Testing audiophile claims and myths

[gregorio]

Graininess is often associated with peaky treble.

Yes, I’ve heard it described that way, also as distortion in the treble, modulation as 71dB stated or as some sort of resolution loss, all of which would be easily identifiable with objective measurements. However, the actual measurements of DACs but do not correlate with this “impression”, so either graininess must refer to something else or the “impression” is incorrect.

G

 

[2leftears]

I believe graininess of sound is mostly about the high frequencies being modulated by low(er) frequencies. Quantization error (no dither used) sounds grainy, because the quantization error is modulated by the signal and the high frequencies in the quantization error modulated by lower frequencies in the signal generate the "graininess." Steady 5 kHz sinusoidal harmonically distorted in a steady manner generates steady harmonics (10 kHz, 15 kHz, etc. depending on the distortion type). This makes the sound brighter rather than grainy. However, if the amplitude of the 5 kHz sinusoidal is modulated say by a 110 Hz sinusoidal, the harmonic components are also modulated by 110 Hz and this starts to sound grainy. Instead of 110 Hz sinusoidal, the modulating signal can be for example the bass frequencies in music including infrasonics!

Interesting; I also always associated "graininess" with (a) form of intermodulation distortion. I'm not sure if it really is intermodulation distortion, but what I would describe as "graininess" definitely feels like some kind of undesirable effect lower frequencies have on higher frequencies (presumably in a non-linear system, in a perfect linear system I shouldn't expect any issues I guess?)

It is something that always bothered me when my dad was playing vinyl records (his turntable setup was 'good', but far from top quality), and that "graininess" I hated disappeared the day he bought a CD player and started playing CDs (somewhere in the mid to late 80's).
Hence when I hear people talk about the "harsh"/"grainy" sound of early CD players/CDs compared to vinyl I am always a bit surprised, since my experience was the exact opposite, but of course this was coming from a good but not top-grade turntable setup (my dad's turntable was a DUAL CS601 with stock Shure V15/III-LM cartridge I believe, and he bought a DENON DCD-700 CD player (late 80's model, not the later 700AE) which to my ears sounded like a big improvement comparing e.g. Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms CD vs. vinyl record...)

 

[Vamp898]

I didn't notice this topic is about DAC.

I have heard a lot of Headphone/In-Ear with grainy treble, but never an DAC.

Even the Class D Walkman without an output snubber and pushed treble didn't sound grainy.

The old Walkman did, but that was due to (measurable) distortion in the Treble.

But that one did not have an DAC in the first place

 

[bigshot]

Audiophiles like to describe sounds as textures you can feel or some sort of filter you can see. I think just to be fair, we should describe the sound of headphones by the smell they evoke. "The high end has an astringent ammonia scent and the low end stinks of flatulence."

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Audiophiles like to describe sounds as textures you can feel or some sort of filter you can see. I think just to be fair, we should describe the sound of headphones by the smell they evoke. "The high end has an astringent ammonia scent and the low end stinks of flatulence."

I am also hearing a palate with hints of vanilla and ripe fruit, and some piquant splashes of citrus. The flute in this recording sounded with the depth of a shot of Glenfiddich. The trailing ends of tones are like the finish of Grey Goose.

 

[The Jester]

Similar to red wine ..
$200 a bottle vs a $100 a bottle … some say they can taste the difference .. and pay dearly for the privilege ..
$30 a bottle tastes just fine to others ..
Then $5 a bottle cause all red wine tastes the same …

 

[bigshot]

Compare high end audio to sports cars now.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Similar to red wine ..
$200 a bottle vs a $100 a bottle … some say they can taste the difference .. and pay dearly for the privilege ..
$30 a bottle tastes just fine to others ..
Then $5 a bottle cause all red wine tastes the same …

I personally find zinfandel delightful in smell and body. The difference is probably measurable in the chemical content, however easily that blend of compounds may be synthesized. As for preference, like with single origin chocolates, that's where I'd say things need not correlate with price and some things can be purely different or exclusive if not interesting rather than preferred. A bunch of whiskeys can taste rather similar, then Ardbeg and Lagavulin manage to give me something very different (note that I'm very early in this regard, only investing in individual shots while gradually exploring).

 

[The Jester]

It’s not the having,
It’s the getting …
Lol

 

[2leftears]

Audiophiles like to describe sounds as textures you can feel or some sort of filter you can see. I think just to be fair, we should describe the sound of headphones by the smell they evoke. "The high end has an astringent ammonia scent and the low end stinks of flatulence."

To be fair, that tendency to relate to other senses/experiences is not confined to the world of audiophiles.

Photographers in day-to-day conversation also talk about soft corners, velvety-smooth out of focus rendering, course texture, bubble-bokeh, swirly bokeh, washed-out, glow, vignetting, etc. They are generally not phrasing lens rendering in terms of technical attributes such as MTF at lpmm, over/under correction of spherical aberration, coma, degree of astigmatism, field curvature, field and image stops, etc, despite such measurements/attributes being available in theory. Only a small subset of lens-nuts like myself think about the latter...

 

[castleofargh]

I find the comparison insulting for photographers.

And BTW, I'm guessing grainy was probably stolen from film grain and misused. I don't see a valid reason to call something grainy in audio. My first thought about a grainy sound would be audible noise, but that's not what people use it for.
Maybe a vinyl you play after spraying grains of sand over it? I would get it if the result was identified as grainy sound.

 

[bigshot]

It’s because the sound sounds like “whole wheat”.

 

[2leftears]

I find the comparison insulting for photographers.

And BTW, I'm guessing grainy was probably stolen from film grain and misused. I don't see a valid reason to call something grainy in audio. My first thought about a grainy sound would be audible noise, but that's not what people use it for.
Maybe a vinyl you play after spraying grains of sand over it? I would get it if the result was identified as grainy sound.

Well, I'm both an amateur photographer as well as a lens-nut; as such I often make comments at my own expense...

And your hypothesis about the origins of "grainy" sounds plausible.

 

[gregorio]

To be fair, that tendency to relate to other senses/experiences is not confined to the world of audiophiles.

To be even more fair, it is not “confined to the world audiophiles” even within the world of audio! Audio engineers have been doing that for many decades; bright, warm, dull, harsh, muddy, boxy and coloured are just a few of many widely used terms, going back at least to the 1960’s and probably far earlier, that relate sound to senses other than hearing. This essentially provides a way to bridge the gap between scientific/audio terminology and musical terminology, thereby enabling the essential communication between engineers and musicians (and producers) who typically have little understanding of the realities of audio/sound properties. Musicians think in terms of pitch rather than frequency, loudness rather than decibels, note production rather than transients and envelopes, and many other examples besides. They have a rich vernacular/set of terminology of their own, going back 500 years or so (mainly in Italian) to describe feels/emotions, which is what they are trying to manipulate/elicit, and these musical terms rarely directly relate to an audio property.

G

 

[71 dB]

Well, I'm both an amateur photographer as well as a lens-nut; as such I often make comments at my own expense...

I am a lens-nut of a kind myself: I pay a lot of attention to what camera lenses are used in movies etc. I prefer wide lenses over long lenses, but both have their place and should be used creatively/effectively. Wide lenses make the picture have visual depth and in case of handheld camera the visuality more stable and calm. Long lenses and shaky camera creates restless visuality that becomes tiring to my eyes fast. Long lenses create easily "train station" effect and movie makers should be careful about that and if such effect is wanted/needed/beneficial in a certain scene of the movie. In all, I want the lenses (and camera angles/movements) chosen carefully to support the feel of the scenes and make the movie a pleasant/interesting visual experience.