Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

[mep]

Gary,
I agree with your philosophy 100% Some people think all you need to do is measure and the measurements will tell you everything. They are the same people who posted publically that they "improved" their stereos to the point where all music sounded bad and now they can't listen to music anymore because their stereo is so "good." So, it's obvious to me that measurements alone can take you down a dirt road. You have to listen. Otherwise, you don't want to listen to your system that measures perfect anymore. You come to the strange conclusion that all recorded music sounds bad on your perfect measuring stereo system instead of looking at the obvious.

Mark

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Comprehensive measurements are not hard to do at all for manufacturers or testers

I didn't mean to say they were hard to do, but that they were hard to find. They don't seem to be published all that often. Manufacturers publish the specs that look good and reviewers, for the most part, don't measure. Pick a product, even a relatively mass produced one, then Google and try to find two examples of pretty comprehensive specs like I did for the Benchmark. That's why I used that example, because two sets of independent and pretty thorough measurements have been published and were available on the net. That's not often the case.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I, for one although an owner and admirer of the Benchmarks HDR find its top end somewhat lacking "air" with respect to some other DACs ... It could be that upon listening someone else describes it differently ..what is certain and easily verifiable, knowledge removed if one wishes, is that compared t the best DACs the treble reproduction of the Benchmark is markedly different

What DACs are you talking about? Has anyone done thorough independent measurements of them? Maybe we can find evidence of that "air."

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Some people think all you need to do is measure and the measurements will tell you everything. They are the same people who posted publically that they "improved" their stereos to the point where all music sounded bad and now they can't listen to music anymore because their stereo is so "good."

These people are a strange phenomenon. I keep reading about them in the arguments of others, but in all my wandering through internet audio discussion boards (far too much), I don't think I've ever seen one of these posts in which someone claimed to have improved their system so much that they had rendered ordinary recordings unlistenable. And my experience has been the opposite; the more objectively excellent and revealing my system has become, the more of my recordings have become great to listen to.

So, it's obvious to me that measurements alone can take you down a dirt road. You have to listen.

That you have to listen is obvious to everyone. That lower noise and distortion and more accurate FR "take you down a dirt road?" Not so much.

Tim

 

[mep]

These people are a strange phenomenon. I keep reading about them in the arguments of others, but in all my wandering through internet audio discussion boards (far too much), I don't think I've ever seen one of these posts in which someone claimed to have improved their system so much that they had rendered ordinary recordings unlistenable. And my experience has been the opposite; the more objectively excellent and revealing my system has become, the more of my recordings have become great to listen to.



That you have to listen is obvious to everyone. That lower noise and distortion and more accurate FR "take you down a dirt road?" Not so much.

Tim

Tim-I tried to send you a PM but your mailbox is full again. You need look no further than our own forum to find two examples of people who claimed to have improved their stereos to the point that most music sounds bad. I will give you a hint and that is they both have Pioneer receivers. The first one made the statement and the second person chimed in and said "me too." And I don't agree that knowing that you have to listen is obvious to everyone based on the writings of one of our experts on this forum.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I tried to send you a PM but your mailbox is full again. You need look no further than our own forum to find two examples of people who claimed to have improved their stereos to the point that most music sounds bad. I will give you a hint and that is they both have Pioneer receivers. The first one made the statement and the second person chimed in and said "me too." And I don't agree that knowing that you have to listen is obvious to everyone based on the writings of one of our experts on this forum.

It seems I failed to delete the "sent messages" folder. All cleared up now. I just think you're taking it a bit more seriously than I am, Mark. Or perhaps I'm taking it a little less literally. When Ethan says everything can be measured, I don't think that means that he has stopped listening, or that he hasn't verified everything he has measured through listening, throughout his life. It would, in fact, be pointless to know that a speaker, for example, had a 60 cycle hump if you hadn't listened to such a speaker and experienced what a 60 cycle hump sounds like. On the other had, if you don't understand what a 60 cycle hump is, you might think, as so many speaker buyers do, that it is "better bass."

I don't know who the other two people are that you're talking about. I know we have a couple who believe they have improved their systems to the point that every recording sounds good. The audiophile hobby is full of such overstatement. I try not to take it too seriously. I'm not so good at it, but I try.

Tim

 

[fas42]

I know we have a couple who believe they have improved their systems to the point that every recording sounds good. The audiophile hobby is full of such overstatement. I try not to take it too seriously. I'm not so good at it, but I try.

I'm very proud of you, that you keep trying, Tim. Just every day, a little bit more, just keep on trying, working at it, and there will come a magical morning where you will finally realise that you don't have to take any of us seriously ever again, not one itsy, bitsy tiny bit, nooosiiiirreeeee!!

And it will surely be a happy day for all ...

Frank

 

[Old Listener]

They are the same people who posted publically that they "improved" their stereos to the point where all music sounded bad and now they can't listen to music anymore because their stereo is so "good."
...
You come to the strange conclusion that all recorded music sounds bad on your perfect measuring stereo system instead of looking at the obvious.

Can you provide a link to a post where one of these people says that all music sounds bad on his stereo?

Bill

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm very proud of you, that you keep trying, Tim. Just every day, a little bit more, just keep on trying, working at it, and there will come a magical morning where you will finally realise that you don't have to take any of us seriously ever again, not one itsy, bitsy tiny bit, nooosiiiirreeeee!!

And it will surely be a happy day for all ...

Frank

Hope springs eternal, Frank.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I didn't mean to say they were hard to do, but that they were hard to find. They don't seem to be published all that often. Manufacturers publish the specs that look good and reviewers, for the most part, don't measure. Pick a product, even a relatively mass produced one, then Google and try to find two examples of pretty comprehensive specs like I did for the Benchmark. That's why I used that example, because two sets of independent and pretty thorough measurements have been published and were available on the net. That's not often the case.

Tim

Considering that measurements of DACs and CD players manufactured during the last years show almost perfect values, limited by the digital standard , they have lost interest. Re-reading this thread I do not understand how we can discuss truth and tonality in DACs - aren't almost all of them "true" ?

Although there are few extreme cases - equipment using obsolete converters or using analogue output stages with significant distortion or noise, I can not see how you can correlate sound performance with the measurements.

BTW, if you look at the sets of measurements presented in the several reviews of the Benchmark you referred , you will see that they show significant differences in some parameters - either the measurement were not correctly done or they were carried using different units . Happily these these parameters should not be audible.

 

[amirm]

Considering that measurements of DACs and CD players manufactured during the last years show almost perfect values, limited by the digital standard , they have lost interest.

There are places that still measure them. Here is an example I had saved up from another discussion here:

And here is Benchmark DAC1 from stereophile review: [best to not quite compare charts from different reviews as test conditions may be slightly different]

Re-reading this thread I do not understand how we can discuss truth and tonality in DACs - aren't almost all of them "true" ?

I think it is fair to say they are all "almost true ." In careful blind testing I did years ago, there were slight differences in how they resolve very low level detail and tonal differences at higher pitch sounds. Bass can also have slightly more or less impact."

Although there are few extreme cases - equipment using obsolete converters or using analogue output stages with significant distortion or noise, I can not see how you can correlate sound performance with the measurements.

There is partial correlation. if you see significant difference in THD ratings, then the devices will very much likely sound different in the areas mentioned above (under careful testing and specific material).

BTW, if you look at the sets of measurements presented in the several reviews of the Benchmark you referred , you will see that they show significant differences in some parameters - either the measurement were not correctly done or they were carried using different units . Happily these these parameters should not be audible.

Per above, you are right. When we are talking about measuring small values, there can be variations in testing. Once I was testing an Onkyo AVR and it was putting out a lot of noise at higher frequencies. I power things up and down and it went away and I could never repeat it again.

Also, a lot of DAC testing relies on how good the source is. There is no assurance that your transport/source acts the same way and how well the DAC reject source issues is impossible to measure across wide range of products.

 

[microstrip]

I think it is fair to say they are all "almost true ." In careful blind testing I did years ago, there were slight differences in how they resolve very low level detail and tonal differences at higher pitch sounds. Bass can also have slightly more or less impact."

(...)

There is partial correlation. if you see significant difference in THD ratings, then the devices will very much likely sound different in the areas mentioned above (under careful testing and specific material).

Amir,

The graphs you present carry a lot of information. The flat bottom on the distortion spectra of the Benchmark suggests a poorer performance somewhere than that the ML40, (please correct me if I am wrong), but the absolute values of the Benchmark seem better. How can we correlate this with sound?

Something that always astonished me is how DACs show differences in bass impact and fullness - something I also noticed long ago.

I skip your comment about the source - otherwise the main aspects will soon be buried in inflammatory posts!

 

[mep]

Can you provide a link to a post where one of these people says that all music sounds bad on his stereo?

Bill

Alright Bill-This took some serious digging, but here are the words:

1.Gedde: First, my experience is the opposite of your. As I continued to improve my system I kept hearing more and more flaws in the recordings. Almost everyone who has bought my speakers has commented on the exact same thing.

I don't have many classical recordings (maybe 1% of my collection), but I would have to say almost all of them are "bad". I find recorded classical music lacking - especially when compared to live. I am not a big classical fan to begin with, but none of the few recordings that I have are worth listening to. Some customers have brought over some decent ones, so they must exist, I just don't have any.

2. Ethan: That is exactly my experience too. A while back someone asked what my favorite recordings are, and it was difficult for me to name one.

--Ethan

 

[fas42]

Also, a lot of DAC testing relies on how good the source is. There is no assurance that your transport/source acts the same way and how well the DAC reject source issues is impossible to measure across wide range of products.

My response here really belongs in Ethan's Measuring versus Listening thread, but since we are talking about truth, part of the "farce" of supposedly finding the truth is that tests of individual components, in isolation, tell you very little about the "sound", "tonality" of the system. Taking the engine out of a race car, putting it on a test bench, will certainly not tell you if that vehicle is a winner or not!

So, IMO, ultimately the only valid measured truth is that of the system taken as a whole: test CD in the transport, microphone measuring what is coming out of the speakers ...

Frank

 

[Stereoeditor]

The flat bottom on the distortion spectra of the Benchmark suggests a poorer performance somewhere than that the ML40. . .

No, what you are seeing in this graph is the measurement being limited by the noise performance of the analyzer, and original Audio Precision System 1. The giveaway is the sawtooth in the traces, which is due to the AP's autoscaling function operating at the limit of its own resolution.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[microstrip]

No, what you are seeing in this graph is the measurement being limited by the noise performance of the analyzer, and original Audio Precision System 1. The giveaway is the sawtooth in the traces, which is due to the AP's autoscaling function operating at the limit of its own resolution.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Thanks - I was really puzzled with the sawtooth effect. This shows the danger of reading technical graphs without proper explanations - if I was looking for a DAC this graph would put me away from Benchmark - I do not want my recordings low level information to be hiccuped.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Considering that measurements of DACs and CD players manufactured during the last years show almost perfect values, limited by the digital standard , they have lost interest. Re-reading this thread I do not understand how we can discuss truth and tonality in DACs - aren't almost all of them "true" ?

Yes. But try to tell that to the guy sitting in his chair, staring lovingly across the room at the gleaming faceplate of his $10k DAC. Or even the guy looking at his $1k investment in a Benchmark. A friend of mine exchanged emails in which one of the design engineers from Benchmark talked about the luxury the design team had; how they had over-engineered the DAC far beyond what was necessary to make it audibly transparent and that it was quite possible to make a DAC that would be just as transparent, for less. And I know he was right, because I've heard some of those DACs.

Although there are few extreme cases - equipment using obsolete converters or using analogue output stages with significant distortion or noise, I can not see how you can correlate sound performance with the measurements.

If you include deliberate coloration under "using analogue output stages with significant distortion or noise," I think that about sums it up. How can I correlate sound performance with those measurements? I can expect them to add or subtract nothing from the recording. I can expect them not to "sound" at all, and be comforted, because that's their job.

BTW, if you look at the sets of measurements presented in the several reviews of the Benchmark you referred , you will see that they show significant differences in some parameters - either the measurement were not correctly done or they were carried using different units . Happily these these parameters should not be audible.

Exactly.

Tim

 

[fas42]

they had over-engineered the DAC far beyond what was necessary to make it audibly transparent and that it was quite possible to make a DAC that would be just as transparent, for less. And I know he was right, because I've heard some of those DACs.

So you would posit then, that in a "audibly transparent" system of your choosing, substituting the Benchmark with any of those DACs or vice versa, yourself and all "golden ears" would not be able to detect any such substitution ...??

Frank

 

[jack]

"The Sound

I am adding this paragraph strictly for the sake of my newer readers. The old regulars know exactly my position regarding the stupidity of ascribing a “character” to the sound of an utterly neutral signal path. Oohing and aahing over the vast improvement in soundstaging, front-to-back depth, bass delineation, or treble sweetness obtainable with this or that electronic component may sell high-end magazines but is totally unscientific and delusional. What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own. Furthermore, its measurements could be 20 or 30 dB worse and it would still sound the same. I have convinced myself of that over and over again in double-blind listening comparisons of all sorts of electronic components at matched levels. The 100% purity of the DAC1 HDR is of benefit mainly in professional systems, where the integrity of the equipment chain needs to be verified and guaranteed. To audiophiles it’s a somewhat abstract luxury—but not an excessively costly one."

Conclusion

All in all, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is damn close to a perfect piece of equipment. Neither its digital performance nor its analog performance could be meaningfully improved. That’s really all that needs to be said. If I could change anything at all about it, it would be to add a couple more analog inputs. I realize that there is no room for that, so I use a small input switch box that sits on top of it. Most users won’t need it. There exist DACs and preamps at ten times the price of the Benchmark, but they aren’t any better. Let the high-end police come and take me away in handcuffs."

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=40&blogId=1

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So you would posit then, that in a "audibly transparent" system of your choosing, substituting the Benchmark with any of those DACs or vice versa, yourself and all "golden ears" would not be able detect any such substitution ...??

Frank

Given the removal of expectation bias through blind listening, yes. Are there differences? Maybe. Maybe someone could train themselves to hear them, like Amir has trained himself to hear jitter artifacts when listening at elevated volumes through reference headphone systems. Maybe.

Tim