|
|
Post by mattspl on Jan 16, 2024 15:03:52 GMT
There’s a thread over on pfm at the moment about streaming and differences between streamers and switches etc. In true pfm form, all streamers and any bit perfect signals sound the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 15:47:08 GMT
There’s a thread over on pfm at the moment about streaming and differences between streamers and switches etc. In true pfm form, all streamers and any bit perfect signals sound the same. Yep - that's the kind of crap that we try to debunk here. PFM goes ASR? |
|
Tobias
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 325
|
Post by Tobias on Jan 16, 2024 16:38:50 GMT
What i think is worse is the serious HiFi reviewers lack of understanding and how they express themselves, when reviewing digital domain gear.
They can "listen to" a streamer (transport) and say things like "It sounds warm" or "has a better soundstage" even though it is actually the DAC that is now sounding better.
The way they talk about digital domain gear is actually a big problem since it makes no sense for anyone in technology/IT to say it like they do, hence the skepticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannarock2 on Jan 16, 2024 16:42:21 GMT
Psychoacoustic effects in music audio are all about playing tricks on the brain's interpretation of auditory signals. Some examples:
Masking: This phenomenon occurs when louder sounds obscure quieter ones. For instance, you might struggle to hear the lyrics of a singer when a banging drumbeat dominates the same frequency range. Musicians use masking strategically, layering instruments so some shine while others provide subtle textures.
The Haas effect: Imagine a musician plucking a guitar string just slightly after a delayed echo. Our brains perceive these as a single, thicker sound, adding spatial depth and richness. This effect is widely used in recording and live sound to manipulate perceived distance and ambience.
Loudness illusions: Our ears don't perceive all frequencies equally. For example, sounds in the middle range seem louder than those at the extremes. Musicians cleverly utilize this by emphasizing mid-range harmonics to make instruments appear louder without actually boosting their overall volume.
Timbre manipulation: The tonal quality of a sound is called timbre. By emphasizing or suppressing certain harmonics, musicians can shape the perceived "brightness," "warmth," or "bite" of an instrument. This allows them to sculpt sonic landscapes and evoke specific emotions in listeners.
Auditory expectations: Our brains constantly predict what's coming based on musical patterns. Composers can play with these expectations by introducing unexpected chords, silences, or sudden tempo changes. This creates surprise, tension, and emotional impact.
These are just a few examples of why I think there is plenty of room for scientific testing of audio components.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 16:59:08 GMT
These are just a few examples of why I think there is plenty of room for scientific testing of audio components. And I don't think you've seen anyone here say otherwise. Testing can give clues to performance, but only just. When listening reveals one thing and testing reveals something different, the test is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 17:08:32 GMT
They can "listen to" a streamer (transport) and say things like "It sounds warm" or "has a better soundstage" even though it is actually the DAC that is now sounding better. Well... yes. You can take it to the extreme and say it's always the speakers that sound better, as they are the only transducer in the chain. Reviewers try to use a language that imparts what they mean to the layman, and I can understand that. I do feel uncomfortable saying a cable sounds better because in real terms it means it sounds least bad. But I understand when it's put that way. |
|
Tobias
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 325
|
Post by Tobias on Jan 16, 2024 17:08:41 GMT
Also, all those psychoacoustic arguments are of course a result of the fact that the "facts", for many many years, is now turning out to be wrong...
People who has listened with their ears has been right all along, in most cases. (I believe)
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 17:09:53 GMT
But whose ears?  |
|
Tobias
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 325
|
Post by Tobias on Jan 16, 2024 17:17:30 GMT
They can "listen to" a streamer (transport) and say things like "It sounds warm" or "has a better soundstage" even though it is actually the DAC that is now sounding better. Well... yes. You can take it to the extreme and say it's always the speakers that sound better, as they are the only transducer in the chain. Reviewers try to use a language that imparts what they mean to the layman, and I can understand that. I do feel uncomfortable saying a cable sounds better because in real terms it means it sounds least bad. But I understand when it's put that way. Yes, but for anyone who is new to the hobby it is actually utterly confusing when people say that "this ethernet cable has better instrument separation", or similar. The younger generation will, rightfully so, laugh at that statement since they often understand digital. If we want them to understand the hobby then i actually think it is important to say it more like "The influence on my DAC is that...", even though it might seem like not so important semantics. |
|
Tobias
Rank: Quartet
Posts: 325
|
Post by Tobias on Jan 16, 2024 17:21:44 GMT
But whose ears? Everyone´s ears  . If you hook up a laptop to your Topping then it will sound amazing. If you are a HiFi sceptic then you will not listen, or give yourself a chance, to listen to something that is truly great sounding, because you are sceptic. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 17:22:33 GMT
If we want them to understand the hobby then i actually think it is important to say it more like "The influence on my DAC is that...", even though it might seem like not so important semantics. I'll try and adapt to that, or explain it up front when describing the effects of components. |
|
|
|
Post by wannarock2 on Jan 16, 2024 17:30:33 GMT
When listening reveals one thing and testing reveals something different, the test is wrong. Not sure you would have said that based upon your previous DAC. |
|
|
|
Post by orange55 on Jan 16, 2024 18:03:43 GMT
They can "listen to" a streamer (transport) and say things like "It sounds warm" or "has a better soundstage" even though it is actually the DAC that is now sounding better. Well... yes. You can take it to the extreme and say it's always the speakers that sound better, as they are the only transducer in the chain. Reviewers try to use a language that imparts what they mean to the layman, and I can understand that. I do feel uncomfortable saying a cable sounds better because in real terms it means it sounds least bad. But I understand when it's put that way. One thing I often forget as I make changes early in the audio chain is that all the downstream components have to be good to show the change. I need to remind myself about my speaker quality. 👍😀😀 |
|
|
|
Post by NigelB on Jan 16, 2024 19:15:35 GMT
The flash are you from the WAM forum? I am of several forums includng the Wam, yes. Are you too? Ah sussed it: you’re David of MCRU. Cool |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 19:32:32 GMT
Not sure you would have said that based upon your previous DAC. You mean my LKS? Not sure I understand, it reached its limit of performance but it taught me lots of things on the way. |
|
|
|
Post by wannarock2 on Jan 16, 2024 20:08:47 GMT
Don’t recall the exact circumstance, whether you brought the LKS over to a friend’s system or a friend brought their DAC over to your system and you were impressed at the sound difference of their ESS chip DAC. I recall the LKS also had the ESS 9038 chip. The thought was the LKS DAC implementation was possibly subject to the ESS ‘hump’.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 20:33:15 GMT
Don’t recall the exact circumstance, whether you brought the LKS over to a friend’s system or a friend brought their DAC over to your system and you were impressed at the sound difference of their ESS chip DAC. I recall the LKS also had the ESS 9038 chip. The thought was the LKS DAC implementation was possibly subject to the ESS ‘hump’. Yes, the LKS did have the ES9038 Pro chipset and, being one of the first DACs to use that chipset, suffered from the intermodulation hump. The more I modded it, the more it exposed its limits - I could hear it. Why do you think I chose the Gustard as my next DAC? Because I like the sound of the chipset and was looking for an even better implementation. Gustard's workaround for the intermodulation bug and their own filters is what swung my decision. Still not getting your point? How does this relate to measurements and listening? |
|
|
|
Post by wannarock2 on Jan 16, 2024 20:53:53 GMT
Measurements identified this issue of slight but noticeable emphasis around the 2-4kHz range. That’s how Gustard and others which implemented the ESS 9038 chip corrected the issue. Without measurements this issue would have continued with company’s blind faith in 'plug and play' implementation of the ESS 9038 chip.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 16, 2024 21:03:34 GMT
Measurements identified this issue of slight but noticeable emphasis around the 2-4kHz range. That’s how Gustard and others which implemented the ESS 9038 chip corrected the issue. Without measurements this issue would have continued with company’s blind faith in 'plug and play' implementation of the ESS 9038 chip. Oh, now I see your point. I thought for a moment you thought I had measured it! That intermodulation hump was clearly audible and I couldn't mod around it. Dead end, sadly. As I said, measurements are helpful up to a point. There's still a huge amount we can hear that we cannot measure, though. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 17, 2024 6:25:40 GMT
On a personal note I think measurements have their place, but being more of a subjectivist I trust my own listening experience.
|
|
📶NAS > Gustard x26p DAC > Benchmark LA4 Pre-Amp > NAD M22-V2 Amplifier > Revel F228Be Speakers
. If you hook up a laptop to your Topping then it will sound amazing.
