Probably minor in impact on fidelity in relation to what we happily accept how speakers degrade the prior pretty clean and perfect source signal.
3 Likes
I already mentioned this to you a couple weeks ago
If you start with crap THD+N performance and then need to add 15dB headroom management for EQ (example only) now you lost 15dB THD+N
If the performance of DAC is poor to start with, you might start hearing some hiss or hum from that fancy linear PSU inside the DAC
Good reason to have low THD+N / high SINAD DACs to start with - high SINAD across the board, meaning single tone and all the various multitone tests etc
Nothing good comes from having crap SINAD performance. You only get hiss/hum , if enough DSD headroom management is required with a crap DAC.
If I owned 7Hz Salnote Crincacle Zero2 IEM and Topping L50 headamp , if you look at the noise and distortion performance of those components - I wouldnât want to ruin this state of the art low noise and low distortion performance with this Brooklyn Bridge 2 DAC
Look at the Zero2 distortion 20Hz to 20kHz at 114dB SPL. Less than 0.3 %
Do you know the price of speaker system that can achieve this at 114dB ? If any ??
And do you know the price of these neutral IEMs?
3 Likes
Completely disagree. On one hand, tuning the room in the bass region can be done successfully, it may require some planning, some investment and alterations in the room.
On the other hand, I find the advice ´donât need to treat the room for low frequencies´ highly misleading. I would rather say, it MUST be done first in the majority of cases, as typical room-induced low frequency problems are one of the main deteriorations of reproduction quality which you cannot properly EQ to satisfaction. You might be able to reduce the level of annoyance caused by these problems by reducing the level in the whole affected band, but that almost certainly comes at a cost of decreasing other aspects of the reproduction quality.
I intended not to get personal at all in this thread, but I have to say I find the degree to which you seem to lack basic knowledge of acoustical phenomena in the room and interaction between room and speakers to be really shocking.
You should be talking about what DSP CANNOT do and therefore has to be achieved by room treatment and choice of speakers. Hinting that one can solve any problem by EQing is highly misleading and btw a major source of dissatisfaction with oneâs own system in the real world.
Why is that important for reproduction quality if it in most cases stays well under the threshold of audibility? For what is it important if it is not audible?
Does not make sense at all to name products ´best there is´ based on measurements which do not make an audible difference. Could take that lightly with a grain of salt like someoneâs obsession with 99.9999% OFC copper in wires but in combination with the shocking lack of knowledge on room phenomena plus misleading advices about DSP, your public efforts leave a pretty bad aftertaste.
A deep and open discussion about direcitivity index, resulting risk of imbalanced frequency response of the indirect sound field in the room and some recommendations on (in-)compatibility of these speakers with certain rooms. It occurred to me that in several reviews a ´proper slope, excellent´ was the verdict for some acoustic behavior which I would rather call a red flag for many potential use cases (I by no means intend to say any of the speakers is bad, I just see a high risk of incompatibility with certain rooms and listening situations). So preferably all this should be discussed on the base of listening tests under different room conditions as solely on the base of measurements you cannot really predict what will actually happen.
1 Like
Iâm sorry to be dense, but Iâm not seeing where you answered either question.
Very good. Summarizing, then:
-
You would prefer ASR reviews routinely remind the reader about audibility thresholds and how SINAD, for instance, becomes irrelevant below audibility thresholds, especially since speakers and their interactions with the room become the dominant issue.
-
There are limits to using DSP, EQ, etc. in terms of shaping the in-room response. Those limits must be emphasized, especially in discussing bass response.
-
Reviews of speakers based on Klippel/anachoic spin-o-rama-style data fail to be able to capture the precise way in which they will interact with any given room. You cannot really predict what will actually happen. I guess folks need to be reminded routinely about that in your opinion?
So your complaints here are largely just a matter of how you would emphasize measurements? It seems good hygiene and I see a great deal of this in ASR community comments, but itâs worth considering perhaps with a set of âstandard disclaimersâ in the FAQ or just a âGetting Started with Reviewsâ page.
3 Likes
Read your own words. Alterating the room?
Not going to happen for your average Roon user / home enthusiast.
Room treaments for bass regions is either impractical or hit and miss.
There are multiple threads on ASR and AVS forums of people successully taming the bass using many techniques from speaker choice and positioning, multiple subwoofers, using EQ, dirac art etc.
So far you have done lots of talking but i see nothing practical. Iam happy to learn but so far you have suggested;
- I look at how broadcasters set up their monitor rooms - not relevant to me at all!
- I get a group of audio experts to do listening tests of various speakers in my listening room. How is that going to happen?
- I perform an extensive set of in room measurements -doable, but then I need speakers to choose speakers.
- I physically alter my room.
I think you are not talking about home audio. Particularly when you disparage a company like Kef which is at the forefront of home audio reproduction
8 Likes
We had the identical conversation 17 days ago
I think youâre implying what i said was accurate. But you didnât answer my question then too. Iâm curious whether you could lose fidelity with such a dsp/eq approach and how youâd go about determining if that was the case.
Twice now I mentioned with the perfect combo of lots of DSP headroom management + crap DAC, you could hear hiss/hum.
Surely that is proof of poor fidelity
I see the confusion, i was asking about.in general and you are saying yes for that specific example and conditions.
1 Like
I am solely talking about home audio.
Could you please show me an example of me disparaging KEF? Maybe you have confused me with someone else? I would not see them at the forefront of research when it comes to room acoustics, but they have definitely a very competent engineering team. Was even ordering a pair for my bedroom - and you speak of disparaging?
Absolutely not. There are products out there to counter these problems. They are neither cheap nor compact but they are existing and might be vital in many more rooms than you think. You simply have to know what the particular problem is, and for that you IMHO need a combination of in-room measurements and listening tests.
I do not doubt people managed to tame the bass. Choosing the right speakers (e.g. speakers with non-unidirectional bass radiation pattern) or using multiple subwoofers might even solve the problem if you really know what you are doing.
Using solely EQ, especially routines like DIRAC, is not enough in most of cases, even if it is possible to tame the bass in the meaning you have no annoying booming anymore. But you might end up with having no consistent bass timing over the whole frequency band anymore and you usually have to live with serious reproduction flaws remaining. I understand that many people are not aware of that as they claim to have ´solved´ the problem the moment booming has disappeared, but if they have a desire to add or reduce bass level depending on the current volume setting and particular track played, I know that it is not really solved.
Same with other ´non-EQable´ problems such as incoherent center imaging, annoying hissing or dull indirect sound field lacking treble.
I repeatedly explained that I had not meant to recommend the choice of speakers and methods used by broadcasters. The example was rather mentioned to learn something about reproduction criteria requiring a listening test instead of measurements. And that is VERY relevant to you when choosing and setting up speakers which would satisfy you on the long run. You might not be aware of that yet.
Book one specialist for room optimization and invite some friends who are into hi-fi so they can exchange opinions and discuss what is desired and possible? Get a pair of speakers for comparison which are from acoustical point of view best practice in your particular room? Invite a high end dealer to bring a pair of speakers for a shootout promising to buy them later if they succeed?
An increasing number of high end dealers and speaker manufacturers are offering such personal service in your room , including optimizing positions and personal DSP setup.
I do not think it is necessary to emphasize this every time, some information on what is general knowledge about thresholds, masking and audibility would do. But I would expect that measurements which are clearly and consistently below audibility thresholds should not be the base for verdicts like ´underperforming´, ´poor performance´ or ´broken products´. I find this misleading and I have a general problem with judgements suggesting a solid estimation of the reproduction quality when in fact they are based solely on inaudible measurements.
-
- yes, surely, but from the perspective of a consumer I would rather be interested not only in what DSP would do and could not, but also in necessary measures of room treatment in case DSP is failing. In my experience that is a surprisingly common case in living rooms, not only when it comes to bass, booming and standing waves, but also everything related to direct reflections resulting in flawed center imaging, excessive level of reflections in the room in general and tonal imbalance thereof in particular. The latter is very common and could lead to ´harsh, metallic reverb´, sharp hissing or in contrary to dull, lame reverb and lack of perceived dynamics.
Would not say that. I do not have much of experience with the Klippel method of nearfield measurements under different angles but what I have seen looks pretty plausible compared to what I know from an actual anechoic chamber or free-field conditions respectively.
When it comes to judging the directivity index and how it is frequency-depending, it is not possible to draw conclusions without having an idea of the RT60 in the room which should serve as a listening room. So instead of praising tidy-looking, steadily decreasing off-axis measurements, a discussion would be more helpful in which environment and under which conditions such an increasing D.I. towards high frequencies would lead to a well balanced indirect sound field (which is a rare case) or when a constant or even decreasing D.I. would be more advisable. And of course discussing the optimal avarage level of D.I. in relation to listening distance and RT60.
Please note that this is merely not a question of measurements but requires a lot of listening experience, especially of numerous combinations of speakers and rooms.
Not particularly. I do see the point in publishing measurements as a base for judging certain aspects of sound quality and certain decisions when it comes to gear and tuning. So I do welcome the general approach of ASR.
My main problem is the fact that pretty bold verdicts and claims are solely based on measurements, from ´underperforming´ to ´poor performance´ or ´broken products´, even in case the technical result hints to differences being clearly inaudible in one particular case (mainly DACs) or a listening test is vitally needed to come to such conclusions (in case of speakers).
It leaves a bad aftertaste if people would come to the conclusion they could base their buying decisions solely on the published data as well as always relying on things like DSP when it comes to room-induced problems. Both will according to my decades-long experience lead to disappointment on the long run in many many cases.
2 Likes
Ok, understood. I donât see your comments as moving outside the bounds of my summary, except in specificity and tone:
-
You recommend against attaching judgement language to audio components insofar as the relative performance is inaudible.
-
You recommend toning down judgement language applied to directivity indexes for speakers.
Otherwise very interesting additional commentary! Iâm personally not extremely picky about equipment but enjoy learning stuff and use REW, Dirac, room treatments, etc. in moderation. I primarily like to understand the culture, attitudes, and language constructs that surround and enervate movements, and how they evolve over time.
1 Like
I think Audio Science Review (ASR) is one of a kind. ASR is - to speak with Carl Sagans words - a candle in the dark. A very needed candle in a very daemon haunted audiophile world. Why?
Manufacturers/Brands often mislead with their claims that this amplifier or DAC or speaker or even network player with 5-digit or even 6-digit price tags are needed to reproduce music as it was heard/recorded in the studio/live venue. And most - if not all - of these audiophile seduction claims are bull⌠Sure, you get always a kind of âsoundâ, but mostly not a true reproduction of the sound which was intended by the ones who created the music/recording.
ASR debunks audiophile myths. It shows that some of this high priced equipment is technically flawed and let alone from this point of view not worth the money.
HiFi (or later High End) always was about how to get the original sound in my living room. HiFi always was about real science, research, technology, engineering. Not about pseudo science or voodoo. One can buy stereo equipment for half a million and end up with a system which is (for instance SNR of some astronomically high priced amplifiers) literally worse than a system from 1980. ASR (in some aspect Stereophile too) shines a light on this. If you like the sound of a technically flawed stereo system - ok, go ahead and buy it. But ASR gives you the chance to think twice.
Do we need a race for perfection (for instance DACs)? I guess not. But we need some counterweight and reflection what HiFi was all about.
I think, one can find some light by looking at equipment, which is used in studios: Mostly there is no need for (electrical) perfection. But you often find speakers (active monitor speakers) which are completely linear - and thatâs for a reason. You donât have to sell your kidney for a pair of active studio monitors and still get closer to the intended sound in your living room than with a system full of marketing slogans and voodoo.
18 Likes
I do not see many claims that these components are ´needed´ for reproduction. High End Audio is clearly a luxury business and no one is told that anything expensive is ´needed´. People are free to buy it or not buy it. One might argue that a lot of claims and discussions about technical solutions in DACs and amplifiers is overly dramatized.
Wait, wait a moment. If ASR´s measurements on DACs and amplifiers are showing in the majority that there are no differences clearly above the audibility threshold - and Amir and others are highlighting that only scientifical evidence of audibility is counting here - then the verdict can only be that most of DACs and amplifiers on the market are excellent and meeting the specifications for their purpose from technical perspective.
If they do, they cannot be on the other hand ´not a true reproduction´ or ´broken´. In my understanding basing verdicts and rankings on inaudible specs and differences in measurements is highly misleading. If ASR and its supporters are claiming that an amplifier with 0.01% distortion is audibly inferior to one showing 0.0001%, they have to prove that. Because they on the other hand claim that their results are based on scientific research and are objective.
So buying a cheaper product or a more expensive one is everyone´s free decision without having to fear inferior quality if you buy a product with bad ASR review. This is what I call highly misleading review methods.
No, it creates and spreads (different to the existing ones) audiophile myths to the same extend that real high end esoteric are doing it. They just do it under the banner of science and objectivity.
Linear speakers are for a reason and they make sense, but they exist in hi-fi and in pro-audio as well. The problem is: A speaker which is showing linear response in the anechoic chamber (or simulated free-field conditions), does not necessarily do the same thing in a living room. There are other, much more important technical aspects of a speaker ongoing, and ASR seem not to understand these or speaker misleading about it.
If they would want to educate people, they had to talk about differences between a speaker for the studio (or home cinema or any acoustically treated room) and a living room.
I am a big fan of active speakers for a long time, but I cannot agree to that claim. There are a lot of very good products on the pro market, but most of studio monitors rely on the acoustical quality of a pro-grade studio control room. In a living room with different conditions, many of these excellent products are lost and would lead to disappointment.
Would rather say: it is claiming to be that candle, and the candle is indeed needed. Hi-fi is based on science and everything audible is (in the meaning of descriptively) explainable, it is not a field for esoteric and voodoo. The latter is the only thing we can agree on.
In my understanding, the method of ASR is not only failing to be a candle in the dark, it is in reverse much more misleading as it is not only full of claims contradictive to each other but also giving a certain impression that measurements and the way audibility is seen in scientific surveys is the only and one truth in this world.
This type of ´hi-fi absolutism´ I find even more misleading than any esoteric snake oil product´s description on the market (which I would probably agree with Amir and all ASR readers that these are against the facts). It does not only leave to room for a different opinion and experience, it also seems to vitally miss the important points of what is defining sound quality in a room.
This in my experience with home users is a pretty safe way to flawed reproduction quality and dissatisfaction on the long run. The extensive use of and believe in DSP-based room correction systems is the brightest example in my understanding of the vast field of electroacoustic where all ´measurement-only´-believers are exemplarily and always wrong.
If ASR wants to be the candle in the dark, they should for example highlight the limits and flaws of DSP room correction systems and especially automatic routines. They should provide people with reliable data and knowledge on loudspeaker quality, room acoustics and which strategies are successful when trying to match the two. They should highlight when a flat frequency response is the guarantee for flawed sound and in which cases certain measurements including frequency response absolutely do not matter. And which aspects of sound quality are not measurable.
Thatâs what I would expect from a candle in the dark.
4 Likes
6 Likes
To me, confirmation bias is so common that it happens to all of us without our notice (even you know it so well that it can exist). You may not agree that it happens to you even when people point it out to you explicitly like I did in my post Whatâs confirmation bias in objective experiment? I am pretty sure we all have it. Why? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
To be honest, I am really surprised and disappointed to find out that even the supposed-to-be objective audio science based review forum (ASR) doesnât even know what confirmation bias is as they use the term many many times to defence their beliefs.
They misuse the term in order to protect their beliefs. A few posts from them actually show that they donât even know the usage difference between the verb âindicateâ and âproveâ in peer-reviewed research paper (I can provide the link to you if you want to see).
Some topics are taboo to them. Whenever people bring out such topics (e.g. Hi-Res music, upsampling, etcâŚ), they simply give out misleading pseudo science claims to support their wrong beliefs or just stop you right the way to avoid any more meaning discussion about the taboo topics.
Have a look of this link Whatâs confirmation bias in objective experiment? I am pretty sure we all have it. Why? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum on ASR. The post was stopped just a few minutes after I posted it earlier yesterday as they donât want too see any more discussion about it.
They even attempt to insult people (who have different view points with supporting facts) and block them from the thread in order to these people feel unease and hope these people would go away. This is a good example: Serious Question: How can DACâs have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused? | Page 438 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum)
I am not sure if they really think I am mentally blocked or they just demonstrated another psychological phenomenon known as Cognitive Dissonance, i.e. just to deny any fact that is not compatible with their beliefs.
However, one thing for sure is that, unfortunate, I am not such a guy who give up easily. I just created my blog (Debunk Pseudo Scientific Claims a few days ago to see if I can be any help to fix this issue in ASR. I knew the chance is close to zero but I will keep on doing it until I canât.
I have no objection with what they did to their site. It is THEIR site. They can delete my posts or even my account. However, given their status, I donât want them to keep on distributing wrong concepts, ideas, and interpretations based on so called unbiased scientific claims.
We already have way too many pseudo claims in the world we need to debunk. Why they keep on creating more and more daily especially from a supposed-to-be âobjective scientific baseâ discussion forum. To me, a lot of groupthink: is happening in ASR. It is the source of all these pseudo science claims in ASR.
I understand some people couldnât think critically and independently (sorry to say that but it is a fact IMO), they love to look for help from experts. Why these so-called experts keep on giving these people with biased information and attempting to repackage these biased information under the âunbiased objective science umbrellaâ? Do they have any hidden agenda? I donât knowâŚ
I have no problem if they state thatâs their views but not as facts. Really, please donât, it is just your view.
1 Like
I think the problem there is that you want to play, but you donât want to ante up. That is, from what youâre saying in those threads, you donât seem to understand what youâre talking about (even if you do), and you didnât want to read and understand the recommended literature. Particularly about how to formulate an experiment. I see nothing wrong with the moderator cutting off those threads quickly.
7 Likes
There are so many detailed discussions about this by so many clever people , on ASR forum
You clearly havenât made any effort to look.
7 Likes
Perhaps you could point to at least one that you feel is relevant to the discussion. It is difficult to find the signal from the noise on ASR.
I really wish this thread would stay on the topic of what is considered authoritative in terms of science and what is considered up for debate (the hard problem of preference correlation seems the most striking) rather than about ASR.
1 Like
First and foremost I was referring to the review and measurement threads initiated by Amir which contain verdicts about products. These clearly show the main problems of a speaker´s directivity, RT60, how humans percept direct and indirect sound as well as what room correction can and cannot do, have not been understood on a very basic level.
I do not doubt there are other opinions on the board but I did not read a single one showing deeper understanding for the aforementioned ´elephant in the room acoustics´. Even in the Floyd Toole discussion it looks as if the main point is not really discussed although I believe Toole himself knows it pretty well but stays on the rather vague side.
So, could you point me to a thread please where a reader can understand most important things about choosing speaker directivity, placing speakers, tuning rooms and optimizing aspects which you cannot use any DSP for?
2 Likes