Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews
I’ve briefly taken a look at some online reviews for budget Tekton speakers from ASR and Youtube. Both are based on Klippel quasi-anechoic measurements to achieve "in-room" simulations.
As an amateur speaker designer, and lover of graphs and data I have some thoughts. I mostly hope this helps the entire A’gon community get a little more perspective into how a speaker builder would think about the data.
Of course, I’ve only skimmed the data I’ve seen, I’m no expert, and have no eyes or ears on actual Tekton speakers. Please take this as purely an academic exercise based on limited and incomplete knowledge.
1. Speaker pricing.
One ASR review spends an amazing amount of time and effort analyzing the ~$800 US Tekton M-Lore. That price compares very favorably with a full Seas A26 kit from Madisound, around $1,700. I mean, not sure these inexpensive speakers deserve quite the nit-picking done here.
2. Measuring mid-woofers is hard.
The standard practice for analyzing speakers is called "quasi-anechoic." That is, we pretend to do so in a room free of reflections or boundaries. You do this with very close measurements (within 1/2") of the components, blended together. There are a couple of ways this can be incomplete though.
a - Midwoofers measure much worse this way than in a truly anechoic room. The 7" Scanspeak Revelators are good examples of this. The close mic response is deceptively bad but the 1m in-room measurements smooth out a lot of problems. If you took the close-mic measurements (as seen in the spec sheet) as correct you’d make the wrong crossover.
b - Baffle step - As popularized and researched by the late, great Jeff Bagby, the effects of the baffle on the output need to be included in any whole speaker/room simulation, which of course also means the speaker should have this built in when it is not a near-wall speaker. I don’t know enough about the Klippel simulation, but if this is not included you’ll get a bass-lite expereinced compared to real life. The effects of baffle compensation is to have more bass, but an overall lower sensitivity rating.
For both of those reasons, an actual in-room measurement is critical to assessing actual speaker behavior. We may not all have the same room, but this is a great way to see the actual mid-woofer response as well as the effects of any baffle step compensation.
Looking at the quasi anechoic measurements done by ASR and Erin it _seems_ that these speakers are not compensated, which may be OK if close-wall placement is expected.
In either event, you really want to see the actual in-room response, not just the simulated response before passing judgement. If I had to critique based strictly on the measurements and simulations, I’d 100% wonder if a better design wouldn’t be to trade sensitivity for more bass, and the in-room response would tell me that.
3. Crossover point and dispersion
One of the most important choices a speaker designer has is picking the -3 or -6 dB point for the high and low pass filters. A lot of things have to be balanced and traded off, including cost of crossover parts.
Both of the reviews, above, seem to imply a crossover point that is too high for a smooth transition from the woofer to the tweeters. No speaker can avoid rolling off the treble as you go off-axis, but the best at this do so very evenly. This gives the best off-axis performance and offers up great imaging and wide sweet spots. You’d think this was a budget speaker problem, but it is not. Look at reviews for B&W’s D series speakers, and many Focal models as examples of expensive, well received speakers that don’t excel at this.
Speakers which DO typically excel here include Revel and Magico. This is by no means a story that you should buy Revel because B&W sucks, at all. Buy what you like. I’m just pointing out that this limited dispersion problem is not at all unique to Tekton. And in fact many other Tekton speakers don’t suffer this particular set of challenges.
In the case of the M-Lore, the tweeter has really amazingly good dynamic range. If I was the designer I’d definitely want to ask if I could lower the crossover 1 kHz, which would give up a little power handling but improve the off-axis response. One big reason not to is crossover costs. I may have to add more parts to flatten the tweeter response well enough to extend it's useful range. In other words, a higher crossover point may hide tweeter deficiencies. Again, Tekton is NOT alone if they did this calculus.
I’ve probably made a lot of omissions here, but I hope this helps readers think about speaker performance and costs in a more complete manner. The listening tests always matter more than the measurements, so finding reviewers with trustworthy ears is really more important than taste-makers who let the tools, which may not be properly used, judge the experience.
Ummm, no, that is wildly inaccurate. Please read some ASR reviews and read/watch the primers to get an understanding of how measurements are performed. There is no pink noise, but there are various frequency response measurements, very similar to the way that DIRAC or other room calibration approaches work because that is exactly what they are emulating. |
Most just need to start with good quality low noise and distortion gear. Then you can and should use DSP like that on Roon to tailor the sound. That’s the powerful 21st century way of doing things. No need to find the gear that has just the right distortion seasoning out of the can for your personal tastes. That is not a very efficient approach to getting the best sound for most in this mostly digital day and age. I almost always add a bump from 4-6khz to my sound. It gives the sound a little extra edge like a good set of high efficiency horns. But look mom….no horns! |
Of course reducing noise and distortion are desirable. I dont think anyone disputes this. Sometimes the other qualities that you get from components that measure poorer in these areas still sound more correct overall. Very few really talented solid state designers will dispute that they cant duplicate what tubes do well in their designs. Just as few designers of any amp type will dispute that their designs sound better with higher impedance speakers. 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. In fact much of it is completely false. He doesnt come across to me as a listener of any acumen. He completely missed the sublime aspects of this hobby. He speaks as if it were a mechanical undertaking and also listens in the same fashion.
|
I'm unclear on your points. You seem to begin by claiming that poor measurements might sound "more correct overall" which begs the question of what "more correct" means? I think you are smuggling in preference; what you like is somehow more correct than the preferences of others. I've less certitude beyond saying that accurate reproduction fidelity is mostly my preference. What is in fact "completely false" about Amir's statements? Is it just that you claim, without evidence, that a majority of people disagree with accurate reproduction or flat frequency responses, etc.? That seems unlikely given the very high interest in ASR based on visit frequencies. And, finally, no clear idea what sublimities you are fishing at in your final paragraph or why you consider his listening "mechanical." Is it because he uses different language to describe his listening outcomes or doesn't tarry sufficiently about some aspect of your preferences for listening adjectives? |
Good because I don't use pink noise for any tests.
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. |
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 ---- 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. |
I thought my post was very clear on most points but I will address one key thing. It is Amir and the ASR narrative that we are wrong and they are correct. The other side simply believes that they hear the difference and base this belief on experience. Amir constructs reasons why we are wrong, lumps the experience into a tidy bundle and gains a few followers along the way it seems. My guess is that his core group are not high enders, but rather some mid-fi hobbyists who Amir has convinced are missing out on very little by paying less rather then more.
|
Well, he just provided listening test evidence above that suggests that experience, belief, and listening are not accurate or discriminatory. Therefore at least some of the group you claim to represent are actually wrong in their beliefs. The bundling of that is firmly tied up by known properties of human cognitive bias, everything from frequency effects to sighted bias and individual differences. As far as characterizing the spending habits and wealth profile of ASR visitors, I wouldn't speculate. Speculation is an imaginative way to fail when not held at arm's length as a mere hypothesis that must be backed by facts and data. |
Less trained listeners are much less picky (having lower standards) which goes to affirm the claims of audiophiles that they have extraordinary hearing ability. There, I fixed it. The data points the way but the inference needed some work. I can skew conclusions as good as the next guy. All the best, |
Speculating about the buying habits is based on, admittedly, a quick perusal of ASR and the reviews. Dont see a great deal of higher end product and what I did see was reviews of equipment on loan from ASR members. Hmmm. Well hand bags and audio is a terrible analogy. We dont cross our fingers we base our choices on how things sound. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous and speaks to your uncertainty regarding your senses. Just because you find comfort in what you consider to be "quantifiable data" dont condemn others because they do not. Amir provides evidence in the form of measurements, but there is no universal acknowledgement as to the applicability of these measurements and which measurements explain things properly and are of actual significance. If I want to know about measurements I will go to those that create, not a populist wannabe. This is a really old argument that is no closer to being resolved than it was 2 decades ago. Listening test data! What data and what proof? A graph, some mention of trained listeners and all this coming from Amir of all people. Who could you possibly take this seriously without a significant amount of additional detail? Buy what you want, believe what you want, but dont lecture others that the enjoyment they experience with their tube amp is anything other than aspects of reproduction that are deemed superior during the listening experience. This is a waste of our collective time. |
| Post removed |
There is actually a vast well of acknowledgement of the applicability of these measurements, though there of course remain deep discussions about aspects of their relevance to certain areas of audio science and listener experience. The creators of audio equipment are engineers and use all the same principles in designing the gear that you enjoy. Noise and distortion are characterized and measured and how to manage them is part of the design process. For something like tube amps, there are deep technical issues in harmonic distortion components, and so forth. You can go to the primers at ASR on the relevance of measurements to understand more. I disagree that it is a waste of "our" collective time. It instead provides depth and clarity, debunks long-held myths, and even improves the quality of components as a reflective market signal (see design changes by Schiit Audio, for instance) delivered by the community of users. That is a new and rare kind of social and capitalist phenomena. |
Men buy hifis because they like what they hear. Women buy handbags because they like what they see. Same thing, different sense used. Everyone has an opinion and they are all different. How to decide which opinions are best? Take a guess. It starts with the letter M. The only way to meaningfully compare options is to quantify the options somehow. If it can’t be quantified the decision is a crapshoot and the odds are not in your favor. |
@markwd Thanks for clearing that up as it never made sense to me the way I perceived it. All the best, |
Just wait until those ASR guys learn that much of science is based on human sense (and has its own biases)! Boy, if only those kids could read...
|
Some of you claim you can hear the difference between power cables. Measurements don’t verify any of it. But if you want to pay up for expensive power cords go for it. It’s your money.
Here’s a $1200 power cord for you, the AudioQuest NRG Thunder. It uses ‘long grain copper’ 😜
Without making any measurements let’s just use common sense. Electrical power is conducted through miles of cable, substations at high voltage and numerous transformers before reaching your house. Then it runs through your electrical panel, circuit breakers, and the Romex cable in your house wiring. So AudioQuest would have you believe that the last 3’ of their ‘long grain copper’ power cord 🤭 is going to improve the sound of your amplifier and charge you $1200 for that.
If you believe that stuff and are willing to pay up, go for it.
|
Looks like the softening up is working, permitting the more trollish and boorish to hash over the extremes and paint everything they don't like with a broad brush. That analogy of oh those some many miles of cabling before it gets to your place has been shot down time and again. All those substations, annexes, transformers and cabling alter the power in ways that would not resemble what it measures as when it finally reaches your home. It's not some invisible, constant never changing force being shuttled to your door. What matters is how it's intended to be when it at last gets to your outlet and measures are taken to ensure it doesn't vary much, especially as much as it did during it's journey carried over aluminum lines. Would you have your PC made out of aluminum? So yes, it is those last three feet that matter since most people don't go around trying to directly connect stuff to the Romex. Granted, they charge more than it's worth but who doesn't nowadays? I have a few PCs from TWL and some from Zu Audio and a few others and there's clearly a difference in sound staging, dynamics, and frequency extension. Until the fetish of measuring everything to death and making a cottage industry out of it, we've always relied on our ears and yes, some fell prey to marketing and peer pressure but stop with this throwing the baby out with the bathwater malarkey. One can always get better performance for not so dear a price as the one you brought up and to keep citing the extremes doesn't bode well for those arguments. Do your thing and leave others to do the same. Before this measurement fetish took hold, members were politely cautioned about price/performance matters and not to fall for the hype. It's always been done that way, but now, it's one big crusade that requires total subjugation, enabling all that dopamine and serotonin to flow again for that big, fat rush. All the best, |
That's an interesting claim. What measurements have you made on what cords to reach the conclusion?
Incredible - you're actually granting us your permission for us to buy what we like. Dude, you have a problem. |
@jimofoakcreek Mr. Amir disagrees with you with this statement: "we absolutely can measure the differences between cables. The question is do those measurements matter as far as the perception, and the short answer is they don't" This in itself is contradictory to what Amir professes, that the measurements are the only bases to judge the equipment. Anyway, thank you for allowing people to spend their money as they wish and enjoy the results. I appreciate it. BTW there is no "NRG Thunder" cable in Audioquest lineup. |
You "every DAC sounds the same" guys should watch this video (from the beginning......don’t go to the conclusion first). This is an A/B with a $2700 and a $6000 DAC. He does not tell you which DAC is which until the conclusion. If you cannot hear the difference between the DACs in the first few seconds of the first change.....then you are either deaf or really, really stubborn. Recorded using Schoeps mics and 32 bit recorder. This guy has lots of videos done this way......very easy to hear the difference between DACs and amps. and I am listening through $29 Altec computer speakers. Both of these DACs are way, way more transparent than a Topping DAC.....Do they measure as good?.....probably not.
|
Well, it appears that more ASR minions have landed (Sinad Measurement guy must have called for help, called in the reinforcements to flood this site). Well, as you boys can see (over and over), this guy measures a dac and throws you some sinad numbers, which forms the basis for his ranking system/purchase guide. He will tell you that’s all there is to it....some low IQ sinad (his path to glory). But, there’s a lot more you could do with FPGA, etc. When you all dump 10k, 20k, etc on your dacs, there are a lot of tricks contained within such a dac. You can deploy algorithms to pull a bunch of spatial info, deploy hrtf filters, create some level of surround virtualization, etc. When you hear some dacs, all of a sudden, you heard some depth and layering n all? almost sounds like spatial audio, surround effects at times, eh? That’s right, many of these effects can be attributed to what’s hidden away inside fpga, etc. The dac manufacturer isn’t gonna reveal all his in-house secrets to you, but, you can be rest assured that the above mentioned (or similar) is what’s being deployed. To reiterate, this guy’s IQ is just not high enough to measure anything on the above mentioned for ya (he wouldn’t know about it)...Sinad is all there is w.r.t ASR minions. Hence, if you just look at his low IQ sinad charts and made your purchase decision, you could get fooled. Good luck to y’all Audigons.
P.S. I can train a 12 yr old to operate my AP kit spit out the same charts. Don't get fooled because you saw a fancy lookin chart that isn't something you see everyday (in your regular line of work). |
If you properly deal with the things where the data matters first the wires will all work themselves out relatively easily. If you don’t then you are guessing but it still may all work out eventually. Well informed choices are always best. At one end, you can pay for good quality affordable wires on Amazon that will get the job done perfectly fine (Mogami for a slight premium is always a solid choice) or take it as far as your imagination and budget might lead you. But if you tell me the wires are responsible for your good sound, my response will be "whatever you say...have fun!". Disclaimer: I know for a fact that all wires do not sound the same. I also know that wires are not rocket science.....its not hard to produce an affordable wire that does the job well although it will cost more most likely if not made in CHina or similar. |
@ricevs Of course it may be possible to hear differences between DACs. If one is poorly engineered and introduces significant noise and distortion while the other is state-of-the-art (SOTA) in terms of SINAD, then SQ may be distinct. Such differences will also be apparent when the two DACs are measured. You may be confusing this with the argument that two SOTA DACs without other specific flaws are not likely to have audible differences. |
There is no "one thing" that makes the sound. It is everything. Certainly measurements can be counted as one of the infinite things that MAKE the sound. However, every single part inside a component (and the wires connecting it, and the line conditioning and power cords and the feet used underneath and shelving, etc) all MAKE the sound. Every single part inside a DAC or whatever contributes to the sound. I have been doing listening tests since the 70s and this has ALL WAYS been the case. Measurements alone are laughable. Audio is not simple. It is infinite in how things change the sound and most of the things that change sound CANNOT be measured......plain and simple. All you have to do is listen.....to know what I just said is correct. Have you every A/Bed resistors and hook up wires and solder brands and capacitors and types of damping material and jacks, etc.??????No, you have not. I have. So, you have no information as to whether I am correct or not. However, there are thousands of posts all over the internet backing up what I just claimed. The claims that all parts, wires, DACs, preamps and amps sound the same is made by people who NEVER, EVER listen. For if they listened their poor ego would explode. Bottom line to all this thread.....if you listen....you KNOW....if you do not listen.....you DO NOT KNOW. How can you KNOW what something sounds like without listening......even a 5 year old can understand this logic. It is nonsense to think otherwise. |
TWo DACS that measure well are more likely to sound similar. If they measure differently, better chance they sound different. If they sound different, then which one is best? Answer: whichever one you think. But in that case, there is no data to support that either one is objectively the "best" or even "better". One thing is better to audiophile A and something else is for Audiophile b). What the hey?
Subjectively, anything is possible. Everyone is different, but well designed high performance electronics will tend to be more similar than not, which can be pretty boring when you think about all the gyrations audiophiles go through to achieve the best sound yet few can even agree on what "best sound" even means. Not a problem when things are measured properly. Like it or lump it. |
@deep_333 Sure, DSP can change the way things sound, but I'm not aware of any manufacturers who don't make such features switchable and therefore hide away their secret sauce. Pretty much all DAC makers strive towards accurate reproduction first and DSP features are add-ons (even if their algorithms are proprietary for this add-ons). Seems like an odd and unlikely claim but I'd be interested to learn about specific instances! |
No, you can get a dozen DACs with very similar measurements and they will still ALL sound different from each other. Check out reviews from all over the world that prove this. The two DACs a/bed both have very good specs. They do not measure poorly. Please listen to wires and solder and resistors and jacks, etc and get back to us about it all being measurements. You do listening.....you will KNOW. You theorize...you get words....not knowledge As many of you know.....I have modded CD players, DVD player, SACD players and DACs for years. Aso designed and sold my own DACs. I can take any machine and make is sound way, way better and it still measures the same. Go figure. I don't have unhappy customers.....they like the results after modding to before modding.....they say it sounds more detailed and more real.....yet is still measures the same. Have you every modded something? Do you know what parts and execution can bring? Only those that do and listen will know. All other noise is just made up fantasy ego trippin. YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO KNOW HOW SOMETHING SOUNDS. Times infinity......this is the TRUTH. |
@ricevs Well, it’s an interesting series of claims that I’ve read before but it’s not clear why that might be the case. How can we hear differences that aren’t somehow present in the audio signal and therefore measurable? It’s very incongruous and does not correspond with ordinary science and engineering principles, or with even everyday logic per se. Do note that manufacturers’ specs can be false and also that a specific unit may be broken. Testing by a third party like ASR can help to ascertain the reasons for the differences, not always perfectly, but they would add additional support to these apparently tendentious ideas about these products. |
markwd You are assuming that our current measurements can detect all distortions, noise and differences in sound. That is an assumption that has NEVER EVER been proven. So, your basis is basically a fantasy......a made up bunch of words. You might as well say the moon is made up of green cheese. There is no.....I mean no proof that measurements = all sonic differences.....NONE. You just want to believe in the tooth fairy. This is not science to hold a made up belief and assume everything follows your belief. You want to prove your "theory"? Then you need audio listening tests (serious ones).....plain and simple. I listen......therefore I KNOW. Do you listen or are you just making up stuff? |
@ricevs Actually, you are inverting the way science and logic works. We have theories like linear and non-linear distortions, as well as noise, are introduced into the transfer function of a system due to a range of thermodynamic and quantum interactions in stuff like semiconductors. The effects of these distortions and noise manifest as producing spectral spray, overtones, harmonics, etc. in the output signal. This spectrum can be measured with some accuracy using methods like Amir applies. There is no evidence for the presence of other types of unmeasurable phenomena. We can never prove that there are no other distortions, noise, etc. We just have no evidence for them. It is the positive task for a researcher who creates a theory that there are other measurable phenomena to prove that they exist. I listen, but I doubt you know. |
MikeL’s speaker wire testing was done at his own home on his system costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
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. |
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. |
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......even of the same price and measured capabilities........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. If you did not hear any differences they would spread the word all over the net that you are deaf. If you heard the differences then you would have to admit to the whole world that you were WRONG all those years. So.....your ego defense mechanism will NEVER allow you to be a room where this is happening. What cowards you all are.....he he. Sweet but cowardly. As I have said before.....only the deaf and the double deaf need blind and double blind tests to know what is real. We can hear amazing differences within seconds....and yes, it is repeatable. Did you guys listen to the link I posted? Did you hear the differences? Will you admit it? This thread (and type of thread) will go on forever and ever....because the earth flatters will never give in. May we all enjoy our low distorton systems.....whether it is by measurements or by listening. I wish you all the goosebumps in the universe. |
Imagine if audiophiles all went with measurements only. They would all have pretty much the same gear and sound.
“Why did Joe spend all that extra money for the same results”? But I guess all would have rightful bragging rights. Not a bad deal, but its a fantasy. Science cannot account for how people think. So rest easy audiophiles. The ranks may be dwindling big-time but there is still hope!
|
@markwd "We have theories like linear and non-linear distortions..." Exactly, you have just theories (general propositions)! |
Sorry, but that's a big conditional "can" along with "a specific" and to imply that Amir is gonna come to the rescue smacks of a little bit of hero worship. Earlier on, one member spoke of the different filter settings on a Technics unit that all measured the same but sounded different.
I found a similar review of my Technics SL-G700 Network/SACD Player where the reviewer spoke to Technics about the 4 (or so) digital filter settings and they told him that although they all measured the same, they sounded distinctly different and it was up to the listener to pick the one they preferred. Others have measured it and found out it to be the case as well. It should be easy enough to procure a unit, test it, and lay that dog to rest. All I could hear was a slight difference and went with the setting that didn't alter the incoming signal at all based on what reviewers were told by Technics, and yes, I could be fooled into not picking out the one I'm presently using that measures the same as the others as they're slight. That would more in the realm of a parlor trick. There's more than meets the eye, and scope. All the best, |
Well, the arguments presented above don't resemble a fantasy and flat-Earthers are the ones holding fast to irrational beliefs when presented with evidence to the contrary, so I'm both amused and confused by your presentation. You are also directly contradicted by Amir's discussion of cable testing, above, but I do encourage you to continue to research, learn, and perhaps someday ABX prove some of your ideas! I personally have no particular ego investment in audio equipment but do like trying to understand online communities and how beliefs (and fantasies) develop. |
@nonoise I do try to be careful in my use of conditional language...epistemic humility again about ideas and people, regardless of your characterization. I'd love to be shown an anomalous result where there is in fact more than "meets the eye, and scope," but just haven't seen any evidence for such things yet. The Technics anecdote is curious but needs facts, data, measurements--proof of any kind. The anomalous results, when they arrive, are the great point of cognitive reorganization. There's a great beauty in that sense of impermanence and the arrival at a new plateau of understanding. Sorry to wax poetic, but there is a sensual numinous feeling to good science for me. Bring me the novelty, but make sure it is fully baked! |
When you do not trust what you hear......trust yourself......this is very sad. When you think you need to blind test yourself to believe what you just heard......again very sad. When you taste a certain variety of apple do you need to test yourself blindly to know that its a Granny Smith? I feel sorry for you "must do tests and and measurements to make certain that I am experiencing what I am experiencing" guys. Do you go to the love measuring machine when you fall in love? What a joke. You either trust what you hear/experience or you don't. Not much trust in those measurement guys. Back in the 70s we borrowed 10 Supex cartridges from Dave Fletcher at Sumiko (high end audio was a big club back then....everyone knew everyone). Now this is even before we knew that cables sounded different. We mounted them all on universal headshells and marked each one with a number on a small piece of masking tape. The three of us spent all day doing this test. We ALL agreed with every test. A few of them were not very good.....another batch was pretty good but there were 3 of them that stood out.....we spent a long time but finally figured out which one was the winner......we bought that one. After doing something like that you know you can trust your ears. Of course, this was all sighted. But it was very, very clear. The frequency graphs that came with each cartridge showed nothing of the differences we heard. Learn to trust youself.....trust that you can hear differences and they do not need to be proven or backed up by others. You are your own source of truth......live it....feel it....listen to it...trust it. It is REAL. |
Not sure what you are getting at? Yes, we have theories explaining the existence of noise and distortion in audio reproduction. Those theories are used to develop engineered products that, in turn, reduce noise and distortion. That's how this science and engineering game works. Note that a "theory" in science is not just a speculation: The critical language cloud includes ideas like "testable," "make predictions,"withstand rigorous scrutiny," etc. |
@ricevs Cool, man! I'm just glad that all the engineers and scientists I know and have known use rigor, measurement, and scrutinize one another using mechanisms like peer review before reaching conclusions and are humble enough to admit when in error. The known facts about cognitive and perceptual bias tell us to be a bit more careful about being "our own source of truth." Nothing sad about it! We are beautifully flawed. |
| Post removed |
