4 ms·

I mention this on every "audiophile" thread, but there are a lot of data- and engineering-driven audiophiles. There are folks (and associated communities) out

I mention this on every "audiophile" thread, but there are a lot of data- and engineering-driven audiophiles. There are folks (and associated communities) out there with engineering backgrounds and sophisticated industry-standard measurement gear: AudioPrecision analyzers, GRAD headphone measurement rigs, Klippel NFS scanners. https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/ https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/ https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/ https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/ I realize it's fun to dunk on all of the "crazies" who are tweaking their sound with crystals or whatever, but they are the lunatic fringe. Ultimately it's not too different from a lot of industries. Of course, folks hawking their products make some ludicrous claims at times. Just like car ads promise you a happy life with your family and dog if you buy a Subaru or Ford or whatever, there are some wild claims about audio equipment at times. However, there's also a very solid bedrock of actual engineering going on that can be understood and appreciated. And in my experience that's how most people do this hobby.

inconceivable 4y ago
seems like salvaging the audiophile label is a lost cause. i think most people just call those types audio engineers now. maybe audio quant will become en vogue in the future. or audio data scientist.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I think "audio enthusiast" or "audio hobbyist" would probably be a good alternative. I am certainly enthusiastic about audio! However as a hobbyist it would be outrageous to call myself an audio engineer or scientist. Although, part of me I guess stupidly would like to reclaim "audiophile" as well.
- brandall10 4y ago
  I’m someone who spent 15 years on Head-fi before discovering Audio Science Review 5 years ago. I’ll admit it, I move away from using the term audiophile, it’s such a loaded term. That said, I still have a set of Buchardt A500s that measure anechoically flat down to 25hz. I paid $4500 for these. I also have a set of Shure KSE1200 that I tune to Harman with PEQ using my lifetime subscription to Roon. These were $1650 as an open box. Aspirational ASR setups using high end studio monitors can push $10k. I believe the owner of ASR has a system exceeding $30k. None of these purchases are within the realm of normal, they just have backing by measurements of being pretty great… things that matter in the service of verifiably good sound. It would be wonderful to snatch that term back. The objectivism in the audio space seems to be taking a bigger mindshare as the years roll on.
  - inconceivable 4y ago
    i dunno, that doesn't seem so bad compared to an i.e. sports car collection.
    - sagarm 4y ago
      This is exactly how I justify my relatively inexpensive hobbies! I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm not the only one...
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      You can also put together a really nice hifi system for a lot less than that. Assuming you're using digital sources... roughly $500 for a decent 2.0 setup, $1000 for a nice 2.1 setup, and $1500 for a nice 2.2 setup. Less if you have the ability and knowhow to shop the used market, although the used audio market for speakers and subwoofers is kind of a pain because shipping costs effectively limit you to local pickups. At that point you're comparing pretty favorably to a lot of things. Like a single generation of gaming on a specific console. And audio systems don't really become obsolete. They'll sound good for decades. Until capacitors leak and need to be replaced, same as any electronics. The $10K system will be a cut above (assuming you've chosen well - it's certainly possible to spend $10K and wind up with something mediocre) but the vague price range I mention above it IMHO where you start hitting diminishing returns.
      - govg 4y ago
        What would you suggest for the start of the range you mention? I have been quite happy with my Edifier 1280's and they were just 120 bucks. They get plenty loud and detailed and visitors always appreciate them. I do have a DAC /Amp and few open backs / IEMs but never really bothered with speakers since you can really only get the one.
        JohnBooty 4y ago
        I'll defer to Wirecutter here as they have always done a good job in my experience! Note that some of those bookshelf speakers will require a separate amp. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-bookshelf-speakers/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-bookshelf-sp... https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-speakers/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-spe... I'll also be a bit heretical here and suggest that EQ is important. Either in software, or with something like: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-speakers/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-spe... However... if you're happy with your current speakers, perhaps there's no reason to upgrade! A lot of the choices I've linked to above will come with an increase in size and/or complexity. And I think those Edifiers are pretty well regarded in general.
- officeplant 4y ago
  Audio-engineer: professional setting up live and studio environments. Audiophile: crackpot with a $2000 bundle of boutique digital audio player and headphone amp hooked up to some head cans worth more than my monthly income riding the subway.
smackeyacky 4y ago
The craziness isn't confined to the dirt box owning, crystal hanging, power conditioning nut jobs. It's actually the "OMG jitter" guys that ruin audio discussions everywhere, all the time.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I agree with your larger point that there can definitely be an overreliance on objective measures that are also objectively inaudible - like jitter, in just about any real world scenario. Another example is distortion. You've got guys obsessing over 120db SINAD vs. 110db when CD quality audio only has 96dB of dynamic range, the average room has a noise floor of 30-40dB, and the dynamic range of most recordings is like 30dB at most. I think ASR tends to have a fairly realistic view there; some guys just like chasing "engineering excellence" even if it's not audible and as long as they're realistic that's fine. (There's at least some small basic for reality there: distortion is cumulative along the audio chain, so if you want X dB of SINAD you need > X dB SINAD at each step of the way) But, I haven't seen folks obsessing about jitter too much in general. I believe that you've encountered it though!
dymax78 4y ago
Big fan of ASR and former HeadFi member (back when they actually had a sub-forum dedicated to measurements, data, and science). My only 'criticism' (and it's primarily directed at older reviews) would be Amir often using SINAD as a single metric to determine the quality of a product. I'd guess this was intentional, as a means to address how "convoluted" (aka batshit crazy) the hobby had/has(?) become, e.g. how you feel about your $1k audiophile switch is of no importance to anyone other than yourself.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  Yeah, I think that's true. For DACs he doesn't even listen to them. For DACs, I think SINAD (for those unfamiliar, this is equivalent to THD+N) really does tell something very close to the whole story. Call it 95%, 99%, 99.9%, whatever you will. The remaining N% is stuff we probably don't yet have reliable measurements for. I'm not saying it's magic and unmeasurable stuff, just that we don't have a solid set of measurements to capture it. For headphone amps, or DAC+amp combos, there are definitely things not well represented by SINAD. I think most of this is related to power delivery (which he does measure) and I think the rest is probably related to slew rate or something thereabouts. But that's just a wild-ass psuedo scientific guess on my part.
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    Unfortunately, your wild guess does not fit experience. Second partially true (as validated by intersubjective tests) guess is that the harmonic structure matters. It is a major component of the coloration, and funnily enough low non-tapering one is discernible from low tapering one despite what SINAD/THD graphs suggest. Amount is discernible too, especially of second and third harmonic, and total of higher harmonics, but we have not established the thresholds. And for lower harmonics, mostly at lower volumes unless it's a lot. Intermodulating injected ultrasound medium to high level garbage (as produced by some poorly implemented power supplies in bad PSRR amps) is sometimes detectable and tests tend to miss it. It also sounds different from just bad SINAD/IMD. Crossover distortion also sounds pretty bad especially at low volumes. AES researchers (Earl Geddes, Lidia Lee, 2003) tried for a better perceptually weighted harmonic and intermodulation distortion metric in the past. It went nowhere because industry always wins. Even that is only a part of the answer. And if the amplifier does outright clip, either in current or in voltage, that sounds just rough.
rodgerd 4y ago
ASR are absolutely not science-driven. See the thread where Amir tested a speaker, trashed it, when others couldn't reproduce the result fought with them, kept trashing it, fought with the designer, and then it turned out that the speaker was broken, quite likely in shipping with incorrect packaging. Amir refused to retract or correct the review. Similarstory with his review of a broken Anthem AVR.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  It sounds like you're describing some bad judgement calls. And I agree with you. I remember the ELAC speaker review you're referring to. In fact, a friend of mine had a friendly business relationship with the speaker designer. He spent (wasted) a lot of time doing damage control thanks to that review. And while the speaker designer remained professional and polite in public, I am told that he had some much spicier remarks in private as one would suspect. So I think Amir was quite wrong there. But I don't think some isolated bad calls mean that ASR is not science-driven. By and large, he gets it right and his contributions have been tremendous. We're talking about a handful of controversial moments... versus literally thousands of quality objective reviews and a real wealth of data.
- bobleeswagger 4y ago
  ASR aren't science driven because of two cherry picked examples? You can dislike Amir's methods, but you can't deny that he has transformed the audiophile space by just creating a website for his life passion and sharing his thoughts. I feel a lot better buying hardware that has been thoroughly tested by ASR. I've even sent Amir some gear to be measured, he's the best of the bunch.

inconceivable 4y ago

seems like salvaging the audiophile label is a lost cause. i think most people just call those types audio engineers now. maybe audio quant will become en vogue in the future. or audio data scientist.

JohnBooty 4y ago
I think "audio enthusiast" or "audio hobbyist" would probably be a good alternative. I am certainly enthusiastic about audio! However as a hobbyist it would be outrageous to call myself an audio engineer or scientist. Although, part of me I guess stupidly would like to reclaim "audiophile" as well.
brandall10 4y ago
I’m someone who spent 15 years on Head-fi before discovering Audio Science Review 5 years ago. I’ll admit it, I move away from using the term audiophile, it’s such a loaded term. That said, I still have a set of Buchardt A500s that measure anechoically flat down to 25hz. I paid $4500 for these. I also have a set of Shure KSE1200 that I tune to Harman with PEQ using my lifetime subscription to Roon. These were $1650 as an open box. Aspirational ASR setups using high end studio monitors can push $10k. I believe the owner of ASR has a system exceeding $30k. None of these purchases are within the realm of normal, they just have backing by measurements of being pretty great… things that matter in the service of verifiably good sound. It would be wonderful to snatch that term back. The objectivism in the audio space seems to be taking a bigger mindshare as the years roll on.
- inconceivable 4y ago
  i dunno, that doesn't seem so bad compared to an i.e. sports car collection.
  - sagarm 4y ago
    This is exactly how I justify my relatively inexpensive hobbies! I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm not the only one...
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    You can also put together a really nice hifi system for a lot less than that. Assuming you're using digital sources... roughly $500 for a decent 2.0 setup, $1000 for a nice 2.1 setup, and $1500 for a nice 2.2 setup. Less if you have the ability and knowhow to shop the used market, although the used audio market for speakers and subwoofers is kind of a pain because shipping costs effectively limit you to local pickups. At that point you're comparing pretty favorably to a lot of things. Like a single generation of gaming on a specific console. And audio systems don't really become obsolete. They'll sound good for decades. Until capacitors leak and need to be replaced, same as any electronics. The $10K system will be a cut above (assuming you've chosen well - it's certainly possible to spend $10K and wind up with something mediocre) but the vague price range I mention above it IMHO where you start hitting diminishing returns.
    - govg 4y ago
      What would you suggest for the start of the range you mention? I have been quite happy with my Edifier 1280's and they were just 120 bucks. They get plenty loud and detailed and visitors always appreciate them. I do have a DAC /Amp and few open backs / IEMs but never really bothered with speakers since you can really only get the one.
      - JohnBooty 4y ago
        I'll defer to Wirecutter here as they have always done a good job in my experience! Note that some of those bookshelf speakers will require a separate amp. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-bookshelf-speakers/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-bookshelf-sp... https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-speakers/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-spe... I'll also be a bit heretical here and suggest that EQ is important. Either in software, or with something like: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-speakers/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-computer-spe... However... if you're happy with your current speakers, perhaps there's no reason to upgrade! A lot of the choices I've linked to above will come with an increase in size and/or complexity. And I think those Edifiers are pretty well regarded in general.
officeplant 4y ago
Audio-engineer: professional setting up live and studio environments. Audiophile: crackpot with a $2000 bundle of boutique digital audio player and headphone amp hooked up to some head cans worth more than my monthly income riding the subway.

smackeyacky 4y ago

The craziness isn't confined to the dirt box owning, crystal hanging, power conditioning nut jobs. It's actually the "OMG jitter" guys that ruin audio discussions everywhere, all the time.

JohnBooty 4y ago
I agree with your larger point that there can definitely be an overreliance on objective measures that are also objectively inaudible - like jitter, in just about any real world scenario. Another example is distortion. You've got guys obsessing over 120db SINAD vs. 110db when CD quality audio only has 96dB of dynamic range, the average room has a noise floor of 30-40dB, and the dynamic range of most recordings is like 30dB at most. I think ASR tends to have a fairly realistic view there; some guys just like chasing "engineering excellence" even if it's not audible and as long as they're realistic that's fine. (There's at least some small basic for reality there: distortion is cumulative along the audio chain, so if you want X dB of SINAD you need > X dB SINAD at each step of the way) But, I haven't seen folks obsessing about jitter too much in general. I believe that you've encountered it though!

dymax78 4y ago

Big fan of ASR and former HeadFi member (back when they actually had a sub-forum dedicated to measurements, data, and science). My only 'criticism' (and it's primarily directed at older reviews) would be Amir often using SINAD as a single metric to determine the quality of a product. I'd guess this was intentional, as a means to address how "convoluted" (aka batshit crazy) the hobby had/has(?) become, e.g. how you feel about your $1k audiophile switch is of no importance to anyone other than yourself.

JohnBooty 4y ago
Yeah, I think that's true. For DACs he doesn't even listen to them. For DACs, I think SINAD (for those unfamiliar, this is equivalent to THD+N) really does tell something very close to the whole story. Call it 95%, 99%, 99.9%, whatever you will. The remaining N% is stuff we probably don't yet have reliable measurements for. I'm not saying it's magic and unmeasurable stuff, just that we don't have a solid set of measurements to capture it. For headphone amps, or DAC+amp combos, there are definitely things not well represented by SINAD. I think most of this is related to power delivery (which he does measure) and I think the rest is probably related to slew rate or something thereabouts. But that's just a wild-ass psuedo scientific guess on my part.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Unfortunately, your wild guess does not fit experience. Second partially true (as validated by intersubjective tests) guess is that the harmonic structure matters. It is a major component of the coloration, and funnily enough low non-tapering one is discernible from low tapering one despite what SINAD/THD graphs suggest. Amount is discernible too, especially of second and third harmonic, and total of higher harmonics, but we have not established the thresholds. And for lower harmonics, mostly at lower volumes unless it's a lot. Intermodulating injected ultrasound medium to high level garbage (as produced by some poorly implemented power supplies in bad PSRR amps) is sometimes detectable and tests tend to miss it. It also sounds different from just bad SINAD/IMD. Crossover distortion also sounds pretty bad especially at low volumes. AES researchers (Earl Geddes, Lidia Lee, 2003) tried for a better perceptually weighted harmonic and intermodulation distortion metric in the past. It went nowhere because industry always wins. Even that is only a part of the answer. And if the amplifier does outright clip, either in current or in voltage, that sounds just rough.

rodgerd 4y ago

ASR are absolutely not science-driven. See the thread where Amir tested a speaker, trashed it, when others couldn't reproduce the result fought with them, kept trashing it, fought with the designer, and then it turned out that the speaker was broken, quite likely in shipping with incorrect packaging. Amir refused to retract or correct the review. Similarstory with his review of a broken Anthem AVR.

JohnBooty 4y ago
It sounds like you're describing some bad judgement calls. And I agree with you. I remember the ELAC speaker review you're referring to. In fact, a friend of mine had a friendly business relationship with the speaker designer. He spent (wasted) a lot of time doing damage control thanks to that review. And while the speaker designer remained professional and polite in public, I am told that he had some much spicier remarks in private as one would suspect. So I think Amir was quite wrong there. But I don't think some isolated bad calls mean that ASR is not science-driven. By and large, he gets it right and his contributions have been tremendous. We're talking about a handful of controversial moments... versus literally thousands of quality objective reviews and a real wealth of data.
bobleeswagger 4y ago
ASR aren't science driven because of two cherry picked examples? You can dislike Amir's methods, but you can't deny that he has transformed the audiophile space by just creating a website for his life passion and sharing his thoughts. I feel a lot better buying hardware that has been thoroughly tested by ASR. I've even sent Amir some gear to be measured, he's the best of the bunch.