I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.
I would tend to believe amplifier designers who are building the upper shelf equipment, over the general public.
Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound, so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components. Do what suits you the best.
However, the upper shelf designers seem to make stuff that does not require cabels to serve as tone controls. So they seem to know how it will sound by looking at the graphs. Just because 99% cannot, does not mean that it is impossible.
I have a couple of tube amps, and tube preamps… and I know that they colour things.
I don’t know who these "upper shelf designers" of amplifiers are that you’re referencing. Okay, you find your tube audio electronics "colored" (As though transistor audio electronics don’t have their own colorations, albeit different). If these are your conclusions based on your experiences, Then I accept them as "yours".
I’m in no position to challenge or refute what you’ve experienced. I can just simply say that you and I have had different experiences and as a result, different outcomes that shape and form our respective opinions. I hope that you are able to obtain an amplifier made by one of the upper shelf designers that you cite above.
I meant what I have written earlier, follow the pathway that suits you the best. My chosen pathway is to hear and do actual listening of audio products myself. If you are reassured by test measurements then continue with that method. For me it’s woefully inadequate.
I don’t know who these "upper shelf designers" of amplifiers are that you’re referencing
Well @atmaspherehimself opined in the thread, and you quoted him.
There is also the Purifi gear that a lot of manufacturers are using, and a few others that are pretty stunning (Benchmark, Pass, etc.).
I’m in no position to challenge or refute what you’ve experienced. I can just simply say that you and I have had different experiences and as a result, different outcomes that shape and form our respective opinions. I hope that you are able to obtain an amplifier made by one of the upper shelf designers that you cite above.
I am in not position to refute what Ralph said, not Bruno, nor Nelson.
I meant what I have written earlier, follow the pathway that suits you the best. My chosen pathway is to hear and do actual listening of audio products myself. If you are reassured by test measurements then continue with that method. For me it’s woefully inadequate.
Have you heard any of the Purifi based Class-D? The Benchmark, or Atmasphere amps?
I am seriously thinking about selling the VTLs, and the PrimaLuna. But I’ll slide a class-D in first to make sure.
AVS tests measurements. It test well or it doesn’t - facts are facts. Good info but not the final decision for art or what a person likes. Some people like paintings that are hyper detailed (like a photo), some like impressionist paintings, which are a bit ’blurred’. I feel music is the same. Some like very detailed, some like a softer sound. Like any art form, the key is to make yourself happy. I think both are important when comparing equipment. For example, if you like a speakers particular 'sound' then you may want neutral DAC/AMP to not color the sound of the speaker you like. Likewise, if a speaker is a bit to crisp, then an amp with a bit of softness to it may be just what you need. Testing can help us get on the right path.
I always hear this color issue from the measurement objectivists, they use the term accuracy as if it has no color. What proof do they have that accuracy has no color? Yes, measurements have correlations to qualities of sound reproduction, but our brains interpret these qualities in both common and unique ways. I've interpreted color from every single audio system I've ever heard, and that would range all the way from sterile to extremely romantic. Perhaps some believe accuracy lies somewhere outside this all encompassing bell curve. Please suggest to all us deluded audiophiles a single outlier system that is accurate and devoid of color, I really want to hear music reproduced with absolute accuracy. And then to prove that accuracy, it must conform to the original recording, we must be present at the time of that recording and/or the production/engineering of said recording. I'd say the objectivists have a tall task in front of them.
I've interpreted color from every single audio system I've ever heard, and that would range all the way from sterile to extremely romantic. Perhaps some believe accuracy lies somewhere outside this all encompassing bell curve. Please suggest to all us deluded audiophiles a single outlier system that is accurate and devoid of color, I really want to hear music reproduced with absolute accuracy.
Astute observation/comment as is the norm from you.
I haven't heard Atma-sphere latest solid state amplifiers. I'm very familiar with his OTL amplifiers which I find really good.
I've heard benchmark on several occasions and don't share the enthusiasm some listeners /owners have expressed, if you like their sonic performance then good for you. Again I believe that you and I simply have different taste and preferences as to what sounds right. Not unexpected in the realm of High End audio so neither you nor I can be declared right or wrong, just different.
Again I believe that you and I simply have different taste and preferences as to what sounds right. Not unexpected in the realm of High End audio so neither you nor I can be declared right or wrong, just different.
@charles1dadI do not have the Benchmarks, but would like to try them… Or the new Atmasphere Class-D.
The old VTLs and PrimaLuna are both littered with the pleasant harmonics.
I did hear a Purifi based Class-D and it was sort of quiet sounding, which I attribute to less harmonic overtones from the amp and speakers. But it was not my speakers, and not in my room. It did seem very nice, and it also measures well.
And so we have a post in regard to the truth of colored recordings, no doubt this true. So let's say we have a recording to the sterile side of spectrum, played back on cooler sounding system would maintain it's position on spectrum. The same recording played back on more romanticized or warm system would sound closer to neutral on spectrum. And then we have recordings all over the color spectrum, various colors of systems will provide greater or lesser synergy. And then we could take what many would presume to be optimum color, neutral. Well, even this color may result in optimal or less than optimal synergy with various recordings.
I notice no takers on the accurate contention some objectivists maintain is optimal. How would this so called accurate system play with these recording colors? And that's a simple question to answer. Accuracy contentions in audio reproduction is a meaningless term. Prove accuracy is colorless, and further prove an accurate component or system is absolutely accurate. With some measure of critical thinking you'll find it impossible using objective analysis and/or reason.
I contend all audio reproduction components have colorations, with neutral being our closest conception to what would be accurate. But then one person's perception of what is neutral may not correlate with another's. See how problematic it is to conjure up some objective hierarchy of audio components and systems. The likelihood that each of us has an entirely unique system is symptomatic of the inherent subjectiveness of audio reproduction. Julian Hirsch long ago attempted to dictate some hierarchy, which he had to lie about with claims if they all measured the same they had to sound the same. The peeps found out this not true, and he fizzled away.
@holmz I do not have the Benchmarks, but would like to try them… Or the new Atmasphere Class D.
I believe that this move would please you very much. Go for it. If I were to make a change ( Primarily to reduce box count but retain superb sound quality) it'd be either Aries Cerat Genus or the Viva Solista. Both are what I believe to be excellent SET integrated amplifiers.
I contend all audio reproduction components have colorations, with neutral being our closest conception to what would be accurate. But then one person's perception of what is neutral may not correlate with another's.
I think that is both true and false. With all the variability in humans I have to expect we each have our own unique frequency response. I have to expect that varies even more with speakers where our body can play a part. Our frequency response is not the same as the person putting the music together for us. The system they used to do that has a frequency response.
I can agree that frequency response tuning to personal preference is as much about personal preference as it is for compensating for unknowns.
Non-linear colorations, distortion and noise, are artificial colorations. I have no basis to disagree with Mahgister that some level of noise may assist in hearing detail when our listening levels are typically below live levels. I am at a loss for distortion. This appears to be purely a pleasant artifact, though I can accept Atmasphere that this could assist in masking worse distortion if that was to occur. Purchasing an amplifier without these "worse distortions" is not difficult or expensive now.
I notice no takers on the accurate contention some objectivists maintain is optimal. How would this so called accurate system play with these recording colors? And that's a simple question to answer. Accuracy contentions in audio reproduction is a meaningless term. Prove accuracy is colorless, and further prove an accurate component or system is absolutely accurate. With some measure of critical thinking you'll find it impossible using objective analysis and/or reason.
Its not exactly clear what you mean by 'color' but if you can accept the idea that the original performance has color and that the recording thereof also has color, then an accurate system will convey that color.
A less accurate system will convey additional color not present in the recording... two opposite example: the brightness of a system employing solid state amps or the excessive warmth of a system employing SETs.
The problem here might be the terms used, since 'coloration' is usually a bad thing in the context of getting as close to the musical event as is possible. But instruments have tone 'color'; one must be careful to not conflate the two ideas!
If I am not mistaken, this device was created as a result of engineering efforts to achieve the best possible parameters, and later it was almost completely reworked as a result of listening sessions. This initial DNA is still present in its sound, it is actually its basis. However, it was brought to the point where one can no longer just say that it is a technically correct device, but rather that it is refined - musically and sonically.
Most important part of the review:
However, when we connect it to good loudspeakers and feed it with a signal from a quality source, we will hear magic - real magic with it. Seemingly inconspicuous, musically extremely musical.
In acoustic and psycho-acoustic no scientist use the term "color" in the same pejorative way, like some subjective EXTERNAL quality added to a sound which must be eliminated because the sound must be only "accurate"...This is completely wrong...
Like just said atmasphere: instruments before the recording own their own timbre or colors...A good audio system must be able to CONVEY that and our room acoustic must TRANSLATE that for our ears pleasures...
"accurate" in electronic design is not "accurate" in acoustic , but yes they are related through the human ears evaluation with psycho-acoustic science and listening experiments taking into account what we know about hearing ...
This way to speak about colors in a dismissive way by some, has NO MEANING in acoustic... Why?
Because what is color in acoustic is described as a complex acoustic phenomena which is "timbre" tonal playing perception...
Colors could be unbalanced and perceived like a an indesirable artefact but it is not this way that this UNBALANCED color effect must be characterize not like something EXTERNAL to be eliminated but like something pointing to a design flaw in the gear or to an acoustic room problem, then pointing an INTERNAL problem, then colors are the symptom not the disease itself... ...
"Accurate" here in acoustic if we speak of timbre accuracy implicate at least 5 characteristics:
Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration »
Observe that these characteristics to be relatively "accurately" perceived , because there is no absolute in timbre perception , it is a relative acoustic phenomenon, implied also ANOTHER dimensions than only and mainly electronical measures of components and their potential to relay information or/ and affect it at the same time....This perception of colored tone playing timbre is also essentially a speakers/room acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomenon...
Then dismissing colors as an added deceiving illusion or an indesirable artefact
is thowing the baby with the muddy waters...
Audio electronics AT THE END and TO BEGIN WITH is explained by acoustic not the reverse...Why? because we dont understand right now all there is in the ears/brain relation...
If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.
Currently used measuring techniques seemingly can’t hold a candle compared to the extraordinary capabilities of the human ear-brain axis processing pathways (Thank you @mahgister).
You can use cheap off the shelf Op-amps to allow any mass produced entry level DAC to measure quite well and yet sound utterly underwhelming (Like crap).
AFAIK we're there already. Its just that for the most part we never see the important measurements; quite often they simply aren't made! This gives rise to the idea that we don't have the technology to do it.
The trick with opamps is to not use too much gain! The best of them are not good for about 20dB before you get into trouble with GBP. If a designer ignores the impact of that you get into colorations- even though it 'measures well'; but I suspect if the full battery of measurements were applied the problems would turn up easily enough!
@atmasphereThe problem here might be the terms used, since ’coloration’ is usually a bad thing in the context of getting as close to the musical event as is possible. But instruments have tone ’color’; one must be careful to not conflate the two ideas!
Live instruments do indeed have "tone color". Some audio components are much better at preserving this natural characteristic. Some components do not convey these essential qualities and instead present an alternative thinner, lean, bleached and sterile/lifeless presentation. False coloration can move in either direction of the spectrum.
In recent weeks I had the pleasure of hearing a live un-miked cello and a week later a baritone saxaphonist. Pure full tone,richness and harmonics, just beautiful sound. Live and natural. I don’t want audio components that dilute and present a strip down low fat/calorie version. I’d like to get as natural a sound as is reasonably within my means. Live acoustic instruments have plenty of "tone" and "color", undeniably so.
we can say that we do not want the playback system to be supplying further changes to the recording. Holmz
I don't think this gets covered enough. It is nice have a baseline, and I can understand why people want to be true to original. Good, bad, or otherwise, it is nice to listen to the music as created by the artist and their team, which the artist signs off on. Really depends on the music as well.
@atmasphereWhen I'm speaking of accuracy and it's association with color, I'm thinking about two components that measure exactly the same in every measurement undertaken. Now lets say those measurements are such that one was deemed to be an accurate component. Will these two components, or any number of components tested, meeting the above criteria necessarily sound exactly the same. If not, at least one of those components cannot be accurate, we could say it has colorations. Doesn't stating any particular component as accurate, mean any component not replicating absolutely exact same sound qualities is inaccurate or colored? Anointing any component as accurate assumes an absolute hierarchy of components, the accurate one being the objective reference.
The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?
So, my issue with the term accuracy is when its used in the context of this hierarchical order, or contention there are absolute accurate components, those not meeting criteria mentioned above inaccurate. Now, accuracy in the context of conforming to timbre of live non-amplified instruments, vocals MAY be valid use of the term. A component that reproduces natural timbre can be said to be accurate. This doesn't apply to amplified instruments as they are subject to many inaccuracies of amplifying equipment, we cannot know their exact timbre unless we were in recording venue at time of recording. Still, both amplified and non-amplified recordings subject to recording vagaries, perhaps these recordings don't present accurate timbre. Bottom line, very little or no opportunity to directly compare live instrumental, vocal timbre, what we'd call natural timbre, to recorded timbre which may or may not exactly replicate natural timbre.
Accuracy, in either of these contexts seems to be rather useless term for audio reproduction. And if we accept accuracy is invalid term here, what are the objective criteria we can use to judge audio components? With so many variables constantly in play, seems we are left to pleasing ourselves. Where's the problem!
Slightly off-topic I know, but me and the wife have have a half dozen quality steel string acoustic guitars. All sound different, including the clutch of Martins.What I’m trying to say here is don’t go too nuts, tone color-wise.
I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.
This is electronical accuracy...
This is not acoustic and psych-acoustic "accuracy" which is a word anyway not used in acoustic to describe the naturalness of a timbre tonal playing chord (colors) in some room, at some location, with some violon or with some other violin with this player or this other one... There is not so much accuracy as such here, but the TRANSLATION of this recorded acoustic event which imply a gear designed "accuracy" to convey the acoustic information and a room mechanically controlled "accuracy" or the most optimal objective acoustic room dispostion for this optimal experience of perception ...
The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?
Only a system could be deemed accurate. That would by necessity require the same speakers and room to be absolutely accurate.
At a single component level, the only applicable measure would be whether that component faithfully (accurately) outputs whatever it is input. The DAC or Amplifier with the lowest noise and distortion (across a complex set of measurements -- which do seem to be done now), would be as a component the most accurate.
From what Atmasphere has written, there is potential with some speakers, where the speaker is designed to be used with an amplifier with a high output resistance. This brings in a system level accuracy that could not be determined by measuring a single component. Components such as DACs, Pre-amps, and interconnects could be tested in isolation for accuracy. For speaker cables, I don't think accuracy is a relevant measure. They do what they do. R, L, C, and perhaps skin effect. Everything else is just marketing.
@invalidI think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.
That’s a valid point and therein lies the problem. You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints. So which one of them is accurate in reproducing music recordings? @snscomments are on the mark in regard to the concept of audio accuracy.
Evaluation of the quality of a design is important....
But there is many design quatitative product, and yet a great varieties of acoustic implementation...
Recreating with the original acoustic digitalized or analog information conveyed by the gear system a relatively truthful representation or translation of this information in a room acoustic is the real problem...
Buying relatively good gear nowadays is easier than in the past...
I believe that this move would please you very much. Go for it. If I were to make a change
I want to listen first, not just make a change.
I am pretty much done with belief.
(I am not an amp designer, and AFAIK neither are you.)
( Primarily to reduce box count but retain superb sound quality) it'd be either Aries Cerat Genus or the Viva Solista. Both are what I believe to be excellent SET integrated amplifiers.
I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.
I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.
Go solely by belief? What are you talking about?
I have bee very clear with my comments on this thread that I value the listening experience far more than a reliance on test acquired measurements. You seem to have taken a counter position (As you questioned some of my 'supportive stance of listening' replies in this thread). Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make. Your last post is strange. Anyway as I’ve previously stated, just do what works best for you.
You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints.
This is impossible with a proper measurement set.
If they measure so close, I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.
I have bee very clear with my comments on this thread that I value the listening experience far more than a reliance on test acquired measurements. You seem to have taken a counter position (As you questioned some of my ’supportive stance of listening’ replies in this thread). Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make. Your last post is strange. Anyway as I’ve previously stated, just do what works best for you.
Charles
I suppose to find top shelf amps we have:
Cost
Looks
Features
Measured performance
I am trying to figure out how those amps that I have not heard of might be evaluated objectively in a 4,3,2,1 fashion… rather than in a 1,2,3 fashion?
Basically while you favour listening, I need to sort through the bevy of choices to get to a small enough list, so that I can then search for what might be close by. Then I can listen.
If you have all those amps close by, then it does seem easier or you to just listen.
(Plus you seem to totally discount measurements… so #4 is off your list.)
Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make.
The other point is that Ralph’s description of what matters seemed to be dismissed out of hand. The more I read that measurements don’t matter, the more it makes me want to question whether the expert opinions from amp designers have merit.
Hence I bring it up.
If they measure so close, I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.
I found this mindset short sighted and shallow when advocated by the late Julian Hirsch decades ago and certainly even more so more so today. The distrust and dismissive mocking of what a human being hears and yet pure allegiance to measurements. Two divergent camps, count me in with the listeners.
The more I read that measurements don’t matter, the more it makes me want to question whether the expert opinions from amp designers have merit.
Hence I bring it up.
Maybe a 2nd reading is in q. I haven’t read anyone proclaiming measurements don’t matter. Rather the point is that measurements aren’t reliably predictive of what a given audio product will sound like. They do not replace the act of listening. Good night to all.
You keep mentioning divergent camps, and also the OP stated:
I don’t want to start a measurements vs listening war and I’d appreciate it if you guys don’t
But Ralph did point out where the measurements and the listening are at odds… and why they are at odds.
Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep
In SS or Class-D amps one wants pretty stunning measurements.
Otherwise even 90-100 dB+ SINAD can sound distressing depending on the TYPE of distortion.
In a tube amp, one could have a SINAD of say 60 and it would sound pretty likeable and musical if the lower order distortions are masking the higher order harmonics.
Basically we want no higher order harmonics, or if we “have to have them”, then we want to have them masked by lower order harmonics.
(And some IMD stuff related to feedback bandwidth gain product.)
If I got that wrong maybe @atmasphere can tidy up my understanding of it.
I found this mindset short sighted and shallow when advocated by the late Julian Hirsch decades ago and certainly even more so more so today.
Things change. I think that was the 70s? We didn't have cell phones, or even personal computers.
I hear noise raised as an issue but to me it's a false issue for me and likely most. My system is dead quiet during silent portions of tracks. Other system issues? What are they if inaudible?
The camps are not as you describe them in your case and this topic. This is not about measurements defining a sound which I don't see anyone saying in this topic. It is about measurements being able to test the lumits of what is audible. As most audiophiles never test their claims of what they can hear, I see little reason to believe them. If you want to define camps, I see the camps, primarily, as those that accept humans are fallible, variable, and whose perceptions are hence also fallible and variable, and those that do not.
In SS or Class-D amps one wants pretty stunning measurements.
Otherwise even 90-100 dB+ SINAD can sound distressing depending on the TYPE of distortion.
In a tube amp, one could have a SINAD of say 60 and it would sound pretty likeable and musical if the lower order distortions are masking the higher order harmonics.
I think the comparison was feedback and no feedback not tubes and no tubes specifically. I think the critical element was low distortion at all frequencies and at low to high power. I did not find the use of the 90-100db term well defined. Perhaps @atmasphere can expand on that.
Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn't believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.
Ok, certainly our sensory perceptions can fool us, but do present measurement regimes and total reliance on them lead us to a better individual decisions?
And then, we as humans have great ability to learn, evolve, we have the ability to train ourselves to be better listeners. Listening to a wide variety of systems, components, even parts for the diy modder over a long period of time, exposes us to many variables, which if we're ever mindful of, can improve listening skills and aural memory. I'm not claiming this infallible method, but are measurements done in lab situ on individual components really a superior method for determining best sound quality for our systems in our rooms and for our unique ear/brain sensory perceptions! A really preposterous posit to my mind.
This is also not to say measurements don't have their place, certainly important to the engineer/designer, assembler of audio components. Also important for assembling a more synergistic audio system. But as a replacement for experienced listeners choosing for themselves this is symptom of machine belief. Perhaps some day, but AI hasn't yet surpassed human ability in choosing individual audio systems.
I also continue to sense the measurement/subjective divide is symptom of psychological reactive forces. One side doesn't trust humans in general sense, this obviously valid conclusion. And on our side, we have the self proclaimed 'Golden Ears', objectivists posing as subjectivists, irritating and extremely deluded with all their hubris. On the measurement side we have belief in machines, understandable response to human failability. measurements not subject to nearly endless vagaries of human variability. Perhaps some day AI will be preferred method for assembling an audio system, but not yet. I'll go back to robot model I brought up much earlier in thread. This portable measuring robot will be placed in each listening room, do full analysis of individual components, and full system analysis, will also know each individual listener preferences and/or sensory perception system. At this point I MAY trust measurment/machine over my own analysis/senses.
Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn’t believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.
You misinterpret what I am saying. Sensory perception is important. You may prefer the artifacts in a tube amplifier. The output resistance of a tube amp may provide a pleasant change to the frequency response of your speaker and atmasphere has suggested some speakers prefer this. Turntables can have color in addition to the fact the mastering is different. These are significant changes for which preference is relevant.
Where the differences are extremely small, at least from an extensive measurement set, then preference is either a very questionable or false premise. Without testing if your brain is playing tricks on you I place little validity in it.
I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.
I wish I could be fooled into believing a system sounds good when it sounds bad. I'd save a lot of time or money. It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws.
It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws
ABX and blind tests are the platinum standard. Sighted tests are dismissed as irrelevant, no way to have a control for bias. I fail to understand this idiotic aversion to science.
I do understand that a set of components, each with preferred set of measurements in allignment to accuracy would result in a whole that deviates less from this objective than those that deviate/color the whole. Following this, the system conforming with the objective requires less interpretation by the end user, being subject to human sensory failability. I get it.
So, prescribe to everyone components, or a set of components making up an entire system. I'm sure you guys could come up with a number of systems meeting your objective criteria to prescribe to us subjectivists. We then could have face offs between the objective systems and any number of subjectively chosen systems. What do you think the results would be? I presume great variability to the point there would be no valid conclusions drawn other than humans are subjective. Individual/subjective human sensory perceptions would upset any conjecture humans would choose the objective system by any statistically compelling margin.
And so, imposing some objective measurement/accuracy criteria in evaluating hierarchy of audio components/systems is futile effort. People will continue to choose for themselves the sound qualities they prefer, you or I may not concur with their choices, but this is of no matter.
In speaking about First Watt amps just now in another thread, it comes to mind how Nelson Pass, a designer/engineer of some renown, has any number of these amps, with different colors we use to synergize with entire systems. I"m quite sure Nelson understands accuracy, linearity in regard to audio design, yet he allows and understands the human psyche and all their unique desires and preferences. He also understands that even at the level of individual parts, each has unique sound qualities, what some would dismissively define as color.
I for one am in love with color, I love all the colors we can perceive. I love we have choices of tubes, push pull, SET, all varieties of power and signal tubes, I love SS, class A, AB, D, I love all the various choices of parts, boutique parts included, I love all varieties of speakers, dacs, turntables, cartridges. I could go on and on, but I love the CHOICES we all have, color is a wonderful thing! Black and white, zero sum games, prescribed heirarchies no fun, and more importantly, not the whole truth. Reductionist conclusions replaces critical thinking far too often these days.
Yes, individual human perceptions can be confounding, wrongheaded, infuriating, etc. In the end it is what it is, always seems pithy philosophical comment to my mind, but it is concise and true.
I wish I could be fooled into believing a system sounds good when it sounds bad. I'd save a lot of time or money. It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws.
This "the gold standard is a long term evaluation" was a lie started by people trying to extract money out of your wallet. I have been into audio like everyone else here for many decades. I don't remember exactly when this lie started, but I think in the 90s.
You also though are misinterpreting what I am saying. You will not be fooled into thinking a bad system. You could easily be tricked or trick yourself into believing that given two systems -exactly the same-, that one of them is better. That is not a minor distinction.
So, prescribe to everyone components, or a set of components making up an entire system. I'm sure you guys could come up with a number of systems meeting your objective criteria to prescribe to us subjectivists. We then could have face offs between the objective systems and any number of subjectively chosen systems.
This is not at all what I am saying. No one knows whether you personally like your bass a little heavy, your treble rolled off, or perhaps what I have been told a warmth that can come from certain distortion artifacts. Any components or set of components that can cause these changes will be subject to subjective evaluation for your personal preference.
What I am saying, is that it is highly unlikely to the point of improbably, that given two components not easily effected by system level interactions, say two DACs, or two interconnects, that measure very close in their performance (and in the case of DACs make sure the settings are the same), that you will be able to differentiate them without visual clues. I am also saying it is quite evident that audiophiles rarely test their claim that they are capable of this.
@atmasphereWhen I'm speaking of accuracy and it's association with color, I'm thinking about two components that measure exactly the same in every measurement undertaken. Now lets say those measurements are such that one was deemed to be an accurate component. Will these two components, or any number of components tested, meeting the above criteria necessarily sound exactly the same.
There is a failure of logic in this post. If all the proper measurements are taken and they are the same, the two pieces will sound the same too.
Since the rest of your post is based on a faulty premise, you might want to rethink this.
40 years ago it really wasn't practical to do the measurements that we can today. Sometime in that period we turned a corner. But the important specs don't show up on spec sheets for the most part (I do remember seeing an Adcom spec sheet clearly showing an increase in distortion above 3KHz, showing why the amp had brightness and harshness- even 20 years ago, this stuff was starting to show up). But audiophiles for the most part are living their lives as if the only measurements we can make were those of the 1980s and before. Back in those days the spec sheets were the Emperor's New Clothes- an amp that looked good on paper rarely sounded good as well.
This problem of audiophiles living their lives according to how things were 30-40 years ago has caused a lot of suffering (and to be clear, when people have made up stories about life and life does not agree with those stories, that is the source of all human suffering). Back then, if the manufacturer, distributor or dealer's lips were moving, he was lying and this has been a way of life for so long that we collectively no longer think about the fact that we are being lied to, we just know and accept that we will have to take the damn thing home and listen to it to know how it really sounds!
We are living in a transitional time where the measurement tech has caught up with our subjective experience- now we can measure things that we hear with excellent correlation. The problem now is actually seeing the specs we need to see and knowing what they are telling us.
I've outlined all this previously.
Rather the point is that measurements aren’t reliably predictive of what a given audio product will sound like. They do not replace the act of listening.
@charles1dad's comment here puts this dilemma in a nutshell- although I've always appreciated his comments as being some of the more level headed seen on this forum, the simple fact is that we have arrived at a point where the quote above was true at one point but isn't any more (although his advice of simply listening to see if it works for you is quite valid). If we do all the measurements (including in the room itself) we can quite reliably predict how things will turn out. Honestly it appears to me that people don't do all the homework. For example, how many here have run pink noise through their system to see how it fares in the room? FWIW these days that is quite easy compared to only a few years ago- as they say, 'there's an app for that'.
Pink noise can show you room issues, breakups in speaker cones, all sort of pesky stuff! It won't show you brightness caused by distortion, but you can get that information from proper measurements of the electronics.
FWIW I fault the 'objectivist' camp as much as the 'subjectivists' in this debate. Many of them don't know about all the specs that make a difference and allow their expectation bias to color their perceptions. IOW guilty of exactly the same thing as the people they fault. That is no way to make progress! Put another way if one is in possession of the facts, then one knows there is no good reason for objectivists and subjectivists to be at odds.
@atmasphereFWIW I fault the 'objectivist' camp as much as the 'subjectivists' in this debate. Many of them don't know about all the specs that make a difference and allow their expectation bias to color their perceptions. IOW guilty of exactly the same thing as the people they fault. That is no way to make progress! Put another way if one is in possession of the facts, then one knows there is no good reason for objectivists and subjectivists to be at odds.
Ralph, this paragraph succinctly nails the point I've tried to explain with numerous posts on this and other threads. The high level complete and "meaningful " type of measuring audio electronics you are describing aren't being utilized .
The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious, no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.
Ralph what you are referring to in terms of measurements is far removed from what we are presently being provided from these sites and their advocates. I would sincerely welcome legitimate and predictive measurements. Until this happens I'll just listen. BTW Thanks for your kind comments.
The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious, no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.
How can you possibly state this with such confidence without proving that you or anyone can reliably detect differences after 2 components have been tested by a sight like ASR or equivalent.
- THD+N from 100mW to max power at 20Hz, 500Hz, 1-5-10-15KHz.
- Power versus distortion single frequency from 10mW to max
- Frequency response at 4R, which would allow extraction of output resistance
- 32 tone inter modulation tests. This would represent real music.
- I saw a 2 ohm test on a recent amp from 50mW and up
ON DACs add:
- frequency response at various input sample rates and with the different filters the DAC offers.
- jitter test
- usually tests all the input types, but not consistent
I am aware of some videos highlighting some potential corner conditions (at least with DACs) that ASR does not test for, but which may also not be an issue with real music. This still brings me back to my first paragraph. With real music can you detect issues?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
