2. pc-audio
  3. 179254-171875

Indentical measurments = Identical performance?

I’ve been doing A LOT of thinking lately. In particular, about the importance of audio measurments for source components like DACs and CD players.

 

Let us first assume that we have 2 identical DACs or 2 identical CD players. You wouldn’t dare suggest that the same models sound inherently different, now would you? Well we can prove that the output of each device in this scenario is identical by doing a null test. We capature the output of the DACs and CD players and learn that their waveforms (let’s say a 30 second clip) are identical. The only time we might see a difference is in an engineering/manufacturing hiccup...and that is RARE considering we have globalization in the modern world today followed by quality control standards that are not necessarily difficult to get right.

 

And so, if put to practice, any 2 digital audio components that have similar enough measurements should sound identical. For example, a DAC with a SINAD or SNR or 120 dB vs one with a SINAD or SNR of 123. Tiny differences in linarity and frequency response above 20 KHz are not audible to us humans anyway.

Because most of our listening dare not go up to 110 dB, which is the threshold of discomfort. You could only listen for up to about 30 minutes at this level without risking hearing loss! For this reason, the ideal listening level is below that!

 

Should we forget about what companies try to sell us as high-end and focus purely on measurements with respect to accurately reproducing digital audio?

 

Here’s what’s really funny. The Chord DAVE performed worse with respect to measurments than the Chord Hugo TT2! Just see audio science review.

 

Lastly, I consider ASR the best objective website on the internet, bar none. Because if Amir really had a business relationship with any of these audio companies, their flagship or most expensive products would always perform at the very top; we see that is not the case and measured performance is all over the place!

 

Looking forward to hearing from you guys. Let’s not turn this discussion into a flame war. If you disagree with what I’ve written, just tell me why. I will investigate.

 

 

jackhifiguy

Showing 1 response by zazouswing

zazouswing
138 posts
 

@erik_squires +1. It’s called Occam’s Razor. Been around for a while. Was the basis of the scientific reasoning that created the tools that take the measurements. Now that we have the tools, we forget about the principals. It would be funny in any other age. 
 

I think the complexity of active listening is such that the technology used to measure just can’t catch up. How many million tests would be needed to capture this? Add to that, the relationships between tests (i.e. poor results at a rate against good results from a different test at a rate) and I think if any two devises test exactly the same, they weren’t tested enough. Combine this with the fact that, as others have said, the tests are being performed on the wrong side of the eardrum, I consider measurements to be nothing more than a baseline start to inform an evaluation. Will the technology catch up in a few hundred years - maybe — but It is the curse of every age to consider themselves sufficiently advanced and ‘done’. 50 years from now someone will be laughing on this forum about the crudeness of our testing processes. 
 

i have tested high voltage current at hospital facilities. 13.3k volts.  Everything tested fine. Dozens of tests using specialized equipment costing more than the most expensive audio equipment. Then, through an analog waveform capture on the feeders, and the B phase is flat coming in from the utility. My point being that every test is a snapshot of a piece of a photo. The relationships between the tests are what get you, and an analog experience (like listening) is the easiest way to get that. 

More to discover