|
|
Post by misterc on Mar 1, 2021 7:52:33 GMT
Here is a piece by a man I respect in the field of digital reply Dr Mark Waldrep Ph.D concerning Hi-Resolution streaming.
"Dr. AIX
The news this week included the announcement by Spotify is upgrading the fidelity of their music streams to "CD-quality." I watched a video by John Darko, read the press release about Spotify Hi-Fi and another article on CEPro by Robert Archer, and was so thoroughly disgusted at the inaccuracies included in a piece titled "High-resolution audio: everything you need to know " written by Verity Burns and Becky Roberts on WhatHiFi that I had to post a lengthy comment pointing out a few of the issues. Why is it so hard for "professional" writers to get a grip on real facts when they write about the latest marketing initiative pushed the hardware and software companies (actually it's been around for almost 20 years but only recently seems to be getting some traction). Don't they realize that the information they are disseminating is almost word for word the spin put forward by the companies? I know everyone wants to have something to say but when authors simply repackage a company's press release, I have to wonder about the future of audio journalism. Do your research, talk to real experts, and challenge the hyperbolic claims made in those releases.
While I generally dismiss anything the John Darko says, at least he acknowledged that virtually all of the so-called "hi-res" content on Qobuz, Spotify, and the other services isn't really high-resolution. He claimed 90% of the 70 million tracks available are limited to CD-quality. And he's right. Robert Archer, the author of the piece at CEPro, is confused about the term "CD quality." I've talked about this before. He wrote, "Spotify's newly announced Spotify Hi-Fi is an upgrade that will be available to users shortly, and the popular streaming audio company says the service will provide listeners with a CD quality (16-bit/44kHz, 1,411kps bitrate) level listening experience. Here's what he — and many other writers — fail to understand. There is the Red Book or CD-Audio specification, which provides all of the physical, logical, and electrical details about the compact disc. The CD-Audio specification delivers 2-channels of 44.1 kHz (not 44 kHz)/16-bit linear PCM encoded audio at a bitrate of 1411.2 kbps (44100*16*2). However, "CD-quality" audio is defined as audio that is perceived as equal in fidelity to the Red Book specification. It's not required that it actually be CD-Audio spec. If a group of listeners hears a 320 kbps org vorbis audio steam and is unable to reliably identify it as a lossy encode then it is deemed "CD-quality." The download and streaming companies have been using this descriptive — and deceptive — term for years. It is not what the Red Book describes.
The WhatHiFi article makes an attempt to define high-resolution audio. They reference the June 2014 press release issued by the DEG, CEA, Recording Academy, and the labels, which establish hi-res audio as anything "better" than CD-quality (there's the same erroneous definition again!). The authors continue with a simple explanation of sampling frequency and word length. They wrote, "The more bits there are, the more accurately the signal can be measured in the first instance, so going 16bit to 24bit can deliver a noticeable leap in quality. " I would challenge the authors to take the HD-Audio Challenge II, the survey I created in 2019 to test whether hi-res is perceptible vs. CD-Audio spec audio. As most of you already know, the results showed that even experienced audiophiles and professional audio engineers using state-of-the art, expensive equipment did no better than a random coin toss at picking the native hi-res audio files. It seems to me that writing there is a "noticeable leap in quality" is at best wishful thinking and at worse outright lying. Finally, they listed a number of the "main file formats" associated with Hi-Res Audio including MQA. They wrote that MQA is, "a lossless compression format that efficiently packages hi-res files with more emphasis on the time domain." Missed it again. It is not lossless unless you think slicing off 7 bits from the actual data words to make room for their "origami" magic qualifies as "lossless."
I know I'm always harping on the BS that seem to dominate audio articles, FB posts, and Youtube videos, but I have a very hard time accepting that this is the state of information in our hobby.
Here are the facts you should know:
1. All download and streaming services get the same masters from the labels and make them available to subscribers at varying quality levels according to their own business model. Once they all arrive at CD-Audio spec, we're getting everything "the artist intended."
2. Virtually all of the masters offered by these companies are not bona fide hi-res audio productions. They are "hi-res transfers" of older non hi-res masters. Does anyone think a 192 kHz/24-bit transfer of a recording made in 1932 is hi-res? What about an analog tape track from the 60s?
3. CD-quality is not the same thing as Red Book standard - CD-Audio specification audio. Anything less than 1411.2 kbps is NOT CD-Audio and will require a codec — lossy or lossless — to deliver it. Most CD-quality audio is encoded at 320 kbps.
4. Qobuz, TIDAL, Deezer, Amazon Music HD, Apple Music, and now Spotify Hi-Fi are delivering standard-resolution audio NOT HD! And it's OK because no one can tell the difference anyway — remember the HD-Audio Challenge II. Just because they label it HD doesn't make it so. Amazon Music HD shifted all CD-spec audio to their HD category. Why? Because they want us to think it's better.
5. The fidelity of any audio reproduction is established at the time of the original recording and the master is delivered to the label NOT by the platform that ultimately delivers it to you. They can only make it worse. Sure, TIDAL, Apple and the others want us to believe we're at the dawn of a new listening experience a high-resolution experience, but it's all marketing nonsense. A well made recording at Red Book specification can sound astounding and is sufficient to meet even the most discerning audiophile. Just think of all of the bandwidth and storage we're saving.
6. Avoid MQA, DXD, DSD and stick with good old PCM. It's been the standard in the industry since the 70s and will continue to outclass all of the newcomers.
The move to CD-Audio specification streaming is to be applauded. We aren't stuck with Lo-Fi MP3, AAC, or Org Vorbis files. But moving beyond Red Book audio is NOT necessary. The artists, engineers, and producers know that incredible recordings can be delivered at CD-Audio spec. It's the marketing departments and the uninformed that continue to push for formats and standards that don't move the needle"
***ADMIN EDIT***
Post reverted to black font as the blue was difficult to read. Also broke up the paragrapohs to enable full consumption oof information. Hope thats ok. OL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2021 7:58:49 GMT
So basically, it is not worth paying for Hi-res subscription services?
|
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Mar 1, 2021 8:04:30 GMT
"A well made recording at Red Book specification can sound astounding"***ADMIN EDIT*** I have edited the original post to make it easier to read 
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Mar 1, 2021 8:05:18 GMT
Hi Kevin
I have all of the subscription services activated to demonstrate to customers the various ones.
Personally I listen to Spotify to source, explore new music and to follow certain musicians on the career pathways, when I find the music I like I purchase it.
I have always said and demonstrated at show that 85% of all the music we play is @ genuine red book standard if correctly produced and mastered it will sound great no question, true high resolution files produced in the same way and at genuine sample rates will also sound superb.
The high res service do sound different and have greater space and detail, but better er imho NO.
As Mark mentioned if you wish to hear a true high resolution recording you will need to purchase one that was actually recorded at the rate it states and is not been MQA'd lol
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 1, 2021 8:14:59 GMT
Ok, so being new to the digital realm, are the original files/recordingd not compressed to fit onto a redbook CD?
SO i understand that HiRes wasnt available when they recorded DSOTM for example, but if they are offering that album without the compression, isnt that worth the money?
I may be way off here, as i havent ever given much thought to this topic. Advice and wisdom is very welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 1, 2021 8:25:17 GMT
If you want that particular mastering and is only available in 'hi rez' then you get that one. Otherwise don't waste your money.
It makes no difference whether it was recorded in 24/192 or 16/44/1 as far as playback is concerned. Higher sampling rates only useful when recording. You can't hear over 22 Khz so there's absolutely no point to it for playback.
This has been done to death so many times I find it astonishing that there are still people who think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Mar 1, 2021 9:02:11 GMT
.. but if they are offering that album without the compression, isnt that worth the money? There isn't any compression with older recordings in 16/44.1 before the 'compression wars' started. The compression was done to make the tracks sound louder (louder = better, right?), aimed at 'pop' music and consumption via phones and ear buds I presume. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 1, 2021 9:13:40 GMT
.. but if they are offering that album without the compression, isnt that worth the money? There isn't any compression with older recordings in 16/44.1 before the 'compression wars' started. The compression was done to make the tracks sound louder (louder = better, right?), aimed at 'pop' music and consumption via phones and ear buds I presume. The whole recording fitted onto a 700mb disc, without any need for compression etc? I am not sure. If it did, where are all of these huge files coming from? |
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Mar 1, 2021 9:20:42 GMT
An 75 minute cd is pretty close to 780Mb in real space @ 1.411mps
|
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Mar 1, 2021 9:42:38 GMT
There isn't any compression with older recordings in 16/44.1 before the 'compression wars' started. The compression was done to make the tracks sound louder (louder = better, right?), aimed at 'pop' music and consumption via phones and ear buds I presume. The whole recording fitted onto a 700mb disc, without any need for compression etc? I am not sure. Absolutely true. I have a detailed description of how a CD is digitally stacked if you want to read it. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 1, 2021 9:44:10 GMT
The whole recording fitted onto a 700mb disc, without any need for compression etc? I am not sure. Absolutely true. I have a detailed description of how a CD is digitally stacked if you want to read it. Really? Well Sh#t.....lets read it! |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 1, 2021 12:17:24 GMT
Seems there is some confusion over the term 'compression' here. The word has two meanings:
Compression as applied in the studio during mixing and mastering - this reduces the dynamic range of the individual track or the mix as a whole. This is so you don't have to turn it up to hear the quiet bits and turn it down again when it gets to the loud parts. Also helps when listening in noisy environment like a car.
Pretty much all recordings have some compression applied. Some have so much their effective dynamic range is 0db. No musical information is lost and it should be considered as 'artist's intention' however unpleasant it can be to listen to. Extreme use of compression gives a 'wall of sound' effect. Best referred to as 'dynamic compression' to distinguish it from
Compression as applied to a data file to make it smaller - less time to transmit and takes up less space on a hard drive. There are two types:
1) lossy compression - musical information that is perceptually masked by louder musical information is omitted. Depending on the extent of the compression this will be heard as a lack of spatial clues and ambience in the recording.
2) Lossless compression - no musical information is lost
You will see from looking at the DR Database that quite often the 'Hi rez' version has a lower dynamic range than the CD version. This is because when it was re-mastered the engineer decided to add more compression. Hence the 'hi-rez' version is actually inferior to the CD version in that respect. You may still prefer the alternative mastering for other reasons (sounds crisper and cleaner than the CD mastering), but you would still prefer it even if it was only at 16/44.1 since being 'hi rez' in itself makes no audible difference.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 1, 2021 12:25:24 GMT
Seems there is some confusion over the term 'compression' here. The word has two meanings: Compression as applied in the studio during mixing and mastering - this reduces the dynamic range of the individual track or the mix as a whole. This is so you don't have to turn it up to hear the quiet bits and turn it down again when it gets to the loud parts. Also helps when listening in noisy environment like a car. Pretty much all recordings have some compression applied. Some have so much their effective dynamic range is 0db. No musical information is lost and it should be considered as 'artist's intention' however unpleasant it can be to listen to. Extreme use of compression gives a 'wall of sound' effect. Best referred to as 'dynamic compression' to distinguish it from I thought that was called "normalization" ? Crikey, i need to get in touch with my studio friend and see what the crack is. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 1, 2021 12:45:38 GMT
Normalization differs from dynamic range compression, which applies varying levels of gain over a recording to fit the level within a minimum and maximum range. Normalization adjusts the gain by a constant value across the entire recording.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 1, 2021 12:50:53 GMT
Normalization differs from dynamic range compression, which applies varying levels of gain over a recording to fit the level within a minimum and maximum range. Normalization adjusts the gain by a constant value across the entire recording. Yes, thats right! Ok, so is the DRdatabase the new digital bible for choosing the CD or download version? Looks like it may be |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 1, 2021 13:13:12 GMT
when hasn't it been?
thing is with most rock and pop there's not a massive amount of dynamic range in the music to begin with. So a few dB one way or the other will make little or no difference to the listening.
On the other hand different mastering can sound wildly different. Some re-masters are obviously cleaner, crisper and more 'hi-fi' sounding than the original. So even if the DR is lower it still might 'sound better.'
Personally, If I can, prefer to have the original as that is what was released 'at the time' and I'm a purist in that regard. But it doesn't massively bother me either way.
The important point to note is that the CD is an exact copy of the master or re-master, if the recording was done in 16/44.1 or on analogue tape - nothing is lost.
If the recording was done at higher sampling rate then the CD version is not an exact copy of the master. But it will contain all the audible information that was on the master and will be an exact copy up to 22 Khz.
Neither dynamic compression or normalization will change this in any way.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 1, 2021 13:33:18 GMT
when hasn't it been? thing is with most rock and pop there's not a massive amount of dynamic range in the music to begin with. So a few dB one way or the other will make little or no difference to the listening. On the other hand different mastering can sound wildly different. Some re-masters are obviously cleaner, crisper and more 'hi-fi' sounding than the original. So even if the DR is lower it still might 'sound better.' Personally, If I can, prefer to have the original as that is what was released 'at the time' and I'm a purist in that regard. But it doesn't massively bother me either way. The important point to note is that the CD is an exact copy of the master or re-master, if the recording was done in 16/44.1 or on analogue tape - nothing is lost. If the recording was done at higher sampling rate then the CD version is not an exact copy of the master. But it will contain all the audible information that was on the master and will be an exact copy up to 22 Khz. Neither dynamic compression or normalization will change this in any way. Well it's never been a bible for me as I wasn't aware of the digital world as I had no plans to dwell in it. It shall become a handbook now though. Although I suspect I won't become obsessed with it, it's definitely useful to know! |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 1, 2021 13:40:08 GMT
it is handy as some re-masters have diabolical levels of compression and will sound Sh#t on anything other than a crappy car stereo or 'earbuds'.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 1, 2021 13:44:17 GMT
Also the original releases are often cheaper too as they charge a premium for the re-masters and no-one wants the original cd release because they 'aren't hi-rez'/ 'sound thin'/ 'were made back when engineers didn't understand digital' / ''insert you're own idiotic, made-up reason here'
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 2, 2021 7:10:08 GMT
Been doing some reading on this subject and there is a lot of conflicting information.
Some (PS Audio) suggesting that the remasters ARE 24bit from old recordings because they have been "restored" to a new format. Then others saying if it was recorded in 16Bit, it can never have more bits.
If they are "restoring" or "repairing" as also was suggested, aren't they then actually manipulating what was recorded? Taking away from what was originally laid down?
Obviously, as it says above, this can be a good thing as some originals are shocking but how do we know what the original Bitrate was etc? It there a mastering Database?
This subject has raised more questions than i have answers for at the minute lol.
Vinyl is far simpler.....1st press if you can lol
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 2, 2021 7:37:10 GMT
bit rate is dynamic range. Sampling rate is frequency response. Maybe it is possible to take the original analogue tapes and clean them up digitally so the noise floor is reduced, that would increase bit rate/dynamic range over the original analogue release. I don't know about that. It isn't really relevant as you don't need more than 16 bits of dynamic range in any case. The absolute best dynamic range you can get with a vinyl lp is 13 bits - that's with everything optimal - the recording, the pressing, the playback system. Nobody ever complains about the dynamic range of vinyl and wishes it could be higher. yet 16 bits on CD isn't good enough? Lol. The most you can get with digital is 21 bits. That's the point where noise from components (resistors) starts to dominate and nothing can be done about that. 18 bits is about the max possible you can usefully use. I believe there are a handful of classical recordings that have 18 bit DR but in the real world it is irrelevant really. The marketing is aimed at mug punters who assume higher numbers = better. I wouldn't trust anything PS Audio say about anything. If they told me it was raining out I'd go to the window and check - they're salesmen trying to flog you stuff. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 2, 2021 7:43:01 GMT
bit rate is dynamic range. Sampling rate is frequency response. Maybe it is possible to take the original analogue tapes and clean them up digitally so the noise floor is reduced, that would increase bit rate/dynamic range over the original analogue release. I don't know about that. It isn't really relevant as you don't need more than 16 bits of dynamic range in any case. The absolute best dynamic range you can get with a vinyl lp is 13 bits - that's with everything optimal - the recording, the pressing, the playback system. Nobody ever complains about the dynamic range of vinyl and wishes it could be higher. yet 16 bits on CD isn't good enough? Lol. The most you can get with digital is 21 bits. That's the point where noise from components (resistors) starts to dominate and nothing can be done about that. 18 bits is about the max possible you can usefully use. I believe there are a handful of classical recordings that have 18 bit DR but in the real world it is irrelevant really. The marketing is aimed at mug punters who assume higher numbers = better. I wouldn't trust anything PS Audio say about anything. If they told me it was raining out I'd go to the window and check - they're salesmen trying to flog you stuff. I don't trust PS Audio. In fact their article is heavily conlflicting against most of the information i have read since, and some of that was Dr AIX who seems to know what he is on about. There always more to be learned in this hifi malarky. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 2, 2021 7:49:57 GMT
BTW the PS Audio Directstream DAC only manages a dynamic range of 15.3 bits. So it can't even exploit the theoretical limits of 16/44.1, let alone a 24 bit recording. But this doesn't actually make a blind bit of difference in the real world of actually listening to and appreciating music.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 2, 2021 7:57:45 GMT
BTW the PS Audio Directstream DAC only manages a dynamic range of 15.3 bits. So it can't even exploit the theoretical limits of 16/44.1, let alone a 24 bit recording. But this doesn't actually make a blind bit of difference in the real world of actually listening to and appreciating music. Very true. Well said. However, if i have the bits.....i want to try and hear them lol |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 2, 2021 8:02:36 GMT
There's noting wrong with trying to max out everything.
really though there is only one test of any complete system and that's if you like what it does or not. if you're drawn to it like an addict to a drug then you've got it right. if you find you're watching a lot of telly and hardly listening to any music, you got it wrong.
The trick is trying to work out why that is and how it relates to 'specs'. I've not managed it yet. Not sure anyone has.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 2, 2021 9:00:44 GMT
There's noting wrong with trying to max out everything. really though there is only one test of any complete system and that's if you like what it does or not. if you're drawn to it like an addict to a drug then you've got it right. if you find you're watching a lot of telly and hardly listening to any music, you got it wrong. The trick is trying to work out why that is and how it relates to 'specs'. I've not managed it yet. Not sure anyone has. YES! The measurements of equipment DO MATTER as they can unlock the reasons why we prefer some HiFi kit over others. It can also benefit the wallet when you build a system based on what you learn, rather than having a fanciful try of random gear. Although that has been great fun to do! The ultimate barometer of any equipment you try is your ears and the decision as to whether you like it or not is entirely personal. I have no issue with that and would never argue against someone's personally formed opinion on what they enjoy listening to. When an amplifier with 1% THD @1khz (or whatever) is described as "as transparant" as an amplifer with 0.00001% THD at 1KHz, i start to get a bit....fatigued. It isn't....the Science tells us this. I have seen a phonostage described as "highly accurate" recently. When in truth it suffers a severe rolloff in the treble (-3db @ 10kHz and –6dB @ 20kHz), has the low frequencies boosted (starting at 10Hz and peaking at +1.8dB @ 20Hz) and has poor high-frequency intermodulation numbers......It really isnt accurate at all. I have recently measured a £150 phonostage for accuracy, that blows this one out of the water. This one was here was not cheap. Think "family car" money. I prefer to listen to the more costly one, as it is superior in every other way, but you cannot tell me it's as accurate as the £150 unit, because it isnt! "THD+N:
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise (THD + N) is a measure of just how much effect the amplifier has on the sound. More distortion generally means more colouration to the sound. The lower this figure, the closer the output of the amplifier will sound to the original recording" I've suggested this as being the reason for an amp having a "warm" or "rosey" tint, but they throw out the "you don't listen to measurements" line at you......I have given up lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 10:10:25 GMT
You want to try some of those new fangled things the kids call 'vinyls'.
They're the same things as records and the old ones especially are far better than that computer generated imitation of music stuff. 😏
Just saying......
Only my not so humble opinion.
....I pay my funds , I can say what I want ! 😠
Bunch of twats y'are.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,063
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Mar 2, 2021 10:17:03 GMT
You want to try some of those new fangled things the kids call 'vinyls'. They're the same things as records and the old ones especially are far better than that computer generated imitation of music stuff. 😏 Just saying...... Only my not so humble opinion. ....I pay my funds , I can say what I want ! 😠 Bunch of twats y'are.   Outragous! I am taking delivery of a 2nd phonostage this week! We still love Vinyl, Eng....just loving digital too. In light of all the gender fluidity, i am coming out as "source-fluid"......sounds wrong? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 12:30:42 GMT
🤨
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Mar 2, 2021 12:42:25 GMT
There's noting wrong with trying to max out everything. really though there is only one test of any complete system and that's if you like what it does or not. if you're drawn to it like an addict to a drug then you've got it right. if you find you're watching a lot of telly and hardly listening to any music, you got it wrong. The trick is trying to work out why that is and how it relates to 'specs'. I've not managed it yet. Not sure anyone has. YES! The measurements of equipment DO MATTER as they can unlock the reasons why we prefer some HiFi kit over others. It can also benefit the wallet when you build a system based on what you learn, rather than having a fanciful try of random gear. Although that has been great fun to do! The ultimate barometer of any equipment you try is your ears and the decision as to whether you like it or not is entirely personal. I have no issue with that and would never argue against someone's personally formed opinion on what they enjoy listening to. When an amplifier with 1% THD @1khz (or whatever) is described as "as transparant" as an amplifer with 0.00001% THD at 1KHz, i start to get a bit....fatigued. It isn't....the Science tells us this. I have seen a phonostage described as "highly accurate" recently. When in truth it suffers a severe rolloff in the treble (-3db @ 10kHz and –6dB @ 20kHz), has the low frequencies boosted (starting at 10Hz and peaking at +1.8dB @ 20Hz) and has poor high-frequency intermodulation numbers......It really isnt accurate at all. I have recently measured a £150 phonostage for accuracy, that blows this one out of the water. This one was here was not cheap. Think "family car" money. I prefer to listen to the more costly one, as it is superior in every other way, but you cannot tell me it's as accurate as the £150 unit, because it isnt! "THD+N:
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise (THD + N) is a measure of just how much effect the amplifier has on the sound. More distortion generally means more colouration to the sound. The lower this figure, the closer the output of the amplifier will sound to the original recording" I've suggested this as being the reason for an amp having a "warm" or "rosey" tint, but they throw out the "you don't listen to measurements" line at you......I have given up lol Subjectivism is right when it says 'I like this' or 'I don't like this.' where it gets silly is extending that perfectly valid experience to technical matters. 'I like this so it must be accurate' or even worse 'it sounds like real instruments playing so it must be accurate.' Or listening to a system, enjoying it, and then randomly picking some technical aspect as a reason 'This DAC sounds better to me so it must have lower jitter.' I really don't understand that. By all means speculate but don't pronounce it as gospel. Especially when they follow it up with 'measurements mean nothing to me.' How can they be so sure of the technical reason for the good sound when they freely admit they know nothing about the technical side and don't want to know because they think it doesn't matter? Get the story straight! The problem with that is that manufacturers latch onto that and start bringing out equipment designed sell to the people who have convinced themselves that some technical aspect really matters when in reality it doesn't matter at all. Or it matters slightly but is eclipsed by other aspects that are far more important but which Joe Subjectivist has no knowledge of at all. IIRC this was one of Jez's major bugbears, and he's right. So the money gets spent on stuff that doesn't matter but can be used in the marketing guff and, as they are designing down to a price, the things that do matter get the corners cut. |
|
