firedog Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 1 hour ago, hopkins said: Here's another engineer (B.Putzeys) talking about the challenges of digital audio: https://www.stereonet.com/forums/topic/317371-bruno-putzeys-darko-interview/ Here's a well respected DAC designer (among other things) who actually uses measurements to some extent (as most serious engineers do) - he's talked about how he uses them, but I cannot find that link. In his view, measurements were never meant to be used as a complete framework for evaluating equipment performance. I actually have not listened to the whole interview but trust the short summary provided in the link is accurate. Be careful attributing ideas to Bruno if you haven't read or listened to much of what he's said. For instance, he has said that he can know how well an amp performs from measurements, but he takes multiple different ones. (maybe 25 AFAIR) and says that the problem isn't the lack of the ability of measurements to accurately predict amp performance, but the fact that most places (like ASR) don't perform enough - and not all the right ones - that accurately predict amp performance. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted July 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2021 12 hours ago, opus101 said: Ignoring 'subjective beliefs' for the moment, subjective experiences are the only things we have as humans to draw any conclusions from. Or am I missing something here? Why de-privilege audio subjective experiences from all the rest? Obviously, in the end we only have our subjective experiences to judge with (unless we buy audio equipment and never listen to it....). But the problem in audiophilia isn't that there is subjectivity. The problem, as I see it, is (a) the writing and discussion that turns each individual sighted subjective experience into a general rule for all - it's not; (b) the unwillingness or inability of many audiophiles to admit that expectation bias influences what they hear. In other words, you don't have "golden ears" and you CAN/DO fool yourself. You will make better judgements if you admit that possibility to yourself; (c) the attribution of cause and effect in audio without ANY scientific - or even logical - basis. Such as conclusions about "noise" and "jitter" without any knowledge of if there actually IS a change in noise and jitter in your system or at the output of your system. Paying thousands of dollars for something "low noise" in such a circumstance doesn't make a lot of sense, unless your position is that you want the best and don't care about the price, even if the expensive "best" isn't any better than something that costs much less, just to remove all doubt that you haven't maxed out your system. Obviously most of us can't do blind testing on everything we listen to. But if you NEVER do any kind of non sighted testing, and never get an idea of what does or doesn't make a difference (at least to your ears), you are highly likely to spend money on some new item that doesn't actually improve your SQ. I don't think the measurements at Archi's site or ASR are the "end all" in audio. But they do tell us something. They can direct us to consider that maybe something we think makes an important difference MIGHT not be audible to us in practice. Probably a good idea in that case to setup a non-sighted listening test to see if we can or can't hear such a difference. I'd also use those measurements to direct me towards low cost items that measure really well. Maybe that $125 Topping DAC doesn't sound as good as say, a $2000 Mytek DAC. But if it measures extremely well, it's probably a really good value. I'd buy that for an application that doesn't have to be the absolute best and be happy with it. Assuming the excellent measurements don't mean ANYTHING doesn't make much sense. And maybe that famous $15000 DAC or amp measured to have a relatively high distortion output is something to stay away from. It may "sound good", but maybe you are paying lots of money for euphonic distortion, and not accurate reproduction. I'd rather find a $15000 item that "sounds good" and also measures well. A lot less likely I'm fooling myself or paying for euphonic inaccuracy if I do that. Teresa, fas42, lucretius and 4 others 5 1 1 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
firedog Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 47 minutes ago, audiobomber said: Blind testing is an artificial construct, and short-term testing leads to error. Reality is listening in my room, to my system, with my music, for an extended period of time. If the equipment has a failing, I will notice eventually, and once I do, it will nag me until I fix it with a tweak oIr replace it. Nothing about the term blind testing demands short term listening. 47 minutes ago, audiobomber said: I have faith in my extended listening method ahead of any third party, manufacturer, blogger, reviewer or audiophile. Great, but then you are just one of the group of audiophiles that denies (against all scientific knowledge of human perception) that expectation bias matters. Sighted listening=expectation bias. And in spite of what many think expectation biases are not conscious. You have zero ability to know what your actual biases are. And btw, all speakers have technical compromises. Your speaker anecdote: means you picked the speakers you preferred, like we all do. It has zero to do with what I wrote. People have different tastes in speakers, and what sounds good or "like the real thing" or "musical" to one doesn't to another. And that isn't connected to measurements and accuracy per se, it's because we have different ideas in our heads about how it's "supposed to" sound. Personal taste. The speaker price difference isn't relevant in either direction. And we don't know about the measurements of the two speakers, anyway. Your implied assumption that the more expensive speaker measures better yet sounds worse, is just an assumption. In unsighted speaker listening tests, (see Harman) people generally prefer the same speakers when comparing, and not necessarily the more expensive ones. Those same listeners tended to pick different speakers when the listening was sighted and when sighted were heavily prejudiced towards larger, more expensive, more famous, etc. Whatever "is accepted" as better. https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/ is one link I found just now, that reflects some of their research. And the listeners in the link mentioned were experienced listeners. That's exactly why "I trust my ears" (re: sighted listening) is deceptive. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted July 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2021 7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: We should also not lose sight of all the other things that factor into purchasing decisions. Boiling it down to “it sounds best” or “it measures best” is a fool’s errand. I’m old enough to remember when LH Labs took several million dollars of peoples’ money, when Paul Hynes went out of business taking all the pre-order dollars with him, and many other cases of FireWire interfaces unsupported or USB drivers not updated. There are many more factors we should consider, in my opinion. I’ve yet to see a Gartner magic quadrant for HiFi companies, but it would be cool. Sure. Form factor, manufacturer support, convenience, looks and all sorts of things come into play. I'd be the first to admit I've bought components (even relatively more expensive ones) mostly for those reasons. Not necessarily SQ related. lucretius, The Computer Audiophile and Teresa 3 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now