well, I for one love measurements 😁

 

One of the things the Miller measurements have over the Stereophile ones are the sweeps, but one of the things Stereophile have over the Miller ones is the single - shot FFT being better. You’ve said you’re not an EE, and that’s fine, but sometimes measurements need some context/analysis/deeper dives, so I’d recommend reaching out to some of the more knowledgeable people on here - we already have ASR…

 

Again, I implore you to keep standardised conditions…

 

something to bear in mind is that there *may* be a bit of shenanigans going on for products dynamically optimising themselves for the AP test suite, feel free to ping me if you want a bit of devious thinking here

 

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[idiot_savant]

I’ve reread this, and sound like a right idiot…

 

I’m trying to applaud your efforts yet point out a bit of subtlety could be how you differentiate yourself from other measurement websites - it’s easy ( but not cheap! ) to just buy an AP and run the test suite…

 

your friendly neighbourhood idiot 

[opus101]

4 hours ago, GoldenOne said:

Which actually I suppose is a good question, what are some measurements that people wish were taken of more products?

 

Measuring sensitivity to common-mode noise would be at the top of the pile for me. Shouldn't be too difficult to measure but probably you'd need an external wideband power amplifier (not just an audio power amp) to get sufficient signal. AP's generator last time I used one went up to 200kHz - but that was decades ago - have they increased that top limit on their newer models?