[gregorio]

[1] I think this is the entire crux of the discussion here so far in this thread. [2] The arguments are really about the limits of human perception, and whether bench measures completely define and are an adequate proxy for “audible perfection”.

1. I agree, this is the crux of the matter, namely that you are making up an incorrect/fallacious argument and then arguing that fallacy! Because:
2. No, they are not! The arguments are about the performance of DACs, other electronic components and audio signals, none of which have any human perception and therefore we obviously cannot measure any. Your assertion is both false AND a red herring, how can “the arguments really be about the limits of human perception” when human perception doesn’t have any limits? Or rather, the only limits of human perception are what you are capable of imagining. You saw the McGurk Effect video a few pages back right? My human perception makes a pretty huge difference out of demonstrably no difference whatsoever. The difference between the “Baa” and the “Faa” is not only below the threshold of audibility, it doesn’t exist at all, there is no “Faa” there is only “Baa”. So you tell me, what “bench measures” do you think we can run on a DAC, other electronic components or an audio signal to measure that difference between the “Baa” and “Faa” which is well within “the limits of human perception”? Don’t you see that it’s absurd? And therefore:

So you are suggesting here that IMD and other types of distortion in analog circuits cannot change a listener’s perception of “timing”, or the ordering of notes in music as they are presented to the listener in time (and space from two speakers for that matter, which was the original question for this thread)? Put another way, you maintain that jitter is the only relevant measure of DAC performance that affects a listener’s perception of musical pace, rhythm and timing?

These are absurd questions, no one can answer what can and cannot “affect/change a listener’s perception” because as the McGurk Effect and various other examples prove, no audio or sonic difference whatsoever can still affect/change a listener’s perception. What we can say is that timing errors/deviations in the digital domain is defined by jitter and IMD and other distortions in the analogue section of any competently designed DAC will not have any effect on timing and is way below audibility! BTW, “pace, rhythm and timing” are effectively all the same thing, timing.

G

 

[The Jester]

Interesting views at both extremes, in the end “soundstage” is created by a number of factors and enhanced or diminished by any one of them, speakers correctly placed in a reasonable room that’s neither too “bright” or “dead” and Chanel separation is a good starting point, after that look at the speakers themselves in relation to time alignment of the drivers, that’s achieved either physically in cabinet design or electronically in crossover design, cabinets can be modular but home aesthetic considerations are sometimes a limiting factor, or phase considerations with crossover design while still presenting an acceptable load to the amplifier, the rest of the system only needs to preserve the discrete perceptual clues that have hopefully been preserved or created in the recording and mixing, studio recordings are mainly created with the option of multiple Mic placement hooked back to the control unit and then “assembled” similar to an artist having discrete colours on a palette and creating a finished work, and similar to an artist they can be abstract, impressionist or almost photorealistic, final result is up to the artist, or the opinions of those it was created for,
Once done it’s the job of the recorded medium to be played back as accurately as possible with minimal effect on things like phase, timing accuracy and group delay that the human auditory system can use to perceive direction and distance which is in effect the “soundstage” … given that’s a human perception of discrete clues I don’t see any way of a qualitative measurement, just minimising everything possible whether or not it’s deemed to be within basic thresholds of audibility
Seems pure science is a little bit lacking when discussing “Sound Science” … limiting things we can accurately measure relatively easily vs some that are much harder or so far impossible …
Look at Astrophysics and the recent debate over “dark matter”, an interesting name given because it can’t be detected or measured but most think it’s real because of the unexplained effects on other things ….. even then anyone can accurately “record” it, just point a camera anywhere in space on a dark night and you have a photo of dark matter, but you still can’t see it or measure it.

 

[Whazzzup]

meanwhile on planet one, amplifier differences are observed. For me among several differences are the imaging and soundstage characteristics. sure the dynamic extension of the low end, but secret sauce seems to also be in the mids.

 

[bigshot]

Nope. See the link in my sig file to the Stereo Review test.

 

[The Jester]

Nope. See the link in my sig file to the Stereo Review test.

I’ll read anything of interest, so I did ….
A test/review approaching 40 years old can still be relevant, sadly the speakers used make it largely irrelevant as they are well known for having a simple resistive load of 3-4 Ohms, could’ve done the same thing on a test bench with fixed resistors with a lot less time and effort for similar results,
could quite well be a totally different outcome with a more “conventional” speaker with voice coils and crossovers having much more reactance, either the author knew this and used it to backup the view that all amps do sound the same, or worse still, he didn’t …

 

[bigshot]

If the differences are so clear, why don't they show up in tests? It's easy to just nitpick testing procedure, but people are claiming to hear differences without any controls whatsoever. Wouldn't differences on that scale show up in just about any kind of controlled test, even one that doesn't meet your standards? If Stereo Review isn't good enough and it would be less time and effort to do the test the way you suggest, wouldn't it be easy for you to set up your own level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison with multiple trials and find out for yourself whether amps sound different or not? Then you would know for sure. I've done my own testing and I know for myself. I'm not going to ask you to accept my findings if Stereo Review isn't good enough for you. I'd suggest you test for yourself because everything I've found out points to amps being transparent when they are correctly set up.

 

[The Jester]

I just saw the “read this” in your post and with a little free time and a coffee I did, for the reasons I stated it’s not the shining example of “all amps sounding the same” …
Maybe there’s better examples to offer up is all I’m saying …. Just an opinion on reading the article .

 

[bigshot]

If you want a better example, I'd suggest looking at the Audio Myths thread and doing some googling.

 

[The Jester]

Already followed one of your suggestions,
Bit of Google and opinions are divided especially since the early Class D amps came along, seems the newer versions have overcome any of the issues involved, guess a lot can happen since the 80’s ….
Slight change of tack and maybe the future of amps and speakers, read a little about the KEF LS60, slim 3 way tower with their UniQ mid/treble driver and 4 side mounted woofers to form a point source, interesting part is they are active, digital inputs with crossovers feeding discrete amps matched to the bass, mid and treble drivers along with software driven room EQ adjustments, not exactly cheap but with digital inputs including HDMI all that’s needed for stereo operation is a source, streamer, Cd player etc as well as a built in ADC for an analogue input for a turntable if required,
Seems ideal for someone starting a system from scratch with the latest tech ….. and at least worth a listen .,,

 

[bigshot]

Did you find ABX tests? Share them here if you do. That’s more useful than summaries.

I have those KEF speakers with the nested drivers. The thing I like about them is that they are clean loud and they have very broad dispersion. I use them for my rears. Haven’t noticed any imaging difference, except that the form a good phantom center when they are wide apart.

 

[The Jester]

Doesn’t seem much out there, plenty of highly subjective comparisons but few if any structured tests so far,
You have the LS60 floor standers as rear surrounds ?
How are you driving them ?

 

[KinGensai]

Look at Astrophysics and the recent debate over “dark matter”, an interesting name given because it can’t be detected or measured but most think it’s real because of the unexplained effects on other things ….. even then anyone can accurately “record” it, just point a camera anywhere in space on a dark night and you have a photo of dark matter, but you still can’t see it or measure it.

I don't agree on dark matter being immeasurable. Existence can be measured by direct and indirect effects on the space-time continuum, and effects must have a causative origin. Every phenomenon therefore must be practically or theoretically measurable. Sound stage is the same, the theoretically measurable part is the nonclassic auditory pathway's interaction with an aural stimulus, outside of that is practically measurable.

 

[Davesrose]

I don't agree on dark matter being immeasurable. Existence can be measured by direct and indirect effects on the space-time continuum, and effects must have a causative origin. Every phenomenon therefore must be practically or theoretically measurable. Sound stage is the same, the theoretically measurable part is the nonclassic auditory pathway's interaction with an aural stimulus, outside of that is practically measurable.

In scientific models we may have to accept a range that gets to infinity (and then out of bounds of practical measurement). Classic examples for reproducing soundstage don’t need to consider such things, as sound reflections are included in each source channel. I wonder if software for 3D audio simulation (rendering for 3D speaker or headphone) might eventually have something more sophisticated. Or perhaps it’s already here with Dolby Surround and DTS:Neural remapping stereo/5.1 content to 3D. Conceptually, sound can have some of the same dynamics as light: for rendering photorealistic animation, raytracing has been utilized for quite a few years. It used to be used more sparingly when hardware was more limited and it would take considerably longer to render. But it is an example of a computer simulation in which it takes a light source and casts rays to figure how it bounces with different orders on different surfaces (compounded also if surfaces are semi-opaque and there’s consideration for refraction). All of this is more complicated than what audio needs: objects for audio are positional to the current sound field- there doesn’t need to be modeling about a sound source that’s blocked by some other object.

 

[KinGensai]

All of this is more complicated than what audio needs: objects for audio are positional to the current sound field- there doesn’t need to be modeling about a sound source that’s blocked by some other object.

Maybe not for non-interactive media, but game audio does need to factor in occlusion if audio is going to be a gameplay element. Some shovelware games have primitive audio like that, but audio engines for high production games like FMOD or Wwise simulate environmental effects like that.

 

[Davesrose]

Maybe not for non-interactive media, but game audio does need to factor in occlusion if audio is going to be a gameplay element. Some shovelware games have primitive audio like that, but audio engines for high production games like FMOD or Wwise simulate environmental effects like that.

I wasn’t thinking about games (which also push the limits of real time hardware raytracing). From a practice method, wonder how different Microsoft (which has Dolby Atmos API) vs Sony (which has their own proprietary API) really are.