I only have an “elektro-technical” engineering degree and am not an EMI researcher at a university or so. So I know my position in the discussion as a kind of ASR guy. I can measure the practical things like distortion, L, R and C, know my basics but that’s it.
And I heard a comparison between two Antipodes (one costing more than twice the other) on a ridiculously expensive system. And I heard a clear difference in detail retrieval between the two. But I could not hear any difference between different usb and ethernet cables. I didn’t want to hear a difference between the two Antipodes streamers because I wanted to buy the cheaper one, but could not help to admit that there is definitely still a way to go digitally to the ultimate.
I know they probably measure all the same. But if that would be our only standard we would still be listening to 14 bit cd’s on a radioshack portable player.
Here’s another problem with way the audio press looks at and listens to expensive audio equipment:
Mega-buck audio systems are assembled with components and connectors (interconnects and wires) within a comparable price range. For example, $100K speakers typically use $5K speaker wire, a $20K DAC, a $15K power amp and some fancy and expensive streamer. It’s very likely that an audio reviewer has never tried using less expensive components and connectors and then listening for any changes to the overall sound of the system. No raspberry Pi endpoint and Blue Jeans cables for these systems.
No one knows the absolute truth about anything, IMO. We all only favor certain hypotheses about certain things. But in my little discussion above, I am reasoning from first principles – that is, from commonly accepted “truths” about the world and physics. I’d be happy to have errors in my reasoning pointed out, though.
It would be against the rules of the forum to answer that question. Of course, a person’s hearing can change over the course of years, as well. Human hearing is such an unreliable instrument that I’d personally hesitate to adduce any change as real without accurate measurements by properly calibrated equipment.
Do those companies advertise in those magazines? I’d think their profit margins would be too low to make it possible.
Conversely, the non-profit hobbyist reviewers (ASR and Archimago) don’t typically test gear with nosebleed prices, because they can’t afford to source them.
Please can you list your main system? for comparison to the HD600.
My system was dismantled as I was decorating the room when I downloaded the test so I initially listened on my iMac. I struggled for a definitive answer on the iMac as in one section of the piece I preferred track one, but in another section I preferred track 2. Once my main system (Bricasti M1 and ATC SCM 50ASL pro) was back in place it was obvious. I won’t post the answer incase some people haven’t tried it yet.
I don’t have headphones but that would be an interesting comparison.
Different speakers, and positioning of them in our (very different) rooms, is the single biggest variable in all our set ups, and will possibly influence the level at which some people can correctly identify the track.
I was once asked if I preferred to hear the sound of individual Violins in a piece or the Violins as a whole. I always prefer the ‘forensic’ version over the ‘sounds nice’ version so that dictates speaker positioning (and manufacturer choice) for me. Everyone will have their personal preferences, but neither is wrong. As an example, my father’s system is set up for the ‘sounds nice’ version, as he prefers it that way.
Sorry for side tracking the post’s initial subject.
P.S. What should be mentioned is that neither tracks sounds bad, just good and better. If I hadn’t heard better, good would still be a good recording that I could happily live with.
This seems to boil down quickly to subjective versus objective positions.
ChatGPT can do it faster. It also holds up a mirror to our obsessions and the endless recycling of worn-out tropes.
"Subjectivist Audiophile (SA): I just got my hands on the new Supremo DAC, and let me tell you, it’s the absolute best! The level of musicality and engagement it brings to my listening experience is unmatched.
Objective Audiophile (OA): Really? I’ve heard about the Supremo DAC, but I’m skeptical. Have you bothered to look at the objective measurements of the DAC? I believe in relying on empirical evidence rather than subjective impressions.
SA: Oh, measurements! You’re so obsessed with numbers and graphs, it’s like you’re missing the whole point. The Supremo DAC goes beyond what those lifeless measurements can ever convey. It’s about the emotional connection and the pure joy of music, not some sterile data.
OA: Don’t be so dismissive. Measurements provide valuable insights into a device’s performance. They reveal its accuracy, linearity, and distortion levels. It’s not about missing the point; it’s about having a solid foundation for evaluation.
SA: Foundation? More like a rigid, soulless approach that fails to capture the true essence of music. The Supremo DAC is about experiencing music, feeling it in your bones. It’s about transcending the limitations of technical measurements and immersing yourself in the art.
OA: Your romanticized notion of music is clouding your judgment. While emotions are important, relying solely on subjective impressions can lead to biased and inconsistent evaluations. Measurements ensure a level playing field and objective comparisons between different devices.
SA: Who cares about your so-called “level playing field”? Music is a personal journey, and the Supremo DAC has taken me to places your measurements can’t even fathom. It’s about individual preference and the connection between the listener and the music, not some sterile objectivity.
OA: You can live in your fantasy world all you want, but measurements provide a standardized basis for evaluating audio equipment. They remove personal biases and provide an accurate representation of a DAC’s performance. The Supremo DAC may just be another overhyped product without the numbers to back it up.
SA: Overhyped? You clearly haven’t experienced the Supremo DAC’s transformative power. Your obsession with measurements blinds you to the magic and emotion it brings. Maybe you should open your ears and embrace the subjective side of audio for once.
OA: Spare me your condescending attitude. I’ve listened to enough audio equipment to know the importance of objective evaluations. Your subjective experience with the Supremo DAC doesn’t invalidate the need for empirical evidence. Wake up and realize that measurements matter.
SA: I don’t need your patronizing lectures. The Supremo DAC has redefined my audio experience, and no amount of your narrow-minded reliance on measurements will change that. Enjoy your sterile world of numbers while I revel in the beauty of music."
And after all this, the Supremo II DAC is going to wipe the floor with Supremo DAC. There is no end to the quest for the ideal sound quality, infinite progress is possible. Had we gotten complacent, we would have declared the cylinder phonograph as the ultimate in sound reproduction etc. etc.
You’re reading over at ASR has been very selective then. Amir does listen to many of the products he tests.
There maybe some analysis (of my search habits) required here. I usually just search (name of product) review, scroll passed all the advert based websites, end up at a couple of reviewers I know and eventually find ASR. Seriously haven’t come across anything he listens to. It may just be that I am searching higher cost products to see if anything new has been invented to justify the fuss in them.
Strange coincidence, the Pink Panther tune was the first thing I learned to play on the bass!
Though I did read a positive review (measurement) of the Mola Mola Tambaqui, but I don’t recall him listening to it
Just out of curiosity, can you give one or the other example (recording) where that difference would be evident (depending on your setup, as you claim)? Because I don’t know what you mean – what is the sound of individual violins in an orchestral piece?
Similarly, please give one or the other example of a reviewer (and perhaps actual review so we could move from these hazy anecdotes to something a bit more concrete and factual) that doesn’t make their money off advertising revenue. I take it you mean a reviewer of independent means that doesn’t write for a magazine or website.
OFF TOPIC - OFF TOPIC - OFF TOPIC
Check it out by clicking my avatar.
There’s no headphone amp in my system, but the balanced output of the DAC is capable to drive the HD600 to appropriate levels.
And as I’d lost my listening notes, I had to ask Archimago about my answer, and he wrote
Hi Marin,
You chose Sample … which was indeed the 24-bit version with a “1” for “How much difference did you hear?”
That’s good! A realistic answer.
So what was your rating for “How much difference did you hear?” on the scale from 1 to 10.
If you read the results post, voted for the 24 bit sample and tended for a high rating, you must be proud to be the seldom golden ear in the test!
I’m happy enough being in the minority third, that was able to appropriately discern the 24 bit sample with a low delta rating …
(Continue off topic)
How may tries were there and what was your percentage of correct answers?
On topic
This is a very informative website about the hifi industry. It’s in German but it contains a lot of information: http://www.hifimuseum.de/hifi-magazine.html
On this particular general page about hifi magazines it ends with:
The technology as well as the acoustic quality have reached such a high level that the psyche of the listener and of course his personal taste take a far higher priority than the real serious physics.
After Reading some forums here I bought an expensive linear power for my Nuc and thought that I heard a tremendous improvement… while reading this thread I have growing doubts and avoid to do a double blind test for my investment…
ENDING OFF TOPIC
Marian, check out the corresponding blog post.
I didn’t use an ABX comparator, so no statistics, sorry.
Just took my time, then compared just a snippet, that seemed to highlight the differences for me and made up my mind…
Thanks. I was hoping it was a proper statistical test. I guess I’ll keep looking for objective evidence that one can distinguish 24 bits from 16.
First of all, I didn’t say it was an orchestra piece, that was your assumption. It was ceilidh piece, at a dealer demo for speaker positioning.
The piece is not relevant, pick anything you like, play it with the speakers flat against the wall, then play the same piece with the speakers 2.5m into the room, toed in at 30 degrees, and with your listening position 30cm inside the point of the equilateral triangle. Notice any difference?
If your speaker is accurate, you will be able to position it to hear deep into the mix.
I doubt any reviewer or piece I would care to mention would satisfy your demands unless he was called Amir. If you read reviews, go and listen to the products, and can relate to what has been written you start to grow a trust in that reviewer’s pieces, or the equipment they actually own themselves. When I was younger I spent a lot of weekends pestering dealers for demos. Back in the print days, Jason Kennedy was one person I could relate to, and (not quite to the same level) Paul Messenger.
Malcolm Steward and Jimmy Hughes I couldn’t.
Don’t make assumptions about me, please. I’m not an Amir disciple.
What’s interesting, though, is that you won’t give the names of reviewers and reviews that you trust. I find that quite telling, and I must therefore conclude that beyond unsubstantiated claims, you have absolutely nothing to bring to the table.
As for the individual violins in your ceilidh piece, it’s called fiddles. Just saying. And unless the players play different notes or do not know how to play in unison, no, not even with ceilidh should you hear the individual fiddles. Has nothing to do with loudspeaker positioning either; it’s the art of the playing and the art of the sound engineer. Give me at least the name of the ceilidh piece.
I clearly misread the instructions as I put 2 as a level of difference between the two. Not probability of difference, which would now be irrelevant as I know the results.
Sorry for taking it off topic.