Happy now?
1 Like
Once again, curious about how you measure Love.
3 Likes
To sum up:
Audio: You guys don’t know what you’re talking about!
Precision: No, YOU guys don’t know what you’re talking about!
5 Likes
Folks, enough of the baiting.
Please get back on topic and discuss the issue respectfully.
Final warning.
I’ll miss the entertainment when it’s gone.
2 Likes
thanks @tedsmith for once again taking the time. and @Shazb0t I get what you are saying. That is precisely the point I wanted to explore with my questioning. As Ted said it would be measurable, I am satisfied, as I have 100% in Ted`s integrity and intellectual honesty.
As I have posted before, this is the piece of the chain that, to me is always missing:
- in the “measurement first” side argument, I find it pretty difficult to believe in collective illusion (or delusion, if you prefer). Also, almost unachievable DBT standards as the only possible evidence do not make things easier
- in the “subjectivist first” side of the argument, I find it hard to believe that all the reported improvement does not show in absolutely any measument at the analog output.
I also reported some experience with cables, when I gave up trying to identify which one was in the chain, when my wife swapped them for me (in this sense, a blind test). Or, to put it in another perspective: the differences, if any, became absolutely irrelevant to me. But I am pretty positive that if I reported the opposite conclusion, people would jump all over me regarding the “controls” of my blind test.
So, the connundrum comes to me as this: “there are some effects that we dont know, or just dont care, to measure, and that may add up to some significative and audible difference”; or “experience the audiophile hobby goes beyond the act of listening, and the environment you are in, including treament, equipment etc, sets the experience as whole, and, in that sense (and in that sense only), non measurable differences become audible”.
Should someone have a third option, please chime in. I would love to hear.
But I definitely do not understand why people on both sides get so aggravated in this kind of debate.
1 Like
@tedsmith thanks for you excellent posts on this thread.
We used to be a one-TV house, but bought two new ones last year during renovations. It seems a very different product because there are very few manufacturers with a lot of R&D, so if you replace every 7 or 8 years the new products are massively advanced on the old, whereas the quality of some aspects of audio have remained largely unchanged for decades.
1 Like
Be logical. Glimmie isn’t “wrong” that correct measurements are correct measurements. Let’s say Paul tests and see exactly the same thing(s)? Now what? We have a set of measurements, not all of them, to go on as a basis. That’s not a problem to either “side”.
Sure, we could test dynamic response of the regenerator, and see if under high current demands it shows a better response “somewhere” than the wall outlet (DC supply variation to the transistors, maybe). Glimmie is right, the VA delivery will drop to the wall’s delivery after the caps give it all they got. Does this impact the sound? Don’t know but the DATA isn’t the enemy. It’s just another angle to possibly evaluate what’s going on downstream under the measurement(s).
Let’s consider digital cable. Somewhere it was said “I don’t believe in digital cable”. That’s symantics. If I trust the specs that suggests that I do. If I don’t trust the specs and go on just the “faith” of my ears maybe that says you don’t trust the science but be glad the engineers have to for you. Very little of the Ethernet systems is left to chance. The world’s bank accounts likes that fact.
The numbers work in your favor regardless of your “belief” in them. IEEE defines the required measurements to achieve essentially zero bit erors in a worst case channel. It is very repeatable. I trust the numbers on digital cables very much.
Digital Audio? It is the DA and AD FILTERS that are accepting errors to suit differing philosophies of what we can hear. Huron, Yale, Torreys and Snow Mass firmware ring a bell? Yes, they all sound different yet the hardware device is the same. Filters matter. The Ethernet link that move data A to B not so much. There has to be digital errors, there isn’t but a filter accepts the errors by DESIGN.
Look at cable. Glimme loves to mention how difficult cable’s can be at giving up their secrets. Making cable, I agree with his trust in the data. I trust it, too.
I can make better and better measured and calculated analog cable. I trust those measurements. That’s what I design to. Can I measure “everything”? No. But what is measured has to be right to slowly enable a bigger picture to emerge of the real thing so to speak.
If you look at the JUST the numbers alone, even with actual differences on Vp alignments based on DESIGN, measurement and calculation the changes are SMALL in the time base. Percentages can be advertised as “big” but the VALUE of the changes is small. We are talking about the speed of light in a dielectric after all. That’s FAST.
Getting the numbers right can cut both ways. It supports either side without prejudice. We need to go past the proper numbers in many cases to find the answers, true. I can’t tell you how well a digital cable works until a specific set of measurements are all made. Those change as we learn more. It doesn’t mean earlier repeatable numbers are “wrong”. It doesn’t mean ONLY what we measure is doing all the lifting.
Fiber optics had some weird Band Width problems in Single Mode systems. It turns out a key fiber geometry measurement was missing, PMD, Polarization Mode Dispersion, that impacted the concatenated BW in weird ways. The measurement was ADDED. That doesn’t mean all the earlier measurements are “wrong”, though.
Since the numbers for audio often seem to say we can’t hear it, yet we do, are the numbers to be attacked as wrong because they don’t say what we want them to? Of course not (if we are honest with ourselves, of course not).
All Glimmie is saying is let’s get the base numbers we can measure accurate and go from there. That’s it. How can this be a problem for us? Proper measurement has no absolute reflection on what we hear, but it has to be a foundation for why.
If we build the foundation to hold up the building, we need to get it as right as we can or it WILL all fall down. We may not know WHY, but it will (SM fiber systems fell down and no one knew why for awhile) . Getting more numbers right holds everything in place better and better. How is this so awful?
PS Audio does a good job of building off the numbers. Maybe they don’t measure every number that we can but who does? Glimmie is just asking to repeat key measurements for repeatability…the scientific process. After that’s verified, BOTH camps work off the same verified references.
Best,
Galen
6 Likes
It’s curious to me that when equipment is sold with claims of performance supported by measurements that there would be any issue with others trying to measure against those claims. Sure, breaking down one box against one yardstick opens up all sorts of small sample size possibilities. Anomalies aside, I see educational value from such attempts. At worst, an open discussion of the analysis methodology and why conclusions drawn could be wrong can help educate those of us in the hobby who aren’t entirely camped up with one school of thought or another.
I guess what I’m saying is that it would be good to understand how the ASR measurement approach to the P12 is misleading, wrong-headed or simply incorrect without general observations about how measurements don’t tell the whole story.
2 Likes
It was me who first said about your “belief” in digital cables. I just wanted to say I meant no disrespect, not was my intention to put words in your mouth.
And thanks for clarifying your stance on this. Your position is exactly what I expected it to be.
1 Like
That’s a big step that you agree the changes you’re experiencing should be easily measurable. I agree that what you’re describing has to be measurable, even with relatively cheap measuring equipment. The problem we have is that the science of HDMI transmission and available measurements in the field don’t support these claims. I can’t find anything showing that adding a power conditioner upstream of a modern TV will improve the digital transmission. Can you? So, in this instance as the claimant going against what is currently understood in the field of digital video reproduction you would be required to provide reviewable evidence to prove your claim. Of course that only matters if you care about convincing people. I imagine you could drastically increase the amount of customers interested in buying power plants if they actually did improve picture quality. There are a lot of videophiles out there! The natural question then becomes if it’s something that you believe is measurable, would increase your business, and would give many people better quality home theater, why wouldn’t you invest in performing the measurements?
Not sure where you stand on audio measurements or current Audio Engineering Society (AES) based observations on sound quality/preferences, but regardless there is information available that might be useful to you in this thread:
My interpretation of the data is that the Sprout 100 isn’t a bad product. For the asking price and features it seems like good value. Yes, the SINAD of the amplifier and DAC aren’t comparable to ultra low noise products, but it’s likely high enough to not have issues. Good power for the form factor. If you like PS Audio and are in the market for something with this feature set then I don’t think that it’s a bad option.
On any normal Tuesday no one on this forum gets aggravated.
It was only because @luca.pelliccioli cautiously referred to a review on ASR about a product that many people own and enjoy, basically trashing it, and then loads of ASR-types come in and tell Paul directly he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
There is little technical talk in this forum, save for @rower30, and most product comment is based on listening impressions. @rower30 is respected by ALL as a great designer/manufacturer and many, including me, use his products.
However much ASR-types insist we engage with them at a technical level only, they seem frustrated that we will not do so. @tedsmith and @Paul have been more than generous in their responses.
I for one have decided to completely disengage from my rare visits to ASR. I can see nothing that would assist me in buying audio equipment.
8 Likes
Yes, agree. And without attempts to obfuscate or turn the thread into a poop show. It’s fine to disagree. But if you can’t add sensible discussion to the topic don’t post memes that are worthless because there is good dialog going on, albeit sparingly (if you don’t like the topic, just disengage). Maybe the sides won’t agree, and that’s okay. There is dogma in both camps at the fringes but some good back-and-forth for those who are open to seeing both sides. My opinion only.
Too often in life people cannot handle a dissenting opinion. That’s unfortunate. And social media in general has exasperated this because it is all too easy to confine oneself to a cadre of like-thinking individuals. Diversity is good
2 Likes
We are not against measuring, but we do put measurements into perspective. ASR followers seem to care ONLY about measuring and not listening, and try to criticize and make fun of our listening skills, casting aside listening as being biased and irrelevant.
3 Likes
spot on. I should have seen it myself…
1 Like
Plus the most popular threads here are about music, also cars, coffee, system photos, … The only off-topic thread I can see is 117 pages bashing audiophiles.
ASR is just tech. As we say, all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
2 Likes
Partially camera angle w.r.t. screen, but I would expect mainly different results from automatic white balancing.
2 Likes
This is really disingenuous. You have to understand that ASR is a forum full of audiophiles. A LARGE forum of passionate people who want to have the best possible fidelity at all price points. There is a lot of valuable information and discussion there. There is a lot of technical talk and reliance on peer-reviewed audio and electronics research to use as a guide, but the end goal is enjoyment of audio. We’re all audiophiles and the denigration of others isn’t really helpful to the hobby.
This will probably be a controversial post, but that’s okay. It’s meant to illuminate one way where the two bickering sides in this thread are not too far apart. Imagine that?
The premise: We all want the best sounding audio gear we can get for a given price-point.
Camp 1 (ASR): Maybe decide that based only on measurements, without listening to anything before a purchase. Obviously listen to the gear after making the purchase.
Camp 2 (Some on PSA forum): Maybe decide to purchase PSA gear without hearing anything (perhaps based on reviews (ie, other people’s listening impressions)), get a home trial, but only compare it to their old gear they have on hand (in general not to other current, sota gear). Yes, you are listening for yourself, but perhaps not before you purchase (you can return if you don’t like it, presumably like ASR folks can). ASR (the ones you are deriding in this thread) are doing generally the same, except they are basing their purchasing decision on measurements, not other folks’ impressions.
Camp 3: Go and directly compare (by actually listening) several options at a particular price point, listening to them in the same room or in different rooms, narrow to a couple, and perhaps do in-home tests of those before making purchase, but at least purchasing only after deciding for yourself that whatever you are buying is better than other current options.
You see: on this aspect, Camps 1 and 2 aren’t really all that different. Rejoice! Now hug each other and you can both be mad at me and the Camp 3 folks (though I might be only one here)!
<this post somewhat in jest in attempt to bring you all together, haha>