Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

We buy hifi for several reasons, what it sounds like, what it looks like, what it feels like and for some how it measures. Most use a combination with one factor often taking precedence.

Or just to lord it over others… to be used as a social signalling tool.

@holmz 

"Or just to lord it over others… to be used as a social signalling tool." Really? I know no one who does this.

@laoman ​​​​@holmz   Unfortunately, this is sometimes true.  As a commercial real estate appraiser, I was chosen to appraise high value homes in 1986-7 in Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Beverly Hills, Bradbury, etc.  I noted in another forum long ago about some totally ridiculous high end audio equipment poorly placed for the purpose of playing music but looking good.  An example is a 30"' high entry foyer which could be a living room in Malibu with a pair of Martin Logan electrostats (Monolith model) stuck half-way up the walls facing each other, flush mounted in carved out balconies.  I've thrown the photos away decades ago but that represents something wrong in a then $8 million home.  

My cable manufacturing friend has lost many potential customers because when they find out the price of his cables, they say they could not be high end because they are too inexpensive.   

Yes, some people equate price and/or brand name with quality.  Some use their systems as to make a deliberate or pretentious display of their accomplishments and wealth.  I've seen it (and several times suffered in hearing those systems).  

@Fleschler I find that sad. If you have high end equipment because you think it sounds great, good for you. For example if I ever win the lottery, I would love to buy a pair of Borresson 05s, simply because they are the best speakers I have ever heard imo.

laoman ​​​​@holmz Unfortunately, this is sometimes true. As a commercial real estate appraiser, I was chosen to appraise high value homes in 1986-7 in Malibu, Rolling Hills Estates, Beverly Hills, Bradbury, etc

They probably should have consider naming Malibu after the Bradbury book F451…

Usually when I see the blue VUs it is a statement peice.

And a TT and tube amps are also what people used before FB in order to signal that they had reached a level of disposable income.

TV shows and movies often show this, and it speaks volumes.

Fleschler I find that sad

Sad or not, it is a fact. People like to signal to others.

And it is easy with some gear to do that pretty effectively.

A stack of grey NAD gear can sound pretty good, but it doesn’t have the pull that high $ gear does for making a statement.

ARC also makes a pretty strong statement… but it generally sounds good.

Cable risers also make a statement, but I would personally avoid them in my system.

@laoman I have a lower cost (about $80K), high end system at the lower end because of my speakers, which although wonderful to listen to, do not reflect the full quality of the system (basically ambiance retrieval and listening area width). My wife and I went bonkers using my LPs and a CD at local audio shows when we heard the Von Schweikert Ultra 11 and 9. But it was with $1+ million support system. I wouldn’t want either of those for my smaller room. I would prefer the Ultra 7 which is efficient, smaller and passive. I will not pay $170K for those speakers unless my investments pay off big time ($millions) as I’m already 66 similar in price as your Borresen wish. Hopefully, I will acquire the VS VR9 SE mkII speakers somewhere between $35K and $50K fully updated in the near (2-3 year) future.

I heard a smaller 02 or 03 Borresen speaker this year in much too large a room (conference size) and it sounded small. The 05 would have been a better choice.

I found it a waste of money to use high end audio gear as furnishings.  One system had only McIntosh gear, some of it unconnected, sad.  

@holmz My speaker cable risers consist of old Audio Technica rubber footers on 106 oz. plush carpeting. Not as pretty but it does the job (now that’s more of a subtle not major difference with or without similar to turning off the lights on my transport when listening).

Blue VU meters -McIntosh,  the Harley Davidson of the Hi Fi world.

The McIntosh house was located in Bradbury, an equestrian city where an old Budweiser commercial was made in a barn that looked from the outside like a gigantic mansion.    

The McIntosh house was located in Bradbury, an equestrian city where an old Budweiser commercial was made in a barn that looked from the outside like a gigantic mansion

Maybe that town was not named after Ray Bradbury…

The City of Bradbury was founded by Lewis Leonard Bradbury on the homestead of Rancho Azusa de Duarte in 1881. The cities of Duarte and Azusa are adjacent. No relation to Ray Bradbury.

I haven’t read any of Lewis’ work.

Much of this falls under what the late scientist Steven Jay Gould called “argument from personal incredulity.” That means a person simple cannot accept the truth of something because it is so far outside their personal experience or prejudices that it’s literally unbelievable. Needless to say, they are wrong, or at least not very scientific. So if you choose to believe there is nooooooooo way a cable or capacitor or resistor can make an sensory change in sound, because that’s what the technical measurements say, then you’ve missed the science.

if you choose to believe a cable or capacitor or resistor can make an sensory change in sound, even though technical measurements say otherwise then you’ve missed the science. It works both ways. Skepticism isn't a one way street. If I make a positive claim they don't then I should be able to show credible evidence to back it up and vise versa. If Gould was anything he was a confirmed skeptic. 

Much of this falls under what the late scientist Steven Jay Gould called “argument from personal incredulity.” That means a person simple cannot accept the truth of something because it is so far outside their personal experience or prejudices that it’s literally unbelievable.

That could be said of people who just find it impossible to doubt their personal experience, right?  Like "Sorry, there's no way I was imagining it!"

@laoman +1 "Blue VU meters -McIntosh,  the Harley Davidson of the Hi Fi world."

yep, stylish gear always sounds better! 

"Some Audio Science Review"

that is it!

Djones51: almost, but not quite. First you have to believe that our measurement technology perfectly represents human hearing. Of course it doesn’t. A sound wave hits a microphone and is interpreted by a machine. The same sound wave hits an ear drum, produces electrical signals in the inner ear and is interpreted by — a brain. Chance the machine is more consistent compared to a person: 100%, I’d say. Chance the interpretations are identical. Zero.

prof: They do imagine it. Our senses are imaginary at a very basic level. That’s why a machine doesn’t replicate what we “hear.” 

You’re both right if the machine is the ultimate measure. But listeners are. 

Our present technology can measure way beyond human hearing but at any rate All we’re concerned with in your scenario is can it be proved whether  you can differentiate  between two cables that measure the same and the answer is absolutely.

@holmz

Cable risers also make a statement, but I would personally avoid them in my system.

I’ve often thought ASR is missing out on awesome merch possibilities by not releasing a line of Pink Panther™ cable risers.

We aren't trying to replicate what you hear with a machine. What we hear is subjective to each of us, listeners are the ultimate arbiter of preference. Whether your preferences are based on concrete objective changes of machines, active or passive,   or your inherent biases, we can determine if that person "cannot accept the truth of something because it is so far outside their personal experience or prejudices that it’s literally unbelievable." 

re: "signaling" - a big rack of shiny new mcintosh with $10k+ speakers poorly placed might be an example on the 'i'm really rich' side of audio. but if there's anything i've learned online, one can 'signal' their smartness, their coolness, their pride, or whatever it is they're interested in conveying in any number of different ways. for example, one can signal their audio 'wisdom' by buying all of the best measuring gear, regardless of how it sounds. 

as for 'lording it over' people, there are certainly some snobs out there. but those guys are mostly irrelevant. i'm sure their systems sound great or whatever, but literally no one with a life of their own cares how much you spent on your hi fi - we're too busy listening to music (and maybe plotting out upgrades) on our own. same goes for 'i know everything about audio because i'm an engineer' types. like, ok man, good for you. sure, yeah, whatever, i'm very impressed with your credentials. but i'm on my own path. you don't need to worry about what i'm doing. we don't even like the same music, why should i care what you think? etc etc

@td_dayton 

i'm very impressed with your credentials. but i'm on my own path. you don't need to worry about what i'm doing. we don't even like the same music, why should i care what you think? etc etc

No one is suggesting for one minute that you (or anyone else) has to.

The important thing is that the data is out there and available.

The rest is entirely up to the individual whether they want to make any use of it.

The same goes for published online and magazine reviews.

When someone is seated at the piano, we are generally not debating whether person A is hearing a piano and person B is hearing an organ or a flute. There is little debate and imagination as to a piano being a real thing, and its sound being a real thing.

They do imagine it. Our senses are imaginary at a very basic level. That’s why a machine doesn’t replicate what we “hear.

And hence the measurements tell us how closely a playback of say a piano sounds like, say… a real piano.

We do not care whether person B hears a piano sounding like flute, we only care that it is replicated correctly.

To talk about brains and personal experiences is delving into psychology and neuroscience, whereas the playback system is electromechanical. We have to draw the line somewhere.

To talk about subjective differences in hearing, is burying one’s head in the sand as to the reality of what is happening.
That thinking belongs in a course on philosophy and not in engineering or physics, and hence it belongs in a coffee house and not in an audio shop or engineering laboratory.

And hence the measurements tell us how closely a playback of say a piano sounds like, say… a real piano. We do not care whether person B hears a piano sounding like flute, we only care that it is replicated correctly.

if you need measurements to tell a piano from a flute, then I don’t know what to tell you… Maybe take on another hobby?

@cd318 exactly - & that's why i have no quarrel on principle with more objective minded approaches to evaluating gear. people are doing their own thing. some prefer to approach it from a purely "show me the evidence" engineering sort of perspective, while others would rather primarily rely on their senses first. i lean towards the latter but there is obviously real value in the former - after all, this hobby wouldn't exist if it weren't for the efforts of a century-plus worth of electronics nerds. ultimately which "camp" people fall into makes no difference to me because at the end of the day, if i'm drawn closer in to the music, i'm happy. we should all stop playing stereo cop and just accept that different people value different things in their gear. just my .02c

if you need measurements to tell a piano from a flute, then I don’t know what to tell you… Maybe take on another hobby?

Sorry @thyname but I am person A in the above scenario. so I cannot speak to what the person B’s hearing.

Maybe take it up with @prof  or @cd318 
I think they both were responding to your posts earlier, and my comments stemmed from those.

This one of their’s was a pearler.

Now it would appear as if all of those differences were largely in our imaginations and have now become as irrelevant as the use of leeches has in healing the sick.

again - I don’t care how you hear, or what you hear… I just want whatever I play to sound like the recorded sound. 

@holmz

I don’t care how you hear, or what you hear… I just want whatever I play to sound like the recorded sound.

Doesn’t everyone?

Some may feel that they can do this by ear alone. The so called ’golden ear’ brigade who have assurance that their hearing is consistently reliable and trustworthy.

All of this without access to the original source of the recording.

Others might want some measurements as a reassurance that their system will be a well balanced one which can handle all genres, all recordings with equal aplomb.

There are some designers who like to combine the 2 approaches.

Peter Comeau of IAG says that he begins with the science (flat frequency response etc) and then finishes by fine tuning by ear.

Peter Comeau of IAG says that he begins with the science (flat frequency response etc) and then finishes by fine tuning by ear.

@cd318 yeah I guess that is mirrored on the consumer end with me using the measurements to weed out things.
If the cabinet resonates, or the distortion is high, or it compresses, or it has a bad pattern, then there is not a great reason to seek out listening.

I liked the part where he talked about getting rid if the things that are wrong.

@cd318 My two Golden Ear friends walk into a room, listen for 10-15 minutes to a few different recordings and can tell me exactly what is wrong with the sound, not necessarily the fix but if it is acoustic, they can point out the cause. It’s best if they are familiar with the recordings and their mastering (provence). If it were a bunch of hip hop rap or sca recordings, none of us could tell anything about the system.  

I highly respect Audio Science Review. I highly respect the expertise and measurement tools they have mastered to do analysis on audio equipment.

The measurements tell how well the signal propagates in then effectively the signal is amplified. Human ears are as diverse as the equipment that is tested. So are tastes in music. Audio accuracy is in the ear of the beholder. I owned Mid-Fi equipment that measured better than many audiophile Audio. It had shamelessly low THD, I’m distortion Damping factor over 400. Audiophile amps sounded so much better. One such audiophile system was Mark Levinson.

While measuring can be a guide, trust your ears.

The more I learn about the Toole and Olive research on speakers which ASR and other objectivists quote as gospel the more I get the smell of book cooking.The selection of two speaker samples with abnormally narrow dispersion and uneven frequency response and also which just happen to sound bad seems like too much of  a coincidence to be ignored.So it is as if the designers of those tests set out with an agenda to reinforce their hypothesis that speakers with even and wide off axis responses were preferred by listeners to those with narrow and uneven frequency responses.Which might be correct but the degree of skewing of the results by selecting a couple of really bad examples of the other type seems very suspect.

@jtgofish , at least there is data to support what listeners like in speakers and headphones. Do you know of any data that supports what listeners prefer in DACS? ASR seems to rank DACS by SINAD. Can anyone reading this thread (calling @amir_asr ) point me to a published study that shows that both trained and casual listeners prefer DACS with low SINAD? Without that data that list is pretty much useless in guiding purchase decisions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/#:~:text=Humans%20can%20detect%20sounds%20in,to%2015%E2%80%9317%20kHz.

The human ear as a dyamic range from 0dB (threshold) to 120-130 dB. This is true for the middle frequency range (1-2 kHz). For lower or higher frequencies, the dynamic is narrowed.

http://www.cochlea.org/en/hear/human-auditory-range

 Best case Noise floor of most listening rooms 30db-40db.

SINAD will tell you if the DAC contributes any noise or distortion that's audible.  If you prefer noise and distortion or transparent is up to you.

@djones51 , thanks for the link about human physiology. Please find a link that shows what listeners prefer in a DAC. Here is a white paper of what listeners prefer in headphones as an example:

If no research exists on DAC listener preferences I have a new ranking system:

eeny, meeny, miny, mo,

if you like it pay and go!

If you like my new ranking system  go to your dealer and just start your own audition process.

Until there is some research proving listeners prefer low SINAD, you might as well just skip those ranking systems.

The ranking system you're referring to isn't meant to explain listener preference, it shows DAC performance, your preferences are just that. Modern DACs for the most part come in 2 varieties,  transparent,  not transparent. If you prefer transparent then the SINAD  list shows plenty of options. If you prefer not transparent then you're on your own. Since I prefer transparent the list is very helpful to me. All I need to do is find the options I want, connection type, includes headphone amp, etc..  there are dozens I can choose from since transparent doesn't discriminate as to what chips, filters, buffers, etc.. are used if it measures beyond human audibly. Find something else to argue audiophoolery about, maybe amplifiers. 

The reason you can find listener preference for speakers is because they actually have a large significance in what you hear along with the room. DACs on the other hand are commodities anymore, something engineers can design  for bragging rights to get number chasing  gurus with money to waste buy or create some novelty that distorts like crazy and see how many nincompoops buy them.

@djones51 , I liked your post, DAC’s are commodities, if you have a link that shows there is no listener preferences among dacs great. The number chasing guru must be on a different website, maybe you can rescue the , uhhh, "ill informed" before they buy anything that is a waste.

I have no idea if there are websites that show " controlled listening tests" for DAC preferences. I haven't bothered with worrying about a DAC for  more than 5 years as SINAD and build quality tells me all I need to know. If SINAD is beyond human audibility, has balanced connections, asynchronous USB I'm good to go.  I've owned active speakers where I didn't have the slightest idea what DAC was in them distortion of the speakers would swamp any DAC SINAD anyway. Same with passive speakers. DACs are solved problems and have been for over 20 years. 

@holmz

That seems like a good compromise, check that all the basic measurements are ok and only then fine tune by ear.

For the buyer it’s a case of case of checking the measurements first, then drawing up a shortlist which you can audition and make your selection by listening.

For those of us that are sometimes forced into buying blind, YouTuber Andrew Robinson has produced a helpful 5 step guide.

@djones51  So, if a DAC measures the same as another, it sounds the same?   If it measures superbly, it is preferable to a lesser measuring DAC?   Well, I have a DAC to sell to you, the COS Engineering D1v, a superbly constructed and engineered DAC/Pre-amp,   https://6moons.com/audioreviews2/cos/2.html   "Which leaves us with sonics. The D1 does all the usual yawn-inducing stuff very well: linearity, soundstaging, detail, bass, midrange, treble. Then it adds something that reads rather minor on paper. Even so it—and the bona fide preamplitude which otherwise would mean another box and more wires—do bridge the gap. What gap you ask? That between my ±$4'000 DACs as a personal "what else could one need?" comfort zone; and this deck's $9'000 ask. That thing is the peculiar absence of electronic grain. Here the COS for instance soundly trumped the AURALiC Vega which I'd otherwise never consider grainy at all. On temperament and virtues of timing and snap, the D1 was more akin to the Metrum Hex"   

"But if neutral, grainless and not showy yet mature sounding d/a converter is needed, which also happens to be a great preamplifier, COS Engineering D1 is the one."

I'll sell mine for $4,000, in perfect condition, original packaging, et.al.  It is functionally and aesthetically great!  

@fleschler : arguing about DACs with ASR crowd is a waste of time. Quit it while you are ahead. I was once told a DAC is not even part of the audio chain. Just part of the electric delivery. Just like a power cord, or any cable for that matter, which obviously makes zero difference, all sound the same, etc. A $2 DAC does the job. Or the DAC built in your laptop. 

If it measures superbly, it is preferable to a lesser measuring DAC?

Not necessarily. It would only be preferable to me if it had a certain type of connection or function I needed and I couldn't find something that measured as well or better for less money. From looking at it it doesn't ...so. 

I'm not saying all DACs sound the same but only well engineered ones whose measurements show they are transparent, measure beyond the limits of human hearing and haven't been designed to have a sound signature. Is an ADC in the studio part of the audio chain? Will a $4000 DAC in your home improve the sound recorded through a $500 ADC in that studio? I know that English might be a second language, look up transparent.

So $2 DAC transparent enough? Or do one have to spend a lot more, like $50 Toppings DAC?

Some eye popping proof here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-good-are-2-dacs

@djones51 

Definition of transparent

 

1a(1): having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : PELLUCID

(2): allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (such as X-rays or ultraviolet light)

b: fine or sheer enough to be seen through : DIAPHANOUS

2a: free from pretense or deceit : FRANK

b: easily detected or seen through : OBVIOUS

c: readily understood

d: characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices

@thyname what do the $1k, $10k, more $k do extra?

It is possible that there are things like pre ringing that may be happening which help the SINAD, but makes transient response differ.

So if that is happening, then a different test than what is done on ASR would be needed. Or the cheap ones and costly ones are the same, but we think that they are not.
We sort of need a way to determine:

1. whether they output the same, or if the output differs
2. and then one can discuss which sounds better.

We have not seemed to pass step #1 so far.
If we believe that step #2 is true, then figuring step #1 is still of some value (IMO).

@thyname  I'm not arguing with the ASR crown, that's why I'm on Audiogon.  I'm offering a superior built DAC/pre-amp with unique and attractive look that for CDs (probably even better for streaming), resembles the Benchmark L4 pre-amp.   44% of retail price.  Not for those who prefer a $2 DAC or a Topping.  

Some eye popping proof here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-good-are-2-dacs

It’s really a pretty good article, glad you linked to it.