10k speaker system- ideas? (Yes, USD!)

[CptnReflex]

On 11/27/2021 at 8:09 PM, Psittac said:

When it comes to high dollar equipment you should really look for a store near you that will give you the chance to actually listen to the product.  No review, audio demo or online advice can recreate just listening to a product.  Yeah if it's a $200 pair of headphones I'll go off a review, but for a $10k pair of stereo speakers, I want it to be something I've experienced when I purchase it.

I live in a city with over a million people, and there is literally no place within 50 miles to even compete with what they are suggesting this man do to his room with treatment to even demo anything. Everything is trial and error start to finish in something like this. Audiophile homes with properly treated rooms will sound better than anything you can demo in an actual store almost anywhere in the nation, and tbh only professional recording studios that have similar treatments done that are very high profile can compete. No concert ever in history can compete at this level. 

 

once you consider room treatment like people are suggesting, 10k is actually on the cheap side is the ironic part. personally I'd use a pretty good cheap ghetto solution for my room treatment, but I have very little reflections because of having near field monitors and almost everything in my apartment covered in fabric that's not a wall, heavy duty carpets and a sturdy highrise building I live in. even the wall paint is a powder coat texture that doesn't bounce sound well. neighbors can hear me if I start bumping, but reflections aren't bad at all at normal listening volumes even without wall treatment. 

 

not as good as a studio, but since my focals have good vibration absorbing feet and are near field, they are clear enough for me lol especially coming from car audio to this. Just my ape opinion though lol

[H713]

21 hours ago, CptnReflex said:

No concert ever in history can compete at this level. 

 

I wouldn't quite go that far. Most can't, but there are a few venues that have amazingly good acoustics and very, very well-engineered systems in them. You would be surprised by just how good they can sound when properly tuned with the right FOH engineer. 

 

 

When all the stars align, a live concert can have an almost magical fidelity. Most of the time this doesn't happen. It's something that you won't be recreating in your house, and few people get to experience it.

 

In general, I agree that trying to get a proper demo is unrealistic in most cases (unless they allow you to demo it in your own space - which some studio dealers do).

 

 

 

[HumdrumPenguin]

@Brok3n But who cares?

 

The following is what I use, and I like it quite a lot. It's within your budget, and sounds better to me than other systems I've tried costing considerably more.

 

KEF R3 with Dynaudio Stand 20

Hegel H120 integrated amp (power, pre, streamer, dac)

Audioquest  Niagara 1200 power conditioner

AudioQuest Rocket 44 speaker wires

2x AudioQuest Monsoon power cables

Lifatec glass TOSLINK connected to TV for movies and videogame

 

I was using a Schiit Bifrost 2 with the Hegel and AudioQuest Mackenzie balanced interconnects when I had a PC attached to my system, and I liked it more. The coloured sound of the Bifrost 2 was more lively and natural to my ears than the built in dac from the Hegel, which is VERY neutral. However, I moved to another apartment and now my music is all done via Roon and streaming, as my system is on its own.

 

I'm getting 2 sets of IsoAcoustics Gaia III later this month and will be done with it for a while (at least on system 1), until I can get my hands on good Mcintosh / Luxman gear or better speakers, whatever shows up first in the used market whenever I'm looking for it.

 

Hope it helps.

[H713]

On 11/28/2021 at 10:24 AM, JZStudios said:

I'm definitely not paying $33 for a .pdf from 1988.

 

His response;

" Yes the term decay is used in certain contexts, like capacitor discharge etc. It is not used in regards to step input transient responses with percent overshoot and settling time. They didn't go through EE. They're jacking terms from other aspects of EE and incorrectly applying them here. It's like saying I looked at the FFT of the speaker and it's fast. It makes zero sense."

In regards of your suggested reading;

"I like how he's trying to tell the tell the EE with over 50 books what's what. I guess I should burn all my books because they're all incorrect. Shit, I've only been using them for 15 years, graduating valedictorian with 10 years of professional experience and promotions. What he should do is go through the entire EE curriculum. He should read books on signals and systems. He won't be able to understand them without prior knowledge such as differential equations and circuit theory."

Dr. Floyd Toole's research is both widely accepted and still very accurate. Whether it's from 1988 or 2018 is irrelevant - the physics is still accurate. Dr. Toole is one of the most respected scientists in the field of acoustics / psychoacoustics, so I wouldn't toss aside his work.

 

Acoustics isn't really part of EE - it's generally more in the realm of physics. Physicists and EEs often have different understandings of the same phenomena, and they often use different terms / definitions - and neither is necessarily wrong.

 

Most people in STEM are quite specialized. Class D power amplifier designers are often woefully unqualified to design loudspeakers, and loudspeaker engineers are usually woefully unqualified to design reliable electronics. Just because your friend is very good at one aspect of audio engineering does not mean that they are experts in all areas.

 

Also, throwing around that someone is an EE doesn't give them all that much credibility in my mind, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. I've worked with lots of people who have impressive credentials, yet barely understand what they're talking about.

[JZStudios]

1 hour ago, H713 said:

Dr. Floyd Toole's research is both widely accepted and still very accurate. Whether it's from 1988 or 2018 is irrelevant - the physics is still accurate. Dr. Toole is one of the most respected scientists in the field of acoustics / psychoacoustics, so I wouldn't toss aside his work.

 

Acoustics isn't really part of EE - it's generally more in the realm of physics. Physicists and EEs often have different understandings of the same phenomena, and they often use different terms / definitions - and neither is necessarily wrong.

 

Most people in STEM are quite specialized. Class D power amplifier designers are often woefully unqualified to design loudspeakers, and loudspeaker engineers are usually woefully unqualified to design reliable electronics. Just because your friend is very good at one aspect of audio engineering does not mean that they are experts in all areas.

 

Also, throwing around that someone is an EE doesn't give them all that much credibility in my mind, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. I've worked with lots of people who have impressive credentials, yet barely understand what they're talking about.

So... none of that has anything to do with the fact that what you referenced either had nothing to do with the discussion at hand or it actively disproved your point.

 

No, but his side hobby of music production kind of thrusts him into it. Either way, "speaker decay" isn't acoustics. In this case the terminology is the same.

 

Not relevant in the slightest. Also kind of proves you don't know what you're talking about. Here's an example, I've made composite airframes. I can pretty reasonably argue that I can also make vehicle parts because it's literally the same process. In this particular case, he explicitly works on loudspeakers, speakers, headphones, and amplifiers among many other products. So... I'm really not sure what your argument here is. It sounds like you're trying to say the guy working at the power station might not know EE, but the EE definitely knows how to do the power station, so at best this argument is moot and completely bunk at worst.

 

Good for you. I suppose audiophiles and high-end companies use the products he designs because he's actually garbage at doing it.

[H713]

5 hours ago, JZStudios said:

So... none of that has anything to do with the fact that what you referenced either had nothing to do with the discussion at hand or it actively disproved your point.

 

No, but his side hobby of music production kind of thrusts him into it. Either way, "speaker decay" isn't acoustics. In this case the terminology is the same.

 

Not relevant in the slightest. Also kind of proves you don't know what you're talking about. Here's an example, I've made composite airframes. I can pretty reasonably argue that I can also make vehicle parts because it's literally the same process. In this particular case, he explicitly works on loudspeakers, speakers, headphones, and amplifiers among many other products. So... I'm really not sure what your argument here is. It sounds like you're trying to say the guy working at the power station might not know EE, but the EE definitely knows how to do the power station, so at best this argument is moot and completely bunk at worst.

 

Good for you. I suppose audiophiles and high-end companies use the products he designs because he's actually garbage at doing it.

My post was mostly a response to you (more or less) calling Dr. Floyd Toole an ignoramus - which is (more or less) akin to calling Bob Dobkin an ignoramus. If you don't know who Bob Dobkin is, look him up. You owe more to him than you realize. 

 

To make one thing clear, cumulative spectral decay (CSD) is an accepted and very useful measurement for loudspeakers. If you think a speaker stops producing sound the instant you stop applying a signal, you're wrong. There is energy stored in resonances in the drivers and in the cabinet itself, and it doesn't dissipate instantly. I'm not going to argue about this. If you think I'm wrong, by all means go over to DiyAudio or AudioScienceReview. Maybe you'll find a physicist with more patience than me.

 

Also, the other point I'm making is that EE is an extremely broad field. Microwave engineering and design of substations are both part of electrical engineering, but that doesn't mean that a typical power distribution engineer is in any way qualified to design microwave communications systems. Some might be, but the vast majority aren't. 

 

As for my last point, I mostly am suggesting that you don't use someone's college degree to argue that information from them is relevant. I know some really stupid people who managed to weasel their way through an EE program, and I know some extremely brilliant microwave engineers who never went to college.

 

 

What you've been doing for this entire thread is quoting (sometimes incompletely) a buddy who is supposedly a genius, but we have no idea who this is, and no useful information about why they're so qualified to give advice. What I do know is that what you're saying doesn't always make sense and isn't always correct.

 

Lastly, don't go thinking that there aren't some very smart engineers and scientists reading and replying to online discussion boards. Be careful who you call an idiot.  It's clear you have an anti-audiophile agenda, and it's clear that you think all audiophiles are stupid. You're achieving nothing productive by announcing it. You won't change the OP's mind. Most of what you'll do is annoy a lot of people and stop the thread from achieving anything productive.

 

Now for some useful advice to the OP:

 

I agree that you really should do some acoustic treatment before spending $10,000 on a system. I would advise the OP to do some research on acoustic treatment (there are plenty of excellent books and articles on the subject). Getting it 'pretty good' in a room of this sort isn't rocket science, and it can be done for well under $1000. You'll learn a lot more (and save a lot of money) learning how to do it yourself rather than hiring a professional.

 

I would not necessarily recommend the HS5 / HS8 monitors for pleasure listening. They're a decent speaker for what they cost, but they have their issues. They have some characteristics similar to the NS10s - another speaker that was wildly popular in recording studios, but which sound awful (and most recording engineers will agree with me on that). There are a lot of good loudspeakers in the $3,000 - $7,000 / pair range, both active and passive, and there are benefits to them over $500 monitors. 

 

Also, your room isn't terribly big. Depending on the speakers you buy, you may or may not benefit from a subwoofer. The V2108s I suggested, for example, will likely be just fine without a sub. Crossing over to a sub will improve the linearity of the mains, but depending on the mains this may or may not be noticeable. I find that with the V2108s, it isn't.

 

H-713

 

 

[Shike]

On 11/29/2021 at 1:55 PM, Shike said:

Sorry, it seems I did miss it at the front end.  Okay, my recommendation:

• MiniDSP SHD $1,300 (comes with UMIK-1)
• ATI AT522NC $2,300
• Salk Sound SS 7M $5200
• 2x HSU VTF-2 MK5 Subwoofer $1,200

Total: ~$10K

The SHD will act as the brains/processor of the system.  Some important features are:

• DIRAC V3 Room Calibration (arguably best out there)
• True bass management including multi-sub output
• Acts as DAC/Volume Control (and even streamer, though not how I'd use it)
• Balanced output (ATI has balanced inputs as well so that's nice)

Connect the SHD to the ATI AT552NC which uses leading class Hypex modules for amplification, and another two outputs for the two VTF-2 MK5 (multi-sub with independent management provides better bass consistency/coverage if placed properly).  Finally to top it off with fantastic speakers, Dennis Murphy designed Salk Sound SS 7M with a custom veneer.  One could theoretically save some cash and drop to the BMR, but I figure since you don't want to suffer "what if" you might as well get the Accuton midrange in the 7M and call it a day.  Uses quality RAAL ribbon drivers and a custom Scanspeak 7" as well if I'm not mistaken.

 

Stands/Racks/Cables not included.  Part of me wanted to include the Custom Design FS 206 for shits and giggles though as it looks completely over the top . . .

Update:

 

MiniDSP recently released the MiniDSP Flex which seems to be based on the SHD platform.  Since you're not planning on using analog I would adjust as follows:

 

• MiniDSP Flex
• MiniDSP Flex Dirac licence
• MiniDSP Umik-1

This will free up $550 - this can be used towards a few things:

 

Room Treatment:

 

Personally, I'm not sure you'll benefit that much from treatment.  The speakers have excellent off-axis properties by design and shouldn't have directivity issues that you'd want to absorb.  You're probably not having echo issues I imagine either.  It largely depends on whether the side that is not close to the wall has a reflection that creates a perceivable separate acoustic event or not.  If it does then you'll need treatment.

 

If you think you need acoustic treatment, you can get panels from GIK.  Since using dual subwoofers and DIRAC for bass issues, traps and broadband aren't really a bit deal.  The problem is without having the system in room to measure it's hard to tell, but thickness of a given panel should be 2" since bass isn't a concern for them.  Cost would range between $250-450 depending.

 

This will leave you with a bit towards stands/cables/rack/etc.

 

Subwoofers:

 

The other option is upgrading the subwoofers, but based on the size of room I'm not sure going to the 15" HSU line is particularly a good move.  Theoretically you could add more subs but I think that's likely overkill as well and might be hard to place.  Nonetheless this remains an option.

 

Exotic-ish Stands/Rack:

 

Probably the least advisable unless you think aesthetics are the finishing touch but possible.  There's some really neat looking stuff in this price range depending on taste.

 

 

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM:

 

The above is the best passive system I could imagine for the amount given.  If one wanted to however go active . . .

 

• 2x Genelec 8341A - $6,000
• Genelec 8341A SAM Subwoofer - $3,000
• Genelec GLM 2.0 User Kit - $262 (Room Calibration)
• Genelec Wireless Volume Control for GLM - $60
• Genelec Wired Volume for GLM - $110

Total: $9,432

 

This leaves ~$600 for room treatment, stands, etc.

[Entropy.]

1 hour ago, H713 said:

 

Any questions from the OP?

I was conversing a bit ago with geo3 and other individuals about speaker placement and room issues. Currently my plan of keeping them on a desk with stands doesn't seem to be the best solution, but I'm unsure of how severely it would impact the reproduction. Additionally, there's going to be some glass directly behind the speaker, however like was previously mentioned, there will be a heavy curtain covering it, and I can put around 3 feet of distance from it, possibly more. Finally, well, it'll be on a desk setup, geo3 brought up possible desk reasonances and I doubt the other items the speaker would share space with on the desk (most primarily my 34' curved, which would be around level with the tweeter on a traditional box speaker, possibly higher. 

 

I am aware that these can present an issue, however I'm unsure of just how severely these factors will impact the listening experience. Do you have any input?
 

Also related, I don't plan to keep them around forever, the 10k budget was intended to give me freedom to purchase some nice gear. I'm searching for a suitable place to tranition to that would include area that would be dedicated to and otpimized for listening. Geo3 commented that they didn't think that it would be worthwhile pursuing this caliber of system for my desk, Even while they had knowledge of my intentions to tranition to a dedicated listening room (iirc). Instead they recommended that I go with ~$2.5k usd system. Would you second that statement?

[Shike]

2 minutes ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

Geo3 commented that they didn't think that it would be worthwhile pursuing this caliber of system for my desk, Even while they had knowledge of my intentions to tranition to a dedicated listening room (iirc). Would you second that statement?

The only concern I would have is desk bounce.  You can get or make some very small stands to help get them off the surface by 6" - 12" or so.  The Salk likely won't have issues with the tweeter having limited dispersion, and the Genelec I linked may not be too bad either because of amazing directivity control in general.

 

I don't think desk reflections/bounce is a good reason to not invest in good speakers.  Studios have the same issues with consoles to a degree and still focus on buying quality equipment even with these issues in mind.

[H713]

30 minutes ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

I was conversing a bit ago with geo3 and other individuals about speaker placement and room issues. Currently my plan of keeping them on a desk with stands doesn't seem to be the best solution, but I'm unsure of how severely it would impact the reproduction. Additionally, there's going to be some glass directly behind the speaker, however like was previously mentioned, there will be a heavy curtain covering it, and I can put around 3 feet of distance from it, possibly more. Finally, well, it'll be on a desk setup, geo3 brought up possible desk reasonances and I doubt the other items the speaker would share space with on the desk (most primarily my 34' curved, which would be around level with the tweeter on a traditional box speaker, possibly higher. 

 

I am aware that these can present an issue, however I'm unsure of just how severely these factors will impact the listening experience. Do you have any input?
 

Also related, I don't plan to keep them around forever, the 10k budget was intended to give me freedom to purchase some nice gear. I'm searching for a suitable place to tranition to that would include area that would be dedicated to and otpimized for listening. Geo3 commented that they didn't think that it would be worthwhile pursuing this caliber of system for my desk, Even while they had knowledge of my intentions to tranition to a dedicated listening room (iirc). Instead they recommended that I go with ~$2.5k usd system. Would you second that statement?

The answer to the first half is generally "it depends". Desk reflections (and resonances) very likely will be a noticeable issue, but there are things you can do about this. Keep in mind that lots and lots of control rooms (at least in the old days) had the nearfields placed on the meter bridge of a console, with a back wall some distance away (probably more than 3 feet, but not necessarily), and usually -you guessed it- a glass window looking out into the live room.

 

Mounting the speakers off the surface of the desk (as if they were on a meter bridge) solves a significant part of that problem. You may also want to look carefully into the desk itself to make sure it's not going to resonate.

 

The decision for how much to spend is up to you. There are advantages to buying more expensive equipment in this application, but most of the really expensive speakers are also quite big. Keep in mind that it's not uncommon for studios (well, those with the budget) to have $5000+ in nearfields, and their situation isn't all that different from yours. I have the 1992 equivalent of the Quested V2108 in a desk environment, and (with some careful considerations to avoid major acoustic issues) I get a pretty flat in-room response, and the resonances I hear aren't too severe.

 

Another useful point (that I think some people in this thread missed) is that objects in the room have an impact on acoustics, both positive and negative. My lab, for example, has a large back wall full of storage shelves with parts and equipment on them, mostly in wooden boxes. In practice, this is a surprisingly effective diffusor. Some "untreated" rooms actually have tolerable characteristics (it's luck, but it does happen) for this reason. 

 

The decision is up to you, and you'll know fairly quickly whether these potential issues need to be addressed. If you were trying to build a control room, the acoustic treatment issue might be a bit different, but what's good in a control room isn't necessarily what's fun to listen to. Part of this hobby is experimenting and learning new things.

[Derkoli]

5 hours ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

Currently my plan of keeping them on a desk with stands doesn't seem to be the best solution, but I'm unsure of how severely it would impact the reproduction.

One positive is that the first reflection point being your desk isn't as bad as your first reflection point a surface such as a side wall. The reflected signal will arrive not too long after the actual desired signal, which will reduce the effects of dynamic smearing.

 

5 hours ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

Would you second that statement?

I'd just spend the dosh now. No point spending 2.5k on a system, then upgrading everything to a 10k setup, if you can just do the 10k setup initially. I've gone through a tonne of gear, and not all of it was exactly amazing. Prime example being my Sonus Faber Aida's. Just go with something you're gonna enjoy. You can always sell it on at a minimal loss to try different gear.

 

5 hours ago, H713 said:

In practice, this is a surprisingly effective diffusor.

In my bedroom, one wall has a set of shelves (12 of them, roughly 15cm between them, roughly 5M wide) with random stuff on it, and its genuinely an amazing diffusor. After hunting vibrations and adding diffusers to the other side wall, my bedroom is my second favourite listening room.

 

8 hours ago, JZStudios said:

We're arguing about signal reproduction

Of which speakers are basically the most important component of.

 

The rate of which a speaker "dies down" is a very real thing. It's measured by both designers and reviewers (Stereophile measures CSD often) and many factors can alter it. The biggest culprit usually is cabinet resonances.

 

A room just tends to exacerbate this issue.

 

In fact, Q Acoustics has an extremely specific technology to help combat CSD. The cabinet is built in 2 or 3 layers, with gel in between to convert the cabinet vibrations, which stem from the cabinet not being perfectly inert (resonating), into heat.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Derkoli

[Shike]

20 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

One positive is that the first reflection point being your desk isn't as bad as your first reflection point a surface such as a side wall. The reflected signal will arrive not too long after the actual desired signal, which will reduce the effects of dynamic smearing.

If the speaker has good directivity and the sidewall is in a small room odds are it won't smear and instead blend well creating a single psychoacoustic event.  This also gives the "appearance" of a larger soundstage outside of where the speakers are.  The bigger issue is if they're asymmetrical walls which may cause issues.  If on the other hand directivity is bad then absorbing isn't a bad idea . . .

 

Vertical reflections tend to impact timbre in comparison.

 

 

As for the decay discussion:

 

It's a medium to small room, waterfalls/CSD for the room really aren't important compared to say an auditorium.  In this case the value of CSD is tracking down timbre changing resonances which typically can be done with FR/Impedance plotting but CSD is another way of seeing it which may be easier for some.  The Q of the resonance is also important as some have effectively no audible impact whereas some others are.  CSD can help visualize it.

[geo3]

11 hours ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

Even while they had knowledge of my intentions to tranition to a dedicated listening room (iirc).

Actually I don't think I caught that bit. If that's the case, go hog wild.  But I will also echo what Derkoli said earlier: You should expect to trade out gear, and experiment a bit a bit until you land on something that works for you. 

[Whiskers]

Thread cleaned.

 

A reminder for everyone to please be civil and respectful to one another when discussing a difference of opinion.

[JZStudios]

52 minutes ago, Whiskers said:

Thread cleaned.

 

A reminder for everyone to please be civil and respectful to one another when discussing a difference of opinion.

It was though. I know it's pointless to argue that what I said wasn't offensive, which it wasn't, but this forum is quickly becoming a place of not allowing discussion.

[Whiskers]

43 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

It was though. I know it's pointless to argue that what I said wasn't offensive, which it wasn't, but this forum is quickly becoming a place of not allowing discussion.

 

You're entirely free to have a discussion. You're just not free to be a dick while doing it. If you want to discuss the specifics of that you can send me a private message.

[HumdrumPenguin]

Seeing people talk as if USD10k is too much for audio is just bonkers. And a nod to room treatment, since without the right room there's so much you can do.

[Entropy.]

On 6/15/2022 at 11:29 AM, HumdrumPenguin said:

Seeing people talk as if USD10k is too much for audio is just bonkers. And a nod to room treatment, since without the right room there's so much you can do.

I guess measurement purists would think that there's not much to gain above some decent monitors and a nicely treated room. 

[HumdrumPenguin]

33 minutes ago, Entropy. said:

I guess measurement purists would think that there's not much to gain above some decent monitors and a nicely treated room. 

I really don't get those who care about measurements only. Clearly their passion is not music, because these so called purists take conclusions based on how graphs appear on a piece of paper, and nothing more. It's nuts, and apparently beyond their mental capacity to understand that different sound signatures (or whatever you may call it) will be more or less appealing depending who you ask. To this day, I haven't heard a single piece of audio gear that measures superbly well and appeals to me at the same time.

 

Take a look at comments from ASR users. They get excited for Chinese products that are yet to be released, probably will sound just like every single SMSL and Topping gear available at a given price range (or higher sometimes), and that they will never even get to hear. These forum members will pass on the message that another well-measured piece of junk is out in the map, and then get excited again for the next product coming out three months later that does the same crap for the same price.

 

Last time I mentioned there I liked R2R and discrete amplification I almost started World War 3. And before you say "why do you still visit that site?", my answer is that I don't. 

[Entropy.]

2 minutes ago, HumdrumPenguin said:

Take a look at comments from ASR users. They get excited for Chinese products that are yet to be released, probably will sound just like every single SMSL and Topping gear available at a given price range (or higher sometimes), and that they will never even get to hear. These forum members will pass on the message that another well-measured piece of junk is out in the map, and then get excited again for the next product coming out three months later that does the same crap for the same price.

Dac and amp measurements in particular are really what I dont get. Almost everything measured there has already reached the point of "good enough" by practically any product on the market, or the benchmark itself seems to be arbitrary. THD+N, Sinad, all way past the point of the ability to tell them apart even with "mediocre" units, IMD, Linearity, multitone test, almost always uneventful. Maybe the Jitter noise and spectrum measurement is somewhat useful, but I'm not well acquainted with it. 

Speakers I can get, though. There's a lot of useful information in those reviews, and they seem to be able to tell much. 

[HumdrumPenguin]

7 minutes ago, Entropy. said:

Speakers I can get, though. There's a lot of useful information in those reviews, and they seem to be able to tell much. 

In terms of audio, I'd never discard anything as possible no matter what the "science" tells you. Articles can be interesting to read and all, but I will never say no to trying new things (whatever they may be). I was surprised so many times that I've decided to just throw out the windows any pre-conceptions I might have had before going for a demo session.

[H713]

The reason people look at measurements is because it can reveal more than a listening test. I have never met an audiophile who can reliably hear a speaker say "yes, there is a 2 dB null at 3.2 kHz with a Q of about 0.5". We have had measurement equipment capable of this for 40 years now. Keep in mind, there's a really big difference between hearing a difference, and pinpointing exactly what that difference is.

 

Auditory memory is far less reliable than people want to admit. I'm generally pretty decent when it comes to listening tests, but I've tricked myself into thinking that I've definitely designed a better crossover, when in fact I'm being a dope and have connected the drivers to a crossover other than the one I'm modifying. 

 

 

ASR has their issues, but it isn't really related to the measurements themselves. In fact, the measurements taken by Amir are (for the most part) really good, and they are incredibly useful. The problem is that about 75% of the ASR user base doesn't really know how to interpret them or exactly what they mean. The top 3rd of their SINAD chart for headphone amplifiers and DACs will all sound exactly the same, for example. 

 

Here's a physical reality: Say we take two different power amplifiers, connect them to two identical transducers, then play music and monitor the voltage waveforms at their output. If those two voltage signals are the same, then those two amplifiers will sound the same regardless of whether it is a class D amp using GaN FETs, a Class B amplifier using BJTs or a Class A1 tube amplifier. End of story. 

 

To be clear, there is still a value to non-ideal equipment, especially with tubes. Some like the distortion of a crappy tube amp, others (like myself) find tubes and tube amplifiers absolutely fantastic from a physics perspective. I'm generally quite objective, but I still own four tube audio amps, and one reasonably-sized (~ 2 kW) tube RF amplifier. I also have multiple pieces of audio gear designed entirely using discrete transistors, mostly because it's fun to play with. Also, now and then having op-amps that can run on +/- 130 V rails is super handy.

 

Transducers are far from ideal, so there really is an audible difference between most of them. Frequency response variations are very audible, and distortion from transducers is often high enough to be noticeable. Measurements are really great to have here, because I can often predict (with reasonable accuracy) what a particular speaker is going to sound like by looking at the anechoic / Klippel measurement data. I can also use that data to identify where the likely issues are so I know how to minimize their impact. 

 

 

 

[cmndr]

21 hours ago, Entropy. said:

I guess measurement purists would think that there's not much to gain above some decent monitors and a nicely treated room. 

There's SOME truth to that. You get diminishing returns pretty quickly these days.

Also a lot of the audiophile "experience" comes from hearing new things in your music. This last bit doesn't come from better gear but mentally focusing on different parts of the song (or moving your head 2 inches and getting different frequency responses from your speakers because room reflections/directivity shifts).

This assumes you have good subwoofers set up already.

----

 

talking about transducers - tactile transducers can be awesome or so I hear.
 

[HumdrumPenguin]

16 hours ago, H713 said:

The reason people look at measurements is because it can reveal more than a listening test. I have never met an audiophile who can reliably hear a speaker say "yes, there is a 2 dB null at 3.2 kHz with a Q of about 0.5". We have had measurement equipment capable of this for 40 years now. Keep in mind, there's a really big difference between hearing a difference, and pinpointing exactly what that difference is.

 

Auditory memory is far less reliable than people want to admit. I'm generally pretty decent when it comes to listening tests, but I've tricked myself into thinking that I've definitely designed a better crossover, when in fact I'm being a dope and have connected the drivers to a crossover other than the one I'm modifying. 

 

 

ASR has their issues, but it isn't really related to the measurements themselves. In fact, the measurements taken by Amir are (for the most part) really good, and they are incredibly useful. The problem is that about 75% of the ASR user base doesn't really know how to interpret them or exactly what they mean. The top 3rd of their SINAD chart for headphone amplifiers and DACs will all sound exactly the same, for example. 

 

Here's a physical reality: Say we take two different power amplifiers, connect them to two identical transducers, then play music and monitor the voltage waveforms at their output. If those two voltage signals are the same, then those two amplifiers will sound the same regardless of whether it is a class D amp using GaN FETs, a Class B amplifier using BJTs or a Class A1 tube amplifier. End of story. 

 

To be clear, there is still a value to non-ideal equipment, especially with tubes. Some like the distortion of a crappy tube amp, others (like myself) find tubes and tube amplifiers absolutely fantastic from a physics perspective. I'm generally quite objective, but I still own four tube audio amps, and one reasonably-sized (~ 2 kW) tube RF amplifier. I also have multiple pieces of audio gear designed entirely using discrete transistors, mostly because it's fun to play with. Also, now and then having op-amps that can run on +/- 130 V rails is super handy.

 

Transducers are far from ideal, so there really is an audible difference between most of them. Frequency response variations are very audible, and distortion from transducers is often high enough to be noticeable. Measurements are really great to have here, because I can often predict (with reasonable accuracy) what a particular speaker is going to sound like by looking at the anechoic / Klippel measurement data. I can also use that data to identify where the likely issues are so I know how to minimize their impact. 

Maybe I didn't express myself well enough, so I'll break down my thoughts.

 

1. I don't get why people get excited about amps coming out that they will never hear, just to pass a judgment saying if it's good or not based on measurements. Go have a listen first.

 

2. If what I like is listening to music / watching movies, I couldn't give two f### about how everything measures if it all sounds great to my ears. Do I believe in bias? Absolutely, but I don't need to like perfection, I just need to like what I hear.

 

3. Most Chinese DACs I've heard have the same clinical and dry sound signature (overall same sound actually), with the only differences between models being features, price and size. What a joy.

 

4. Most people in ASR seem to be interested in engineering only, period. They would likely have the same excitement if analyzing toasters. It just appears that sound gear is the trend of the moment. Being the case, you are more than free to like whatever you do, just don't come and tell me what I like or not based on a piece of paper.

 

5. If measurements are already telling them there's no further improvements to be made within audible frequency range, I wonder why they haven't moved on to something else entirely.

[H713]

Generally I like to have a DAC be completely transparent and have no sound of its own - same with an ADC. If I want "fun" sound, I do it with a line stage, power amp or transducers. That way the part with the shortest lifespan (because it has to interface with a computer) is a simple device that isn't doing anything "important" in making your system what it is. It also is a device that needs to handle isolation, clocking, etc.

 

I use a Lynx L22 for lab testing, and I also have a Schiit Modi and a Focusrite Scarlett interface in my bedroom and my office. All of these pretty well sound the same (all are transparent). 

 

Line stages are my personal favorite place to mess with sound, because it's a lot cheaper to iterate line-level equipment than to iterate on high-power equipment. 

 

 

I don't always agree with the ASR recommendations, but the data is still useful. The trick is correlating one's personal preferences with measured characteristics. Once you know what you like, a good database of objective data can serve as a guide to help identify good candidates for listening tests.