HiFi - Facts, Fiction and Conjecture

[Ajani]

Gentlemen, can we please stop arguing about fiction and conjecture?

FACT: All CD Players and DACs do NOT measure the same.

In the latest issue of Stereophile, this $9,600 Audio Note combo measured like rubbish:

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance.—John Atkinson

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-cdt-oneii-cd-transport-dac-21x-signature-da-processor-measurements#adtkkhMpjtRPfyGC.99

 

[manicm]

*lol*

Quite, cos it's simple - you just don't know, and no profanity will change that fact. You don't know.

 

[Vladimir]

Gentlemen, can we please stop arguing about fiction and conjecture?

FACT: All CD Players and DACs do NOT measure the same.

In the latest issue of Stereophile, this $9,600 Audio Note combo measured like rubbish:

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance.—John Atkinson

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-cdt-oneii-cd-transport-dac...

But subjctively it sounded far more realistic than a flat FR player, surely. *drinks* *lol*

 

[Ajani]

Gentlemen, can we please stop arguing about fiction and conjecture?

FACT: All CD Players and DACs do NOT measure the same.

In the latest issue of Stereophile, this $9,600 Audio Note combo measured like rubbish:

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance.—John Atkinson

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-cdt-oneii-cd-transport-dac...

But subjctively it sounded far more realistic than a flat FR player, surely. *drinks* *lol*

According to the guy who reviewed it, it did (not that JA seemed to agree). JA isn't the biggest Audio Note fan (to put it politely).

 

[Vladimir]

Gentlemen, can we please stop arguing about fiction and conjecture?

FACT: All CD Players and DACs do NOT measure the same.

In the latest issue of Stereophile, this $9,600 Audio Note combo measured like rubbish:

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance.—John Atkinson

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-cdt-oneii-cd-transport-dac...

But subjctively it sounded far more realistic than a flat FR player, surely. *drinks* *lol*

According to the guy who reviewed it, it did (not that JA seemed to agree). JA isn't the biggest Audio Note fan (to put it politely).

And why do they get a 30 year old technology wrong at that high price? To get it to sound different from those $65 multi-format players listed on Amazon that work great.

Read online how NwAvGuy put NuForce uDAC2 to shame.

 

[manicm]

NuForce engineered their product poorly, simple as that but one can't make blanket generalisations about all manufacturers.

Still...

 

[manicm]

On the other hand NwAvGuy also said he would not recommend the Behringer due to 'serious issues as a headphone dac' in a response below.

 

[Ajani]

Gentlemen, can we please stop arguing about fiction and conjecture?

FACT: All CD Players and DACs do NOT measure the same.

In the latest issue of Stereophile, this $9,600 Audio Note combo measured like rubbish:

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken"! But other than its poor rejection of jitter, most of its measured problems stem from the decision to dispense with the usually obligatory reconstruction filter. Without those filter-related issues, you are left with a product whose distortion signature is predominantly the subjectively preferred second harmonic, but also a product that should not be used with preamplifiers of low input impedance.—John Atkinson

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-cdt-oneii-cd-transport-dac...

But subjctively it sounded far more realistic than a flat FR player, surely. *drinks* *lol*

According to the guy who reviewed it, it did (not that JA seemed to agree). JA isn't the biggest Audio Note fan (to put it politely).

And why do they get a 30 year old technology wrong at that high price? To get it to sound different from those $65 multi-format players listed on Amazon that work great.

That is my belief as well. Remember my hypothesis in the last thread about colouration. I believe a major driving force in the use of older tech is simply because it sounds different/pleasant.

 

[manicm]

Yes, but in the author's response below his piece the some of the cheaper products did not perform well at all either. So what does this actually prove? Bad engineering is bad engineering. If you're going to use this to fuel your hypotheses then you'd be skating on thin ice.

 

[DocG]

My mass is the same on planet Earth - also the moon - and Uranus too (how apt!).

But my weight on each of those planets is, of course, different.

tonky - it's all in the naim

I don't believe you! Go there, take a (calibrated) scale with you, make selfies and report back!

All assumptions and conjecture...

 

[tonky]

it's basic science

as any "smart educated" person knows - mass and weight are different.

but i'll go if vlad comes too - he'll go down well on uranus!

tonky

 

[DocG]

Docg You jest surely!

it's basic science

as any "smart educated" person knows - mass and weight are different.

but i'll go if vlad comes too - he'll go down well on uranus!

tonky

I considered a *wink*, but I thought the selfie part should have sufficed.

Yes, I'm acceptably educated (disregarding my peculiar English...)*fool* I even wear neckties (as you can appreciate in my consecutive avatars)!

 

[Vladimir]

On the other hand NwAvGuy also said he would not recommend the Behringer due to 'serious issues as a headphone dac' in a response below.

He criticized the weak headphone amplifier in the Behringer UCA202 but praised it for use as line level DAC.

I have the UCA202 and now consider it a pointles gadget since the onboard audio on my PC is as good as any external DAC, soundcard or audio interface. Clicky

 

[Ajani]

Yes, but in the author's response below his piece the some of the cheaper products did not perform well at all either. So what does this actually prove? Bad engineering is bad engineering. If you're going to use this to fuel your hypotheses then you'd be skating on thin ice.

Agreed. There really isn't any solid evidence to support my hypothesis. And as you rightly said bad engineering is bad engineering. Which is also part of why we see differences in measurements and performance of products.

What's the requirement to become a HiFi Manufacturer? It's not like you need to be some kind of certified Audio Engineer. So I could decide that I enjoy building amp kits in the basement and next thing I'm releasing a product to the market. So there are probably a lot of poorly engineered products just due to incompetence/lack of proper training.

Maybe I need to change my Hypothesis to include Imagination, Exaggeration, Colouration and Incompetence.

 

[tonky]

I used to consider myself educated and smart - but I can't follow half the arguments on some of the lengthy hype come conjecture type threads. I lose the will to live reading some of them. So my brain cells are suitably on the way out!

Never mind uranus. it's a pain in myanus!

tonky

 

[Andrewjvt]

Is to have a blind test of a pioneer dvd v nad cd player

 

[spiny norman]

So I could decide that I enjoy building amp kits in the basement and next thing I'm releasing a product to the market.

Which is how many of today's big names in hi-fi started out, and there's still no shortage of garden shed/kitchen table start-ups appearing on the scene.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Subtle differences can be 'jarring' to some which is one reason these debates get so heated.

I believe some persons find it easier to identify subtle differences, whether due to years of listening, training etc... But I think the only jarring differences can be explained by measurements etc...?

IMO, the jarring part (for subtle differences) is due to sighted bias. So the difference is real, but because you know it's there you find yourself exaggerating it. A lot of blind testing seems to indicate that this is the case. Persons who swear that high res MP3s sound terrible and unlistenable have a very difficult time telling the difference, when they don't know what they're listening to. ?

I see it as being like treating yourself to an expensive shirt or watch for your birthday. You love the item until you realize that there is a very small blemish on it. From then on it's all you focus on. Even though no one else sees it (until you force them to stare at it), you can't ignore it because you know it's there. 

I dunno.

The other day some one linked to a 'loudness' video in it the author played a track one 'original' the other 'loud'.

The differences were subtle imo. But most would consider one version unlistenable without any visual que.

Like wise a real example a track that you know well that last say 3mins getting 1sec lobbed of the end or at the start - the music itself being identical becoming unlistenable again without visual que.

The differences are real - I suspect you're trying to get back to 'its all in the brain'.

Blind testing is just that living with a system will reveal what blind test miss.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

So I could decide that I enjoy building amp kits in the basement and next thing I'm releasing a product to the market.

Which is how many of today's big names in hi-fi started out, and there's still no shortage of garden shed/kitchen table start-ups appearing on the scene.

Yep.....

and then we are back to trial and error that was the cause of many great products of the past.

 

[Ajani]

So I could decide that I enjoy building amp kits in the basement and next thing I'm releasing a product to the market.

Which is how many of today's big names in hi-fi started out, and there's still no shortage of garden shed/kitchen table start-ups appearing on the scene.

Yep.....

and then we are back to trial and error that was the cause of many great products of the past.

No argument there. Many discoveries are made by trial and error. But how many of those garden shed startups actually created great products? For every great product you had far more mediocre/half finished products being released to the market.

 

[Ajani]

Subtle differences can be 'jarring' to some which is one reason these debates get so heated.

I believe some persons find it easier to identify subtle differences, whether due to years of listening, training etc... But I think the only jarring differences can be explained by measurements etc...

IMO, the jarring part (for subtle differences) is due to sighted bias. So the difference is real, but because you know it's there you find yourself exaggerating it. A lot of blind testing seems to indicate that this is the case. Persons who swear that high res MP3s sound terrible and unlistenable have a very difficult time telling the difference, when they don't know what they're listening to.

I see it as being like treating yourself to an expensive shirt or watch for your birthday. You love the item until you realize that there is a very small blemish on it. From then on it's all you focus on. Even though no one else sees it (until you force them to stare at it), you can't ignore it because you know it's there.

I dunno.

The other day some one linked to a 'loudness' video in it the author played a track one 'original' the other 'loud'.

The differences were subtle imo. But most would consider one version unlistenable without any visual que.

Like wise a real example a track that you know well that last say 3mins getting 1sec lobbed of the end or at the start - the music itself being identical becoming unlistenable again without visual que.

The differences are real - I suspect you're trying to get back to 'its all in the brain'.

No, Absolutely not! I don't think it's all in the brain. To exaggerate a difference the difference has to be real. I just don't buy that a difference can be night and day in sighted testing but virtually undetectable in blind testing. That tells me that persons are focusing far too much on a minor difference simply because they know it's there. Keep in mind that 1 second cut off a recording would be easily detectable in blind testing. So that's not actually a subtle difference.

Blind testing is just that living with a system will reveal what blind test miss.

Sure, that is certainly possible. Very subtle differences might only be noticed in long term, relaxed listening. However, the key word is 'subtle'. If you to have live with a system for a good while to identify a difference, then the difference is subtle.

 

[pyrrhon]

My musical experience is never the same. One day a lot of bass, one day a huge soundstage, another day it's flat and boring then comes some days music makes me sad. The whole time I suppose the system to be the same. It's hard to know what's in ourself and what's out. I just moved my setup from diagonal in the room to parralel to wall and Its like another system completely. But these internal shifts are not subtle either, they are night and day.

 

[Ajani]

My musical experience is never the same. One day a lot of bass, one day a huge soundstage, another day it's flat and boring then comes some days music makes me sad. The whole time I suppose the system to be the same. It's hard to know what's in ourself and what's out. I just moved my setup from diagonal in the room to parralel to wall and Its like another system completely. But these internal shifts are not subtle either, they are night and day.

Yep, that's exactly the point. Even your mood can affect how you perceive the sound of your system. So it's quite possible that you might find a difference between components to be night and day simply because of the mood you were in at the time.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I definately feel that a mans mood impacts the enjoyment of the music but not the sound as that is always the same.

Now as the human brain is so complex and powerful, could not a small subtle difference in equipment presentation appear like night and day to the listener?

 

[Ajani]

This is somewhat off-topic, but I found this video showing the speaker shuffler at Harman's labs in use. I rather like the speakers they used to compare their Revel monitors against:

https://youtu.be/edtsqUpoHu8?t=65

Note: For anyone interested, I skipped ahead to the exact part of the video in that link, since the video is Revel marketing material.