 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.135.149.73
In Reply to: RE: Soundstage is one of the most subjective of attributes posted by Feanor on February 21, 2024 at 04:15:16
That's the problem with measurements -- we don't have a static measurement available for everything we can hear and perceive from a recording or a piece of equipment.
Think back to the 1950s or so when the measurements available were harmonic distortion (and anything under 1% was good), intermodulation distortion (determined with two frequencies), frequency response (no one worried much about anything past 15 KHz) and signal-to-noise ratio (anything over 60 dB was doing pretty good).
Nowadays we have lots of additional measurements available and to far greater precision, but what makes one think that we're "done"? The history of science shows that just when we are so proud of all the smart stuff we've come up with that we find there is still more to discover. I suspect this will continue in that fashion for as long as we humans stick around.
Follow Ups:
In my response to morricab, above, I said ... "If we wanted to explore the factors generating more or less soundstage depth, the proper approach, (IMO), would to correlate more or less apparent depth with characteristics of the component ...".
Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 02/22/24
It may be that there are things not measured that affect how we perceive sound in subtle ways. But a lot IS known about what we hear and what we DON'T hear. Take the perceptual coding for mp3 (I'll pause while you finish recoiling) - this uses knowledge of what we cannot hear and it works very well considering how much of the signal is discarded.If product A can be demonstrably shown to recreate a signal more accurately than product B but the audiophile prefers B it is always seen as a problem with product A - 'I just trust my ears' & 'you're measuring the wrong thing'. I think audiophiles should think more critically.
Reviews, huh, yeah
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing.
They are for marketing promotion and entertainment only. And yet someone can use them as the basis for an infallible argument about something they've never heard based on reviewers they've never met.Which brings me to the last point. When measurements are made the equipment is calibrated to make sure the numbers are accurate. Reviewers are never calibrated - we don't really know whether they heard what they say they heard or whether they only think they heard what they say they heard. I believe reviewers should be accredited by passing unsighted listening tests (or, at least, taking tests). I strongly suspect that in unsighted tests many of the reported differences between equipment would disappear. If you are a reviewer whose job as a reviewer depends on being able to differentiate between equipment you will find differences. If you are an audiophile whose self-worth is tied up with being able to differentiate between equipment the same applies.
In summary, what we do measure tells us something and maybe something important is missing. But, we measure zero about what goes on between the ears of those listening.
Edits: 02/21/24
So, what would you think of a DAC that is perceived consistently of having a shallow or non-existent soundstage depth and/or flat imaging?
Do you say that it is your imagination (of course it is processing in your brain) and not due to some real signal effect?
Some options:
- conventional measurements cannot capture whatever recreates soundstage depth from a recording
- soundstage depth is an artifact created by less accurate reproduction
- reviewers have to find something less-than-stellar to say about a non-astronomically priced product in order to justify the astronomically priced products
- reviewers will find something critical about Chinese products (this may be more about price, see above, but maybe a little xenophobia creeps in)
- reviewers will find something critical about products that don't fit their criteria of the 'best' implementations, i.e. using opamps instead of discrete no-feedback buffers, using SMPS instead of a beefy linear supply, etc.
- If a product is perceived as having a weakness then reviewers jump on that train and never get off.My comment earlier about not measuring what goes on between the ears was about psychology - is the listener in a good mood, did the listener have a poor night's sleep, is the listener more critical in the morning, afternoon or evening, has he/she had, or not had, a shag recently, is a reviewer rushing to meet a deadline, how large is the ego of the reviewer and where does this product fit into their world view of the audio hierarchy, etc?
Why is the Topping D90 even a concern to you? Because it measures better than your own choice of DAC so you have to find something to criticize?
Edits: 02/22/24 02/22/24 02/22/24
Or, the most obvious, the reveiwers all hear the same deficiency and it is not up to them to find out the exact technical reason just what they hear.
You are also involved in this discussion so what is it to you if I critique something? Are you a Toopping D90 owner who feels burnt by my suggestions?
This is a bigger picture discussion around measurements and audibility. There are people on this forum who think if it measures perfectly, that you are truly hearing the recordings but based on my experience and hearing this just can't be true unless most recordings are truly wretched.
I also don't think you can really create things like soundstage and imaging in a recording that doesn't have the information...or at least it will sound always the same regardless of the recrording.
I have a friend who had a Topping DAC and when he heard something that sounded much better (that for sure measured worse) but was much more expensive, he still jumped on it and bought it. He was not a big spender on audio and now that DAC is comfortably the most expensive component he owns.
That is, not the soundstage dependent of room setup and speaker positioning, but that varies with as single component, which is the sort morricab is talking about.
" Soundstage depth is an artifact created by less accurate reproduction" .
Many people including me have heard the phenomenon produced by tube devices, referred to as "depth" or "image layering", (thanks to AbeCollins for the latter phrase).
I came to this conclusion over a decade ago by comparing a tube preamp with s/s preamps and passive volume control; none of the latter produced that effect.
I believe the tube-produced "depth" is an artifact created by tube distortion, possibly 2nd/3rd order distortion also responsible for tube "warmth".
Dmitri Shostakovich
That is NOT what I am talking about.
I am talking about swapping in a DAC in a system and hearing the change in soudnstage from that swap.
And how do you explain then when the same tube amp or tube DAC give DIFFERENT soundstage depth and image dimensionality with each recording? Compared with an amp or DAC that has a flat soundstage and a flat image with each recording? Which one sounds more like an artifact to you?
Even with gear that doesn't result in a totally flat soundstage and a totally flat image, if that is truncated vs. gear that results in maximum contrast in this perception...how can you say the maximally differentiated is due to "artifacts" whereas the "pure" gear is more homogenized? Doesn't make logical sense honestly.
Since the Topping D90SE has SOTA specs in terms of low distortion but has a "totally flat" soundstage, what is different about the more dimensional DAC?
A plausible conclusion is that it has something to do with distortion ... or "magic".
FWIW, my Topping D90, (original non-MQA with AKM DACs), doesn't seem to be lacking in dimensionality -- if it's on the recording.
Dmitri Shostakovich
The other Toppings I heard had flat soundstage compared to better sounding DACs, therefore, when a couple of reviewers say the soundstage is relatively flat I am inclined to believe them because of my experience with other models in their lineup and the similarity of design concept.
As I mentioned in other posts the flatness of a soundstage seems to be a function of high frequency content. If there is distortion or accentuation (some reviewers thought he D90se could be considered a bit "bright"). Loudness cues affect the perception of depth. Louder things are closer and high frequency content also drops with distance. If that is accentuated then that can truncate the soundstage and make images sound flat.
I once had a preamp for test that was a tube/mosfet hybrid. I owned an amp from this company that was also a hybrid, which had very good soundstage depth/width and solid 3d imaging (it was a very good hybrid in fact...one of the best of that type I know). The preamp, however, was FLAT, FLAT and FLAT sounding. Remove the preamp and replace it with basically anything else I had (they were all tube preamps) on hand and the depth and 3d imaging returned. The weird thing was that it sounded pretty good otherwise, but the soundstage flatness was disconcerting as it was so obvious. Finally, I concluded that there was something in the treble that was accentuating loudness (and therefore distance) cues that resulted in the unfortunate outcome. Did it have a lot more or less distortion than the other products? Probably not...but it seemed to have something in the range that regulates this perception.
So I'd suggest, (humbly), that tube DACs as a broad class are going are going to sound different for s/s DAC, (assuming both are "well-designed").
That's a generalization of course, but we do know "in general" that tubes create fewer high order harmonics and lower low order harmonics.
Dmitri Shostakovich
FETs, used more like triodes will also be able to preserve soundstage and imaging information. I just bought a Phasemation EA-220 phonostage, which is all SS. It is class A, all discrete JFETs with no added negative feedback. It sounds naturally warm and has good soundstage depth and imaging is pretty 3D...similar to a decent tube phonostage.
So, it probably measures a lot like a triode phonostage because the design concept is similar. It sounds natural, full, resolved and with good "visual" properties. Is it the best in these areas? No of course not as it is still an inexpensive product, relative to their own line and other high end gear that takes much more care with the power, circuitry and features (it has none...just MM and MC).
I have had some SS DACs that used discrete class A or literally just took the signal off the R2R chip and these, while not exactly tube like, are a far cry from the these SINAD wars DACs.
If they sound better in any way it's because of some measurable quality: what is that? (Because it's not magic.)
BTW, I'm no longer buying that negative feedback is a big bugaboo that must be avoidable at all costs.
Nothing you said so far has persuaded me that you aren't just another guy who likes tube-style distortions. Arcane technical explanations don't convince me otherwise.
Dmitri Shostakovich
They do measure differently (and depending how you use them) and morricab linked to an interesting paper somewhere in this thread about this topic.
The real question, though, is can those differences be perceived, and how, and is what is perceived as better actually better e.g. though those active devices sound nice in that topology in your listening room, would you really want them inside the airport radar that is guiding home your family from a trip or inside a medical imager looking for the source of that pain you keep having?
Those examples are completely beside the point of an audio circuit... where human perception is involved it is a far fuzzier situation.
Jason Stoddard (one of the founders of Schiit) has a good article on the subject on feedback in audio gain circuits (whether amp, preamp, or DAC, etc.) that he's posted on Head-Fi as part of his continuing series. Link below.
Bruno Putzeys' article, The F-word , see link below.
I can't penetrate all the technical info, but I've read it and understood what I've could.
Practically speaking I didn't need much more convincing than when I found my very-high feedback Purifi 1ET400A-based amp sounded better than my low-feedback Pass Labs X150.5 amp
Dmitri Shostakovich
They have different transfer functions.
but what makes one think that we're "done"?
In Bill's case, simplistic reviews from ASR. ;)
I never did say the better, more insightful, more pertinent measurements can't be found. In in my "soundstage" post, I said, " If we wanted to explore the factors generating more or less soundstage depth, the proper approach, (IMO), would to correlate more or less apparent depth with characteristics of the component ... ".Nevertheless I defend ASR where the SOTA in measurements can be found.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 02/22/24
what you've never experienced.
nt
Dmitri Shostakovich
Exactly. Nice post. I still haven't seen a spec sheet that tells one how a product images or soundstages and IMHO that's exactly why one needs to listen.
Cut to razor sounding violins
No, Feanor thinks that is a fake effect due to distortion...that is why an ultra low distortion DAC like the Topping D90se has shallow soundstage...because it is so perfect.
It is possible to produce, (at reasonable cost), a component with essentially zero distortion, impedance, tolerance, etc. Why we suspect that it would filter out "soundstage" information at the same time it delivers unprecedented detail and transparency?
It's as I can understand that accept that what we like by preference is actually not as accurate to source as it might be.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Why would you assume other components "create" soundstage...particularly as it varies from recording to recording and SOUNDS like a different space with the best gear that preserve this information?
If the soundstage being perceived was always the same then one could argue that it is manufactured (like turning on the reverb dial in the studio). But the best gear preserves a different soundstage and venue with each recording, from a very dry and up front studio recording...or one where it is obvious that soundstage information was added in the mixing process to large natural indoor spaces like a large church.
A DAC where the soundstage is notably truncated compared to others is either taking something away or adding something that affects depth perception both of the stage depth and image dimensionality (rather than images sounding flat).
Yikes. I don't understand how one can think soundstage is fake. Maybe we should just listen in mono to one speaker then? And here I was trying to get the best stereo image I could. Damn magnepans with their 3d sound got me sold on fake.
But I think Feanor listens to Classical right?? Isn't image and soundstage like vital for that? I bet you I have everybit the classical collection he does (yeah I ripped 3000 classical discs for a client and I have a back up hd of them somewhere) and isn't the soundstage of each performance like one of the main things? Each hall is different? Is that not captured on recordings??? Good thing I don't listen to classical because my head would explode at the vital but fake imaging.
And as someone posted on these boards, "its all fake" so pick the version of fake you like...
Cut to razor sounding violins
We're not talking about the soundstage of a stereo system comprised of recording, listening room, speaker placement, and all the reproduction change components.
We're talking about the supposed soundstage created by a single component, versus some other, substitute component.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Its clear that an individual component in the context of a system can affect the soundstage and imaging in some way but its all in the context of a system. If your speakers don't image will or aren't setup up to image well, how good your dac is probably wont matter too much. If you honestly believe that you can hear one component in a chain you are deluded.
Maybe in the context of the same system, swapping out one component for another can give you a comparison in that system, but it doesn't tell you anything about how those components will behave in another system.
And am I missing something? You are calling me confused about the sort of soundstage being discussed, and yet your ASR holy grail doesn't even measure anything about the soundstage, let alone compare any of its dacs directly in terms of soundstage? And you think it is fake? And somehow I am confused?
Cut to razor sounding violins
I disagree that how a component performs in a system doesn't tell you anything about how it performs in other systems. This might be true for something like a low powered SET when you put it on a 98dB speaker vs. an 85dB low impedance speaker. But a DAC will maintain it's effect on different systems. As someone who brings things over to other systems I have found the character of sources especially is pretty portable. Are they EXACTLY the same in terms of effect and magnitude? No, but the main traits are preserved.
Read his arguments above. Basically the truncated soundstage of at least some of these perfect sounding DACs is to him the truth and when a DAC is showing more soundstage depth and more 3d imaging that this is some kind of trickery or "fake" and an artifact of distortion.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
