Popular Post BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2021 On 7/19/2021 at 12:01 AM, fas42 said: No. The closer the system is to achieving high transparency to the recording, the less important are speakers, room, etc; and the more important is the absence of noise and similar issues - the crossover to convincing illusion status only occurs when the latter is sufficiently sorted. Got to question this. Room is probably the biggest factor and you seem to be dismissing this, leading me to think you dont really know what you are on about... botrytis, Jeff_N, Teresa and 1 other 4 Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Audio Science experts? Are you sure about that? Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 On 7/19/2021 at 4:46 AM, Rexp said: Only Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee hahaha Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 37 minutes ago, BassFace said: Google is your Friend 👍 All right, I've got Google here ... what do I feed it, to find " Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt"? Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 minute ago, fas42 said: All right, I've got Google here ... what do I feed it, to find " Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt"? Im not your personal secretary but Im sure if you were to look properly instead of a smarty pant reply you'll find it in no time 👍 Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 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 Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 hour ago, BassFace said: Im not your personal secretary but Im sure if you were to look properly instead of a smarty pant reply you'll find it in no time 👍 Thank you for being helpful ... Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 minute ago, fas42 said: Thank you for being helpful ... Thank you for your poor sarcasm. Link to comment
fas42 Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 hour ago, hopkins said: 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 Anyone who has little trouble distinguishing a situation of conventional quality audio playback from the "real thing" will appreciate what a competent system brings to the table - the fact that the latter is still far too rare is a sad indicator of the state of the industry; largely caused by the lack of decent research into the sensitivity of the ear/brain to disturbing anomalies. And has led to the appalling SQ of most sound reinforcement setups - people are so used to the terribleness of the general standard that they actually expect that this is "how it should sound!" ... help !!! Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 4 hours ago, BassFace said: Google is your Friend 👍 That’s a rich statement in many ways 🙂 BassFace 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: That’s a rich statement in many ways 🙂 Hahahaha Very true 😆, although I suppose it depends what side your bread is buttered. I suspect Google is more of an associate to most and an un wanted friend to many others. 😆 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 16 minutes ago, BassFace said: Hahahaha Very true 😆, although I suppose it depends what side your bread is buttered. I suspect Google is more of an associate to most and an un wanted friend to many others. 😆 Yes! 🤣 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
audiobomber Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 6 hours ago, BassFace said: I can highly recommend reading and watching Rob Watt's from Chord Electronics talk about this in his DAC design. He goes into how a change in sound to you doesnt mean its better. Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt. He also touches on Galvanic Isolation in relation to cutting USB noise. If I like the sound better, then it's better. End of story. I can be fooled for a little while, but extended listening will tell the truth. Teresa 1 Main System: QNAP TS-451+ NAS > Silent Angel Bonn N8 > Sonore opticalModule Deluxe v2 > Corning SMF with Finisar FTLF1318P3BTL SFPs > Uptone EtherREGEN > exaSound PlayPoint and e32 Mk-II DAC > Meitner MTR-101 Plus monoblocks > Bamberg S5-MTM sealed standmount speakers. Crown XLi 1500 powering AV123 Rocket UFW10 stereo subwoofers Upgraded power on all switches, renderer and DAC. Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 43 minutes ago, audiobomber said: If I like the sound better, then it's better. End of story. I can be fooled for a little while, but extended listening will tell the truth. Cool, does that mean you wont be commenting anymore then? Nice one Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Let's take a step back guys. We all have much more in common than we think and are here because we enjoy this wonderful hobby. There's no need to "win" an argument or "score" points in a forum thread. What we all said two pages ago has long been forgotten for everyone because our lives are so busy and filled with other things. It's the good stuff and the helpful posts that people remember and bookmark here on AS. Let's get on with the business of having fun and enjoying this hobby even more than we already do. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Summit Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 6 hours ago, BassFace said: Got to question this. Room is probably the biggest factor and you seem to be dismissing this, leading me to think you dont really know what you are on about... Not with headphones 😉. Frank, well he like to challenge things.... Link to comment
Popular Post Summit Posted July 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2021 8 hours ago, BassFace said: I can highly recommend reading and watching Rob Watt's from Chord Electronics talk about this in his DAC design. He goes into how a change in sound to you doesnt mean its better. Infact he proves how people are actually wrong when they think a DAc sounds brighter, clearer etc when it actually doesnt. He also touches on Galvanic Isolation in relation to cutting USB noise. First of all he is an independent design consultant, and not employee of Chord. Have been for very long time . Second of all he have never said that the sound can't be bright. The truth is he often says that if the DAC and source sound bright it's because of RFI (which btw is his SQ enemy number 1). Rob even state that if a digital sounds more detailed and brighter it's because of noise and we should seek a smooth and darker sound. audiobomber, fas42 and Teresa 1 1 1 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. kumakuma, lucretius, PeterSt 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
Summit Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Expectation bias is so strong that some doesn't even need to hear the gear or system at all to know that it can't affect SQ. PeterSt 1 Link to comment
BassFace Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 6 minutes ago, Summit said: First of all he is an independent design consultant, and not employee of Chord. Have been for very long time . Second of all he have never said that the sound can't be bright. The truth is he often says that if the DAC and source sound bright it's because of RFI (which btw is his SQ enemy number 1). Rob even state that if a digital sounds more detailed and brighter it's because of noise and we should seek a smooth and darker sound. I didnt say he was an employee, i simply stated the info for the purpose of someone searching it online, even then they expected me to do it for them. Secondly thats the same thing I was trying to explain but thought its much better to point in the right direction for someone else. Im sure your aware of the near 300 page if not more topic on another site where he regularly answers all question put too him. He explains to folk that what they perceive as bright or airy when changing power supply's is actually signal degradtion not better sound. Im merely repeating what he has said himself. fas42 1 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
Popular Post audiobomber Posted July 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2021 2 hours ago, firedog said: 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. 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. Quote 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. 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. Quote 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. 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. Quote 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. 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. Quote 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. 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. fas42 and Teresa 2 Main System: QNAP TS-451+ NAS > Silent Angel Bonn N8 > Sonore opticalModule Deluxe v2 > Corning SMF with Finisar FTLF1318P3BTL SFPs > Uptone EtherREGEN > exaSound PlayPoint and e32 Mk-II DAC > Meitner MTR-101 Plus monoblocks > Bamberg S5-MTM sealed standmount speakers. Crown XLi 1500 powering AV123 Rocket UFW10 stereo subwoofers Upgraded power on all switches, renderer and DAC. 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 The Computer Audiophile Posted July 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 20, 2021 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. lucretius and Superdad 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems 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