Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

Oh gawd… not again.

ASR fits a religion to the T. Doesn’t matter if its science or astrology, the religious aspects have nothing to do with the topic but the social aspect - like someone said, you just need a self proclaimed guru and authority figure and many highly recruitable people.

All religions and especially cults have in common the removal of the individual or personal experiences and are replaced by symbols that a leader "channels" and "interprets" for the followers. Any dissonance from people who experience something different are stamped out by foot soldiers, who then re-emphasize the Leader's authority and unique interpretation abilities. 

Carl Jung said that despite all the science progress of the last century, all human beings still yearn for religion on a primal level, and that modern science progress has forced this desire into our unconscious where we can become unaware of new ways we participate. He suggested that rather follow leaders and popular symbols, we learn to read our own personal, empirical experiences that our body and soul tell us, in conjunction with science. In that sense, hi-fi for me is a spiritual, but not religious, experience.

the funniest ASR guys are the ones who love vinyl but feel the need to qualify every statement about records or turntables with "look, i know it's not as good as digital, yes i understand that objectively i deserve to be criticized for it, but..." because they're scared of being cyberbullied by computer nerds. no self respect 😂

LPs make for a circular argument then.

the funniest ASR guys are the ones who love vinyl but feel the need to qualify every statement about records or turntables with "look, i know it’s not as good as digital, yes i understand that objectively i deserve to be criticized for it, but..." because they’re scared of being cyberbullied by computer nerds. no self respect 

When you look at the virtual systems of members here you typically see quality rooms that are treated, quality gear, and everyone seems to be looking to share.

The head panther over at ASR sticks a pair of expensive speakers in a room with nothing but dry wall, a hard floor, a microphone and a rug and to me, that is a monumental waste, of speakers, of the time spent listening, and sadly of the lost people following the pied piper over the cliff. 

Guess so @prof if junk from china is your thing. 

Well, some people prefer to benefit from information that can help them spend their money more wisely, others not so much I guess.

If I were thinking I needed to spend extra money on a "high end" USB cable to ensure I get good sound, I’d really appreciate people like Amir putting this stuff under the microscope and explaining the lack of plausibility to such claims:

 

 

 

Of course, anyone who relies in the idea their perception is infallible and trumps all theory, measurements or expert knowledge, won’t be the type to use such info.

 

 

@kota1 : Yup! And it works. Think about it. Blame AmirM what you want, but he is very smart. He figured out his niche on the market.

Often, it’s not even graphs. I am willing to bet the majority of those guys don’t know how to read the graphs. Neither do they care. A Point system by the measurement guru & authority is what all it takes. Two data inputs from the comfort of mom’s basement bed: points by the guru system, and price. Boom! Done. Ka-Ching 

@kota1

Think of the paradigm shift, manufacturers quickly figure out the cheapest way to make a graph look good because their market will convince themselves it sounds good because of the graph, no matter what.

Topping, surely. Sanctified by Mejidimehr-Al-Sinad, cheap enough to impulse buy with a click.

@thyname I know it is an accurate assessment, I can visualize an online shopper looking at graphs and clicking the Buy Now button without even knowing anything else. Think of the paradigm shift, manufacturers quickly figure out the cheapest way to make a graph look good because their market will convince themselves it sounds good because of the graph, no matter what.

 

Well...you could actually point out the flaw in the reasoning that makes it so funny.

But if that's too much to ask and you want to keep it to an inside joke....sorry for replying.  I thought this forum was about conversations and not just snark.

@kota1 :

too funny :)🤣

Not a joke. This is exactly how those people operate. To the dot. See comments above

 

Yup. Stare on those graphs, and you will know exactly how it will sound. This way, one can “audition” and compare dozens of DACs from the comfort of their home without lifting a finger or spending any money 🙄🤦‍♂️

Pretty much… if we see a spray of harmonics it tells us a lot.
We may not know how good it will sound, but it can certainly tell us how bad it should sound.

Do you find it perplexing that most of the equipment that many seem to like listening to have a similar harmonic structure, and that the harmonics are generally low… and that they also measure pretty good?

Or why is there a correlation?

Is it just luck?

 

@thyname We can compare this to praying, versus going to the doctor.
Most people still go to the doctor… so maybe the lord works in mysterious ways both in medicine as well as in electronics.

It is not like the sound comes from magic. There is some engineering that people have done to reveal the things we call refer to secularly as theory.

It is not a parallel universe, or tribal thing, unless we make it so. The science and the listening pleasure seem largely correlated and causal.

But there is also the psychological element of knowing that <high buck item> should sound better than some other <low buck> item.

Not understanding graphs and measurement is OK. One can avoid them, and there is no reason to hate them or find contempt/disgust in people that find them useful.

Yup. Stare on those graphs, and you will know exactly how it will sound. This way, one can “audition” and compare dozens of DACs from the comfort of their home without lifting a finger or spending any money 🙄🤦‍♂️

You say that like it's a bad thing ;-)

I certainly appreciate the fact that measurements can let me know if A is likely to sound any different from B, especially if A is far more expensive.  Yes..it certainly is a time saver and potential money saver.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

My further thought:   Information is good. Just use it wisely. 

@thyname +1, too funny :)🤣

Yup. Stare on those graphs, and you will know exactly how it will sound. This way, one can “audition” and compare dozens of DACs from the comfort of their home without lifting a finger or spending any money 🙄🤦‍♂️

… What exactly are Amir's instruments incapable of measuring that you can hear?

I can picture some of the filter roll off and preringing in a DAC might be something that’s not covered in a SINAD of a tone, or 2 tone measurement.

 

prof  soundstage, imaging, and note decay, and that's just off the top of my head.

Decay is likely rolled up in impulse response.
Sound stage (left/right) might be rolled up on crosstalk.
Fore/aft is probably wrapped up in Klipple measurements for speakers.

But imaging is something that happens in the head.

 

invalid,

Are you suggesting that those parameters are not contained within the measurements used by Amir?  How would you show that?

First, there are measurements that correspond with things like the soundstage being perceived as bigger (e.g. measurable influence of reflections and also speaker dispersion on those measurements), imaging (good cross-talk measurements, proper balance in both channels reaching the ear etc), good "note decay" would be implied in low distortion, etc.

Also, depending on the gear, you can do things like null tests which, if the results are the same, imply no change to the signal is occurring between the measured components.  It would be question-begging to assert that nonetheless the signal had changed audibly (without some very strong evidence for that claim, beyond anecdote).

@prof  soundstage, imaging, and note decay, and that's just off the top of my head.

 

@clustrocasual 

This is a non sequitur, but I listened to the top measured products on ASR

Sounds like a lot of gear!  Which gear?

compared to some which measured worse,

Which ones?

That could help put your post in to some perspective.

Because of course, they are not measuring everything you can hear.

How do you know that?  Instruments are developed to augment our capabilities, to the point of detecting things humans can't detect.  What exactly are Amir's instruments incapable of measuring that you can hear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a non sequitur, but I listened to the top measured products on ASR compared to some which measured worse, and I was shocked at how bad the top ones sounded by comparison. Because of course, they are not measuring everything you can hear. Like a good magician setting up a card trick, Amir will narrow your lens of perception before the trick begins.

Never thought about that forum again after that.

 

@ddd1 +1

 

Just read their review of the SMSL M500 MKIII, where they said that the XLR and USB ports are too close together and you cannot remove the right XLR cable when the USB is plugged in since spacing on the back is too tight (design flaw).  Yet everyone including Amir just loved it!  If what's on the outside where everyone can see is flawed I wonder about worse design flaws on the inside.  Too many reviews where the first post is like the second coming and by the end post the flaws start showing up and you have to send the broken thing back to China.  I don't mind reading their test results but wouldn't buy anything they recommend unless it is also recommended by sites I trust.

It could be just the SPDIF as the streaming section sounds okay (only checked with iPhone USB connection).  There are two SPDIF inputs and one lacks bass response with an even leaner sound compared to the other.  Design or implementation flaw somewhere.  I'm selling it.   Again, manufacturers often do not provide details of their design (often considered proprietary) and/or measurements.  

@fleschler in your case Ti BB outdated DAC chip could be limiting factor by itself.. also, I don’t see post-DA converter and filter / ref-clk  design details, therefore it’s hard to say what affects midrange in your case.

@westcoastaudiophile  My COS Engineering D1v $9K DAC is built like the DAC you prefer, exceptionally well. https://6moons.com/audioreviews2/cos/3.html  (innards)  However, it lacks body in the midrange compared to the D2v, my modded Benchmark and my friend's modded Emotiva.   C'est la vie!  

Add to Charles Hansen’s list the quality of the USB implementation. While asynchronous USB can be the preferred connection, much depends on the RMI/EFI rejection of the USB port. And not to forget: the clocking accuracy of the USB connection. If I may, a little hint: anybody who hasn’t regenerayed the 5V USB connection from the streamer hasn’t yet heard what their DAC is capable of.

@fleschler +1 "it's not so much the DAC chip but the implementation of the entire DAC unit” 

I prefer DACs with: 1) separate DAC Chip for left and right channel, two or four in parallel for each for better interpolation 2) avoiding OPAMPs in signal path, ideally class-A discrete output (Gustard A-22). 3) separate digital and analog power supplies, and ground 4) at least two stage linear power supply, with lowest possible ESR capacitors 5) low noise discrete transistors 5) decent clock generator 6) at least four layer PCB

@fleschler, I hear you. First generation DAC1 owner, turbo-modded in 2007 by legendary Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio (accomplished DAC, USB, and Ethernet designer.)

Even after extensive mods these older Benchmark DAC's still benefit from a re-clocked data stream. 

My friend who "re-engineered" parts (analog section) and upgraded & added so many caps, regulators and resistors to the Benchmank and Emotiva DACs said the DAC chip were fine but that some are better than others.  He also suggested changing/upgrading the op-amp.  My electronics engineer neighbor said his friends all recommend the Burson op-amp. Charles Hansen was right, it's not so much the DAC chip but the implementation of the entire DAC unit.

it's the stuff around the chip that matter. 

Absolutely! I feel sorry for those who don’t get this pretty simple fact. 
 

I will copy / paste below what Charlie Hansen (Ayre) said before he died:

———-

The thing that I see over and over and over in this thread is an irrational belief in the importance of the DAC chip itself. Just about everything affect the sound of an audio product, but when it comes to DACs, I would rank (in order or sonic importance the general categories as follows:

 

1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog. They just follow the app note. The specs on the op-amps are fabulous and digital engineers are inherently seduced by the beauty of the math story. There are minor differences in the sound quality between various op-amps, but it's kind of like the difference between a Duncan-Heinz cake mix and a Betty Crocker cake mix. 99.8% of the op-amps are used a current-to-voltage converters with the inverting input operating as a virtual ground. This is probably the worst way to use an op-amp as the input signal will cause the internal circuitry to go into slewing-limited distortion. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4311648/Op-amp-myths-ndash-by-Barrie-Gilbert

 

With discrete circuitry, the only limit is your imagination. You are free to adjust the topology of the circuit, the brands of the parts, the active devices, the bias current in each stage - anything you can think of. Think of this as going to a world-class patisserie in Paris and seeing all the different things that can be made.

 

2) The power supplies - 99.9% of all DACs use "3-pin" power supply regulators, which are pretty much op-amps connected to a series pass transistor. Everything in #1 applies here.

 

3) The master clock - jitter is a single number assigned to measure the phase noise of an oscillator over a fixed bandwidth. It is far more i important to know the spectral distribution of the timing variations and how they correlate to audible problems. 99.9% of all DACs use a strip-cut AT crystal in a Pierce gate oscillator circuit. It's pretty good for the money but the results will depend heavily on the implementation, particularly in the PCB layout and the power supplies (#2).

 

It's hard to rank the rest of these so I will give them a tie score.

 

4) The digital filter - 99.9% of all DACs use the digital filter built into the DAC chip. About a dozen companies know how to make a custom digital filter based on either FPGAs or DSP chips.

 

4) PCB layout - grounding and shielding, impedance-controlled traces, return currents, and return current paths are all critical. For a complex digital PCB, 8 layers is the minimum for good results.

 

4) The DAC chip - almost everything these days is delta sigma with a built-in digital filter. Differences between different chips is one of the less important aspects of D/A converter designs. Both ESS and AKM have some special tricks to reduce out-of-band noise, which can be helpful, but not dramatic.

 

4) Passive parts - the quality of these can make a large difference in overall performance, especially for analog. Not many digital engineers sit around listening to different brands of resistors to see what sounds best.

 

These are just a few of the things that make differences in the way that a DAC will sound.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

 

 

Like the Simaudo boys say, it's the stuff around the chip that matter. 

@thyname 

By the way, are you THE Herb Reichert?

Not if the misused apostrophe is any indication. The real Mr Reichert is an excellent writer.

 

latest AKM AK4499EQ chip (2x in my DAC) cost is in-between $100-$200, depending on purchase quantity.

Yes, but that’s not the chip used in the Genelec 8351b that I referenced. The Genelec 8351b uses or at least used, not sure since fire at AKM - AK4621EF.

 

 

@herbreichert : could you please elaborate a bit more on what you said above for those who don't have the patience to google Benchmark parts by part number?

By the way, are you THE Herb Reichert?

please forgive me for stating the obvious:

 

Anyone can google the part numbers of the parts in the Benchmark (or any amplification) and see what they are exactly, and how they are specified to perform. 

 

The Mouser or DigiKey descriptions should explain why the designer's choose it.

 

I do this all the time especially with power-transformers 

 

hr

@djones51 latest AKM AK4499EQ chip (2x in my DAC) cost is in-between $100-$200, depending on purchase quantity. 

Rude, snooty, snobbiness is exactly what can give audiophiles a bad name. It's what I ran into in ASR, and now I'm seeing it here, too. I thought we were in this hobby to relax and enjoy our gear and the music it reproduces.  

Audiophiles are über sensitive nerds. They all want to be an authority or just being right. Therefore, other people must be incompetent. Having the 'best' sound system is just a representation of competiveness. I went recently to an audio show and all I got was belittling. I don't care, I see it as an act of brittle ego's. 

At the end it just the music what matters.

@djones5

DACs are solved problems and have been for over 20 years.

My impression was that on a practical level the DAC problems were solved between 2007 and 2009. Several chips were introduced around that time, which made their way into professional studio gear I still encounter these days.

As to nowadays, more DAC distortions were introduced for audiophiles since then, to fight alleged "dry" and "analytical" sound typical of highly accurate DACs. One example is modern R2R DACs.

I'd say instead of using R2R and hybrid DACs, do what professionals do: if you are unhappy with a dry sound, just crank up your Culture Vulture, and enjoy "warm", "meaty", "weighty" distortions.

Those professionals who prefer mixing and mastering exclusively "in a box" - that is, inside a Digital Audio Workstation software - employ all kinds of distortion plugins, adding "meat" and "warmth" to sound. Worth trying too.

...I really don't feel good about hanging out with rude, snobby people...

You ain't alone.

You know, some of the nasty, snippy, sniping on this thread has made me tired.  It's actually embarrassing.  Rude, snooty, snobbiness is exactly what can give audiophiles a bad name. It's what I ran into in ASR, and now I'm seeing it here, too.  I thought we were in this hobby to relax and enjoy our gear and the music it reproduces.  

I opted out of the "audiophile" world some years ago, and simply enjoyed my gear and music, but have dipped my nose back in here because I was curious about recent "progress" or not of new tech and designs.  I think I'm about ready to opt back out again because I really don't feel good about hanging out with rude, snobby people... for some reason, this hobby seems to attract 'em.  Why is that?  It's not everyone, and I've gotten some good and friendly advice and insights, but I think I've gotten what I need now and I'll likely be saying sayonara otherwise (at least that's how I feel at the moment, having just read some of the nastiness in this thread, though I've seen it in other threads too).  I work at a college, so I see enough snobby, and misguided, nerdy nastiness as it is; I have a hobby to relax and get away from that crap.  

Well, I don't use DSP/Eq of the room but one can view my elaborate room construction and treatments to prepare it for whatever equipment I chose to use.   It works for me.

Tin ears from ASR amaze me. 

You said the following:

IMO speakers, room treatments and EQ account for about 90% of what you hear. I don't sweat the other stuff. 

Although the EQ part was missing from the original post, you immediately added the EQ part after my reply.

From my experience, people who slap the "room" stuff in your face and dismiss the importance of anything else, tend to have zero room treatments for themselves. That's all.

 

Hmmmm….. show me YOUR room treatment and I will never argue with you again 

What would that tell you without knowing my in room FR at listening position? ? 

 

I extracted this from Archimago's Musings - However, there is one situation where upsampling makes sense... The same reason Benchmark chose to use ASRC (Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion) for the DAC1 and DAC2 - jitter reduction. Although by no means high, the sidebands are more pronounced using coaxial and TosLink interfaces. The sideband peaks around the primary signal clearly were reduced with 24/192 upsampling using the TosLink input. As usual, whether anyone can actually hear this difference in properly controlled testing is another matter!  

And this - For years we've been worried about the "dreaded jitter". However, we know that these days, with asynchronous interfaces like USB and ethernet, there's nothing to be concerned of. Sure, we can see jitter anomalies with old S/PDIF, but I doubt anyone should purposely not use the interface for fear of audible issues assuming otherwise decent gear.   

I use SPDIF/Coax digital cabling only.  

Also, I loved the sound of DAT tapes after leaving behind R2R (Tandberg 900 and Technics 1500).