Some thoughts on ASR and the reviews

@markwd ”But are you worried that the imprimatur might give new audio equipment "seekers" some kind of false belief that all they need is this particular kind of ASR science? I’m not too worried!”

Sorry I missed this, markwd. The thing is, when I started my audiophile journey, I knew nothing. Like most others. It would have been so easy to be sucked into the convenience of measurements to justify all my purchases, as anyone wanting to get best value for dollar would. However, i have never been one to take the easy road, and found it necessary to first understand the multiple viewpoints of any one issue, and then the relationships between them all for balanced decision making. It takes immense effort to slowly build that comprehension of what hifi audio is about, and not an undertaking most would want to see through.

What got me truly started was the definition of high fidelity.

I realised most of us start our journey with a misconception of what the term means. The exact origins of the expression will probably never be known, but it is generally agreed that its usage was first seen in Billboard magazine back in 1933. Even before that however, the obsession existed to recreate the sound experience of live music through the recorded medium.

High Fidelity has always been about the reproduction of high quality sound through electrical equipment to be as similar as possible to the original sound.

Back then, distortion was so completely everywhere, it wasn’t even an issue - all that mattered was a medium that could just deliver some semblance of realism to the reproduced sound. They found it in vinyl. However awful those needles were back then (and they were practically big ugly heavy crappy needles) that semblance was reached. Everything thereafter became one long road of refinement to bring sound reproduction closer and closer to the original sound. To make sound reproduction more realistic. The absolute fidelity of the signal was never a goal - what mattered was how the reproduced sound compared to the original sound.

We turned high fidelity into signal fidelity at some point.

It really was to help make things, decisions, easier; to have some quantifiable and rational basis for commonality and reference. And so, our original reference that was the original sound, became marginalised, and for many, forgotten. We don’t need to make the effort to improve listening ability any more - the measurements did it for us.

Except that it didn’t - particular kinds of distortion, in fact, bring reproduced sound closer to the original sound. The manufacturers discovered that tiny relevant imperfections in the audio signal help create a closer approximation of realism. High Fidelity is this incredibly nuanced kitchen of finding that balance between eliminating damaging distortion from, and introducing relevant imperfection to the signal to bring reproduced sound closer in realism to its original sound source.

Heresy, if opined from the viewpoint of signal fidelity, but hey, signal fidelity has never been what high fidelity is about.

This is what makes the arguments that amir or any one else whip up from their measurements seem so silly, they’re arguing for pure signal fidelity in a hobby where its accomplishment defeats the entire purpose of high fidelity.

So yes, it is false belief and indoctrination I post against, because I want every audiophile to hear the amazing realism that is possible with the wonderful equipment that is out there, which they can only access when they develop the difficult and time consuming skill of listening and hearing ability.

In friendship - kevin

@kevn I previously addressed the issue of these hearing-excess-of-Fourier arguments as well as heterodyning and nonlinear effects within the ear. The problem isn't that there are interesting experimental results, it's that they don't demonstrate that there is anything that can be done to audio equipment to implement better solutions to whatever gaps may be present. For instance, if I am a DAC designer there are several different pathways to accurately reproduce a signal but there is no theory that says one approach will improve over another in matching the nonlinear merging properties of higher and lower frequencies in the cochlea.

Now, you can suggest that somehow listening on the part of the designer is allowing them to choose between design pathways but this is just speculation. It may be true, as I noted to @mahgister, but we don't know and neither does the designer.

So there is a certain faith built into all this speculation, just like god-of-the-gaps arguments in other online communities ("listening-in-the-gaps" arguments has a nice ring to it!). It's interesting but needs proof and a proper measurement methodology that shows a path forward for determining exactly how these phenomena impact equipment design and use.

Since you are a bit of a student of ideas in philosophy of science, one key one in contemporary thinking on the topic is lifted from Wittgenstein that we must remain silent on things we have no knowledge of and we have no knowledge of this. Until we develop it sufficiently we do have an AP and spectral sweeps.

@kevn Thank you so much for your analysis, putting into stark relief what I attempted to state in more basic language.  Also thank you @markwd for your cogent comments.  I've been stating the same thing in two Audiogon forums with 2000 posts (and Amir condescending arguments which are invalid for the most part).  

I have only one complaint in that the vinyl LP and crude stylii were the initial semblance of high fidelity sound. It was the magnetic tape that predated that attainment of sound quality. Today, it is still true that the mastered analog tape is closer to the recorded sound than the disc, unless the disc was recorded as direct to disc. I only have about 200 R2R tapes from the 50’s and 60’s and most are quite good (7.5 ips and 1/4 track). Better tapes are now available but relatively expensive. With 31,100 LPs, I often desire to obtain higher fidelity than encoded on my records. I keep most of them for the performances (live and studio) that are unobtainable from alternate media. I also really appreciate CDs as a convenient and often superior format but I admit I have superior playback equipment. Until recently, I preferred analog playback, now it is dependent on the mastering more than on the format.

Thanks again Kevn!

@kevn I'll just add one footnote to my previous post: we might actually be able to address the specific issues of heterodyning and nonlinear cochlea interactions in audio by using DSP to simply mute tones that interact in those areas of the hearing range. This would be like addressing a room mode but within the ear itself. Of course, we would be robbing the signal of its fidelity in so doing.

Still, in order to do this we could use experiments that first demonstrate it will improve human hearing. There is a great deal of literature on methods for overcoming hearing loss; there may be something in there concerning speech that points towards something useful for audio equipment design.

Let's get that gap filled in!

I did look at ASR as several friends touted the Topping DAC, specifically, D70s as the finest in their lineup, a balance of resolution and liquidity/musicality. Well, they are relatively inexpensive and now three of us own one. Coupled with fine quality transports (mine is a Jay’s Audio CDt3 Mk3), it extracts CD quality sound rivalling analog LPs. I have replaced it with a Lampizator Poseidon at 50X (!) the cost (not getting 50X the improvement though, more incremental). ASR touted the Topping unit as the best at the time (2021?) but soon thereafter replaced it with an even lower noise version the D90. Unfortunately, new versions don’t translate into better sond, just better measurements in this instance. My prior experience with older Topping DACs was negative, just too raw sounding, an unsettling listening experience, typical in my pre-2005 feelings toward CD playback. Even my transport costs 10X the Topping. It is a truly great unit. I read last week of a high end recommendation for a $100 DAC, possibly an SMU unit that is also a huge bargain for a DAC. It’s amazing what new design technology can do to benefit music lovers to sonic bliss. I have a relatively good ear and cannot say one way or the other why one unit’s design and materials are superior to the other as I have inadequate electrical knowledge but I am shocked at how affordable DACs (and for others who stream) good sound is available.