2. pc-audio
  3. 179254-171875

Indentical measurments = Identical performance?

I’ve been doing A LOT of thinking lately. In particular, about the importance of audio measurments for source components like DACs and CD players.

 

Let us first assume that we have 2 identical DACs or 2 identical CD players. You wouldn’t dare suggest that the same models sound inherently different, now would you? Well we can prove that the output of each device in this scenario is identical by doing a null test. We capature the output of the DACs and CD players and learn that their waveforms (let’s say a 30 second clip) are identical. The only time we might see a difference is in an engineering/manufacturing hiccup...and that is RARE considering we have globalization in the modern world today followed by quality control standards that are not necessarily difficult to get right.

 

And so, if put to practice, any 2 digital audio components that have similar enough measurements should sound identical. For example, a DAC with a SINAD or SNR or 120 dB vs one with a SINAD or SNR of 123. Tiny differences in linarity and frequency response above 20 KHz are not audible to us humans anyway.

Because most of our listening dare not go up to 110 dB, which is the threshold of discomfort. You could only listen for up to about 30 minutes at this level without risking hearing loss! For this reason, the ideal listening level is below that!

 

Should we forget about what companies try to sell us as high-end and focus purely on measurements with respect to accurately reproducing digital audio?

 

Here’s what’s really funny. The Chord DAVE performed worse with respect to measurments than the Chord Hugo TT2! Just see audio science review.

 

Lastly, I consider ASR the best objective website on the internet, bar none. Because if Amir really had a business relationship with any of these audio companies, their flagship or most expensive products would always perform at the very top; we see that is not the case and measured performance is all over the place!

 

Looking forward to hearing from you guys. Let’s not turn this discussion into a flame war. If you disagree with what I’ve written, just tell me why. I will investigate.

 

 

jackhifiguy
Post removed 
erik_squires
15,691 posts
 

Most of these measurements were created over 50 years ago and were never proven to be exhaustive. They were only proven to be beneficial.

From the standpoint of science, and objectivity, we can measure a particular item, like Signal to Noise, and frequency response at different times with different measurements and we can state some items measure differently.

There are however several logical bridges that have to be crossed:

  • Is there agreement and proof of each measurement’s value and the range of human sensitivity?
  • What are the relative merits off each measurement in terms of a broad range of listeners as well as you , specifically?
  • We lack measurements which can take into account the ear/brain mechanism as well as self-training of the neural pathways.

If you are stuck with measurements that were mostly developed 50 years ago, and some new ones added you aren’t doing science at all. You are doing quality assurance.

jackhifiguy OP
151 posts
 

@erik_squires 

I agree with most of what you've written. 

If measurments are not science but only a standard for determining quality assurance, shouldn't that mean the Chinese audio gear that measures leaps and bounds ahead of other well-known brand is "better quality?"

Not trying to put words in your mouth. But I took what you said at face value.

I suppose that just because something is old, doesn't necessarily make it bad.

 

jackhifiguy OP
151 posts
 

@theaudiomaniac 

Thanks for your post. But I wish you would have added something more constructive to this discussion. Surely you don't agree with electrical engineers. But afterall, they are the very people who design audio gear.

More to discover