Excellent article in Stereophile

why the classic THD is a worthless specification

Why pick on THD?

This thread https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/143539-look-lm317-lm337-regulators.html on regulator impedance is very interesting before it devolves.

Mr. Bau graciously modified the P.S. in my Rotel RCD-02 for Linear Z. The improvement is nothing less than astounding. As close to studio playback as I've ever heard.

There’s a lot hi-falutin’ gear out there with 10¢ power supplies...

This article is very old, and only one of many saying pretty much the same thing, that us humans are a whole lot more sensitive to some distortions than others.

Now there’s a reason I said "some distortions" and not odd-order harmonics, which is the one mentioned in the article. That’s deliberate. Because there’s a whole long list of things we can measure that turn out to not matter nearly as much as some people seem to think. Some people just love to jump to the conclusion that since we can measure something it matters.

And I know exercise is supposed to be good and all, but jumping to unwarranted conclusions? High-rez is better! Dynamic range! S/N! EQ! On and on. But if those all matter so much then how come people with no axe to grind or skin in the game prefer the stuff that measures bad, over and over again? Because I have yet to find the NON-audiophile who, given the chance to hear for themselves, prefers anything that measures better. Does. Not. Happen.

There was for example another article in Stereophile around this same time, reporting on an experiment that used random non-audiophile people listening triple blind to music played on systems that were 1. all analog/tube, 2. analog/SS, and 3. digital/SS. They went to such great lengths the girl handing them the questions didn’t even know what was going on, and handed them over from behind so even the expression on her face couldn’t influence them. Unsurprisingly, the clear preference of these normal people was analog/tube, followed by analog/SS, with digital/SS a distant third. The girl at the end said she knew nothing but wondered WTF was going on because she came to DREAD the sound of that last digital/SS system!

The sound that no doubt measured best. Of that I have no doubt.

So what’s interesting to me is not that people hear things differently than microphones, oscilloscopes, and other instruments. Hearing is an experience. Listening is an activity. Not mere physical phenomena like how rapidly the density of air or an electric current fluctuates.

No. What’s interesting to me is why so many so-called audiophiles still obsess over measurements that have been so utterly discredited over and over again for so long now?

Climate change?

@millercarbon - I was not aware of the Stereophile test you mention. Could you tell us the name of the article and whether or not it is available on their website? If you can provide a link that would be great.

It would be a wonderful irony if Stereophile touted the results of a blind test that determined that listeners preferred analog and tubes over digital and solid state. Stereophile has dissed blind testing several times in their publication and has taken a strong editorial position that blind testing of audio equipment is essentially meaningless.

The other thing about this test is that the difference in sound quality could be totally explained by the selection of the individual components. Did they compare top-of-the-line Audio Research gear against a Pioneer receiver? Did they compare a $10,000 turntable/cartridge with a $199 CD player? Was all equipment rated Stereophile Class A? Was the CD a good competent transfer of the master tape? During that time period Stereophile rated several solid state as well as tube components Class A. I've subscribed to Stereophile for decades and I don't remember this test or them taking an editorial position favoring one design philosophy over another. Their individual writers can have strong positions, i.e. Michael Fremer, but the magazine's editorial stance seems to be agnostic. If the results were that conclusive I'm surprised that they didn't refer to this test repeatedly. I would think Fremer would jump all over this test the but maybe he has and I just missed it.

Also, if the test was conducted in the early 90's you won't get much argument from me that the digital signal chain (A/D converters and D/A converters) were not up to the sonic standards of the best turntables and cartridges. Digital today is much better than it was 25 years ago and it would be interesting to see a double blind test that compares current state of the art digital to state of the art analog.

No idea, but it was long ago. Back when I subscribed, which I quit around 1994 or so.
 
The story, as I recall, it was not Stereophile it was just published there. It was NOT a test like you're thinking, asking a bunch of audiophiles which system they like better. Nothing so crude as that. Very clever, they asked questions more along the lines of which music did you like, would you like to hear more of it, consider buying, etc. So the subjects if anything would were focused on the music and NOT the system. They had no idea. They couldn't even see anything. Even the girl with the questions, who came from behind. They saw here arm, nothing more. Double-blind? HA! Quadruple blind!

Double blind is of course a canard. Red herring. Waste of time. Distraction. Refuge of scoundrels, etc etc. If you hear it you hear it. If you think anyone needs anything more, go read the previous sentences a few more times.

Ditto the state of digital. Replace double blind with the state of digital, previous sentences stand. One hundred percent. Because you could say the same about all the analog gear that was used. Its all a lot better today. Across the board. So might as well quit dodging and face the music. Heh.

Especially since one of the little-appreciated tricks they played was to use tube gear and solid state. So it wasn't just digital/analog. And lo and behold, the results placed the analog/SS below all analog and above digital/SS. Just like happens with everyone I've ever seen.

Everyone, that is, who is no audiophile. Only the audiophiles, they are the only ones who ever even think to say crazy stuff like I don't believe my own ears or what I heard might be in my head or gosh if only I were double blind instead of merely solo blind.

What a crock. Do you hear it? Or do you not hear it? If you do then why do you need your own experience validated by anyone else? So I can only conclude you cannot hear.

See how it works?