|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 26, 2016 16:49:08 GMT
I just got back from a walk. I walked up a hill carrying grocery bags laden with beer, water and meat. The sun was warming the morning and my skin was sweaty inside my black, loose t shirt.
Could a machine do the same thing? Probably. A robot could walk and carry weight. It could measure heat and even be programmed to liquid cool and track humidity inside a permeable environment. Of course tracking human equivalent energy expense (calories) could be done too.
But can it really "take a walk"? Sure it can move but can it actually "walk"? It can measure but can it "feel"? It can record but does it remember? It can process but does it think?
We originally used these cute metaphors to describe what computers and other machines do but have we started to believe that they can actually do those things?
You can crash a dummy into a wall but will it die? Will it suffer?
I don't know but these questions might indicate that there's more to what matters in audio than what can be measured.
After all, while frequency and pitch are related are they the same? Amplitude and loudness? Sound and hearing? What accounts for trained listening when the ears are fundamentally the same? What about surgeons who read images or MLB players who can see the threads on a fastball?
I'm just sayin.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 26, 2016 19:30:25 GMT
I don't believe that robots have feelings, though they can probably be programmed to respond as if they do. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, about human and animal suffering, and how real it is. We're just a clump of cells! But obviously we feel pain, and loneliness, and joy and depression etc. So I'd rather not have a horrible toothache that lasts for months, as people had to deal with hundreds of years ago. Anyway , I see a clear distinction between audio fidelity versus perception. Fidelity is absolute, and can be defined and measured. Perception is different not only between people, but for the same person only minutes or even seconds apart. --Ethan
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Feb 4, 2018 20:34:34 GMT
Dear Ethan,
I've just watched your AES video and I've found it _very_interesting. I don't think I need to add another thank to the hundreds that appeared in the comments section after you posted the relevant video, but here's a thanks from me, too. :-) However, although the video answered a lot of questions, it left me in a complete state of doubt about what I should trust when I read reviews of audio equipment. I know that you will probably tell me to do an ABX for everything I am planning to buy, but I find this impractical and I simply don't have the time – that's why I thought reading reviews may be a good way of choosing equipment.
Now, I would like to ask you to please correct my understanding of what you mentioned in that AES video implies: – As far as I understood, all modern transports (be it Mac Mini or Aurender), all DACs and all amps should sound the same – because their distortion is below human audibility. Is that what the ABX tests showed? Does that mean that if I replace a soundblaster card with a dCS Vivaldi, in my system, I should not be able to notice any difference (scientifically speaking)? Similarly, will a $200 power amp sound the same as a $20,000 power amp (assuming that both have distortions below human audibility)? – How far does this paradigm go? E.g. does it matter if a pair of B&W 800 speakers is powered by a 100W amp or a 400W amp? Should I try to get the best speakers my money can buy or will my brain tell me that better speakers are better because they are more expensive? Another thing that I understood is that one can pair a $1,000 power amp with a pair of $30,000 speakers (the 800D3, for example) and the sound will be the same as if one paired the speakers with a similarly priced amp. I'm not sure if scientifically one can prove that there would be no difference in the sound quality but it does sound very odd to have such an unbalanced, price-wise, system.
Finally, I would like some advice, if you could please help me. I am not rich but I have been dreaming of a system consisting of – B&W 800D3 – 2xMarantz PM10 – Marantz SA10 – Aurender N10
This is a crazily expensive system (almost $80,000!). I would like to have your opinion about which of these components on the list are completely pointless compared to much, much cheaper equivalents and which are likely to be significantly better sounding (objectively, not due to some placebo effect)? I am assuming that I have placed this system in a great sounding listening room, with bass traps, etc., so that the acoustics is already optimised.
I probably don't need to ask you this, because I can perhaps guess your answer, but if you had X amount to spend on building the best audio system your money could buy, would you spend as much as possible on room acoustics and the rest on speakers, leaving only very little for DACs, amps, etc?
Finally, let me play the devil's advocate for a bit: why do reputable companies spend so much money and time on R&D, if their high-end products do not offer scientifically-proven audible differences? And a last, crazy one: Do you think the human perception of sound and the respective comparison of equipment is different from the comparison of different wines? I mean, in both cases one needs to trust their senses: there is no scientific way of evaluating the taste of a wine, using its chemical composition – a tasting session is needed. Of course, in both cases one could do an ABX test (and some times cheap wines come on top of expensive ones, in such tests!).
Sorry for the long post. I am just hoping for a bit of enlightenment and, most importantly, to save my money for things that are really added value.
PS: As far as I know, the brain can get used to (or block) many sensory stimuli: e.g. the bad smell in a pigsty 'goes away' after a while. Similarly, the brain gets used to a good-sounding system and does not seem remarkable after a while, as it did when we first listened to it (e.g. at the show room). What is your opinion on that?
|
|
|
Post by rock on Feb 5, 2018 4:02:31 GMT
I don't have all the answers for you but one basic idea that I have found to be fairly reliable is that well designed modern electronics like power amps, preamps, and lately DACs and ADCs, regardless of cost can measure very close to ideal and sound virtually transparent. On the other hand, the weak link seems to be transducers i.e. speakers and microphones. So IMHO in general is to buy solid but relatively inexpensive electronics and pour your extra cash into better speakers and mics which will sound different from each other but there, you'll have to be the judge because you will hear the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 6, 2018 21:35:22 GMT
Rock said much of what I'd have said, and I'll add a little more. First, don't spend $80,000 on audio gear! Sheesh! I do not suggest an ABX test for everything you plan to buy. Here's what I do: I buy modestly priced gear from well known companies. If something is inferior, you'll know soon enough and you can return it and get something else. Not that this should ever happen with mainstream brands. Here's how I picked the last bunch of stuff I bought, in no particular order: About 30 years ago I bought a very nice Yamaha stereo receiver that was the basis of my home music system. I think it cost $750 at the time, which would be more than twice that today in 2018 dollars. When it broke, maybe 20 years ago, I had it fixed. Then a few years later it broke again, so I decided to just get a new receiver. I went to Costco, but all they had were 5.1 surround receivers which I didn't need. One model was a Pioneer with 100 watts per channel times five channels, for $175, so I bought it and used only the front left and right channels. It sounded fine, and powered my (wife's) passive McIntosh loudspeakers perfectly well. Then a few years later I decided to do a home theater, so I was glad I already had a 5.1 receiver! After about five years one of the digital inputs on the receiver failed, which I needed, so I went back to Costco and got an even more capable Pioneer receiver for only $150! This one does 6.1 and has more advanced Dolby and DTS decoding, and it's the receiver I still use now. I also bought a new sound card about five years ago when my previous Dell computer died. I'd had an M-Audio Delta 66 card that worked well for many years, but with an old style PCI interface. Plus I knew that newer USB sound cards are even cleaner, not that the Delta was ever a limiting factor in my productions. So I bought a Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 because it has 4 inputs and outputs, which I need. I picked that mostly for its features, and $250 price, and I know they're a major company who wouldn't lie about specs. This sound card has been fabulous, every day all day long. Back to when I set up my home theater: I was using old passive speakers my wife had bought years before. They were decent, but four of my friends have the original Mackie HR824 powered monitors, so I knew from experience these are excellent speakers. Speakers are one of the few things I wouldn't buy without hearing first. I also bought a Carver Sunfire subwoofer used from a local hi-fi store - which was pretty amazing for an 11-inch cube! - so having a sub it was a no-brainer to get the smaller HR-624s. They're still fabulous. I guess I'd want to audition the sounds in a synthesizer before I bought it, but that's different. Same for a guitar amp, since how it sounds when cranked into distortion matters more than specs (other than power). If I can think of other past purchases I'll add them. But hopefully this helps. As for $20,000 power amps, you are almost sure to get an inferior piece of crap at that price. I am serious. The worst stuff I've seen over the years - by worse I mean distortion and reliability - is very expensive boutique audio gear. Stuff like low power tube amps selling for thousands of dollars and having 5% or worse distortion. One year at a hi-fi show in New York City a company known for their pianos decided to get into the loudspeaker market. They showed speakers that cost $16,000 for a pair, and each had two 5-inch midrange drivers (only), plus a wooden "outrigger" for lack of a better word they claimed resonates like a fine piano's soundboard. The speakers were total garbage, sounded terrible, and the idea of adding intentional resonance to a speaker is beyond brain dead. Another time I was at the home of a customer, and he had a very expensive tube amp. He told me once a speaker wire fell off while the amp was playing, and it blew up the amp. Not just a tube, which he could replace, but the amp itself blew up. He had to send it from the US back to the maker in Europe at great expense. I remember visiting the home of a hi-fi magazine reviewer to deliver some acoustic products for review. He was also reviewing a high-end power amplifier that sells for $17,000, but it had just blown up because he turned on the power with nothing connected to the RCA line input jack. Totally incompetent. This is the sort of idiocy you open yourself up to when you buy very expensive hi-fi gear. So stick with major brands, and don't spend more than maybe a few thousand dollars each at most for speakers. This video shows a tour of my living room system, and it might have a little more of use for you: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu32oisgIq0
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 7, 2018 20:48:19 GMT
Nice post, Ethan. Considering my thrifty nature, I love to read how to buy for maximum value.
I like Bowers & Wilkins speakers, anoutsos. I've had a pair of 602 S3's for over 10 years. They've been knocked over, had a tweeter dented but they're still great. You can get a pair for stupid cheap now too.
Once I was at a hifi store in El Paso and the sales guy offered to play me the 800D3 that you mentioned. I declined because I wanted to keep my perception of mystery towards them. The room was untreated, as I recall, so whatever.
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Feb 9, 2018 13:17:23 GMT
Anyway , I see a clear distinction between audio fidelity versus perception. Fidelity is absolute, and can be defined and measured. Perception is different not only between people, but for the same person only minutes or even seconds apart. There is a significant further distinction within the realm of perception. Perceptions are either reliable or they are called illusions. Simply testing perceptions to see if they are reliable or illusions can be a great help in one's quest for truth. For example, a mirage is an illusion because there is always some place or some time or some circumstance where it essentially disappears.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 9, 2018 20:40:21 GMT
Anyway , I see a clear distinction between audio fidelity versus perception. Fidelity is absolute, and can be defined and measured. Perception is different not only between people, but for the same person only minutes or even seconds apart. There is a significant further distinction within the realm of perception. Perceptions are either reliable or they are called illusions. Simply testing perceptions to see if they are reliable or illusions can be a great help in one's quest for truth. For example, a mirage is an illusion because there is always some place or some time or some circumstance where it essentially disappears. This is a great point, Arnyk. IIRC, it's well-established psychology that we distort, chunk, delete, and perform other mind games with our sensory input. Humans are so inefficient and unreliable smh
|
|
Trdat
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Trdat on Feb 12, 2018 5:50:43 GMT
Great post guys,
I just bought a NADC510, not sure if its appropriate to write brand names in this forums but I went from a NADC356 integrated amp to the C510 preamp/dac(which is meant to be a massive upgrade) and I have no immediate improvements. I will though give it time and play around with it, and see what happens in about another month or so.
There was a post back somewhere in which Ethan had made comments about my reasons to wanting to upgrade, and was clear in his questions, what do you feel is wrong with your current amp? What are you not happy with? I can see where he was headed with these questions, if there was no need for an upgrade perhaps there was no real point in purchasing a new preamp.
Ill be honest, things might change the more I listen to it, but to spend double the price on an amp than your original one and have no immediate improvements it tells you something about the industry, perception and reviews...
I am not a very experienced in this field but I can tell you what I have upgraded recently and think gives more bang for your buck rather than preamps or power amps. I added a descent crossover in the set up with two not expensive sub-woofers which has allowed my bookshelf's to sing. Also DSP gives me the benefit of enjoying my hobby plus getting some extra benefit with the sound your after.
Moral of the story for me is, keep it in the 1k range, perhaps upgrade your speakers and see if that tickles your fancy like Rock said and add diffusion in the room and keep it there.
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Feb 19, 2018 14:55:02 GMT
Thank you very much, Ethan and co.! I've been meaning to read your replies as soon as you posted them, but I can't find the option to receive an email every time this happens. How can I set this up?
So, since I posted my message here, I have read a lot of nice write-ups about audio myths and consumer's bias, etc. I must say, it has opened my eyes. For example, I realised that my multichannel amp (measured ~130W/channel in stereo for 0.1% distortion) is more than enough for my speakers and my listening levels. I used to dream about replacing my home cinema amp with a stereo amp that has 200W per channel that doubles at 4Ω. I now realise that after spending $10,000 on that more powerful amp, I would still have had the same sound quality as before, at my listening levels, since the distortion improvement would be inaudible – and the current distortion is already low, anyway. Everything before the amp has an order of magnitude less distortion, so also quite irrelevant. My speakers have <0.3% distortion, meaning they are a greater factor and my living room is probably the worst offender by far. I was looking into replacing my 805D2s with full-range towers – and may still do finances allowing – but, in the end, I have decided that just adding two subwoofers would produce a nice response across the spectrum and I will not need to worry too much about powering the woofers of e.g. the 800D3s with a competent amplifier. Speaking of driving something like the 800D3, I have calculated that even my humble multichannel amp could actually adequately drive them without clipping, at normal listening levels. When I first made the calculation I could not believe it. I would never have thought that a $1,600 amp ($230/channel) could ever be paired with $30,000 speakers. In the audiophile world, this is plain crazy: they say, if you buy a $30,000 speaker, you should also buy similarly priced transports, DACs, Amps, (cables?!).
By far the most important decision I have made recently is that, instead of spending more money on gear, I would invest in finding a listening room and treating it. After reading the audiophile myths, I have even realised how pointless high-resolution audio is, too. CD quality is more than enough to contain the dynamic range of even the highest-quality recordings. I even went as far as replacing all my CD-quality music on my phone (connected to the Beyerdynamic DT880 via a Chord Mojo) with AAC 256 VBR versions. I honestly don't think there is such a big difference and whether I can hear it, but it did allow me to store 60 albums instead of 15 or so. I will still keep my high-resolution files for my main system, but honestly I don't think it makes any difference: I could easily convert all my SACDs to CD quality and I would never know.
Question(s): Say there are two versions of a blu-ray player, e.g. the Oppo 103 and the 105. The latter has better DACs and power supply, etc. and is being sold as an audiophile player, when used via its analog outputs. What is it that leads people to hearing clear differences in quality, beyond placebo? Is it that the 105 has more "loudness" due to a more powerful built-in pre-amp, which fools people into thinking that it sounds clearer and better? I have certainly noticed that my 1990s CD player sounds 'thin' (i.e. not a lot of bass) through its analog outs, whereas using a $20 Fiio DAC into the same amp sounds a lot 'fuller'. Is this explained by the pre-amp of the Fiio, boosting the loudness of the overall reproduction? Is it just a matter of level equalisation? In that vein, can I make a cheap system sound like an expensive one, by adjusting the levels? By "levels" is it meant the full EQ or simply volume?
Sorry for the long post, but it's just exciting to finally realise the truth behind all these 'audiophile' fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 20, 2018 6:36:28 GMT
Thank you very much, Ethan and co.! I've been meaning to read your replies as soon as you posted them, but I can't find the option to receive an email every time this happens. How can I set this up? So, since I posted my message here, I have read a lot of nice write-ups about audio myths and consumer's bias, etc. I must say, it has opened my eyes. For example, I realised that my multichannel amp (measured ~130W/channel in stereo for 0.1% distortion) is more than enough for my speakers and my listening levels. I used to dream about replacing my home cinema amp with a stereo amp that has 200W per channel that doubles at 4Ω. I now realise that after spending $10,000 on that more powerful amp, I would still have had the same sound quality as before, at my listening levels, since the distortion improvement would be inaudible – and the current distortion is already low, anyway. Everything before the amp has an order of magnitude less distortion, so also quite irrelevant. My speakers have <0.3% distortion, meaning they are a greater factor and my living room is probably the worst offender by far. I was looking into replacing my 805D2s with full-range towers – and may still do finances allowing – but, in the end, I have decided that just adding two subwoofers would produce a nice response across the spectrum and I will not need to worry too much about powering the woofers of e.g. the 800D3s with a competent amplifier. Speaking of driving something like the 800D3, I have calculated that even my humble multichannel amp could actually adequately drive them without clipping, at normal listening levels. When I first made the calculation I could not believe it. I would never have thought that a $1,600 amp ($230/channel) could ever be paired with $30,000 speakers. In the audiophile world, this is plain crazy: they say, if you buy a $30,000 speaker, you should also buy similarly priced transports, DACs, Amps, (cables?!). By far the most important decision I have made recently is that, instead of spending more money on gear, I would invest in finding a listening room and treating it. After reading the audiophile myths, I have even realised how pointless high-resolution audio is, too. CD quality is more than enough to contain the dynamic range of even the highest-quality recordings. I even went as far as replacing all my CD-quality music on my phone (connected to the Beyerdynamic DT880 via a Chord Mojo) with AAC 256 VBR versions. I honestly don't think there is such a big difference and whether I can hear it, but it did allow me to store 60 albums instead of 15 or so. I will still keep my high-resolution files for my main system, but honestly I don't think it makes any difference: I could easily convert all my SACDs to CD quality and I would never know. Question(s): Say there are two versions of a blu-ray player, e.g. the Oppo 103 and the 105. The latter has better DACs and power supply, etc. and is being sold as an audiophile player, when used via its analog outputs. What is it that leads people to hearing clear differences in quality, beyond placebo? Is it that the 105 has more "loudness" due to a more powerful built-in pre-amp, which fools people into thinking that it sounds clearer and better? I have certainly noticed that my 1990s CD player sounds 'thin' (i.e. not a lot of bass) through its analog outs, whereas using a $20 Fiio DAC into the same amp sounds a lot 'fuller'. Is this explained by the pre-amp of the Fiio, boosting the loudness of the overall reproduction? Is it just a matter of level equalisation? In that vein, can I make a cheap system sound like an expensive one, by adjusting the levels? By "levels" is it meant the full EQ or simply volume? Sorry for the long post, but it's just exciting to finally realise the truth behind all these 'audiophile' fantasies. Hey, anoutsos. You can setup email notifications for a number of events. Profile/Edit Profile/Notifications/Participated. The first profile link is in the header. Edit Profile is under View Profile - anoustos in the upper right (where you normally see 'Add Attachment' when composing a post). The notifications tab which follows will link to a different page than the ordinary one which shows an activity log.
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Feb 21, 2018 16:56:26 GMT
I have a question about a word subjectivists use to describe the quality of amplification. I would like to know the translation in objectivists' language. So, I have heard some people saying that more powerful amplifiers have a better 'grip' on the speakers, probably meaning that they can move the woofers more effortlessly and more accurately than weaker amplifiers. What does this mean? Is there any technical basis for such a claim? I read once a post (on another forum), where a user claimed that his cheap amplifier was barely able to move the woofers of his high-quality tower speakers (B&W 800D2), whereas his expensive amp was doing that effortlessly (with the corresponding sonic improvement, of course).
|
|
|
Post by anoutsos on Feb 22, 2018 13:16:57 GMT
Sorry to pester you again about this, but I am getting lost again. I am either falling for another subjectivist trap or there is some real science behind this: these are some quotes from members of another AV forum, trying to answer my question about why two modern prepros (from the same company) sound different, yet their distortion numbers should make both transparent:
• "THD is not that perfect as a means to compare full bandwidth, as far as I know." • "Imperfect DA conversion and inadequate filtering could lead to an incomplete signal with little distortion and inaudible noise, but still incomplete." • "If it is only loudness differences, it would be really easy for manufacturers to start a new kind of loudness-war to support sales." • "It is entirely possible for equipment to measure exactly the same and not sound exactly the same." • "All that is saying is that for that particular measurement, there is no perceptible difference. Real soundwaves in complex dynamic passages are much more complex than recorded measurements. Our hearing is even more complex than that." • "You just can't reduce differences between components to comparing distortion numbers... There's a LOT more to it than that."
Do any of these statements contain an amount of truth? Could it be that it's not just loudness and bias that makes one prepro sound better than another one? Do DAC designers tamper with EQ to make one prepro's sound 'cleaner' than another one's (e.g. some companies include different filters with their DACs). Or is it all again part of the subjectivists' mythos and I should stop listening?
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 23, 2018 17:19:13 GMT
Sorry for the long post, but it's just exciting to finally realise the truth behind all these 'audiophile' fantasies. This is the kind of post I love to read. You totally get it. Mostly placebo, but also not matching volume levels carefully when doing direct A/B comparisons. Now, some things really do sound better! I have a 1993 Toyota Camry that's still great even with 253,000 miles on it. About five years ago the original stereo broke (a basic AM/FM radio with cassette and CD player), so I bought a new one. Nothing fancy, maybe $100 including installation. I noticed immediately that the sound was brighter and clearer even at lower volume. Obviously this wasn't an A/B comparison, but after living with the first stereo for 20 years I knew how it sounded! So obviously the newer model was a little better. But usually it's placebo, or not matching levels.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 23, 2018 17:20:10 GMT
I have heard some people saying that more powerful amplifiers have a better 'grip' on the speakers, probably meaning that they can move the woofers more effortlessly and more accurately than weaker amplifiers. What does this mean? Is there any technical basis for such a claim? I read once a post (on another forum), where a user claimed that his cheap amplifier was barely able to move the woofers of his high-quality tower speakers (B&W 800D2), whereas his expensive amp was doing that effortlessly (with the corresponding sonic improvement, of course). That's delusional talk by someone who has no idea of how this stuff works.
|
|