Audio Critique

[Rensselaer]

I understand the differences between digital and vinyl and I can usually hear the differences. CD player that we were using in the system the other day is 10-15 years old. Most people would dismiss it. I have made no claims about the latest and greatest digital sounding like vinyl or analog or the real thing. All I said was that we didn’t get around to setting up the turntable so we used his old CD player and that it sounded really good to both of us. It even sounded natural to us. The point is it does not need to be vinyl or horns to sound natural. It just needs to be well selected gear set up properly.

Therein lies the rub … If you are not bothered by the sound of “accurate” but unnatural digital, then you are most likely one of those who are physically unable to hear a difference, my point exactly (even if it sounds like I’m peddling the Emperor’s New Clothes!).

 

[PeterA]

Therein lies the rub … If you are not bothered by the sound of “accurate” but unnatural digital, then you are most likely one of those who are physically unable to hear a difference, my point exactly (even if it sounds like I’m peddling the Emperor’s New Clothes!).

Lots of people like Al M also like digital and are not bothered. I don’t agree that only digital can sound accurate. I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here.

 

[Rensselaer]

Lots of people like Al M also like digital and are not bothered. I don’t agree that only digital can sound accurate. I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here.

Yes, I know you don’t understand.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I know you don’t understand.

Right, so in the context of audio, which is what we are discussing here, what do you mean by the word “accurate“?

 

[Gregm]

Right, so in the context of audio, which is what we are discussing here, what do you mean by the word “accurate“?

Presumably, "accurate" in the field of sound reproduction can only relate to the original we are reproducing. In digital that would be the file.

 

[PYP]

The experts I've been fortunate enough to meet are humble. They are not absolutists, understand that there are many roads to any destination and don't refer to themselves as experts or as someone who has reached the end of discovering new knowledge.

These experts happen to be engaged in medical research. Think about what solutions to diseases would look like if researches thought there was just one path to discovery.

 

[Rensselaer]

The experts I've been fortunate enough to meet are humble. They are not absolutists, understand that there are many roads to any destination and don't refer to themselves as experts or as someone who has reached the end of discovering new knowledge.

These experts happen to be engaged in medical research. Think about what solutions to diseases would look like if researches thought there was just one path to discovery.

I have nothing against a blind scientist working in the field of medical research, just not with a microscope.

 

[Rensselaer]

I am not trying to reduce all reviews to one of two camps, and it isn’t about whether someone likes digital or not, but whether digital to vinyl records sound lifeless and unreal to you or not. One should identify that characteristic and to declare such before giving your opinion on a piece of equipment (hint; if you are comparing measurements because you can’t hear a difference, chances are you are an objectivist).

The man too blind to see down the barrel of a microscope should inform the employer so that he/she is not assigned to that role but to one they can excel at.

 

[Rensselaer]

Let's look at the options, either some people can not hear what other people can, or refuse to admit it because of whatever...

Soon after the release of CD people complained that CD wasn't perfect sound forever, that they could hear a big difference between digital and analogue and preferred the sound of analogue. Engineers at Philips thought, as the digital stream before conversion to analogue measured "bit-perfect" to whatever was measured and recorded from analogue to digital, then it must be problems in the DAC process (jitter, ultrahigh odd-order distortion, whatever) and so focused their attention on improving those. The latest megabuck DACs have pretty much solved all the issues caused by that process in the early days. Software makers, like Sony (and others), considered the possibility that the byte size and sampling rate might be too slow to capture the "realness" of pure analogue. They developed other formats, now known by various abbreviations, that recorded larger bytes and higher sampling rates, now, as a group, known as high-definition audio.

Did these improvements in DAC's and increasing sampling rates make digital indistinguishable (in a good way) from pure analogue? To some, yes, even better because it actually "measures" better. To others, no, it still "sounds unreal".

The 2016 study done by Tall and Vorlander, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 64 (6), 364-379 showed that audiophiles and non-audiophiles are not able to tell the difference between CD quality sound and high-definition sound beyond random chance. In other words, they could have just flipped a coin for their answers and done as well.

So, either people who have spent a small fortune improving their transports, streamers and DACs are biased towards saying that digital sounds as real as analogue, even better, or else feel foolish for having invested so much on equipment; or if they are not self-deluded and their digital source actually sounds as "real" to them, then there must be a very real difference in perception between people.

If the later is true, then should we identify which camp someone belongs to before we listen to their review/expert opinion?

 

[PYP]

I find reviews and audio magazines (paper or online) interesting if one likes to read about trends, new design approaches and the general direction of the business side.

How many people who post actively here would use a review to be the sole source of choosing gear? Perhaps those who cannot get an in-home demo due to location/availability.

 

[microstrip]

With you all the way

Exactly!
Most of us here are not religiously / resolutely "ists" ; but, as many measurements don't correlate with what we hear, we end up being "subjectivists".

For the exact same reasons, I would qualify myself a "frustrated objectivist

I find it very frustrating that, when i hear a difference, I do not see it readily depicted in a measurement. This tells me that either ,
a) I am hearing things -- whereby further discussion is moot.
b) I am studying the right measurement

If b), then I cannot believe that in 2023 we cannot measure something that we can readily hear -- to put it simply: gimme a break!

Well, you are reversing the situation - the real issue is that we can't prove most of what we hear. And it apears you do not want to recognize that considering the evolution of audio measurements amateur audiophiles and even some reviewers have bery little little knowledge about audio measurements and audio science. The days of THD are long gone ...

All DACs should send the same, because the best among those circuits measure vanishing low distortion. Regardless of what you hear.

No, the dCS Vivaldi APEX measures differently from the non APEX. And although we do not have measurements of the WADAX I can bet with you it measures differently from the dCS Vivaldi.

It won't wash, sorry.
In the end, it may be worth resorting to measuring the sonic result, i.e. the sound coming from the loudspeakers; that is what we perceive, is it not?

No. Too complex and depending on too many variables that can't be controlled to be any use.

 

[PeterA]

No. Too complex and depending on too many variables that can't be controlled to be any use.

Isn’t Ron doing exactly this, measuring the frequency response from his listening seat as it comes out of the system and speakers in his room when he is presenting to us a graph of the frequency response at the listening seat? Are these measurements not valid? What is too complex?

 

[microstrip]

Isn’t Ron doing exactly this, measuring the frequency response from his listening seat as it comes out of the system and speakers in his room when he is presenting to us a graph of the frequency response at the listening seat? Are these measurements not valid? What is too complex?

It is just my opinion, but, as carried, I do not consider them as valid audio measurements. YMMV.

 

[andromedaaudio]

It is just my opinion, but, as carried, I do not consider them as valid audio measurements. YMMV.

You may not consider them valid but JA of stereophile certainly does .
His measurement section of the XLF review is full of such measurements

 

[microstrip]

You may not consider them valid but JA of stereophile certainly does .
His measurement section of the XLF review is full of them

Sorry, we can't compare Ron measurements with JA Stereophile suite of measurements ...

 

[andromedaaudio]

Sorry, we can't compare Ron measurements with JA Stereophile suite of measurements ...

Okay agreed to a certain extent , JA s way of measuring is more elaborate as he takes a whole lot of measurements and averages them out , im not sure how many Ron takes
Also his measurement gear is likely to be more expensive .
But if rons gear is of acceptable / good quality you can certainly have a good idea whats going on .
A measurement is a measurement , the machine doesnt check whether its Ron or JA who is pushing the button

 

[Rensselaer]

Measurements, exactly. And what about sound?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Measurements, exactly. And what about sound?

Measure first listen later

 

[andromedaaudio]

Measurements, exactly. And what about sound?

And if you dont have measuring gear or are not able to change then there is only one option .
Listen till you love it

 

[Gregm]

Well, you are reversing the situation - the real issue is that we can't prove most of what we hear. And it apears you do not want to recognize that considering the evolution of audio measurements amateur audiophiles and even some reviewers have bery little little knowledge about audio measurements and audio science. The days of THD are long gone ...

You lost me here. Why would you need to prove anything?
I don't wish to dispute you, no doubt you know what you're talking about.

No, the dCS Vivaldi APEX measures differently from the non APEX. And although we do not have measurements of the WADAX I can bet with you it measures differently from the dCS Vivaldi.

Quite.
What I wrote is, the measured differences are below the threshold of hearing. That so being, and if these measurements were the wherewithal of predicting the sound, then all these devices would sound the same to us. Because the measured differences are inaudible...