Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Phelonious Ponk]

In that test, FR is what they measured, and correlated to preference in listening tests. How do you get from there to I personally believe FR is the only thing that matters? Let's look at that next statement you're referring to, John...

If listeners can hear FR variations recorded in measurements and if their preferences correlate to those measurements, why would it be any different with audible differences in amplifiers, dacs, etc?

Nothing here to indicate that I made a sudden leap to jitter, John. I'm still in the same sentence in which I define the variations in question as FR. As I get closer to the "next statement" I even refer back to those measurements. I'm obviously still talking about FR and you're fishing. So is there some reason why measured variations in FR, in a dac, wouldn't be heard, and drive listening preference? Isn't that exactly what designers are doing when they create warmth in the output stage of a DAC to make it sound more analog?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello Tim

Yes for sure the only difference is the magnitude of the frequncy response errors. If an amp ever measured like some of the speakers in Tooles study it would be laughed at and not taken seriously. Seems speakers are expected to be colored to some extent amps and dacs s/b within a .1db across the whole spectrum.

Agreed, Ron. Though judging by the comments one hears on Audiophile forums you could easily believe that the differences between DACs and amps is huge. I'm not one who believes all amps and dacs sound alike, but I am one who believes they are usually very close, the differences are grossly exaggerated, what is "better" is often dubious, and in blind testing, most of the hobbyists who think X DAC sounds "horrible, unlistentable, harsh and mechanical" and their own sounds like music....wouldn't be able to differentiate them with their eyes closed.

There is more hyperbole per capita in this hobby than in politics.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

In that test, FR is what they measured, and correlated to preference in listening tests. How do you get from there to I personally believe FR is the only thing that matters? Let's look at that next statement you're referring to, John...

Well, I'm reading your posts in context - your post was a direct response to

I would love if any reviewer could correlate the measurements of these amplifiers with their subjective sound quality - but sorry I do not accept they all sound the same!

You gave an example of this in a particular HK instance where the correlation was found. You then go on to make the statement that the same correlation should apply to amps & DACS. Seems reasonable & simple enough. But you know that such correlations have not been made, so why do you think this is?

Nothing here to indicate that I made a sudden leap to jitter, John. I'm still in the same sentence in which I define the variations in question as FR. As I get closer to the "next statement" I even refer back to those measurements. I'm obviously still talking about FR and you're fishing.

I'm not fishing at all, I'm reading you in context what you are now quoting out-of-context. I never mentioned jitter & don't know why you do either?

So is there some reason why measured variations in FR, in a dac, wouldn't be heard, and drive listening preference?

Yes, there are lots of reasons -the variation is below the audibility threshold or as Ethan Winer says masking can hide it, etc

Isn't that exactly what designers are doing when they create warmth in the output stage of a DAC to make it sound more analog?

Can you give an example of this?

Tim[/QUOTE]

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Can you give an example of this?

Nope. When a manufacturer or designer makes a point of saying that his DAC has a more "analog-like" sound, I smell coloration or BS and immediately stop paying attention. But if you're really interested, I'd start with anything with a tube in it.

On the rest, John, there's nothing in that context that either states or implies that I'm talking about anything other than FR, and your own response --

You then go on to make the statement that the same correlation should apply to amps & DACS.

Seems to indicate that you understand that. Arguing for sport?

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Nope. When a manufacturer or designer makes a point of saying that his DAC has a more "analog-like" sound, I smell coloration or BS and immediately stop paying attention.

Well then your sense of smell also needs checking !

But if you're really interested, I'd start with anything with a tube in it.

So you think the only reason for using tubes in an output stage is to sound analog-like - that's pretty simplistic?

On the rest, John, there's nothing in that context that either states or implies that I'm talking about anything other than FR, and your own response --



Seems to indicate that you understand that. Arguing for sport?

Tim

Tim, I think you are missing my point - you are making statements about sonic differences between devices based on frequency domain differences, both measured & heard. You are ignoring any other possibility. All I'm introducing is a wider perspective.

 

[Ron Party]

Hi John. Tim can post for himself and I see that he has. I read his post to stand on its own, i.e., it needs no further qualification. Frequency response is or may be A determinant as he posted. I would hope that we would all agree with this premise. But then the leap of faith appears. Do you really interpret his post such that Tim claim's it is the "full determinant" (to quote your term of art)? I suspect that in the exercise of intellectual honesty you know very well Tim does not make that claim. He is not "ignoring" other possibilities as you claim. Net, net, all I read now is an attempt on your part to cross-examine Tim so as to play gotcha. That is below the dignity level for which we aspire.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What Ron said. And where, in this line of the discussion, have you introduced "a wider perspective," John? What other sonic differences have you brought to discuss their correlation between listening and measurement? You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. You've made no positive contribution to the thread since my initial response to micro's post, which began this line of discussion.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Hi John. Tim can post for himself and I see that he has. I read his post to stand on its own, i.e., it needs no further qualification. Frequency response is or may be A determinant as he posted. I would hope that we would all agree with this premise. But then the leap of faith appears. Do you really interpret his post such that Tim claim's it is the "full determinant" (to quote your term of art)? I suspect that in the exercise of intellectual honesty you know very well Tim does not make that claim. He is not "ignoring" other possibilities as you claim. Net, net, all I read now is an attempt on your part to cross-examine Tim so as to play gotcha. That is below the dignity level for which we aspire.

Well, Ron, I don't know if he is taking other possibilities into account? His responses so far have not clarified this. Rob, in response to PP stated

Yes for sure the only difference is the magnitude of the frequncy response errors.

when referring to differences between amps & DACS & PP's agreement with Rob seemed to clarify PP's statements.

If English is being used in a very flexible manner here or I'm not extracting the meaning of these posts, then forgive me but I'm outlining what I read & what I take from it.

 

[jkeny]

What Ron said. And where, in this line of the discussion, have you introduced "a wider perspective," John? What other sonic differences have you brought to discuss their correlation between listening and measurement? You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. You've made no positive contribution to the thread since my initial response to micro's post, which began this line of discussion.

Tim

Edit: strike this Aha, so you are simply saying that FR completely defines the differences between devices, are you?

I posted a video from the chief engineer & CTO of ESS - in it he quiet clearly shows a number of examples of measurements other than FR that indicate sonic differences between DACs. Maybe you didn't look at it but I was hoping it might inform this thread to some extent?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Aha, so you are simply saying that FR completely defines the differences between devices, are you?

Are you on drugs? Do you need to be? I used a specific test of FR as an example of correlating measurement to listening, John. I've said absolutely nothing to indicate or imply that I believe FR is the only thing the can be correlated to listening or that I think "it completely defines the differences between devices."

Really, the net result of this exchange is that I either have to believe that both your logic and your grasp of English are stunted, or you simply want to argue so badly that you are willing to make up absurd postions to oppose. In either case you are arguing with yourself, John. I'll leave you to it.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

OK, Tim, fine, you are not saying that, my reading of your posts was skewed it would seem. Apologies if I'm off on this but your usual position is that you have not heard or cannot hear many of the differences that many others can & in fact, doubt many of the claims made in this regard by others. Maybe this influenced my reading of your posts & I thought you were now saying that if there is no frequency response differences between devices then there is no sonic difference. This seemed to me what you replied to Rob but who knows? I also don't wish to pursue this any further as my drugs are wearing off now

 

[Ethan Winer]

If you look at the video I just posted you will see examples of an CTO engineer admitting that his measurements do no show what some audiophiles can hear.

I'm not going to sit through more than an hour of that just to hear him say what you said he said. I'll be glad to skip ahead if you tell me which part of the video to watch. However, just because some design engineer admits that his measurements don't show what some people can hear (or not), doesn't mean that no measurements can show what can be heard.

He also goes into explaining some issues which are not revealed by the standard measurements done on DACs.

I don't know what "standard" measurements he is referring to, but measuring frequency response, noise, and distortion at low and high levels should be complete enough to tell if a device is audibly transparent.

So can we just accept that blind testing is necessary to overcome human biases & listening is required to overcome measurement biases?

Sure, as long as the listening is blind, and repeated enough times to avoid lucky guesses.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

With respect to just measuring the playback equipment itself for 'accuracy,' i think even the objectivists agree that the measurements only tell us part of the picture, and also don't take account of real 'room' conditions in playback...

Well, "room conditions" can also be measured and assessed for sonic damage. But we have no control over how the microphones were placed in the original recording, and only limited control over how much further the room changes the sound. So all that's left is assessing what we can control: the speakers and electronic gear. IMO, introducing whether a recording truly sounds like the original live event is a red herring.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I would bet you that if you asked 10 different designers they would not all choose the the same ones and they would weigh them differently. A perfect example would be phase accuracy where one camp considers it paramount the other considers it irrelevant.

This is actually very easy to solve, and if the designers are intellectually honest they would change their opinions. All that's needed is a blind test comparing music (or whatever) with and without some amount of phase shift. You start with very little shift and increase it in steps to a lot. At some point people will hear the difference between the original and shifted versions, and there's your answer. If someone who believes ten degrees of shift at 1 KHz is audible but then learns he cannot identify it blind, he should change his opinion. This is so simple, I wonder why more people don't do such tests. I've done this test many times!

Directly related: I mentioned 1 KHz because ears are very sensitive there. But that's not where phase shift occurs in most gear! It's generally at the frequency extremes, where ears are far less sensitive to phase shift.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

Just to move this along then & address the "other than Frequency Response" issues that seem to correlate to listening preferences - here are two from that presentation video:
- Noise modulation or Non periodic Steady State Noise (Non PSS) which is generated when a sigma delta DAC changes state. In other words the noise changes as the DAC handles different signals & it turns out the ears are sensitive to noise modulation even at a very low level (On video at 0:34:00)
- Non Linear excess phase noise seems to also be an issue that the ears are sensitive to. (on video around 0:47:00)

Slides here http://www.esstech.com/pdf/noise-shaping-sigma-delta.pdf

 

[Bill Hart]

Well, "room conditions" can also be measured and assessed for sonic damage. But we have no control over how the microphones were placed in the original recording, and only limited control over how much further the room changes the sound. So all that's left is assessing what we can control: the speakers and electronic gear. IMO, introducing whether a recording truly sounds like the original live event is a red herring.

--Ethan

I agree that trying to determine accuracy from what the recording is supposed to represent is impossible. And, you know a hell of alot more about room acoustics than me. My point was essentially that there are alot of variables in what makes for a reproduced sound that is uncanny in its realistic effect (whether or not true to the original performance). And then the question: can it all be predicted by measurement, or is there some level of human judgment that comes into play? Perhaps- and I say this without trying to be coy at all- in your experience in working with rooms, you undoubtedly measure the effect of various absorbers, diffusors, etc. (in fact, you helped me, based on a rough drawing and a few phone calls). But, isn't there a level of tweaking by ear that you will do as well? If so, that's where the human element comes into play, along with experience and judgement. (I can't spell judgement, since i'm a lawyer!).

 

[Gregadd]

Nope. I read only what I find entertaining or informative or necessary.

How do you know until after you have read it?

 

[Gregadd]

This thread is full of IT, i.e., straw men and gross generalizations, mischaracterizations and stereotypes, all of which began with the pathetic Goodwin article forming the basis for this thread. Frankly I'm stunned her article was published at all and ashamed that our membership gives it the slightest light of day. Regrettable, because it lowers the level of discourse and intellectual honesty.

And, BTW, with proper test implementation it is trivial to weed out those who are predisposed to claim to hear no difference, just as it is trivial to weed out those who will always claim to hear a difference. This is and has been done with regularity.

Did you read her article?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Did you read her article?

I did. Now that's entertainment! Judging by the links at the bottom of her article, it appears to be a pretty one-sided pub. I don't suppose they'd consider a "counter-point?"

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I did. Now that's entertainment!

Tim

I agree it is entertainig. It also contains some salient points. No doubt she has taken some heat form the other side. I know about that personally. Not even I ignore measuresements. If a product works it's not that big a deal to me why. But if it does not work then I want an explanation.