Popular Post Archimago Posted July 17, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2021 On 7/15/2021 at 5:31 AM, botrytis said: So far the answer is no. There is a thread in the objective forum her that shows a well designed DAC should not allow noise from a PC go through to the analog output. I agree @botrytis. I haven't looked at the objective forum thread but all these years of testing and reading comments by people that say a linear power supply makes a difference (or silly USB filters like the JitterBug), I'm left scratching my head. Yes, one should try to keep one's DAC away from a noisy computer to reduce interference especially from busy CPU/GPUs. Yes, USB ports can be noisy. Indeed, we can use battery power to reduce noise. But in the big scheme of things, the differences are really tiny unless one does something silly like put the DAC right on top of the computer case running at 100% load! This week, I published some tests of the Topping D10s which is just a USB DAC with no power supply of its own. I measured it connected to the Raspberry Pi 3 B+ which @audiobomber claims is "very dirty" (which it might well be, who knows), yet the noise floor and resolution including multitone intermodulation testing doesn't show anything unusual/noisy. Likewise, I don't hear any issues - dead quiet when I connected it to my main system in the basement with low ambient noise and great playback resolution. Bottom line is that I see a lot of words by people who complain about noise, yet in all these years, where's the evidence? For those who have "issues" with switch mode power supplies, what exactly are you hearing? Is this something you've measured? Remember years ago Benchmark released their video of linear vs. switching power supply showing that there are times when the switching supply is in fact better. Take heed audiophiles because I think there's just too much nonsense out there with many people talking generalizations that are simply unsubstantiated. BassFace, MaxBuck, skikirkwood and 3 others 3 1 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted July 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 18, 2021 2 hours ago, opus101 said: There's no need for head scratching, its well established in the EE world that switching supplies are common-mode noise aggressors. https://www.eetimes.com/power-tip-47-tame-conducted-common-mode-emissions-in-isolated-switchers-part-1/# How do you know that these are issues affecting modern USB DACs? Engineers who make DACs these days are also aware of potential noise so will address them in the designs whether common mode or otherwise. So unless we can demonstrate an issue with the DAC output using the stock power supply that came with the device, no need being concerned, right? March Audio, Ajax, skikirkwood and 2 others 3 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted July 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 18, 2021 3 hours ago, fas42 said: In fact, I'm curious what people's experiences are, in general ... I doubt I am the only person who has heard a particular recording sound pleasant on one rig, and quite unpleasant on another - if both setups are supposedly somewhat "accurate", why is this? ... Unless you test this somehow, how do you know if the "supposed" accuracy is indeed the case? Besides, when it comes to "setups", usually we're dealing with variations in speakers, rooms, maybe amps. Much less likely that small fluctuations in the USB DAC (noise or other distortion) are the main issues. Teresa, Confused, botrytis and 2 others 3 1 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted July 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 18, 2021 1 hour ago, audiobomber said: I don't have a Jitterbug, but I have the somewhat similar iPurifier2, and it is beneficial with some DAC's. A common setup I've used is the iPurifier to clean the USB signal and the iPower with dual head USB cable to provide a cleaner 5V supply. This has made a significant improvement with several inexpensive DAC's. However the iPurifier2 degraded the sound when used downstream of an sMS-200. The linear power supplies I own all beat the basic iFi iPower SMPS. I have never heard any effect from proximity to the laptop, and I cannot hear any difference in the sound of a DAC whether the laptop is running on battery power, or the SMPS. I also did not notice any difference when I used an iPower on a Raspberry instead of the freebie wall wart. Digital noise and jitter do not cause hiss or hum, nor do they show up in SNR or frequency response graphs. They show up as high frequency blur and constricted soundstage, and affect PRaT. I bought and returned a Topping D50S, which has damn near perfect measurements. It was the worst DAC I've ever used, worse than cheap dongle DAC's, because it sucked the life out of the music. I have never claimed that LPS is superior to SMPS. It depends on the implementation. My listening tests with the new iPower X show it to be equal to a similarly priced Zero-Zone LPS, and to the Welborne Labs PS-REG I use on my sMS-200. I've heard a couple of manufacturers say that SMPS is better than LPS for some digital gear. I found this myself when I tried an LPS on my TP-Link switch. It actually degraded the sound of my system. The iPower X was an improvement over the stock wall wart, and the LPS. People should listen for themselves and decide what works for them. I like to see measurements of audio gear, but unfortunately static measurements of digital gear do not correlate with sound quality. Interesting discussion, thanks for the note. Obviously at the end of the day, I cannot speak to your preferences and what you hear. I have heard the Topping D50s and it sounded fine on a friend's system so I assume there are individual preferences here and I would not know what "sucked the life out of the music" since I think many people have no issues with it. Tell me, what is this "digital noise" you speak of and what do you think "jitter" does when music is playing? Do you not think the "high frequency blur" will show up in testing? Since some of these characteristics like the "blur", constricted sound stage are audible in your experience, can you hypothesize as to a test design that would differentiate DACs? Also, let's talk about PRaT - Pace, Rhythm, and Timing - are those characteristics not testable in the temporal domain? March Audio, botrytis and Ajax 2 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted July 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 18, 2021 27 minutes ago, opus101 said: Since its not an issue of the DAC, rather the power supply, it affects not just USB DACs and not just 'modern' DACs. S/PDIF fed DACs can have common-mode noise susceptibility too. Sure, but the audio signal is characterized by the electrical output from the DAC to your amplifier. What do you think is wrong with the output signal to suggest power supply related issues are present (whether it's USB or S/PDIF)? Do you have a specific example of this issue? [By the way, in my testing I have come across power supply related issues like with the Tascam UH-7000 which as it warmed up, ultrasonic noise was introduced by the power supply.] Quote Do you have evidence of engineers awareness of potential noise issues? I think Schiit engineers may be aware (that's just a guess though) but are engineers in general? No, it isn't just about 'the DAC output' because typically that gets measured normal-mode. Well, over the years I have spoken to a few DAC "audiophile industry" designers. People you would know if I named them but that's not really relevant here since I don't think they generally want to participate on consumer forums ;-). And I have seen some of the internal testing documents (that cannot be released of course). Let's just say that noise level testing is a very important parameter for everyone and it's done on multiple levels from the power supply output noise to of course balanced and unbalanced outputs. If there is a noise issue that can be addressed, I cannot imagine that they would not fix it. (To be clear, the DACs these guys I've spoken to make are not cheap!) So when I hear that aftermarket companies are making power supplies or noise filters that somehow improve performance, I'd certainly like to see what the deficiencies are and then how the products have fixed the issues. botrytis and March Audio 1 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted July 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2021 2 hours ago, Rexp said: You still don't get it, there are no measurements that correlate with the listening experience. You science guys have failed to develop the appropriate tech. I guess this is a fundamental disagreement here which I think is important to address. What I'm interested in (and I suspect many "objective" types) is actually not whether any one person's listening experience is felt to be "good" or "bad". Subjective experience is simply the emergent property of that individual. It might not correlate with the impressions of others, and often it might not even be a function of the device's ability to reproduce audio with high fidelity. Over the years as I've done stuff like blind tests whether in person or with some of the online feedback, it's abundantly clear that when we're talking about relatively high quality source material, subjective opinion is highly variable. For example, years ago, I ran a 16-bit vs. 24-bit blind test. Here's the subjective feedback: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/07/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-iii.html Notice that the answers run the range from something the likes of "hard to tell" to folks who were able to described stuff like "spaciousness" or "details". Then there's the person who basically did an ABX and found they were "50%" even though he/she thought there was a difference initially! Despite all these subjective opinions, we clearly know what the difference is objectively between the potentials of 16-bits vs. 24-bits. Why should we even bother "correlating with the listening experience"? Whose listening experience?! Assuming we have 2 high quality devices (a poor device will clearly sound deficient), I actually think engaging too much with subjective evaluation is a fool's errand without blinded comparisons. It simply triggers emotional insecurities, obsessions, and "what ifs?" that may not be true at all. Pair that with all the subjective talk in magazines and forums about how "awesome", perhaps more "hyped" some upgrade / cable / DAC / de-jitterfier / low-noise power supply / etc... might be and you end up with the risk for insecurities and becoming neurotic when one might have been better off just listening to music and enjoying it! When I have a "standard" DAC (these days typically my RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition) and a "comparison" DAC side-by-side, then maybe I can make some consistent comments - but even then it's within the context of the whole system, room, ambient noise level, listener experience / hearing acuity, etc. Don't forget that also whether a certain piece of music sounds good for the "listening experience" is actually the domain of the artist and production team. I can have a wonderful "listening experience" from music played off the FM radio in my car with Bose speakers (yes, I have those ;-) as much as in some megabuck system demo. How we allow ourselves to emotionally experience the music is a whole other dimension which "hardware audiophiles" might also not talk about enough. Teresa and DuckToller 2 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Popular Post Archimago Posted July 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 19, 2021 12 hours ago, PeterSt said: I don't see much how anyone, self-acclaimed objectivist, can be interested in what any two or 200 person's listening experiences are because you set your mind in advance to what can and what can not be. It is supported by well-documented etc. stuff, so why would you care. I say: you don't care at all (this is not personal-addressed btw, but you could help working this out). So ... I don't think I've set my mind "in advance". The point is that subjective beliefs and experiences are too unreliable to draw many conclusions from. What "well documented" stuff are you talking about? I do care, but not about everything that some people claim. Quote So IMHO all you do is going against otherwise (for decades and beyond) very well recognized audiophile terms and experiences and indeed spoil the fun of those who are sure they hear the phenomenon in order. So indeed, why would you care ? You don't. But, you try to improve the world ? Again, what "well recognized audiophile terms and experiences" are you referring to? There are plenty of claims over the decades that seem to be without merit. For example, .all kinds of people talk about "jitter" for decades now... As far as I can tell, it's not the objective folks who use this term often for sound quality yet the objective definition seems to be co-opted as if subjectively a significant property. Is this one of these "well recognized audiophile terms" you're referring to with "experience" and perhaps "fun" to talk about? But is it for real? Quote And so it now appears that we're not even allowed to talk about PRaT any more, BUT if one dares to challenge its existence it out of all turns into attack envelope sustain, decay and release. Sure. This (again IMHO) all turns into one big mess and nothing is left from this hobby. Feel free to talk about PRaT. I'm not stopping you even if I voice uncertainly about the meaning or usefulness of this. I don't know if you mean to sound this way, since clearly English is not your primary language, but the whole "attack envelope sustain..." bit sounds a bit dramatic??? Quote A kazillion attributes belong to amps, dacs, speakers and cables and even fuses. They all live in our subjective minds but may be real just the same. But if no-one is allowed to talk about such phenomena or else he gets burned, then there's nothing left to do out here but watching the few who seem to rule this world where all sounds the same. Btw, there would also not be left anything to develop - just saying. Again, who's stopping you from talking about this? I'm just asking questions and stating that I don't see these things as concerns and voice my opinion that "fuses" and such things are likely Snake Oil. Just because some people in this world subjectively believe in something or other doesn't mean I'm here to literally stop individuals from such beliefs. Feel free to engage and demonstrate that some of these things (like fuses) make a difference in the audio chain... I'm happy that audio can and should develop but also OK with the idea that maybe much of audio tech is also matured. In the big picture there are still places we can proceed in audio - multichannel, better Class-D, DSP tech, active speakers may be examples of things to do and develop even if area like standard 2-channel DACs, cables, traditional amps might already be excellent. Quote If someone has an opinion on how PRaT could be improved (like accurately following the transients - as a suggestion from someone), then other opinions are obviously the most welcome. Everybody may learn from it - me surely too. It could even be an interesting subject because it would be a most difficult one. The response(s) should not be in the magnitude of "show me measurements about that or else you have been smoking too much". I agree, not everyone has measurements to show. Realize that I rarely intrude into other people's business. For example, I don't think you've seen me in your Lush^* thread, right? However, on a "General Forum" like here, I see nothing wrong with stating an opinion when it comes to a general question like USB power and suggesting that people have some evidence for claims like "noise" before getting all excited about what may be a lot of nothing! As for PRaT, I certainly welcome reasoned opinions and discussions as to how a person determined for him/herself whether something works to improve it or not. And what method is used to optimize this... Quote Something else would be that those who claim that PRaT only emerges during the recording - or even the playing by the artist, clearly don't even know what PRaT is or means. The fact that you never heard (of) it, means that you should stay out of the discussion and not that you like to see measurements of it, of which everybody knows that they won't exist in the first place. ?? When did I say I never "heard of it". Who is the "everybody" you speak of ?? Quote So all you explicitly create is fight. Maybe that is the fun of 2021 (and really introduced by March Audio), but I don't think it is fun at all. Sorry for the rant, but it greatly disturbs me, and I think I am not alone. Likewise, this mindset you have is disturbing on many levels as well... And perhaps worse when I'm not sure I even understand what you mean a lot of the time. danadam, pkane2001 and botrytis 2 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Archimago Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 26 minutes 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. Yes, but also make sure to balance Putzey's comments with what he says elsewhere and how he approaches issues: https://www.soundstagexperience.com/index.php/wesworld-menu/feature-articles-reviews-menu/720-bruno-putzeys-navigates-toward-the-state-of-the-art https://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/amp-myths-negative-feedback Back in 2011 he also had a white paper talking about the "baroque prose" of high fidelity writings: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/28060563/ncore-technology-white-paper-hypex Things are complicated. But let's keep it rational. botrytis 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Archimago Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 20 hours ago, hopkins said: Gee, thanks for the reminder. You're welcome. The way some people talk, you'd think that (noiseless) USB cables are the source of eargasm. botrytis 1 Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Archimago Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 hour ago, firedog said: 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 $15000 item that "sounds good" and also measures well. A lot less likely I'm fooling myself or paying for euphonic inaccuracy if I do that. Thanks @firedog, I'll buy that :-). Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. Link to comment
Archimago Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 On 7/20/2021 at 1:35 AM, hopkins said: I understand (from previous comments here) that Salvatore is a controversial figure, but I do find his articles interesting. Here is another one on "sound floor": http://www.high-endaudio.com/rec.html#Noise The concluding paragraphs are interesting, as he discusses his efforts to convert "hard-core audio sceptics". ... when these objectivists finally admitted hearing the extra information (provided usually by tube electronics), they always went on to say that it was "much too subtle" to be concerned about, and usually further stated that they "couldn't understand how anyone could make such a 'big deal' about almost nothing". These events were rare and tiny "victories" for me, though still quite satisfying. This was because I always had the same last words ready for the objectivist: "It's the love and pursuit of these same audio 'subtleties' that defines an audiophile." Perhaps some of us are more or less sensitive to particular aspects of sound reproduction, whatever the reason may be? (I'm not saying "audiophiles" have special hearing abilities). What is important to one person may be irrelevant to another. Are these "subtleties" essential? When I'm listening to music on my phone with my 20$ Porta Pro headphones I cannot hear them, but I still enjoy what I'm listening to! But sometimes I tell myself: I can't wait to listen to this track on my speakers 🙂 We also have to acknowledge that our hearing is still an ongoing topic in scientific research. What makes it so sensitive (probably more so than audition tests may reveal)? Here's one interesting read: https://news.mit.edu/2007/hearing-1010 On 7/20/2021 at 9:39 AM, audiobomber said: Objectivist websites and bloggers say that digital noise and jitter don't exist, or don't matter. Audiophile manufacturers say they do matter, and design accordingly. I have not found any correlation between what Objectivists say, and my personal experience. I have found that what certain designers (e.g. John Westlake, Ed Meitner, George Klissarov, etc.) say, is valid in my listening experience. 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. The problem is, what Archi and Amir say I can't hear, I say I can hear. I have faith in my extended listening method ahead of any third party, manufacturer, blogger, reviewer or audiophile. There are plenty of people on ASR who believe a $200 Topping is as good as a $2000 Mytek because of Amir's bullshit. I replaced the D50S with a Modi 3 that lists for half the price and got better sound. None of the measurements answer either of these two situations, so what good are they to me? The answer is... not much. Yet I do read them, just as I read the manufacturer's website and every review I can find, pro and amateur when researching gear. My goal is to enjoy music. Anything that adds to my enjoyment is good. I've heard plenty of gear that would be reviled by objectivists, yet sounded awesome. Here's a recent example where I chose musicality over accuracy: A friend loaned me a pair of PMC DB1 Gold mini-monitors ($2500 in Canada). I tried them in three of my systems. They were not good enough to last more than a few minutes in my main or desktop systems due to a closed-in top end and obvious dynamic compression. I thought they might replace the $500 Raw-1F speakers in my small system. Both are small standmounts, 8-ohms, the RAW-1F slightly more sensitive. The main difference, other than 5X price, is that the PCM is a two-way, whereas the Raw uses a single full-range driver. Everyone knows that a single driver entails technical compromise, fans believe there are advantages. At first I didn't notice much to sway me one way or the other; the PMC was more detailed, the Raw was livelier. My wife preferred the Raw immediately. After a week, I was desperate to change back. I was missing the life and dynamics of the Raw. The PMC made music less engaging, less interesting which to me is the cardinal sin in audio. Fascinating discussions... Whether it's Salvatore's claims about the "sound floor", or claims of whether "digital noise" or "jitter" exists, it's hard to discuss these things when: 1. There are typically no specifics given to discuss or investigate a lot of times. We have to always be careful about gross generalizations. What subtle "sound floor", or what "almost nothing" difference is Salvatore talking about? What device with what "jitter" are we concerned about? What "digital noise" are we talking about that could be audible? I can speak for myself if I hear a difference, and I can try my best to express why I think it does/doesn't matter (like say the jitter demo, or why I believe "Bits Are Bits"), but I leave it to each person to explore and agree or disagree. Who knows @audiobomber, maybe you're right and can hear something I can't hear. No problem with you having "faith" in your own ears - as a hobby, I don't expect you to have anything else but what you experience as pleasurable or not. Alas, I don't really have much faith in the testimony of audio writers these days given the years of questionable claims. Years of magazine-reading that have led me nowhere in terms of actual knowledge or understanding. If anything, magazines made me neurotic about whether my wires were good enough or whether little differences we "jitter" or not for example! (A little like fashion magazines causing young folks to struggle with body image?) Heck, if I had faith in audio writers, maybe I would never bother to investigate mQa, right? Would we all be better for it to just accept these claims at face value? I don't think so! Instead of testimony, I challenge folks to do a little more work and demonstrate the differences heard. At least be very specific about what the belief is so things can be investigated. We are dealing with engineered products, not "creations of God", so let's take steps to examine and investigate. There's nothing miraculous here, just electronics and physics. To me, purely subjective folks who claim this or that ("better dynamics!", "better frequency extension!", "huge soundstage!"), but either will not or cannot take the next step and try to show the effect really do not propel the hobby forward in any meaningful way. All these years of "high end cables" for example - has any of this resulted in any progress? If there is no forward trajectory, then how is there actual knowledge gained that we can build on as opposed to a never-ending cycle of consumerism? 2. How do we know that it's even those putative factors that have any relation to why we enjoy something? How do we know differences have anything to do with jitter for example unless we test it? Over the years with some of the online blind tests, I have seen individuals give responses that they're sure of because they could "clearly" hear it. This was brought home to me with the first MP3 vs. lossless blind test back in 2013 when a guy was insistent that he "knew" which tracks were MP3 because he "knew" the difference was because of lossless distortion! Well, he was wrong when I unblinded the results and he was never heard from again. This is why I check, and double check. When I find an anomaly (like this past week showing that DSD playback on the Topping D90SE was not as good as AKM DACs), I make sure I try to listen for myself. Sometimes I might have a subtle impression that something's not right, other times, if a signal is down at -110dB or something like that, I can be pretty sure it's not a problem in my system. This is part of the fun. To be able to run measurements gives me another avenue to explore what is or is not important. When I find an anomaly that "golden ears" should have noticed (for example, did anyone notice the 24/48 bug in JPLAY?), this provided another avenue to appreciate the limits of human hearing. 3. Objective and subjective analysis are both essential. One tells me what "is", the other tells me what is "good" (for me) as an audiophile. I would rather share more of the objective stuff because that applies to all of us. I'm of course happy to share my personal subjective impressions as well (this week let's talk about some music and the Topping D90SE for example), but I know what I feel, or perceive, is not as important nor applicable to everyone so I place subjective sharing lower in priority. I know that technical perfection is not always better BTW. Sometimes a bit more harmonics, a slightly higher noise floor, a bit of roll-off sounds great. I appreciate that vinyl has its charms, tube amps can bloom, and vintage speakers allow for a type of nostalgia modern "accurate" speakers cannot do. Inherent in this I believe is a sense of humility in being human and the frailties of being this biological creature; on this Earth to learn about the nuances but bold enough to call out BS as well. Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile. Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism. R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press. 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