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

@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.

  • Is there agreement and proof of each measurement’s value and the range of human sensitivity?

Is there any proof otherwise? The answer is no.

  • What are the relative merits off each measurement in terms of a broad range of listeners as well as you , specifically?

Is there any proof otherwise? The answer is no.

  • We lack measurements which can take into account the ear/brain mechanism as well as self-training of the neural pathways.

Irrelevant as it pertains to preference, not to audibility, which was covered by your first two points, and I will point out again, none proven.

 

Take a set of published tests from 1972. Now compare them to published tests from say ASR in 2022. It would be dishonest to claim that the 1972 tests are nearly as comprehensive as what is and can be done in 2022. I think the thing mainly stuck in 1972 is audiophiles, not the measurements.

@theaudiomaniac 

I've got to say...you are really "living up" to your username.

Well i dont know of any measurments that take in to account the filtering our brain does with sound and music in general, but if the entire waveform is reproduced accurately, our auditory acuity or "golden ears" wouldn't need to be part of that equation. Because regardless of what we listen to, we still have to take in to consideration thr fact that we hear differently when compared to other animals.

I mean, it's like saying we have a full bottle of beer. What is missing that measurments won't tell us?

 

Dude 2 different DACS and CD players can sound same depending on listener so go figure.