All I know is that I know more because of Amir. That's always good. Even if it causes internal conflict and confusion. Thanks a lot Amir.
Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
1,423 responses
You already said that. 27 times. Which is the entire count of your “contributions” here. I believe you made your point. Everyone got that. Next
|
Objectivist tools=subjectivist ears =gear component evaluation Where is acoustic? We dont hear good speakers at their optimal if we have not designed a room for them... No Speakers sound the same way in different room... Audiophile experience is not about our "taste" or price tag of components or measured specs...it is about acoustic... It is incredible how people are completely blinded , the primary matter is under the rug of secondary problem of gear choice and evaluation... Nowadays it is easy to look and pick any components of very good quality at low price... And the only way to learn how to listen is not measuring gear specs nor listening to it, it is embeddding it in an acoustic space and experiment with varying the acoustic conditions...More fun and more deep than measuring a design specs or listening to an amplifier color....
«If there is a war between big egg ender and small egg ender, crack the egg on the boiler» --Groucho Marx 🤓 |
I spoke about the acoustic embeddings of a system as primary... But even electrical embeddings of a system matter a lot... An anecdote: I sold my big house and in this big house my audio system was connected to a secondary electrical panel at the second floor, then it was not connected directly on the main electrical panel of the house... In my actual small one floor house , my system is connected directly on the main panel... The decreasing of the electrical noise floor level is astonishing... The same gear give a more clearer outline of the sound source and a more transparent soundfield...My Sansui alpha, a very low noise floor amplifier, as many other good amplifier, go, metaphorically speaking, from low-fi or mid-fi level to super hi-fi as a costly upgrade formy ears experience...it was astonishing asw if i had another better system... Acoustic and electrical and mechanical embeddings controls are more important than tasting gear upgrade with our ears, golden one or not, or by measuring their specs and saying that it is the ultimate KEY to audio...Sorry but as useful it can be, verified specs are not the key at all... Why this is not evident for all ? The key is first acoustic, then electrical and mechanical embeddings control... This war between people with their ears or tools around the gear components, resulted from the incredible blinders created by one century of gear marketing claims ...The marketers or the designers or the people measuring the gear, never sold us the idea that it is not enough to buy good gear and upgrade it, it is necessary and MORE IMPORTANT to learn how to listen first and doing so by embedding any system in the house/room acoustically, electrically and mechanically...
Acoustic is the queen asleep on the bed , our ears are the prince awakening the princess, the gear are only the 7 working dwarves in the room ...
«Acoustician use blind test time to time on some guinea pigs subjects for psycho-acoustic objective results in some experiments for example, but designing a room, no acoustician blind test himself, because he learn how to listen in doing so » -- Anonymus acoustician😎 |
This is the most absurd discussion I have ever read on Audiogon (and there have been plenty of contenders). I understand the fascination with measurements, but I can't objectify my enjoyment of music. I like listening to different musical presentations (both live and reproduced), and I enjoy learning about different products, venues, performers, etc., but I can't say I consistantly enjoy one experience over the other – I guess it feels different depending on my mood. |
@rtorchia "Personally I would never buy anything that wasn’t on his recommended list" Well there are Dacs on his recommended list that measure very well that sound likr crap and have really poor quality control. Yet he recommends them. Wow! You said do we have further questions. |
LOL @amir_asr thinks he is done and keeps getting asked why he is rude. Tbh, I appreciate him being willing to answer people but he is shooting himself in the foot. I am a consistent contributor to ASR, which is how I found this. I will say it gives me a lot of hesitancy to give a website the censors speech because someone uses his website to generate interest in their side of the conversation. Shutting down a thread shoots you in the foot. You also claim it doesn't make you any money and you don't do it for the cash so why care if someone benefits from the traffic. The topic of audio integrity is still being talked about. Everyone is acting petulant here. Erin in old posts sounds not so nice, Amir isn't nice and he basically admits to being a d!#k. AJ from Soundfield sounds petty too. Makes me want to support none of these fools and enjoy the music on a system I find at Best Buy. |
" I will say it gives me a lot of hesitancy to give a website the censors speech because someone uses his website to generate interest in their side of the conversation." Nothing Erin does is in conflict with ASR. Indeed, his measurements are patterned after mine and using exactly the same measurement gear. The only conflict as I mentioned was his desire to make money and get subscribers from ASR traffic. No site owner will let him do this. "I will say it gives me a lot of hesitancy to give a website the censors speech because someone uses his website to generate interest in their side of the conversation." Oh please... I have had countless posts here deleted. Heck entire threads with them in it have vanished. You don't see me crying and complaining about "censorship." Forum management is hard and if the owners/admins see fit to delete something, that is that. Don't go trying to milk that for fallacious arguments. "You also claim it doesn't make you any money and you don't do it for the cash so why care if someone benefits from the traffic." It is called equal treatment. If we allow one person to commercialize our site, then every dealer and manufacture would want to do the same thing. From our terms of service for people in the industry: "Please have a signature identifying the name of your business. You can have a single link to your business but that is it. This link must not lead directly to any form of Advertising or Commercial Sponsorship related links. Same applies to any posts in the forum." Erin's content is allowed on ASR anyway. So your whole thesis is wrong. |
"You said do we have further questions. You are projecting. Ton of insults are sent my way and I am calmly answering them. It is folks like you who can't for a moment stay professional and focus on the topic of audio. "2) Why do you throw people off your site for presenting contrary opinions?" People disagree and argue with me to death on ASR. We show extreme tolerance for this, to a fault. It is only in extreme cases that we resort to banning people. Note that showing up for battle by claiming you hear differences in audio cables and we must not listen to music and only read graphs, can get the door shown to you. But not before you dig that hole very deep by creating empty and rehashed arguments. Come forward with proper evidence of your claims and you will be more than welcome whether they agree with mine or not. "3) I bought my Dac at a hifi shop by listening to 7 different ones through the same equipment, ..." You don't say... Of course if you violate every rule in proper listening test you wind up with some random choice. Maybe your fellow audiophiles care about that kind of story, but we don't. We rely on what we can prove, not what we can imagine. Come back when you pick that same selection in proper blind test. Without it as I mentioned, you generated noise, not data. |
"Indeed, his measurements are patterned after mine and using exactly the same measurement gear." WRONG. He no longer uses what you use. You also still do not answer the question of morally recommending equipment of poor build quality. Maybe you can not? |
Whoa, morning coffee and a triggered Amir ;-).
Hey Amir, this is you advocating zero level matching, fabricating "blind" tests and being called out, correct? https://www.avsforum.com/threads/establishing-differences-by-the-10-volume-method.1136745/ Who did you say knows nil? What was that about projection?
My "garage" speakers and audio science seem to do ok vs the big boys. https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1762-the-best-of-florida-international-audio-expo-2023 That's why I keep asking if you're going to PAF next year again like this year. I'll set up some blind tests using my AVA ABX and my speaker turntables. Unlike you, I do real blind testing. This will be your chance, we'll test both various "SINAD" DACs and your choice of Revels (since you area a dealer, lest some forget) vs my garage stuff. Blind, level matched. If of course you decline, we'll understand ;-). |
@hilde45 Its not unlike watching a snake swallow its tail. I’m ambivalent about the outcome but find an occasional glance at the progress inevitable. |
ASR and Amir have value, but not the value they believe themselves to have. I try to find the silver lining in everything and when I look at support equipment (DDC, preamps, signal pass-through etc.) and ASR measures them, I do rely on their stamp of approval as encouragement. As other equipment, not so much. What I have purchased based on ASR reviews Singxer SU-6 Benchmark HPA4 (as a preamp) MiniDSP Dirac unit However there have been some gear that they have ripped to shreds that I absolutely love, along the lines of DAC's and amps and such. To that I say... measurements don't equate to sound, however measurements do equate to silence IMO. |
laoman said....
"I bought my Dac at a hifi shop by listening to 7 different ones through the same equipment, with the same music and I had no idea what brand I was listening to or what it cost. The dealer was happy to go back and forth. I purchased the one that sounded second best, (I could not afford the best when I found out what it cost. ) I can tell you that the Topping I listened to sounded like crap with female voices. So do not tell me like some of your minions post, that all well measuring Dacs sound the same." I for one believe you. Imagine that. Trusting how something sounds! And this is more valid than any charts, graphs, oscilloscope readings etc. And the idea that it is not unless it was a double blind test etc takes the objectivity crowd off the cliff of absurdity. And it's insulting to imply that somehow you are not listening correctly and are doing it wrong. This is where the measurement crowd jumps the shark and gets ridiculous.
|
Giving more information about the specs of designed gear components is a good job to do and in some case falsifying market claims too...it gives consumers new information to pounder about before purchasing among other infrormations source as reviewers or users...
Thanks to Amir...
But the bucks stop here...
Deducing from the gear specs measured by tools designed to measure electronic components , deducing from that the sound quality which will be experienced by a user in the natural ecological niche of his room by his specfic acquired hearing abilities and limitations is PREPOSTEROUS as a claim ...Attacking some ignorant audiophile and claiming to debunk them with blind test is one thing, but claiming that there is a linear predictible relation between measured electrical components and what we will experience in a specific room with specific ears is completely a different matter... Conflating the two is PURE TECHNOLOGICAL ideology not science...
What we hear and decode is determined by psycho-acoustical theories, not by measuring piece of gear specs about their design ...Techno babble is not science...
This is the last paragraphs of an article who say it all by two physicists...I underline some aspects of this important article...Which related future new hearing theories on the model of "ecological theory of the visual fields by Gibson... And also relate the hearing abilities to natural vibrating sound sources qualities and their long natural history of perception by humans... We dont hear only mere spectral envelopes or even time envelope, we hear QUALITIES of REAL vibrating sound sources we are trained to recognize by profession and by natural evolution in ecological real acoustical environment...... Any psycho-acoustic theory of hearing must be based on these facts....Imagine the complexity of this task and now compare that to someone saying that measuring this dac or this amplifier with simple electrical tools designed to measure gear components will tell all there is to tell about the hearing and listening experience... Listening as hearing does not reduce to simplistic electrical measurements sorry... We dont even have a general accepted theory of hearing...There is debates about many theories... As illustrated by the revolutionary nature of th3e experiments conducted by these two physicists...
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.htmlHuman hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle«The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing. "In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted). "The issue is that many fields, both basic and commercial, in sound analysis try to reconstruct only one of these, and for that they may use crude models of early hearing that transmit enough information for their purposes. But the problem is that when your analysis is a pipeline, whatever information is lost on a given stage can never be recovered later. So if you try to do very fancy analysis of, let’s say, vocal inflections of a lyric soprano, you just cannot do it with cruder models." By ruling out many of the simpler models of auditory processing, the new results may help guide researchers to identify the true mechanism that underlies human auditory hyperacuity. Understanding this mechanism could have wide-ranging applications in areas such as speech recognition; sound analysis and processing; and radar, sonar, and radio astronomy. "You could use fancier methods in radar or sonar to try to analyze details beyond uncertainty, since you control the pinging waveform; in fact, bats do," Magnasco said. Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing. "Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you’re testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream. "We are also studying with these same methods the notion of simultaneity of sounds. If we’re listening to a flute-piano piece, we will have a distinct perception if the flute ’arrives late’ into a phrase and lags the piano, even though flute and piano produce extended sounds, much longer than the accuracy with which we perceive their alignment. In general, for many sounds we have a clear idea of one single ’time’ associated to the sound, many times, in our minds, having to do with what action we would take to generate the sound ourselves (strike, blow, etc)." A last word:
As i said objectivists and subjectivists are not even wrong, They are beside the real problem in audio which is a psycho-acoustic problem and an acoustic one...They focus on GEAR not on ACOUSTIC experience... They are the children of gear maketing publicity , objectivists as subjectivists... No acoustician nor any mature audiophile focus on gear piece , they focus on acoustic embeddings of the system... ( and less importantly but very necessary they focus on the mechanical and electrical embeddings of the system in the house/room )..
|
I think we often misinterpret measurements; measurements are measurements regardless of ones biases on liking the equipment in question. For example, a speaker’s frequency response can tell you if a speaker will sound flat, or neutral or bright regardless of what you may like. Amir has demonstrated that some highly regarded amps measured not so well when compared to lower cost ones, does date mean the lower cost sounds better? I would argue that yes and no. The higher costly amp that measured not favorable is what probably makes it more appealing when listening due to the inherent or added distortion by design when listening. Just like tube amps that measured poorly when compared to solid state but that distortion from tubes is what attracts us. So, in away Amir has not changed my mind but has brought awareness when looking at a product. |
"I for one believe you. Imagine that. Trusting how something sounds! " I do too! There is no question that is what he perceived. It is just that we don't know if that depended on the actual output of said DACs or other extraneous factors. Our brain is a wonderful thing when it comes to manufacturing facts. To make sure that is not happening, we only trust listening tests where only the sound is involved, not the rest of your senses. You don't believe me? Allow me to call my expert witness who has shown up in this thread, AJ (Soundfiled). This is what he had to say on discussion of whether an external DAC improves the sound of an Oppo player: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/using-oppo-bdp-95-as-source-is-outboard-dac-going-to-make-a-difference.1389093/page-2 "Then you don't need to spend more than $100 to replace your presumably failing/broken Sony BDP. If transparent audio signal transfer is your concern." [...] "I didn't say that [that two dacs don't sound different]. My position is that I don't see any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that it does. And no, the blathering of ignorant crazy people and fabricated "tests" online isn't evidence to support superior DAC sound. It's evidence to support ignorance, craziness and truly infantile and sad resorts, like fabrications." AJ, you want to take over from here? Strange to see you silent given how much you hate stuff like this. |
@amir_asr You and AJ need to have a panel on YouTube or a sound off somewhere. I'd pay to see it. So much sexual tension there. Amir, you didn't address your old posts where you didnt level match. Neither of you get to extol the virtues of one thing and then switch mid-race to pretend you always were on the other side. I mean you can but then you both are hypocrites. There are some lessons and info to be learned but you both are the reason I dislike the term audiophile and this world in general. You both sell speakers. I won't use ASR anymore and I wouldn't buy AJs speakers even you paid me. You two are insufferable. You'd be awesome politicians because you attack the other like kids in the sandbox shoving the other for a toy, not really answering the pertinent questions. |
Our brain Amir is not primary in the job of "fabricating facts" he put us in relation to reality to begin with, if it was otherwise we will not have survives his tricking illusions ...And our brain is here to be trained not to read electrical measures as hearing truth...Amir you resemble a marketer selling gear like a twin...Sorry...Why not stay an informant about gear falsification and not to claim what people will hear based on electrical measures dials ? And no acoustician work blindfold and in a blind test...Guess why ? Anybody can acquire hearing training in his own room... it is ridiculous to reduce what we are hearing to dac specs and blindfold test... You must debunk market gear claims thanks for the information... thats all all, because what is added after that is technological cultism... But thinking that people are passive consumers only and are unable to train themselves to acoustically embed their gear but must listen your measures to buy what they will listen to, if not, their "brain will fabricated reality" is beyond preposterous... If many subjectivist audiophiles are deluded, i think many objectivists are deluded too... It is funny that i am among the few to see what they linked them to each other in antagonistic ridiculous wars like twins : psycho-acoustic ignorance of hearing and acoustic and obsession with gear components......
|
AMIR - He's Baaaaaack! While people have a wide range of audio sound preferences, I do not comprehend the religion among many high/higher end speaker manufacturers to produce perfectly flat frequency response measurements. You could give me Wilsons, Magicos, et.al. perfectly measuring speakers and I would not accept them, nor would my friends, my mastering engineer friends (for home use) or many other speaker manufacturers and dealers. Musicality, maybe ineffable to many people, is the goal, not as mesuring instrument. If the sound of whatever type of music does not emotionally engage, then it is generally not the direction audiophilia should take. Unfortunately, many serious music listeners (that includes mid-fi as well, lower cost equipment, older used equipment, et.al.) miss the boat relying on measurements and design proclamations. Often, they lack an educated ear, not knowing or having experienced musically involving audio systems. Some listeners prefer extreme resolution, detail and others prefer body, color and dynamics. There's a speaker and audio gear for everyone at every price point. However, based on measurements over an educated ear for listening is foolish method of creating a satisfying audio system. That's my opinion. |
Answering questions isn't the goal. Creating drama, fabricating "excitement," polarizing one group against another as a way to perpetuate influence, those are the goals. The show must go on! Most of these YouTubers are just clowns. |
There certainly is a lot of absurdity, but there’s also lots of good content as well (much of it from Amir).
Who do you think is actually doing that? You know audio engineering is not the same as "music," right? Audio engineering involves quantification to understand what is going on so the engineer can take the right steps towards getting what he wants to achieve. Nobody is "objectifying" their enjoyment of music. Whatever music you enjoy is totally subjective, and no (normal) engineer would say otherwise. You may as well say "I don’t care to objectify my call to my mother on my iphone." Well of course not. But the engineering behind your iphone relies on objectively verifiable results in order for you to have that phone to enjoy conversations with your mom.
|
Perhaps you are a bit biased...😊 What about my last post and article ? Here a test of basic reading abilities: read this article and explain to me why this article is important in acoustic , and how it matter about our discussion... At least i will see if someone know how to read... Nobody reacted to this article , i posted it twice here FOR A REASON...If nobody does understand why it matter to this preposterous war between ears and electrical tools , i will go back to music..😊 And what about my argument? They are all occupied by punching each other in the most absurd way... Objectivists and subjectivists are twin brothers born from marketing with their focus on the gear, by ears golden or not, or by measurements...... For me and for science audio experience is about acoustical, electrical and mechanical embeddings not about gear choices...Science in audio is basically acoustic before engineering... And in my room too it is acoustic before engineering... Anybody can pick good gear at relatively low price today... The problem is his embeddings and controls for the ears of the owner because he experience sound in a determined acoustic field : his room...... In audio there is one basic science, which is multi-disciplinary, it is psycho-acoustic, not electrical engineering with blind test which is secondary technology answering mainly market design inquiries, thats all......
There is only ONE WAY to train hearing: it is acoustic experiments... Not blind test of gear... Are you serious? 😊
|
"Do you ever seat down and just enjoy your music like a normal human being?"
------------ Okay, so I just completed reading all 14 pages of your show report on the ASR forum. Some nice Photos. I was paying attention to lots of complaints about costs of equipment, or complaints about speaker positioning in the rooms. A few nice compliments about exhibitors listing components, pricing sheets, and measurements. A few comments such as "sounds decent", or "bright" or "open". Pretty vague, not descriptive, and no explanation beyond single words at most. Honestly - the report so far has no helpful descriptions or details about how things really sounded at the show, with a lack of descriptive detail. Also noting very limited praise for many systems we are familiar with, particularly with high cost systems. High cost systems can sound good too, yet there is limited reporting. Other than some nice photos, reading the 14 pages posted so far was kind of a waste of time for me. There seems to be a real gap in describing how things sound in a manner folks here on Audiogon can truly appreciate or understand. Perhaps we can ask the question in another way to learn more. ASK: With your expertise in measurements, can you also share something more about a system that you really like and enjoy? Then describe how it sounds, and why it sounds great to you? In what ways?
|
Amir said...."I do too! There is no question that is what he perceived. It is just that we don't know if that depended on the actual output of said DACs or other extraneous factors. Our brain is a wonderful thing when it comes to manufacturing facts. To make sure that is not happening, we only trust listening tests where only the sound is involved, not the rest of your senses. "
I understand what you are saying but he said that he did not know brand or price and still found a difference, and that's good enough for me. It seems like you doubted his conclusions due to it not being a perfect blind test. People find that insulting. Rightly so. I just think that we need to give more credit to the imperfect listening tests that we all do. I have sat and A/B' d between sources like phono stages and DACs and knowing what they are had no influence on how they sounded. I wasn't invested either way. I truly wanted to know how they compared. Sometimes even forgetting which I had on which input. Sometimes I wanted the less expensive one to sound better for instance. And it didn't. I guess my point is that, yes, we are subject to subjectivity and measurements can keep us a little more sober about that, but generally speaking our ears do a pretty good job, how it sounds to us is all that matters and measurements will not tell us that. All that can be heard cannot be measured. And what we hear is more important than any measurement. In fact measurements are just another way to be fooled. One might argue that knowing a piece measures well causes more bias than if we knew nothing about the measurements. So in fact the objectivists may be more subjective and biased and deluded than those that do not know a thing about the measurements. They think, oh, well, that DAC measured great on ASR so it must sound good. So it sounds good to them.
|
"Honestly - the report so far has no helpful descriptions or details about how things really sounded at the show, with a lack of descriptive detail. Also noting very limited praise for many systems we are familiar with, particularly with high cost systems. High cost systems can sound good too, yet there is limited reporting. " They can. But I can only report what I heard based on music they played when I was there. Many people enjoy seeing what was there, and what music was played there. And a word or two about that experience. That you find no value in that is fine. Many of your fellow audiophiles disagree. As I noted in those threads, at other shows manufacturers would pause and talk about the technology on display. No company did that so I had nothing to share on that front. Other than this, I am not a paid reporter as to sit there and take copious notes. Many non-paid posters who cover every suite as I do just post pictures and nothing else. Also keep in mind that these show reports are meant to be timely. Folks lose interest if you cover them weeks later. To that end, I spent two entire day and night preparing and posting what you saw as the show was going on. As it is, I was up until 2 or 3 am posting images, looking up songs, etc. As to high end system, yes, they can be capable but if system is not optimized for the room -- and scant few were -- then the sound is not going to be that great. Ditto if they play whatever they want instead of asking what the audience wants to hear. All in all, a few rooms did stand out and one was Dutch and Dutch. Stereophile reporter and local reporter Jason, agreed with the same and voted them as the best there was. So turns out you don't need to spend that much money to get superb sound (although $15K is not cheap).
|
"I understand what you are saying but he said that he did not know brand or price and still found a difference, and that's good enough for me. It seems like you doubted his conclusions due to it not being a perfect blind test. People find that insulting. Rightly so. " What do you mean "rightly so?" If heaven forbid you get cancer and you go to your doctor and say you are taking megavitamins and it is curing your cancer, you think him telling you that is not evidence of it working, you consider than an insult? I hope not. He wants reliable data, not anecdotes. You say the test was not a "perfect blind." How do you know how blind it was? Did he match levels? Did he repeat it enough times to rule out chance? A one-time AB test without level matching generates nothing useful. And comments like this tells me the test was not blind at all: "I can tell you that the Topping I listened to sounded like crap with female voices. So do not tell me like some of your minions post, that all well measuring Dacs sound the same."" His bias toward cheap/chinese products is showing from a mile away. In addition to that, we know what he says is hugely improperable. I have tested the Topping DAC and its distortion and noise is below threshold of hearing. Against this landscape, he needs to provide far more than an anecdote. Again, he could be right but the only way to prove it against a mountain of evidence to the contrary is to at least make a half plan to do a blind test. Don't do pretend blind tests. They are of no value. I cover all of this in a video I did after I got tired of industry people claiming that the tests they do are "blind:"
|
"I just think that we need to give more credit to the imperfect listening tests that we all do. I have sat and A/B' d between sources like phono stages and DACs and knowing what they are had no influence on how they sounded. I wasn't invested either way. I truly wanted to know how they compared. Sometimes even forgetting which I had on which input. Sometimes I wanted the less expensive one to sound better for instance. And it didn't." It doesn't matter if you are or are not invested in the outcome: you can still arrive at totally wrong conclusions. All I have to do is make one product louder than the other and get you to say it sounds better even if you were primed to think it wouldn't. And indeed, it can sound massively better with more detail, blacker backgrounds, etc. Yet, if I match levels that difference instantly disappears. Our hearing is also bi-directional and highly elastic (variable) making such tests very difficult to do correctly in the manner you are going about it. Here is a real example. Jason Victor Serinus is one of the stereophile reviewers who lives close to our audiophile group. He was kind enough to invite us to his home. Once there, we broke into two groups, taking turns to listen to a new amplifier he had under review. Group one went in and came out and without saying anything to us, we went and listened. There, Jason played his own amplifier against the unit under review. At the end, he asked which sounded better. Majority voted one way. I did not vote because I could not at all assess a difference in such a test. We then adjourned and went back to where first group was. They immediately asked which amplifier we voted was better. The group expressed that to amazement of group one as the had picked the exact opposite! We are talking two groups of 10 to 15 audiophiles arriving at completely different conclusion after listening to the same comparison! Clearly you can't have two versions of truth. So what went wrong? Jason said that the problem was the order. He had played the amplifiers in reverse order for our group as opposed to the first. This is a problem as we tend to scrutinize the sound of the second item in a comparison more as we pay more attention and hear more detail, etc. We get around this in proper blind test by a) randomizing what is playing and b) repeating the test enough times to rule out faulty voting. Really, if casual tests were good enough we would do them all the time in industry and research community. But we don't because we know they generate completely wrong results. They just do. Until this is learned and really internalized, audiophiles will continue to make the wrong choices in their selection of audio gear. And waste money on tons of stuff that does nothing for the sound. The science of our perception and audio is conclusive here. Having said all of this, what you do for yourself is fine. But please don't put it forward as the poster did with that "minion" comment as if you are on the side of right. You are anything but. |
"In fact measurements are just another way to be fooled. One might argue that knowing a piece measures well causes more bias than if we knew nothing about the measurements. So in fact the objectivists may be more subjective and biased and deluded than those that do not know a thing about the measurements. They think, oh, well, that DAC measured great on ASR so it must sound good. So it sounds good to them. " First, we don't evaluate measurements in a vacuum. If I measure noise at -80 dB, I can demonstrate conclusively that it could be audible based on playback level. Conversely, if the noise level is at -120 dB, I can tell you that it is 5 dB better than best case threshold of hearing so absolutely inaudible. See how we combine measurements with psychoacoustics science which completely relies on listening tests? As a more complex example, look at how much noise is bleeding into this power cable I measured: That is the red/blue graph. Now pay attention to that green curve. That is threshold of hearing. Clearly the noise is below that for both samples. Ergo, they won't make an audible difference. Here measurements powerfully tell you what is going on. In other cases, yes, if I showed distortion at -80 dB vs -130 dB, we can't quickly assess if the former truly has audible distortion to everyone's ears. As it happens, audiophiles are terrible at detecting non-linear distortions. So to them the -80 dB product could be just as transparent as the -130 dB one. What we can do is again, prove that the -130 dB distortion product is completely transparent to the source. But here is the trick, and it is a good one, you can get superbly transparent for a lot less money than products with much less chance of transparency! Amazing progress has been made by companies that are dedicated to proper engineering and science to eradicate any audible impairments. A $100 DAC indeed can run circles around a $10,000 one, no ifs and buts about. Again, the distortion and noise in the $10,000 DAC may not be audible to you. Which is fine. Just don't say that because it is expensive it must be better. Or that you did this and that listening test that proved the same. Both are completely faulty assumptions. Members who frequent ASR don't just read a number or graph. After a short while, they start to learn the meaning behind them and more than capable to not run with "oh, it has lower distortion so it must sound better." That is a label you are incorrectly putting on us and doesn't reflect reality. Hang around on ASR long enough and you will be exposed to incredible amount of discussion around audio science in all aspects. I guarantee you that you will know more about this hobby than spending years arguing with people elsewhere. So please don't keep making stuff up about who we are and what we do. Learn who we are and what we do and then tell us it is wrong. |
Okay @amir_asr enlighten us.
|
Posts here from Amir have reached double digits. One included a picture of numerous items waiting to be measured. Quite the backlog of pro bono work needing attention while posts to this forum pile up? Amir is like the Jehovah Witness that appears at your door uninvited. Polite no thank you does not deter the conversion sermon. Eventually, the door has to be closed only resulting in a louder voice continuing the sermon. By now everybody should have heard enough. Join ASR and discuss measurements to your hearts content, or follow another path. |
@texbychoice that's a big part of the problem. If I were to raise some of these issues with measurements or why he hates Erins audio, which to me is fair game if he gets to call his titles clickbait, I would be booted from ASR very quickly. I do agree this conversation is probably just going nowhere. It's like two sides of the political aisle. |
I’ve asked myself this same question endless times. Okay, rewind & repeat ... reread all posts, maybe I’ve overlooked some eluded wording of importance in search of an elusive common ground amongst certain members or (all members). Amir, by adding "certain" to your already written sentence was by no means a insult. It’s more than welcomed there in observance of & considering where we are. Give me something tangible to work with please. And for the record, I have never once said here on this forum are anywhere else for that matter regarding "Science" as unworthy. |
All I have to do is make one product louder than the other and get you to say it sounds better even if you were primed to think it wouldn't. And indeed, it can sound massively better with more detail, blacker backgrounds, etc. Yet, if I match levels that difference instantly disappears.
Quite true, but until it's been demonstrated it will be difficult to understand. I used to compare different masterings of the some favourite albums and was surprised to find many of the initial 'night and day' differences more or less disappeared once I'd matched the sound levels. It's exactly like many of those optical illusions where what you see and what actually is appear to be at odds.
Our brain Amir is not primary in the job of "fabricating facts" he put us in relation to reality to begin with, if it was otherwise we will not have survives his tricking illusions.
Could it not be that the job of the brain is to ensure our survival and a strict adherence to the laws of physical reality is not necessarily a key requisite? A headful of delusions does not particularly appear to stop many people from living long lives. The propagation of mass delusion has been a keen weapon in the hands of those who would seek to exploit and abuse us, has it not? One that has worked extremely well so far, has it not? It's quite easy to lose sight of the fact that we as audiophiles are a tiny minority of the human race. A tiny minority that often can't seem to agree over the most trivial matters. Sometimes not even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that has not been bought or bribed in some way. |
Debunking cable makers is Ok for me thanks for the work and information ... The same is true for any falsified specs of any piece of gear , thanks Amir... But claiming you will show what i will hear or not with loudness level measures and electrical measures on separate piece of gear is too much of a claim for me...There is other acoustic and psycho-acoustic factors involved to analysed sounds perceptive discrimination IN REAL TIME, not with mere electrical measures ... And no subjects is equal to any other one because biases are not only something to be erased or controlled in blind test but also the results of training and useful to develop for our own acoustic work.. All acoustician own "golden ears" as musician does... They dont read only dials mesuring the speakers design to know if an headphone or a speakers in a room are better for them than an other piece for an optimal TIMBRE rendition experience .. They listen to it in real time acoustic optimal condition if possible...Less well designed speakers in a dedicated room for them may sound and will sound most of the times better than some better designed speakers in a bad room or in a non dedicated room... "Transparency" impression for example are not only a quality of the design of the gear, but also a quality manifested in real time listening in some acoustic environment with the "transparent" component linked to other less or better transparent component ... Then the experience of "transparency" cannot be deduced by one piece of measured gear, not even by all pieces measured but must be evaluated by some specific pair of ears in specific acoustic conditions at the end... The room must give "transparency" to and help and compensate for the speakers and my ears limitations too... Transparency is not only a POTENTIAL property of a design but the ACTUAL quality perceived in real time listening experience...No reading of measured specs has the last word here... Time factor not only loudness and spectral envelope but the time envelope play a role IN REAL TIME LISTENING discrimination ... And human hearing is immersed in an ecological natural environment where there exist A DIRECTION IN TIME or as it is said in the article above : "Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry." Sound quality dont reduce to linear spectral forms analysis...And the way we perceive sounds is also related to the way we produce sound ( ecological theory of sounds perception ) .... Than measuring gear does not reveal the sound quality, at most it can eliminate bad design and reveal potential better one, thanks to Amir for that ... Going further and accusing people to be deluded if they dont act MAINLY on the basis of the measured specs design is going to much farther from acoustic truth... Debunking is not a method for training hearing neither is blind test by itself...Acoustic is...
|
@soundfield it is laughable he is doing the very thing he says others should not do. @amir_asr how much money have you made from ASR directing traffic to your audio business? That doesnt seem very objective to me. The idea that other people don't monetize off of ASR is bull. Purite audio, Siberg, and many others have their wares that they are constantly promoting. Talking up products they sell and talking down ones they do not. There is no such thing as objectivity I'm afraid. |
