The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
I love audio measurements. I think I may have been one of the earliest customers of Audio Precision at Sony circa 1990. Measurements are great in providing positive proof that something stinks. If the highs are not there, and measurement shows that they are rolled off 6 db, then you are in great shape. Measurements are quick and very easy to do relative to subjective analysis.
Unfortunately, we can't measure everything we like to measure. Take compressed signals. A codec can reproduce all the frequencies yet have distortion that we can only characterize through expert listeners. Attempts to build computer models have failed us so far at micro level or else, we would all do away with expert listeners.
The other challenge is when measurements tell us something is worse, yet people think it is better. Tube sound falls in this category.
When it comes to audio review then, I am not satisfied with either viewpoint by itself. I like to see a combination approach. Unfortunately measurement equipment is very costly so some reviewers go for subjective only testing. While that is understandable, it does lower the value of such reviews in my eye.
Unfortunately, we can't measure everything we like to measure. Take compressed signals. A codec can reproduce all the frequencies yet have distortion that we can only characterize through expert listeners. Attempts to build computer models have failed us so far at micro level or else, we would all do away with expert listeners.
The other challenge is when measurements tell us something is worse, yet people think it is better. Tube sound falls in this category.
When it comes to audio review then, I am not satisfied with either viewpoint by itself. I like to see a combination approach. Unfortunately measurement equipment is very costly so some reviewers go for subjective only testing. While that is understandable, it does lower the value of such reviews in my eye.
Well, of course, people are going to think whatever they want to think. And, of course, many times people are delusional. Heck, 25% of the people on this planet think the sun revolves around the earth.
This point brings the discussion full circle with the original topic of this thread, namely, that Marty read a review in which the reviewer, in this case, Fremer, thought something about the sound of a particular Cary CD player and the Violoncello II speakers. The issues he raised with Fremer's review of these 2 products are different. In the case of the CD player, Marty's point seemingly goes directly to the measurement vs. thought discussion. In the case of the speakers, Marty's point goes to the conclusion/recommendation of the reviewer. Marty seemed to find it both funny and sad.
I don't read reviews, so I cannot answer Marty's call for other examples of these kinds of reviews. But so far what I've learned from this thread is that many members here do read the reviews, yet no one has offered up an example of that for which Marty asked.
Well, I am one of those people and I don't think I am delusional. But maybe I am delusional about not being delusional.
I have a Stax headphone amp that is tube based and one that is not. The tube unit no doubt has higher distortion yet in every possible way, I find it more revealing and certainly more pleasant to listen to. The former has been tested out in finding small distortion products. As an engineer and a person who has done more measurements than probably everyone here, I can't explain this experience. So I am left wondering that worse distortion is not a good metric here to use in deciding which is a better product. No, this story is not proof point of anything for others. But as long as we are expressing our views, it should count for something
.
I think that we may be on to something and so perhaps terryj or Alan Sircom could/should start another thread?
Well, I am one of those people and I don't think I am delusional. But maybe I am delusional about not being delusional.
I have a Stax headphone amp that is tube based and one that is not. The tube unit no doubt has higher distortion yet in every possible way, I find it more revealing and certainly more pleasant to listen to. The former has been tested out in finding small distortion products. As an engineer and a person who has done more measurements than probably everyone here, I can't explain this experience. So I am left wondering that worse distortion is not a good metric here to use in deciding which is a better product. No, this story is not proof point of anything for others. But as long as we are expressing our views, it should count for something
That experience has been explained many times Amir. Many people find that kind of harmonic distortion pleasant. More revealing? That part is probably delusional.
P
What would be more delusional is me posting something that commonThat experience has been explained many times Amir. Many people find that kind of harmonic distortion pleasant. More revealing? That part is probably delusional.
P
. The main reason to buy my nearly half a dozen stax headphones and their amps (I think I have four of them now) is my forever search to find the most revealing instrument to find digital audio artifacts. They are instruments to me. So when I said the tube set is more revealing, I meant it in that very context -- I find it easier to hear some artifacts with it. The fact that it sounds more "musical" you can certainly blame on the factor you mentioned (rightfully or not).Hey Terry,
I have pretty much said what I had to say on the subject, I also requested the site create a Psychoacoustics forum. So feel free to start the thread... I will be traveling, so I will jump in when I can.
Here are a few more thoughts on the subject, sorry for the rambling style, as it has been a long day for me: Audio is a product that creates an intangible experience. Is one doctor better than another doctor? Is one doctor visit better than another doctor visit? Is one consulting firm going to do a better job for you than another? What is the status of that doctor or that consulting firm or that investment bank that will take your firm public? Are the people in the lower status firm that much worse than the people in the higher status firm? How comfortable are you with the people that will be doing your deal? Would a beginner wino enjoy a rare bottle of wine as someone who has been dying to try that bottle from the Rothschild vineyards? Say a Porsche and a BMW have the same specs and measurements, is it the same car? If you are driving mindlessly, maybe it is. If you are in a honeymoon stage of your relationship, and you and your girlfriend grab a meal at Taco Bell, will that experience be the same if you order the same food with the same ingredients in the fanciest Mexican restaurant in the world after you have been married for 20 years and your spouse really gets on your nerves?
How do we measure experiences? Are you really sure you are measuring everything?
As for the arguments, there at least 2 issues
- Do we have all the measurements? for stage depths? dynamics contrasts and shadings? etc....
- How is it seemingly some people perceive more than others? Anyone watch the movie "Ray", read a book by Oliver Sacks called Musicophilia on connections between the brain and music, or watch that blind man cross a busy street?
What would be more delusional is me posting something that common
Get a Sennheiser Orpheus if you can find one
Tubes even...
What would be more delusional is me posting something that common
It was a joke, Amir, a reference to Ron's post above. I do find it interesting that artifacts would be more revealing through a technology known to produce higher noise and distortion than the one less revealing, though. Perhaps it has something to do with the very low headroom demands of headphone systems. I had a nice little tube headphone amp here for awhile, and found it nearly impossible to differentiate from another solid state amp I had at the same time. I don't find tubes hard to identify when driving speaker systems. They're much more musical
.P
I'm not sure exactly where this fits in the discussion, but here goes:
I'm very much a measurements/technical guy, but . . .
While it is easy to break these products down with specs and measurements, this is certainly too simplistic a view for me. There is a tremendous amount of art involved. And this art component is easily explained. For instance, with a loudspeaker there are numerous technical parameters that can be addressed, each in almost endless fashion and to varying degrees. This leaves the final product with almost limitless possible permutations. This is why we have so much variability amongst otherwise excellent products. Does a Magico Q5 look and sound just like a Rockport Altair? A Vandersteen 5A just like a Thiel CS3.7? No, but each can be said to be technically excellent in specific, if different, ways. And they are similar in some important metrics as well. The best designers take a broad view, but even still there is much to weight and balance and eventually trade off.
This is why there is so much for the audiophile to choose from, and why we have such a rich hobby. Those that design audio components -- particularly those that have been at it a while -- will tell you this, and those that buy them will, too.
I'm very much a measurements/technical guy, but . . .
While it is easy to break these products down with specs and measurements, this is certainly too simplistic a view for me. There is a tremendous amount of art involved. And this art component is easily explained. For instance, with a loudspeaker there are numerous technical parameters that can be addressed, each in almost endless fashion and to varying degrees. This leaves the final product with almost limitless possible permutations. This is why we have so much variability amongst otherwise excellent products. Does a Magico Q5 look and sound just like a Rockport Altair? A Vandersteen 5A just like a Thiel CS3.7? No, but each can be said to be technically excellent in specific, if different, ways. And they are similar in some important metrics as well. The best designers take a broad view, but even still there is much to weight and balance and eventually trade off.
This is why there is so much for the audiophile to choose from, and why we have such a rich hobby. Those that design audio components -- particularly those that have been at it a while -- will tell you this, and those that buy them will, too.
What would be more delusional is me posting something that common
Amir I understand your point. Let's take Steve's Lamm amp with around 3% distortion. Vladimir could easily bring that number way down by using negative feedback as so many of these perfect measuring amps do. However Vladimir recognizes feedback for what it is. Another form of distortion. He includes user adjustable feedback for those who suffer from audiophile nervosa. You know I just can't let me audiophile buddies know I have 3% distortion.
"Audiophiles love euphonic distortion." The response to this is so easy, it almost seems unfair. Which is why I have never made it. Since the chorus just seems to get louder and louder let me take a crack at it. All amps distort. If you think your does not who's being delusional? As to prefering euphonic distortion. I suppose there are two types of distortion-euphonic and non- euphonic. Logically then if you don't prefer euphonic distortion you must prefer non-euphonic distortion. So not only are you delusional in your belief that your amp does not distort, but you are a masochist for preffering non-euphonic distortion.
c) I prefer adequate headroom. This can be achieved with tubes or SS, though it is prohibitively expensive with tubes for most people and most speakers. It may not be so when faced with the very small power/current demands of headphone systems. But I listen to headphone systems or to small (6" woofers/1" tweeters) monitor speakers in a near-field configuration, with 75 watts for each tweeter and 250 for each woofer, specifically matched to the drivers and without the impedance swings of passive crossovers to deal with. Is it devoid of harmonic distortion from the amplifiers at my normal listening levels? Not absolutely, of course. Practically, however, it's pretty darned close.
P
Come on over to ur side "P." I promise we have the perfect amp for your needs.
I'm afraid my "needs" are pretty specific. Perhaps this is my delusion, but I hear passive crossovers; to the point that I can't imagine how others don't, to the point that it is far more of a hindrance to my listening pleasure than the lack of bottom end in my current speaker system. I can't cross over (excuse the pun) to the tube side, because putting together an full active system of sufficient headroom to drive the relatively inefficient dynamic speakers I prefer is prohibitively expensive. I can't come over to the electrostatic side, because I simply don't have a listening room to accommodate the panels. I played with the idea of full-range drivers for awhile. Horn-loaded, they can be efficient enough for tubes. But I don't really have the room for those either, and if I did, I'd probably have Linkwitz Orions. A little less room? Plutos. For now, my near-field, active solution fits my lifestyle best.
But out of curiosity, what is the perfect amp for my needs?
P
We have solid sate amps,active crossovers. We even have mini speakers like Gallo. It's nice to know your problems are based on practical considerations. They are much easier to deal with. The perfect amp is dependent on a lot of factors ,budget, space,speaker choice, room size, music preference,etc.
What is the perfect amp?. Alas you have to join the club to learn the secret handshake.
What is the perfect amp?. Alas you have to join the club to learn the secret handshake.
We have solid sate amps,active crossovers. We even have mini speakers like Gallo. It's nice to know your problems are based on practical considerations. They are much easier to deal with. The perfect amp is dependent on a lot of factors ,budget, space,speaker choice, room size, music preference,etc.
What is the perfect amp?. Alas you have to join the club to learn the secret handshake.
No problems, really. I'm in the best place sonically that I've ever been, though not the biggest, that would belong to Klipsch and Altec Lansing. Space considerations, listening habits and tastes (I'm a bit of a freak about imaging after doing without it during a few years of dedicated headphone listening) make near-field listening to active monitors an obvious choice. I have that, the DAC and the transport (digital converter that takes in usb and sends out optical, coax, AES/EBU) worked out. Cables aren't much of an issue in an active system. My headphone system has been through numerous iterations and I'm very happy with what I have now. Really, the only thing left is a sub. If I could find a small one that would integrate well with my AVis and not over-power my little listening space, that would be a good find.
Or...now here's a thought...desktop electrostatics?
P
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Tim
I'm not a headphone user but you said something I found interesting. Specifically you suggested that there is mo imaging with head phone use. Is that so and if so why do people rave about headphones
I'm not a headphone user but you said something I found interesting. Specifically you suggested that there is mo imaging with head phone use. Is that so and if so why do people rave about headphones
That was a bit of a mis-statement, Steve. There is imaging, but it is very different from the kind of imaging you get from speakers. The hard-core headphone geeks call it "headstage" instead of soundstage, because it literally creates the space around, and inside of, your head. It can still have a lot of depth and space and still places instruments and voices in a specific, differentiated field, but that field is not laid out in a plane in front of you like it is with a great speaker rig or in an acoustic live performance. Even with simple acoustic music, a big chunk of the performance illusion is lost.
Why do people rave about them? Clarity. Detail. Coherency. There are no room problems. There are no crossovers (in most cases) with their wildly variable impedances to push through. There are no multiple, very different drivers trying to play much of the same material -- woofers losing control as they try to reach into tweeter territory, tweeters doing the same in the opposite direction. Amplifier demands are minimized because the headroom issues are so small. A few hundred milliwatts, 10 or 12 volts is oodles of headroom, even for pretty high-impedance cans.
People think they hear much better detail in headphones simply because the drivers are just millimeters from their ears. It's not that simple; it's much simpler - they hear more detail because so many of the obstacles the average hifi system has to jump over to get to the drivers are never in the headphone system's path in the first place.
P
Similar threads
