|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.31.172.79
In Reply to: RE: Irony 101 posted by 13th Duke of Wymbourne on May 26, 2014 at 23:01:16
P
As I slowly slip into the dark cesspool of audiophalia neurosis. . . .
My speaker building site
Follow Ups:
I generally enjoy Art's writings with the caveat that if he isn't writing about a restoration project he is moaning that audio isn't as good as it used to be. But, he is intelligent and he likes XTC so I read him. Sometimes he does write some irksome things - this column was one of those occasions though that isn't what I posted about.
As I first thumbed through my June 2014 issue one thing stood out - the measurement graphs of the Lector DAC. I am an engineer so I'm interested in measurement results (kudos to JA) though I doubt they relate to perceived sound quality (if anything there is an inverse relationship, poor measurement = better subjective reception). Anyway, a quick look shows that there is something very wrong, I mean seriously very wrong, with the operation of that DAC. The time-domain low-level signal is horrendous and JA even reinstated the input-output linearity sweep that hasn't been seen in a CD/DAC review for years because modern players ace the test, except in this case.
So, where does the irony come in? After I read Art's column I didn't particularly agree with him about 'artisinal' designers (I am an engineer after all) but wouldn't hold that against him. However, if you consider the Lector an 'artisinal' product then it is a total irony as the thing does not work properly as a DAC. Either that sample is damaged - not an encouraging thing that an artisan would supply it - or the design is plainly bad, again not a good quality in an artisan.
The irony would be there if the Lector were reviewed by someone else but is increased because Art did the review and he liked the product. And this leads me back to the question about the correlation of sound quality and measurements. It would be convenient if good sound went with good measurements but often it doesn't and I wonder if having some imperfection is beneficial, eg. tube amps, NOS DACs and, of course, vinyl. Is, therefore, an artisinal designer one who can manipulate these imperfections for better sound? I contest not if it means the thing doesn't work properly. And if it doesn't work properly is that because the designer doesn't care (ie deliberate) or doesn't know? Your call next time you are comparing equipment.
And lastly, as I just mentioned vinyl and imperfections, let's all agree that analog/vinyl sounds great. I like it, Art likes it, Fremer likes it (!) but let's agree not to suspend all disbelief in trying to justify that it is objectively better as well. Let's just agree it is preferable, if not better. So does it matter that a vinyl pick-up generates it's own signal (ignoring that the motor has to turn the platter) and why is this different from tape? Again ignoring the motor, as the tape moves past the head does it not induce a voltage without the aid of a power supply?
Regards
13DoW
"
Is, therefore, an artisinal designer one who can manipulate these imperfections for better sound?
"Yes.
And that goes for any designer, whether he agrees with the list of marketing buzzwords that pass for 'measurement quality' or not.
As usual, the actual performance of such a component will be very system dependent, but there is no component of which that is NOT true.
Cheers
Edits: 05/31/14
. . . stuff that measures rather poorly. Maybe that's why JA sends him such equipment to review (just kidding). But he does seem to review -- and like -- a lot of products with decidedly odd specs. Just like Mikey gets the uber-expensive gear, and JA keeps the really solidly engineered pieces to review himself.
" . . and JA keeps the really solidly engineered pieces to review himself."
As a kid he no doubt enjoyed the sound of nails scraping along a black board.
;)
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
Your post raises some good points, let me just comment on the measurements of the Lector. This is not the first time a Stereophile reviewer has enjoyed the sound of a component while JA has disqualified it because of poor measurements. It seems to happen particularly with Art Dudley. I object to John Atkinson rejecting the component without at least listening to it. If he can't correlate what he hears with the measurements, then he/we must start to question if we are measuring anything worthwhile. Or, if he listened and heard a serious flaw, then perhaps the unit was damaged somehow between the AD review and the measurerments. In my view, this situation cannot stand. Three Stereophile reviewers LOVED the Croft integrated (I myself own the non-phono version of this amplifier) yet JA insists it can't be any good because of the way it measures. I know JA is admired for his equipment measurement protocol and I too respect his expertise in this area, but at some point he needs to ask himself why the reviewers are not hearing the flaws he insists must be there.
an objectivist, regardless of how much he argues otherwise? ;-)
Does he listen to the component under test to see if what he hears matches up to what he ends up measuring? To do otherwise might taint his opinion.
> I object to John Atkinson rejecting the component without at least
> listening to it.
My objections were based on the quality of its engineering and its measured
performance. Surely I have the obligation to point those factors out in a
review?
And once I have measured it, any auditioning comments I might have will be
tainted by my knowledge of its measured problems. This is why Stereophile's
reviewers don't see my measurements until after they have submitted their
review texts. I want to publish what they actually heard, not what they
thought they should be hearing.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"After I read Art's column I didn't particularly agree with him about 'artisinal' designers (I am an engineer after all) but wouldn't hold that against him."
I read, I am and I do. I've now consigned his smug ramblings to the "wasted bandwidth" category.
You're a better man than I am Gunga Din...
Rick
Ok. But what constitutes a good engineer?
LOL
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
"Ok. But what constitutes a good engineer? LOL"
Well, a bunch of factors of course. Just how is that germane to this discussion?
Rick
"The irony would be there if the Lector were reviewed by someone else but is increased because Art did the review and he liked the product. And this leads me back to the question about the correlation of sound quality and measurements. It would be convenient if good sound went with good measurements but often it doesn't and I wonder if having some imperfection is beneficial, eg. tube amps, NOS DACs and, of course, vinyl. Is, therefore, an artisinal designer one who can manipulate these imperfections for better sound? I contest not if it means the thing doesn't work properly. And if it doesn't work properly is that because the designer doesn't care (ie deliberate) or doesn't know? Your call next time you are comparing equipment."
This seems a very tortured statement to me. We have the acknowledgement of the oft lack of correlation between measurements and sound, the supposition that perhaps the intentional manipulation of imperfections may lead to better sound, and finally a sort of rejection of such practice if the "thing doesn't work properly".
But what is working properly , what is the objective determination of such ... why those very same measurements that often don't correlate with good sound.
Irony indeed.
Beyond that I struggle to find anything novel, in fact if seeking an analogy in music the classic "warhorse" comes immediately to mind.
---
Just to add, not having read the review I'm unaware of just exactly how the device in question departed from objective goodness , the general scenario however fits many others, most recently a discussion of an integrated amplifier that was deemed by Atkinson guilty of some unpardonable objective performance sin in the face of rave subjective review from the reviewer (actually 2 reviewers).
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
I do not condone the use of torture, even in statements.
Irony can work on many levels but, to me, the most obvious is that an artisan would really care about his/her design. Based on JA's measurements (link below) the Lector has real performance problems. What would make a successful DAC would be to try to reproduce each step in the digital word with an equally sized analog voltage to as low a level as possible - not in this case. Pretty much every other set of DAC measurements that have appeared in Stereophile over the last couple of years are similar, so it can be done, and the subjective reviews are good too.
I didn't understand your comment about not being novel - you are right that the objective vs subjective debate is not new - and, if you already accept that measurements don't matter at all then, perhaps, the irony is on me for caring.
In another branch of this topic you asked what makes a good engineer. Well, I have objective goals to meet and I know how close I get to meeting them with the associated trade-offs. In the professional audio world I suspect things are pretty much the same. There was a recent post to the General Asylum about John Curl (including a link to his collected thoughts) - he seems to have hit the perfect balance for the audiophile world.
Regards
13DoW
At least with digital we are no closer to understanding what makes it really sound good than we were 25 years ago.
I have a 20 year old DAC, the Kinergetics KCD-55 ultra that used from its day the best of the best DAC chipset the UltraAnalog D20400 20 bit ladder type DAC. It measures merely ok by today's standards (not counting the Lector!) but sounds with redbook better than most I have heard. My Monarchy M24 is also at the top of the heap with 20 year old technology (but a true tube output stage).
It used to be thought that if you eliminate the jitter and if you get the linearity sufficiently good then they should all sound the same...similar stupid thinking went with amp design.
What I have found is that DACs based on Ladder technology sound generally better...of course exceptions exist (Audio Aero players are a good example). Maybe our brains really don't like all the funny math going on there to "create" perfection.
The same seems to be true for amps. Read the work of Cheeer and Geddes...Geddes found ZERO correlation with THD and IMD for amp distortion...then he proceeded to find a correlation based on a different set of metrics.
Cheever, approaching the problem from a different direction came up with a slightly different system for judging amp "goodness". The point is that both suggest that poorly measuring amps can sound really good IF they are designed a particular way...the path to the objective IS important it seems.
But, don't forget, in this case the thing measured very badly. Generally DACs & CD players all measure 'well' as I'm sure your Kinetics does.
The broader question is that we don't understand what makes really good sound whether analog or digital.
The ladder vs. oversampling DAC is an interesting comparison. I remember ~20years ago a demonstration at the Penta Show, UK, by Prof. Hawksford comparing the two types and we all preferred the ladder type - but they are uncommon nowadays.
I think jitter as the route-of-all-digital-evil has been over played for a long time. Mayber those who have been able to do valid comparisons know better but I suspect jitter was hijacked by marketing many years ago.
Regards
13doW
The DACs I have, while both having ladder DAC chips, are both OVERsampling (8x) in the traditional sense. They do not use UPsampling or fancy custom logic chips to make the digital filter.
I do not have a NOS DAC but have heard a few really good ones, like the Metrum Hex and Kondo KSL DAC.
I have heard a few of the "complex" DAC setups sound good, like the products from Audio Aero that use the very complex digital filter from Anagram Technologies (So called S.T.A.R.S by them or ATF by Audiomecca) and Analog devices Sigma/Delta DAC chips but with a nice tube output stage (using a cool subminiature tube per channel).
I had an Audio Aero but in the end preferred my Ladder DAC sound as being more analog and present while the Audio Aero was more airy and spacious.
"the path to the objective IS important it seems."
I don't think so. The correct technical definition of the objective is what's important. If the path matters then the requirements are insufficiently understood and/or the path is inadequately controlled.
This is a really common problem with things that interface tightly to our higher senses. Sight and hearing have such high survival values that they are both keen and idiosyncratic. Probably we differ enough that just evaluating our responses to things visual and aural would serve to identify us. Having three complex variables: ears, eyes and brains provides a lot of mapping area. And then you fold in taste...
Electrically we can measure stuff well enough but we aren't too clear about how much what matters. This also holds true for all conducted and radiated noise issues. The problem is with a wide open system, limits are essentially impossible to establish. Compared with almost anything else home audio stuff is way under controlled and specified. This helps foster a mystical notion that magic prevails and the only hope is that some "artisan" tinkering in his garage will find the philosopher's stone that escapes the evil corporate interests.
Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it...
Rick
I more or less agree with your statements, except this one:
"This helps foster a mystical notion that magic prevails and the only hope is that some "artisan" tinkering in his garage will find the philosopher's stone that escapes the evil corporate interests.
"
Once you hear what some of them have produced then you would think twice about this. BTW, many of those so-called "artisan tinkerers" are nothing less than very highly trained but also highly scientific engineers that often came from big industry in the first place. This means they have perspective on what they do and they at least have had a serious rethink on "engineering best practice", which for audio is often nothing of the sort.
"Once you hear what some of them have produced then you would think twice about this."
Were I to believe these systems could sound better than live acoustic performances, then I might believe the hyperbole. That being unlikely, I interpret your remark as an unusually polite version of the classic high-end audiophile snob put down.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Why? With so many shows these days one doesn't need to be able to own expensive gear to hear it and make some conclusions about the value of it. Its not like I own a Living Voice/Kondo rig at home...but I wish I did...and not because of what it costs but what sound it delivers.
"many of those so-called "artisan tinkerers" are nothing less than very highly trained but also highly scientific engineers that often came from big industry in the first place."
Good point.
However clearly that is often not the case and even when it is that does not guarantee superior results.
Rick
Some people like distortion and noise. Sometimes this is a personal taste and sometimes it is a band-aid that covers up symptoms of problems elsewhere in a recording or the playback system. This issue seldom surfaces, but sometimes when it does it can be severe, as appears to be the case here where measurements and listening diverge drastically.
IMO a subjective listening evaluation of a DAC is not complete until some kind of bypass tests have been used to compare the output of the DAC with original analog input that was used to generate the digital input to the DAC. This is the most direct and obvious way to tell if a DAC is simultaneously accurate and musical. Doing this test requires a high quality analog source and a high quality analog to digital converter, preferably several analog source recordings (or live microphone feeds) and several analog to digital converters. This is not the type of test that a typical audiophile or audiophile-reviewer would do, but it would be "bread and butter" for a mastering engineer as part of his equipment selection and set up.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
there's a helluva lotta shitty sounding recordings mastered by engineers. What's that tell you?
"there's a helluva lotta shitty sounding recordings mastered by engineers. What's that tell you?"
There are three answers that come to mind. :-)
1. There are a lot of shitty mastering engineers
2. There are a lot of recordings that were so bad that there was nothing that could be done with them. (Mastering engineers use the phrase, "polishing a turd".)
3. There are a lot of producers and musicians who haven't a clue what constitutes good sound and they pay the engineers to produce what they want to hear, for example, "loud". (One could say that engineers who accommodate their customers have "sold out", but their phrases are "keeping my studio open" and "feeding my children".)
The real problem IMO is the customers who buy the shitty recordings. I learned very early to purchase recordings made by certain labels and certain engineers and avoid recordings made by other labels even I liked the music and the artist. If a recording was made by "Lewis Layton" or "Bob Fine" there was an extremely good chance it would be sonically excellent.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
the equipment used in many/most studios that measures great and sounds terrible. Some of the worst sounding spkrs./amps I've heard have been in mixing rooms at recording studios.
While I think the best mastering engineers (Greg Calbi/Doug Sax/ Bernie Grundman etc.)employ much better sounding gear, for every mastering engineer/studio that does there are 50 that use rotten sounding spkrs./amps chosen because the engineers are sure that stuff that measures flat results in "accurate" sound.
A well known engineer I was considering hiring to record my band's 2nd cd charges cartage fees to bring his own "audiophile" spkrs./amps to whatever studio you're using simply because his experience has shown that most of 'em have good measuring/bad sounding equipment.
I agree with everything you said..........in addition to the above.
there are 50 that use rotten sounding spkrs./amps chosen because the engineers are sure that stuff that measures flat results in "accurate" sound.
those with AJinFLA's mentality that you cannot hear thousands of op amps in the recording chain? :)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: