Is there any science to back up these little feet

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

You are largely correct if you want to listen to pink noise for musical pleasure but the context of your statements was measurements. What do you think is in music as a signal for measurements that is not in pink noise? Or did you address this in your answer?

Yes, my answer addressed this. I remain to be convinced that measurements using pink noise are relevant to performance in real world conditions. They will, I am sure, be sufficient to show that the unit will operate satisfactorily, ie without faults, throughout the audio spectrum but I doubt the tests will be adequate to predict the entire working envelope of a unit, using real music. Nor whether it will fare better with madrigals than Return to Forever, or girl & guitar rather than thrash metal.

 

[h.g.]

but I doubt the tests will be adequate to predict the entire working envelope of a unit

But why do you doubt this? You clearly believe it is more challenging for home audio hardware to reproduce a musical signal at its output rather than a pink noise signal. Yet I am sure you will admit you don't know how the hardware works nor what is required to accurately reproduce pink noise or music. It would appear to be a matter faith that is sufficiently strong you disagree with those that I am fairly sure you would admit know more than you do about what is going on technically. With only feelings and no evidence or rational argument to support your position you go forward to fight the good fight on behalf of a set of beliefs invented to help shift a particular kind of luxury consumer goods. It is really quite weird if you step away and look at it. But interesting.

 

[sq225917]

I'd agree all that can reassure some people.

But you haven't answered my question...have you been able to tell the difference between this 16k DAC and another much cheaper one you also sell in a blind test?

The Weiss 202 dac sounds different to the Young dac, the Young is clearly more forward in the treble range and slightly less nuanced in the bass. It's not a huge difference, but once you've lived with the 202 the difference is obvious even blind.

 

[radamel]

The Weiss 202 dac sounds different to the Young dac, the Young is clearly more forward in the treble range and slightly less nuanced in the bass. It's not a huge difference, but once you've lived with the 202 the difference is obvious even blind.

I don't have any reason to doubt what you say.

But that's at odds with Purite's Keith often repeated idea that all properly engineered non valve oversampling DACs sound the same. So I must say I was rather interested in knowing if he could spot the differences in a blind test.

 

[BE718]

I might accept this if the measurements took place under real world usage conditions. Pink noise is not an exact substitute for a dynamic and rapidly changing musical signal, for instance. Do any measurements state that a music signal has been used, because if they do, I've never noticed. Similarly, a dummy load is not a substitute for a reactive and sometimes wildly varying loudspeaker impedance.

Ok, explain in a techinical sense and be specific about the test you are performing as to why a pink noise signal may not be relevant.

You are missing a very important point - the type of test signal is usually applied to help identify a specific thing in the measurement.

For example a pink noise signal can be a broadband signal. As it has content across a range of frequencies I used it to excite the speaker cabinet and this shows where the resonances are because those frequencies will get amplified. It has no need to be a music signal to perform that test, in fact a music signal may be highly ineffective at this function.

Same with a bump test, the impulse vibration signal is essentially a stimulus at all frequencies. This does the same as above.

What you have done in your post is actually display the "fear of the not understood technicality".

With respect its no good trying to comment on the validity of a technicality if you dont understand it, or what its trying to achieve.

 

[Werner]

I don't have any reason to doubt what you say.

But that's at odds with Purite's Keith often repeated idea that all properly engineered non valve oversampling DACs sound the same.

The often repeated idea is that all competently-engineered orthodox DACs sound very very similar. In fact so similar that in many applications the difference does not matter. That does not have to keep people from designing, manufacturing, selling, desiring, and buying expensive DACs.

For example a pink noise signal ... used it to excite the speaker cabinet and this shows where the resonances are because those frequencies will get amplified. It has no need to be a music signal to perform that test, in fact a music signal be be highly ineffective at this function.

Very true. And in here lies the reason that all too many hifi show demonstrators, and even 'music lovers' at home, revert to plinky plonky audiopheel jazz recordings. A type of music that generally fails to excite system resonances.

Similarly, a dummy load is not a substitute for a reactive and sometimes wildly varying loudspeaker impedance.

Any tester worth anything would of course use a known reactive dummy load, or even a range of loads. But the sad state is that the testers of the audio mags really are not worth much, otherwise this http://www.audiograph.se/ would be much more popular.

On the other hand ... 99.9% of the readers of said mags would not comprehend the output of such a thing. But back to the first hand: shouldn't the mags educate them then, instead of publishing old farts reporting that for the first time was heard that the left teacup in the third track of JATPS got two sugarcubes? thrown in?

 

[Joe Hutch]

On the other hand ... 99.9% of the readers of said mags would not comprehend the output of such a thing. But back to the first hand: shouldn't the mags educate them then, instead of publishing old farts reporting that for the first time was heard that the left teacup in the third track of JATPS got two sugarcubes? thrown in?

This is the fundamental problem. HiFi mags are these days are consumer/lifestyle publications. Their readers aren't interested in being 'educated', and, being cynical and with apologies in advance to Alan Sircom or other magazine editors who might be reading, an educated readership would be less likely to swallow some of the more extreme examples of reviewers' hyperbole.

I'll put my hands up here. I'm a know-nothing when it comes to the technical side of audio, and too lazy/stupid to do the reading necessary to correct that, so I personally would be less likely to buy a mag full of graphs and technical articles, rather than one full of nice pictures and polished prose.

 

[h.g.]

This is the fundamental problem. HiFi mags are these days are consumer/lifestyle publications. Their readers aren't interested in being 'educated', and, being cynical and with apologies in advance to Alan Sircom or other magazine editors who might be reading, an educated readership would be less likely to swallow some of the more extreme examples of reviewers' hyperbole.

Why is it a problem? The magazines serve an industry that creates products for people that are technically illiterate and proud to be technically illiterate. Good luck to them. Where is the problem if both sides are happy?

 

[whatsnext]

This is the fundamental problem. HiFi mags are these days are consumer/lifestyle publications. Their readers aren't interested in being 'educated', and, being cynical and with apologies in advance to Alan Sircom or other magazine editors who might be reading, an educated readership would be less likely to swallow some of the more extreme examples of reviewers' hyperbole.

I'll put my hands up here. I'm a know-nothing when it comes to the technical side of audio, and too lazy/stupid to do the reading necessary to correct that, so I personally would be less likely to buy a mag full of graphs and technical articles, rather than one full of nice pictures and polished prose.

As long as you or others of a similar ilk don't deride graphs out of your fear of/lack of understanding of what they might be saying (me no understandee)

Not that you yourself would Joe, you are too honest with yourself and others to resort to such dismissals

 

[Joe Hutch]

Why is it a problem? The magazines serve an industry that creates products for people that are technically illiterate and proud to be technically illiterate. Good luck to them. Where is the problem if both sides are happy?

OK; delete 'problem', insert 'issue'.

 

[h.g.]

OK; delete 'problem', insert 'issue'.

I cannot see it as much of an issue either unless you work at it. Magazines are written for a particular audience and if you are not in that audience (I am not) then it seems to me to be more of a simple fact rather than an issue. If a person wants to know about the technical side of home audio then there are plenty of resources around but hi-fi magazines are not one of them.

The only significant problem I can see is that the dumming down and loss of a reasonably independent press has lead to a situation where it is difficult for a consumer to reliably determine which products perform competently and which less so.