So tell me how you measure dynamics in a speaker?
I don't know how you are defining "dynamics." I define it as how loud it can play cleanly. Distortion tests help with this but ultimately I like to listen with specific music clips that show the ability of the speaker to do so with sub-bass content.
How fast the speaker is?
There is no such thing. Every sound has its frequency and speaker driver needs to only be "fast" enough to play that. The perception of slow bass likely comes from non-flat bass response of the speaker combined with the room it is in. Both of these are measured using frequency response.
Mid bass punch under actual program material?
Same answer as above.
I had pioneer S1ex speakers. Heavy as hell and measured really well. Well they had 0 mid bass and no dynamics for anything other than acoustic rock…
Both of your statements are invalidated in stereophile review. This is the frequency response:
This is not remotely an example of a speaker "measuring well." Treble is exaggerated and there are serious signs of tweeter resonances. JA's measurements have an error in them which shows a peak in bass but this is shows even more energy as he explains:
"The lower midrange and upper bass do feature a rise in level; while some of this will be due to the nearfield measurement technique, some is indeed real, and possibly contributes to the speaker's occasionally "puddingy" low frequencies. "
In other words, there is too much (upper) bass, than not. Of course in room and without EQ, you would have a lot of room modes to content with so even if your impressions are right, you would have to untangle them before blaming the speaker. I have a room mode at 105Hz which I dial out in my speaker reviews for this reason.
|
I still don’t understand who is doing the training of these trained listeners, could certainly be a bias in that as well.
People are being tested double blind. Only their ears are involves so if they hear something, they hear it.
The training for speakers/headphones is based on hearing frequency response errors in again, a double blind testing program. It is not specific to any product, brand or type. Training allows you to hear smaller and smaller impairments. I provided a video explaining this already. Here it is again:
There is a specific paper that shows effective of training vs measurements starting at 40:00 minutes but I highly suggest you watch the whole video.
For audio impairments, again, I provided a video tutorial for that:
I explain the techniques used such as listening to high impairments when the distortion is quite high and audible and then reducing it gradually. Further, knowledge of the system design and what the impairments can be, is very helpful in finding specific parts of a music clip that better highlights the audible problem.
Finally, in all cases, you want to use music that is revealing of the type of distortion you are looking for. This is explained in both of the videos above.
This is no different than an athlete training. While they will become very good at their specific domain, they also become more performant in general.
Of course, if you worry about bias, you should never do sighted evaluation as that surely corrupts and biases the results.
|
nope that’s the exact opposite I heard. 0 upper bass no dynamics.
I hear you but we have no way of knowing if what you say is a function of speaker or not. If you had measured your in-room response, we could comment. See more below.
Had all kinds of amps including a Krell 200S monster. Same thing.
This makes sense. Speaker's response plus your room are the main problems. Amplification has no prayer of compensating for those.
You can’t measure speakers and know what they sound like with pink noise bro… sorry. You are wrong. The spikes in the treble are over 10k so unlikely to be a problem.
You brought up the measurements, claiming your speaker had done well. Clearly it has not. In addition, KR's subjective review directly contradicts your claim of bass dynamics:
"If you've read this far, you know that I love the Pioneer S-1EX. It is a full-range speaker with great transparency, dynamic potency, and truly neutral tonality. "
Now, I don't know if he is right. But he is saying the opposite of what you are saying, pointing precisely the issue with "listening tests" you all swear by. They are unreliable. Measurements however, are concrete and with skill can be interpreted to produce far better conclusions.
|
Hi Amir,
Hi Andy. 😀
Does the 1KHz tone that you measure on the DAC, does it tell you how good the bass is or how sweet the treble sounds?
That's like asking me if there is a traffic counter that counts how many UFOs go by. First you have to show that there is such a thing as "sweet treble." If you mean rolled off treble, sure, the frequency response tests show that different filters have the ability to roll off high frequencies, making the sound softer which some people confuse with "analog sound" and I guess "sweet treble."
Here is sample DAC measurement data on that:
As you see, there are two filters that roll off starting as low as 12 kHz.
Do you have a test for these as well?
See the test for treble above. For bass, I do run sweeps down to 20 Hz and often problems are seen there, sadly in high-end DACs such as the aforementioned PS Audio DirectStream DAC
This one gets you coming and going with rising distortion at both ends of the spectrum! My listening tests confirmed the same with problem identified by the designer as cost cutting on the output transformer (in a $6000 DAC!!!).
Here is another expensive DAC, the TotalDAC D1-six which retails for whopping $14,000:
See how it either accentuates or attenuates high treble depending on filter setting.
We can see lack of fidelity in how it handles SMPTE IMD tests which has 60 Hz+7kHz components:
Pretty sure this a "sour" treble instead of sweet. 😁
This is what its frequency sweep looks like:
|
Dude! I’ve had many other speakers
How many is that exactly? I have measured and listened to nearly 300 speakers of every kind possible.
you a dummy!! Go measure a dac.
I measure, review and listen to almost every audio product other than subwoofers. I test speakers, headphones, phono stages, preamps, poweramps, headphone amps, cables, audio and power tweaks, DACs, ADC/audio interfaces, DSPs, room EQ, etc. I am nearly 2000 audio products reviewed in just 5 years or so.
You put forward a specific argument and I showed using stereophile that your comments are inconsistent. You have no answer for that?
|
Now read this attentively and you will learn why Hans Van Maanen is not in the ASR team but in science :
I read it. Here is quote at the end:
As the work reported here is partly based on theory, partly based on experience, further experiments should determine if temporal decay can be used as a semi-quantative parameter for the perceived sound quality. It is not within my possibilities to do much experimental work on a scientific basis.
So no controlled testing to see if any of the assumptions in the paper are correct.
Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining the quality of a sound reproduction system.
Disregarding distortion? That is the very topic we are discussing. I am showing measurements of distortion. If that is out of the scope for this paper, why cite it?
That aside, I measure frequency response way higher than 20 kHz. Here is an example, the JDS Atom Amp 2 Headphone Amplifier Review
This is a $129 headphone amp from an American company whose response keeps going past 100 kHz -- 5 times higher than human hearing.
It is trivial for many audio devices to have such wide bandwidth so it is not at all a test of how good an audio device is by itself.
The temporal decay of high-end analog audio systems is higher than the decay of digital systems in their present version and consequently the temporal "smearing" of the formers is less.
Where is the evidence of this? The paper defines a metric but never shows measurements of such in any audio device, high-end or otherwise. What is the point of that metric if we are just going to assume certain systems are perfect at it?
One of the better ways to compare analog and digital systems is by listening to a good copy of an analog recording on disc and the CD made of the same master tape. If the digital re-processing would not audibly effect the signal, no difference would be perceivable. Yet, on a high-end audio system, using e.g. electrostatic loudspeakers for the midrange and high frequencies, the transparency and clarity of the analog version (half-speed master copies) invariably showed to be better.
Where is example of such content and controlled testing demonstrating that? "Shown" how? Where is his metric for either one of these systems?
Comparing loudspeaker systems is one of the most difficult and tricky aspects of audio. Yet, generally speaking, the loudspeakers sounding best are those with the highest temporal decay. To mention some examples: electrostatics, ribbon tweeters and last-but-not-least ionophones.
"Generally speaking?" What does that mean? Where are the real tests that show this? Controlled testing shows that Martin Logan speakers sounding poor compared to traditional speakers due to resonances and non-flat frequency response. Does he have results otherwise?
Here is a controlled study:
"M" is Martin Logan electrostatic speaker. Here is the preference ratings:
It finished dead last.
High-end audio systems often sound better with analog recordings than with digital ones. This is at first surprising because of the very high quality specifications of digital systems. But the temporal decay is one of the few points at which analog systems beat their digital counterparts and it is thus a clear hint of its importance.
Again, claims made without any evidence and lacking his own metric through any kind of measurement.
Netting out, his metric relies on bandwidth. The more the better. It has little to nothing to do with the discussions we are having. Nor is there any evidence or data that such a metric helps perceived fidelity.
|
You adressed NO argument in all the articles i proposed, but jumped on one sentence asking for further studies as a proof that this van Maanen analysis is with no value but your Blind test debunking motivated by digital faith and no psychoacoustics value is truth ...
Excuse me, but do you think all people are idiots ?😊
No, but I wonder if they understood the very reference they put forward.
The paper is short and I must have quoted a third of it. Not just one sentence. You have responded to none of the points I raised with respect to flaws in the paper's thesis and message.
Simply put, the paper makes the obvious point that if you band limit a system and then feed it an impulse with infinite bandwidth (an dirac delta or impulse), you get ringing. It then makes a giant leap saying such ringing must be a figure of fidelity and the less we have, the better. No listening test results or psychoacoustics is reference to prove this.
He then says post decay is a figure of merit for fidelity and makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims the analog systems are better, electrostatic speakers are better, etc. He never measures these systems with his own metrics and simply pleads that the reader take those as valid. Well, they are not valid as they go against solid body of evidence to the contrary.
None of your posts have used this decay measurement to show better fidelity. No one in the industry or research is using it either. It is just someone's idea of that is thrown out there and you are grabbing it and running with it. And then expect us to accept it as gospel. Why? Because he has a physics degree? That degree does not at all prepare you to understand psychoacoustics, or knowledge of audio fidelity. I had to deal with another such physicist with somewhat similar claims. See this video of mine:
By your author's definition, we should use RF amplifiers with bandwidth in gigahertz to have the best audio system! Please don't reference this article without being able to explain all the flaws in it.
|
Anybody with a brain can see it ... A software engineer selling salad versus an acoustician and physicist as well known as Toole explaining why time decay matter and what it means for the non linear ALREADY PROVED working of human ears/brain in his own time domain ...
@mahgister, please don't misstate my background. I grew up with electronics in 1960s as my hobby so naturally went to get my BS in Electrical Engineering. I have managed hardware engineering at no less than three companies (Sony, Pinnacle Systems (now Avid) and Abekas Video Systems). I put myself through college repairing all manner of electronics, both audio and RF. Both my education and professional experience includes signal processing, the very topic you are referencing in those papers. While I have extensive experience in software, networking, etc., that is not at all the net total of what I know.
Even if my background was just software, I don't see how that would matter with respect to technical issues I found in the paper. As such, there was no need to appeal to authority in the manner you did, and proceed to put down my qualifications.
|
you miss completely the argument...
It is not about measurement here... He explained why it is very difficult to measure this without very serious research... You dismissed it without even getting the main point BECAUSE IT SUIT YOU..😊
It is about measurement. This is from the summary right at the start:
"SUMMARY. In the discussion about the perceived quality of sound systems the temporal aspect is often neglected or its importance underestimated. In this paper we propose a semi-quantitative property of systems to compare these, taking the temporal behaviour into account. We have tried to find a simple, easily to find and to interpret parameter which by no means will be the final answer to the problems encountered in audio, but can help to improve the comparison of systems in a more objective way and could help to direct future developments."
It can't more clear that he is proposing an objective, measured parameter. Yet, neither he, nor you apply this to any system to measure it. Why advocate an objective measurement when you can't or haven't computed it?
The main point is here :
What you quoted is not in this paper. Please stay on this paper instead of jumping to other ones. It is a difficult enough discussion to have without doing that.
Then your pretense to predict sound quality with your narrow set of measures is preposterous...
The paper introduces a dead simple measurement of its own, which is simply met with wide bandwidth. It completely excludes distortions and noise, two of the most important impairments in audio. Once again from the paper:
"Disregarding non-linear distortions, the frequency response between 20 Hz and 20 kHz of a system is very often taken as a major parameter determining the quality of a sound reproduction system."
A simple impulse response is not going to tell you anything remotely akin to fidelity of the system. This measurement has been known for decades and decades yet it is not at all applied in this application. You want to call a a measurement "narrow" and preposterous, there is no better example than what is in the paper you reference.'
It can be concluded that frequencies
above the hearing limit can indeed generate signals that are below the
hearing limit which could thus influence the perceived sound and the
quality experienced.»
Nothing as such can be concluded unless listening test results are shown to prove it. Tests of high resolution music which by definition has higher bandwidth and less ringing in audio domain, have failed to provide clear audible evidence. If doubling or quadrupling the system bandwidth and hence reduction in decay time can't be shown to have value, what he is saying is in dire need of proofs, not pleadings.
All this demonstrate the complete futility to PREDICT sound quality by measuring with Fourier linear tool some aspects of the gear piece ...
There is no such statement or position in the paper. Per above, audio system non-linearities and noise are put aside and an argument is made for a single, trivial measurement that he hasn't perform to prove anything.
We must listen...
Which neither you, nor the author have done. Given that, the paper should be dismissed then, right?
|
Adding on,
All this demonstrate the complete futility to PREDICT sound quality by measuring with Fourier linear tool some aspects of the gear piece ...
As I have repeatedly explained to you in the past, many measurements I perform are devoid of any use of Fourier transform. SINAD for example is computed using simple signal subtraction (you take out the input tone and all that is left is noise+distortion which we call SINAD). Signal to noise ratio is just a level differential. THD+N vs frequency is the above but at different frequencies.
We perform fourier transforms so that we can then apply psychoacosutics to the measurements. It is not by itself as you keep claiming, is the way measurements are performed. So please stop calling my measurements Fourier based.
|
Interestingly Amir could not stand the competition and so banned Erin from ASR.
He is not banned from ASR. A number of others have started to measure equipment and they do so on ASR. And I routinely promote their content as long as it is not for monetization.
When Tekton threatened to sue Erin, it was me who came to his rescue, offering $10,000 personally and getting him lawyers. The latter helped him get out from under Eric at Tekton.
|
not only that you distorted the matter saying your sinad tool is not a Fourier tool. This is an half truth. why ?
It is the full truth. Fourier transform takes a time domain signal and converts to fundamental sine waves that created it. This is a proven mathematical relationship. Just like Pythagorean formula. It is not subject to debate. And no experiment whatsoever has disproven it. Again, it is a mathematical proof ("theorem").
There is an observation with respect to such a transform that follows the same in quantum mechanics called Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It says that the more you know about a particles momentum, the less you know about its position and vice versa. The comparable version for Fourier transform is that to get more accuracy in frequency domain, the less you know about its timing and vice versa. Here is a nice video explaining all of this briefly:
The research you put forward says that our hearing system due to its non-linearities, doesn't follow this relationship. That when we trade off timing resolution vs frequency, they don't follow a 1:1 relationship. But this has no bearing whatsoever on audio measurements! In audio measurements, we have a known, usually simple input signal. At no time are we interested in its characteristics with respect to time domain. What we want to know is when it goes into our audio system, does it create noise and distortion that is NOT in the audio signal that was input.
Take my dashboard for example:
On the left is a simple sine wave. In a perfect system, its fourier transform would produce a single spike (on the right) at its frequency and that would be it. Above is not an ideal system so we see harmonic distortion and noise.
The uncertainty principle comes into play in that I had to select large enough number of audio samples to give us the resolution we need on the right to clearly see the spurious tones created by the non-linearities of device under test. For my dashboard, I use 32,000 samples.
It is true then that you don't know where in those 32,000 samples that distortion profile exist from the fourier transform. But you do know that because the above sine wave never changes! It goes on forever producing a single tone at 1 kHz.
I demonstrate all of this in my view on FFT:
Because the number of samples I use is programable, the fourier transforms I show hugely outperform human ear! To wit, I can measure the frequency components of a signal to less than 1 Hz if I want. Human ear has far lower resolution, expressed as ERB:
At 10 KHz, our hearing's frequency discrimination is as poor as 1000 Hz!
All tools in audio directly or indirectly use Fourier mathematics as direct tool or as the only context of interpretation.
No, no, no. Some of the measurements I perform have been around for nearly a century! Way before we have had any audio analyzer had any computing ability to produce fourier transform. You can go on ebay and buy analog THD+N analyzers such as this:
My analyzer produces a more accurate version of these measurements but no fourier analysis is used, and even if it had, it would not matter per my explanation above.
Take this PrimaLuna tube amplifier:
You can take to the bank that it has power supply noise and distortion. There is no uncertainty about that.
Finally, our knowledge of psychoacoustics is strongly based on actual human listening tests. Whatever the ear+brain can do, is already embedded in that science. The experiment you keep citing does not change any of that.
So please, for love of everyone, don't keep repeating what you have been saying about measurements, how they work and their use of fourier transform, or not.
|
By the way, it was not your idea to support Erin regrading the recent review; some of your minions suggested it and you jumped on board.
Incorrect.
|
Erin defended himself as "monetization" links were added by others posting Erin's reviews - a situation beyond his control.
That's false. From start, Erin was pleading with ASR members for donations and repeatedly so. That link for donation remains even today. If he had post that here, he would have been banned immediately. Ditto for any other forum. Yet we gave him room to grow until such pleadings got too much so he was banned. When he went through his painful divorce, almost two years ago, I removed the ban so he could interact with the membership and that continues to this day.
We probably have two dozen industry reviewers on ASR. None have posted reviews asking for donations on ASR. This is the level of conduct that is expected and implicitly understood.
Above should clearly demonstrate that any accusations of competition, or bad intentions on my part is patently false.
Why would violation of a core principle of the ASR code of conduct be allowed to continue for so long?
Again, forums like this would have disallowed such monetized links but we have chosen to allow members to link to other reviews even if they are monetized. The line is drawn however at self promotion.
Appears to be selective rule enforcement to support another agenda. Half truths and a lack of full transparency are not the hallmarks of an honest broker.
What you are posting is at a minimum uninformed and at worst, the half-truth you complain about.
|
A rules violation, yet Erin is not banned currently.
That's right. As I explained, I felt bad for the difficult situation he was going through so wanted to allow him to interact with the membership.
You are so generous to allow long term rules violations to allow growth.
So which is it? If I ban him, it is good for me. If I unban him, it is also good for me?
So you lied, Amir.
No, it was you who claimed I had banned my competition. I corrected you by stating that is not banned, hence nullifying your claim.
|
So the distortion figure of an amplifier is in itself of little use. A spectral specification would be more useful, but is rarely given.
I give that in every dashboard view of audio electronics I test. This is the response of a $10,000 Bricasti DAC:
Now you can apply the very analysis he is performing with respect to power of harmonics. Without my measurements, you would have no idea. Therefore, my work is sanctioned by him.
|
im simply saying there are things that can’t be measured accurately with pink noise tone!
Good because I don't use pink noise for any tests.
I think most people with descent hearing hear close to the same thing.
Indeed, they do. When it comes to preference for speakers for example, it doesn't matter where you are from, whether you are audiophile or not, whether you are old or young. Strong similarity exists for neutral and uncolored sound when tested in controlled testing.
These four speakers were ranked the same way across multiple listener groups from trained listeners to reviewers and students. Less trained listeners are much less picky though which goes against the claims of audiophiles that they are have extraordinary hearing ability.
|
Amir measures things which is fine. But no one can adequately explain how a majority of people in this hobby gravitate, through experience, away from notions that much of what Amir says is true.
Majority of people? Where on earth did you get that from? ASR is now nearly the largest audio site in the world. The high-end audio market where people have these notions you talk about is tiny part of the overall market.
But let's say you are right. The reason is simple: audiophiles have no awareness of how their perception works. Or how to conduct proper listening tests that truly test the thing they are after. Given these two factors, they wind up concluding that "everything matters." When in reality vast amount of it doesn't.
How do we know this? When the rare opportunity comes to test one of you in controlled situation where all that is involved is the ear and nothing else.
A long time member of this forum who has a half a million dollar audio system and believes everything matters, volunteered for such a test. This is my summary of it:
---
Back in 2011 MikeL was so sure that he could tell his MIT Opus cable from others that he accepted a blind test challenge in his own home with his gear. The results were this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html
"So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables."
M ike was so sure of his ability hear differences in cables yet the moment all but the sound of cables was presented to him, he was unable to reliable tell his cable from another apart.
Mike posts this about the experience: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...184-observations-controlled-cable-test-2.html
"yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind. as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).
[...]
when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.
why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference? was i overconfident?
yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.
[...]
in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it."
----
Sadly he didn't learn anything from the experiment and now he just avoids such tests or pays attention to what measurements, and audio science and engineering says.
All of you have the potential to have a revelation here. Just conduct a test blind and repeat it a few times. Grab your cable, fuse, or whatever you think is making a difference and test it blind that way. I assure you that whatever you think you can hear, you won't.
|
You are assuming that our current measurements can detect all distortions, noise and differences in sound.
Nothing in life is measured 100%. Yet we successfully live. If you are sick, your doctor runs some tests and then using his knowledge and experience, guess correctly most of the time what is wrong with you. Do you challenge your doctor that he has not testing every part of your body in every which way? You don't. Same with audio. We measure and then combine that with our knowledge of audio, engineering, science, etc. and arrive at a high confidence conclusion.
You don't like the conclusion? Come back with a controlled test that proves you are hearing something that we say our analysis is wrong. Since you don't have that, our conclusion stands.
Remember, we can't measure what doesn't exist. You can't ask us to count the number of aliens landing in your backyard and when we say we can't, say, "look, your measurements are no good." Prove to us first that with your ears alone, and with all other conditions equalized, your listening tests are valid. Without it, you just want to be right, not be right.
|
I bet that at home in a more relaxed atmosphere more people could tell the difference.
MikeL’s speaker wire testing was done at his own home on his system costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Many people couldn’t tell the difference between coke and Pepsi in a blind test, but there is definitely a difference in taste.
More reason to believe that people’s senses are not remotely as good as they think they are. But read this other study.
"A similar study from 1983 (not currently on JSTOR, but you can read the abstract here) found that participants couldn’t tell when they were given Coca-Cola in a Pepsi bottle or vice versa. Interestingly, though, when surreptitiously given two cups of the same drink—one cup marked with the letter “L”, the other with the letter “S”—participants overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Why? In a different part of the study, participants indicated that they simply preferred the letter “S” (6.8/10 on a likeability scale) to the letter “L” (6/10), presumably because the former is more frequent, and people tend to like what they know. Whatever the explanation, this preference for “S” cola over an identical “L” cola is a particularly powerful demonstration—as if one were needed—that, in the cola wars, branding is everything."
So easy to fool human senses. Identical testing to above has been done in audio with same results. And many of us can report the same happening to us. That is, we think we have made a change to the system, perceive a difference, but then find out that the change was not made!
Until such time that you allow yourself to be tested at least once in this way, you will live in fog of mistaken conclusions.
|
I listen......therefore I KNOW.
You listen and look. You haven't presented any results where only your ears were involved. So you don't know.
You also don't know that other factors impact fidelity such as levels not being the same. And the fact that there is such a thing as "lucky guess." All such tests need to be repeated until we are sure they are not by chance.
Again, when we subject you all to controlled testing, you fail to hear these things. As I showed with MikeL situation. He was sure. He talked about how his MIT cable expanded soundstage by some 50%. Yet that large difference disappeared in testing where only his ear was involved.
|
You can say whatever fantasy you believe.....However, I dare any of you earth flatters to go over to someones house that has a serious stereo and has a bunch of buddies over and they A/B various gear.
Why are you daring us? Why don't you go and do that AB test -- only do it with your ears alone. Shoot a video of it and then we have something to talk about.
They will all hear the differences in cables, DACs and whatever....while you are there. Will you admit to hearing any differences? You see, you will NEVER EVER let yourself be in this kind of situation.
You are dead wrong. Before starting ASR, I co-founded whatsbestforum where I routinely defended subjectivists by accepting listening test challenges from objectivists and passing them. Meanwhile, not one subjectivist around me would attempt to take the test let alone pass it.
Those tests were passable because objective evidence showed that there were differences. You are getting into areas where we are confident from multiple angles that such audible differences don't exist. If you want to claim otherwise, per your own suggestion, go and do that testing, document it and let us see them.
Note that we believe that you are perceiving those differences. We know because when similarly situated in sighted evaluations, we too conclude there are differences that measurements don't show. Difference between us is that we know the faults in this kind of testing. And so routinely follow with blind tests that show us these problems.
|
Naive objectivists have created a monster in ASR.
While put in harsh tone, your underlying impression is correct in that ASR is far more than me, or measurements that I do. We have become the gathering place for many experts in these fields to have most substantive discussions of audio anywhere. The level of knowledge dwarfs what goes on elsewhere. Witness how I was able to address @mahgister papers and have a discussion with him while none of you could even follow those topics.
We have large number of industry participants, designers, reviewers, and serious hobbyist who read and participate in ASR on daily basis. Go and ask any question from any area of audio and you get deepest discussion of it anywhere. Research will be cited, engineering design analyzed, methods of evaluation proposed, etc. All in a professional setting devoid of much mudslinging and rude behavior.
This has caused a movement in the industry by shifting analysis of audio outside of fluff reviews and marketing materials into "prove it to me." Companies are responding by building better products.
Mind you, there is still a lot has to happen but the movement has started and it is not going to stop because folks put their fingers in their ears and refuse to learn.
|
Please feel free to list industry people that contribute to ASR that dont share your beliefs about audio.
You own an Atmosphere tube amp, yes? Well, here is its designer and company founder, Ralph:
I hope it is not news to you that he has moved on to solid state Class D amplifier design now.
|
He also hasn't eliminated his tube lineup.
He has a good following on the tube side so keeps selling his existing products. But from design point of view, he decided to move to the other side instead of staying with tubes. Likely because he has seen the major progress class D amplifiers have made in performance. Something that we have highlighted on ASR more than any other site.
|
On a whim I visited the ASR forum. Lots of mid-fi, products on loan to Amir. Cult indeed.
I didn't know if you don't buy overpriced gear you are part of a "cult." Regardless, I test plenty of expensive gear in the range of electronics you own. Go to the Review Index tab, select a category (e.g. electronics) and sort by price. Here is an example:
Note how I have recommended a number of products in that price range.
Many of the members can afford very expensive gear. One for example sent me $30,000 worth of CHORD products. When I asked him how long I can have it, he said whatever I need since he had bought a Topping DAC for a fraction of the price and it sounded every bit as good to him!
I document the lack of correlation between price and performance in my Audio Engineering Society paper. Here is a video summary of it:
There are other studies such as those by Harman that show the same in headphones and speakers.
|
The rub for me is most of you skeptics arrive at you opinions not through listening.
Please don't believe your own talking points. Nearly half of my reviews include formal listening tests. In the last 4 years, I have reviewed in the order of 600 to 700 reviews that have had listening tests in them. Your entire lifetime doesn't remotely have this level of listening evaluation.
We love listening tests at ASR. What we don't care about is people using their other senses to arrive at random and biased conclusions which can trivially be shown to be wrong.
You keep equating what you perceive as reality. Such is not so. Sitting here, both of us are moving at over 1000 miles per hour! That is the speed of earth's rotation. Yet we perceive that as no speed at all. By your logic, earth is standing still and therefore, there is no night and day!
You need to learn the limitations of your senses. Until then, you will continue to waste money and effort on things that don't matter to fidelity. And miss out on those that do.
|
To you reactive guys. Amir makes a much larger percentage of his income indoctrinating you than I make from selling overpriced gear.
There are no ads, sponsorships or any other commercial interest at ASR or my youtube channel. Members do donate which helps offset the significant cost of test equipment and running of ASR.
Getting people to learn audio science and engineering is not indoctrination. Selling them. Selling the last century audio products with false claims, is.
Amir, still waiting for the list of industry people.
A list? It wasn't enough to show you that your favorite designer is an active member of ASR? You think Ralph is part of a cult because he contributes and participates in ASR?
I'll make it easy for you, give me a list of industry people that design any piece of audio gear at any price with any level of preconceived bias.
You want me to list who has preconceived bias with respect to price? Is that what you have instead of just judging a product based on performance?
Atma-sphere MA-1 amps
That retails for what? $10K for a pair? Each monoblock I own in my system costs $25,000. A pair would cost 5 times more than yours then. Most high-end audiophiles would not even consider an amplifier that costs $10K. Way too cheap!
|
So you make no money from your youtube channel and ASR?
I don't know what "make money" means. I have invested $200,000+ in test equipment and heaven knows how many thousands of hours of my own time. Members make donations but it is not remotely enough to offset the cost of the equipment let alone all the other expenses.
If you actually get people to send you money then you are an absolute genius.
If that is the definition of "genius," then I am the sharpest tool in the shed. 😁 Members do indeed donation significant amount of money to ASR.
Do you own or are you involved in the retail sale of components?
Not at all. Hate that business on top of that.
If so, how many of these are represented by Harman?
There is no relationship whatsoever between Harman and ASR (or any other company as a matter of fact). Despite my friendships with a number of people there, they won't even send me a screw to review! I have bought some of the Harman products out of my pocket and the rest have come from members.
I have founded another company called Madrona Digital. That company's business is completely outside of hi-fi and involves custom electronics for very high-end residential and commercial accounts with zero interest in topics we discuss at ASR.
Every year about a handful of people ask me to order products through Madrona for them. No attempt is made to solicit any such business on ASR as it is an independent entity. No ads for Madrona. No items offered for sale. Nothing. When someone wants something I can source, product is ordered from Harman and goes to them directly as we don't inventory anything. And again, Madrona's business is completely different.
Show me where I said Ralph was my favorite designer.
So you bought products from a designer you don't like? How was he able to produce what you wanted to listen to then?
I talked with Ralph when he just received the chips which made his class D amps possible.
What "chips?" His amplifier is a discrete design using GaN FET transistors. Do you have any knowledge of electronics? Statements like that make me think you do not.
I owned them before I became a dealer.
Oh, you were a dealer and are questioning my motivations? Don't you think you should put a disclaimer of being a salesman in every post you make that relates to this? We mandated this on ASR by the way. Dealers have Dealer tags. Industry members have Audio Company tags. Both are highly encouraged to put their affiliation in their signature so that people are fully aware of any potential areas of bias or commercial interest. Had I known you were a dealer, I would have called you on that way, way earlier in the thread.
Have you ever listened to an Atma-sphere product?
Sure. See my show reports:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/rmaf-2016-united-home-audio-tape-classic-audio-purist-audio-atma-sphere-music-tri-planar.884/
|
Show me any definitive test or study that says that our senses are wrong, especially in an audio setting.
I already have. I will post again in an attempt to see if you will read it this time.
Sean. E Olive, "Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained Versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study," J. AES, Vol. 51, issue 9, pp. 806-825, September 2003
"J. AES" means Journal of Audio Engineering Society which means all papers are peer reviewed prior to publication.
Audio salespeople like you were tested in their ability to consistently rank speakers in controlled, blind tests. They massively failed to do so relative to trained listeners:
From the abstract:
"Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over the course of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The groups included 256 untrained listeners whose occupations fell into one of four categories: audio retailer, marketing and sales, professional audio reviewer, and college student. The loudspeaker preferences and performance of these listeners were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic FL, were
found among the different categories of listeners. The trained listeners were the most discriminating and reliable listeners, with mean FL values 3–27 times higher than the other four listener categories."
As noted above, dealers were 3 times less accurate than trained listeners. I have participated with a group of dealers at Harman and watched them first hand fall apart in double blind tests where Sean Olive and I could go way past were they could not. And these dealers are above average by having gone through extensive training at Harman (but not for specific purpose of evaluating speakers). You likely would fall at or below Audio Reviewers who were 5 times worse than trained listeners.
If you can't tell the difference reliably between speakers were there is objectively large differences, what hope is there for you tell any difference in electronics? None.
If you disagree, please show controlled listening tests that demonstrate your ability to properly evaluate audio fidelity. Outside of that, you are grading your own exam and we know how much such scores mean.
|
You say you dont sell components but own a company that sources components through Harman and perhaps other companies. Madrona sells electronics yes?
No. No retail sales whatsoever. We bid on large contracts for full system installs most of which have nothing to do with hi-fi.
The money you make off these sourced components makes money for Madrona yes?
Again, no. I explained that about half a dozen times someone wants me to source them products. I am fine if they do, or if they don't. It is round off error for Madrona business and probably costs us more than it makes.
Vast majority of products I recommend are not handled or sourced by Madrona. If there is, then a full cautionary note is provided to put readers on notice, unlike your posts here.
I can tell by the way you answer these questions there is more to this than you are letting on.
Nope. I have had a successful career prior to founding Madrona and ASR. I am in need of no income from either. Don't judge me from your vantage point. You are not similarly situated.
I would think that my dealer status should be obvious.
Not at all. It wasn't until yesterday that I searched through your posts and landed on one sentence saying you were a dealer. It was a totally improper omission on your part.
Where did say that I didnt like Ralph's designs or the man? I like Ralph personally
By saying he wasn't your favorite designer. You need to make up your mind.
Please a list of the industry people that have helped ASR become an industry influencer.
I can't give you their name as that would violate their privacy. Go on ASR and look at people's titles. It won't be long before you see Dealer, Reviewer, Audio Company, Industry Luminary, Technical expert, etc.
I just checked and we have 204 members verified to be an Audio company. Examples are KEF, Genelec, RME, Purifi (Bruno Putzeys), Kali Audio/Ex-JBL, Neumann, Hegel, Benchmark Audio, Schiit, Danley Labs, Weiss, etc.
We have 21 audio reviewers. Examples are John Atkinson and Kal Robinson of Stereophile.
We have four Audio Luminaries. Dr. Floyd Toole, Dr. Sean Olive, James Johnston (ATT Bel Labs and my chief architect in last job), and the late Scott Wurcer of Analog Designs.
We also have 40 members of industry that have the special title of "Technical Expert" who have deep understanding of science and engineering.
|
Oh my God it is like talking with a child. You keep going back to this Harman test.
I also gave you example of a member here, MikeL, not being to pass a blind test and thereby, showing that his sighted evaluations were biased by something other than sound. You haven't had an answer to either.
Did these people know they were being tested? If so, then all data can be dismissed
What? Every category of tester was put in the same situation of evaluating speakers blind. Tests were repeated and variance computed. Salespeople like you had very high variance meaning little consistency in their evaluation of speakers.
JAES, peer reviewed by people who believe as you do so this means very little.
Is that right? How should we rank the value of random salesman on a forum then? Just believe it?
Did Harman put on some dull music and then call it a day or did they play different music of different genres.
Already answered pages back. Harman researched what type of content is most revealing of speaker performance. And that is what they use:
AES Paper, The Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Room Correction Products
Sean E. Olive, John Jackson, Allan Devantier, David Hunt, and Sean M. Hess
AES Paper, A New Listener Training Software Application
Sean Olive, AES Fellow
Harman International Industries
AES Paper, Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study*
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow
Some of the tracks:
Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car", Tracy Chapman
· Jennifer Warnes, "Bird on a Wire", Famous Blue Rain Coat
· James Taylor "That's Why I'm Here", “That’s Why I’m Here”
· Steely Dan “Cousin Dupree”, “ Two Against Nature”
· Paula Cole, “Tiger”,” This Fire”
· “Toy Soldier March”, Reference Recording
· Pink Noise (uncorrelated)
James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here” from “That’s Why I’m Here,” Sony Records.
Little Feat, “Hangin’ on to the Good Times” from “Let It Roll,” Warner Brothers.
Tracy Chapman, “Fast Car” from “Tracy Chapman,” Elektra/Asylum Records.
Jennifer Warnes, “Bird on a Wire” from “Famous Blue Rain Coat,” Attic Records.
These fall in the #1 and #2 categories above for the most part.
|
Look at What’s Best Audio Forum. Most posters are congenial and obliging of alternative views, anxious to hear what’s new, posing answers as to what improvements can be made to existing equipment.
I co-founded What's Best Forum (and came up with that name!). So I speak from actual knowledge that we had battles between members like no one has ever seen. Raging wars would better explain it. It got so bad that I had to sell my half and go and start ASR as people became incredibly rude and intolerant of any measurement or talk of science. In some sense, if people were cordial and respectful of everyone's opinion, ASR would not exist!
So if you want to pick an example and say I am the bad guy, you should avoid referencing WBF. 😀
|
Speaking of WBF, my partner used to always keep telling me that he had brought all the members there and without him, we would not be anyone. Well, look at current stats as far as visitors:
This clearly shows that the audiophile community cares about objective performance of audio gear, and science and engineering behind it.
|
- His company is also posed as an integrator, which implies that he sells AV gear. I would wager that he sells Sound United products (Denon/Marantz), because he he’s been measuring the low sinad and granting happy panthers on Denon products. His minions go wild and feral when they hear the word "Denon".
Madrona doesn't "sell" anything. We have no retail operation, nor online. And no showroom. D&M is a top AV brand and as such, have heavy requirements for demo gear, amount you sell per year, inventory, etc. before you can become a dealer. For this reason, almost all of their dealers are big box stores. Existing stores would also want their turf protected which makes it even harder to become such a dealer.
As a result, most AV integrators will source products through a distributor. They mark it up so what you pay as your cost, will likely be higher than what a big box store puts them on sale! Translation: you have no prayer of competing for business against major dealers. For the handful of AV Receivers we install every year as part of much larger project, this is fine but if you are going to try to sell things, it is a losing proposition.
If you go one step down to Yamaha for example, you can get that line and indeed Madrona is a "dealer" for them. After being asked repeatedly to test one of their AVRs, I bought one out of my pocket through Madrona. See this review of Yamaha RX-V6A:
If you are not familiar with "panther rating," the above means it is mediocre and not recommended. That review starts this way:
"This is a review and detailed measurements of the Yamaha RX-V6A "8K" Audio/Video Receiver (AVR). They only announced two such 8K AVRs and this is the upper model. Our company (Madrona Digital) is a dealer for Yamaha so I was able to purchase this at a discount for testing. Retail cost is US $600."
Notice how the reader is put on full notice immediately on potential conflict of interest. Needless to say, after that lackluster review, I got stuck with the unit. No one was even interested in buying my discounted sample let alone more of them at normal price.
Back to D&M, I have repeatedly given poor ratings to their products on the Marantz side. See this review of Marantz AV7705:
$2,200 processor gets my "headless panther" indicating a broken design. Why? Because they took the Denon platform, screwed it up from usability and performance point of view, and sold it for more!
This went on and on until last year where they finally decided to give the proper option for the filter and improved the performance of the HDAM buffers based on my feedback to the company. That then resulted in a great review:
Marantz AV10
So this is a great example of the impact ASR has had on the industry. Even major companies like this are paying attention and using measurements to improve performance of their products.
To be clear, only one person has ever asked me to sell him an AV product. That was a Yamaha and when I gave him the price, I think he decided to buy it elsewhere and that was that. Did I tell you I hate the business of selling audio gear? I thought I did.
|
The main problem with ASR is Amir. If he were a congenial host who conceded that there are many ways to audio bliss which can include exotic and/or high end gear, he wouldn’t be demonized
You are wrong. I own high-end gear. I recommend high-end gear. Here is an example: Mola Mola Tambaqui USB DAC
Conclusions
The Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC shows again that just because a DAC is designed from ground up, it need not perform poorly. It is actually the opposite with it performing at the top of the class with respect to distortion and noise.
Since I am not the one paying for it for you to purchase it, it is not my issue to worry about the cost. As such, I am happy to recommend the Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC based on its measured performance and functionality.
Nearly $12,000 streamer/DAC is recommended.
What I don't recommend is high-end gear that takes massive steps backward in performance, attempting to please audiophiles who believe in myths. Here is the direct competitor to above, the PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC:
This is its distoriton+noise relative to frequency (in blue):
This is the Mola Mola (now in red):
PS Audio is selling you a noise and distortion generator. Mola Mola is selling you a state of the art DAC. Both are custom solutions. One designer (Bruno) knows what he is doing. The other, not.
This is what measurements do. They bring clarity and cut through marketing claims and user random opinions. When they speak, they speak. Build me a $100,000 DAC that performs well and it too would get a recommendation from me if it looks gorgeous, performs great and has nice and easy functionality.
You don't have an answer for these facts so resort to personal remarks and blame game.
|
What is the fun of being an audiophile if you cannot constantly improve the sound of your stereo and get bigger and bigger goosebumps?
You can do that all day long with better speakers, headphones, IEMs and room response. These are are all the areas where variability is there. In case of speakers, you do indeed need to spend more to get more in many cases. Even spending $100K+ on speakers would not be out of line as long as the design is right. Getting high dynamics there is going to cost you as does deep bass extension.
With respect to DACs, you can get a superb, transparent one for a few hundred dollars and be done. Amplifiers can cost money as you want to get as much power as you can. You also want them quiet or you would get hiss out of the tweeter.
Screwing around with cables, footers, etc. is all waste of money based on extensive objective and subjective testing that I have done. If that makes you unhappy, then I say you are putting higher priority on screwing around with your hardware than listening and enjoying music.
|
Amir, why are you still here?
As I have explained, this thread is directly about ASR. People like to discuss the very forum I have created so I am here to give first hand answers. You have a choice of posting anywhere in this forum yet you are hear arguing with me. What you want me to tell you?
|
I am glad that Amir recommended an expensive DAC. Of course, he thinks it sounds the same as his $900 Topping......which is why he never seriously listened to it.....and if he did he would say they sound the same.
It would. It has to based on science of how our hearing works. Same science predicts issues with PS Audio DSD DAC and that is what my listening tests indicated:
"Listening Tests
For subjective testing, I chose to use the recently reviewed and superb Monoprice Monolith THX 887 Balance Headphone Amplifier. This headphone amp has vanishingly low distortion and hence is completely transparent to DACs being tested. For the alternative DAC, I used my everyday Topping DX3 Pro 's line out RCA to Monolith. I then used the XLR input to connected the DirectStream DAC. Once there, I played a 1 kHz tone and used my Audio Precision analyzer to match levels using PS Audio's volume control. PS Audio claims perfection there ("bit perfect") so I figured they can't complain about that. The final matching was 0.3 dB difference between the two.
For headphone I used DROP + MRSPEAKERS ETHER CX with its XLR connection to THX 887 amp.
I started the testing with my audiophile, audio-show, test tracks. You know, the very well recorded track with lucious detail and "black backgrounds." I immediately noticed lack of detail in PerfectWave DS DAC. It was as if someone just put a barrier between you and the source. Mind you, it was subtle but it was there. I repeated this a few times and while it was not always there with all music, I could spot it on some tracks.
Next I played some of my bass heaving tracks i use for headphone testing. Here, it was easy to notice that bass impact was softened. But also, highs were exaggerated due to higher distortion. Despite loss of high frequency hearing, I found that accentuation unpleasant. With tracks that had lisping issues with female vocals for example, the DS DAC made that a lot worse."
See? I don't say all DACs sound the same.
|
YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT SOMETHING SOUNDS LIKE WITHOUT LISTENING.
I hear you but where do you draw the line? I listen to all speakers and headphones I review. I also listen to every headphone amplifier and portable DAC+HP amp I review. As you go further upstream, I listen less and less.
How about you? I assume you think the power cable makes a difference so you have to listen there. How about the AC outlet on the wall? Do you have to listen and pick one based on that? If so, how about the outlet cover? Does that make an audible difference and hence you have to listen?
|
You should have seriously listened to the Tambaqui when you had it there......would have blown your Topping to kindom come.
When and where have you compared the two?
|
My friend with his totally new, totally tweaked Apogee Duetta speakers (yes, you can still buy brand new Apogee speakers) is constantly trying new things....
Thank you for answering but I was not asking your friend. I am asking if you think the outlet makes a difference and you need to listen to pick the right one. And if that does, does the cover make a difference?
|
@kevn
Please point out in the link where it says audio measurements are not able to keep up with the human ear:
|
@ricevs
Thank you again for detailed answer. On this statement:
If you research ALL the reviews on Topping D90s and all the reviews on the Tambaqui.....you will then be able to interpolate how they sound versus each other even if no one had them both together (with incredible accuracy).
But you didn't research all of those reviews, correct?
Let's say you had. Wouldn't that then violate your statement that started this conversation?
YOU CANNOT KNOW WHAT SOMETHING SOUNDS LIKE WITHOUT LISTENING.
You hadn't done this listening test yet you were confident to tell me:
You should have seriously listened to the Tambaqui when you had it there......would have blown your Topping to kindom come.
Clearly you are going by some other factor other than your own listening test experience. Isn't it logical to assume then that you don't need to always listen and you can use other evidence to make assessments of fidelity?
|
Everything makes a difference.
@ricevs, I am not clear if you are saying that the AC outlet cover makes a difference. If so, seeing how these are cheap, did you go through listening tests to pick one?
|
Talk to someone you trust and who is able to speak the truth to you.
@abnerjack , that is superb advice. But say, did you run this post by someone you trust?
@mahgister
Have you considered professional help?
It is not kind, is it? Doesn't reflect well on you, does it? Should you not have sent that to him in private even if merited?
|
@amir_asr “Please point out in the link where it says audio measurements are not able to keep up with the human ear:”
- nice to hear from you once again, amir. Here we go, highlighted in bold below -
@kevn
There is absolutely nothing in there about audio measurements in general, or it being worse than the human hearing. You have cut and paste unrelated things.
As i have explained, many audio measurements are done without any Fourier analysis. SINAD, SNR, THD+N vs frequency, frequency response, etc. are all done simply by measuring voltages and levels. No transform of any kind.
When we do use Fourier transform in measurements, we can choose any length and arrive at frequency resolution far better than human hearing. When doing so, we are not at all interested in timing as the input is constant.
As @markwd has properly explained, the main usefulness of this study is in developing models of human hearing and how they need to take into account its non-linearity in this regard. It is not in any way, shape or form about the usefulness of audio equipment measurements.
I explained all of this in detail before. Please don't keep repeating the same thing by copying stuff from the article, which by the way, is NOT the paper itself.
|
I, for one, would love to read one day about your having invented a measuring machine that exceeds the Fourier uncertainty principle.
A "measuring machine" can be built to mimic human hearing and produce the same results as that study. But this has nothing to do with measuring audio equipment. There, we are not trying to analyze human hearing but the transparency of a piece of equipment.
The audio equipment is NOT attempting to analyze what it is hearing. Nor is its measurements. As such, none of this study applies to analysis of audio gear, or its measurements.
There is only one specific case in audio where we want to show both timing and frequency. That is the waterfall/CSD plot. I include that in every one of my speaker measurements. Take this review of Genelec 8361A (a superb studio monitor):
Notice how the frequency and time are presented at the same time. Depending on the number of points used, we can make either X axis higher resolution, or Y, or balance the two. Depending on what phenomenon we are are interested in, we optimize one or the other. As a general rule, I highly recommend people to not look at this specific measurement as it can vary that way.
Outside of this one example (whose information you can extract from others), there are no other audio measurements where we are trying to simultaneously look at time and frequency resolution. It is always the latter that we care about meaning we can highly optimize for frequency resolution, blowing away human acuity by a mile. Look at the review of this Schiit Vidar 2 Amplifier:
And this multitone test that uses FFT:
Your ear has no prayer of hearing those tine spikes. It simply hears them as background noise, reducing practical dynamic range. This is because I have used whopping 256,000 points to make that measurement allowing incredible resolution that is able to show those spikes. The test signal keeps repeating so we don't care about its timing.
|
It is also beyond argument that human hearing can exceed the Fourier limit of uncertainty, at times by a factor of ten.
BTW, the person who did that is a musician. As a rule, musicians are not audiophiles. My piano teacher wouldn't know a tweeter from a woofer. If this study applied to audio reproduction, then all musicians would have been diehard audiophiles but they are not.
Musicians are also better at hearing room reflections than general population. Again, that doesn't make them want to buy fancy audio systems.
|
Forgot to mention that the Eversolo streamer costs $850 or about 1/5th the cost of Mytek.
|
