This is just an extreme example, which came to mind in the spur of the moment. In no way is this inherently true but simply proposing a scenario where an objective ‘good’ can be a subjective ‘bad’ without the need to discredit one another.
While I am generally aligned with your consensus,
I believe it’s important to draw a distinction between the objective performance of a DAC and the subjective experience of the listener. Measurements provide a rigorous, empirical basis for evaluating the technical capabilities of a device—such as harmonic distortion, noise floor, and dynamic range—and serve as useful tools for comparing products under controlled, repeatable conditions. However, these metrics should not be conflated with the listener’s perceptual experience, assuming no external variables interfere.
Although the measurable differences in harmonic distortion among modern DACs often fall below the threshold of human audibility, they remain quantifiable and, therefore, valid for determining which product performs more accurately in an engineering sense. This underscores the fundamental distinction between performance—which is inherently quantifiable—and enjoyment, which is deeply personal and influenced by factors beyond the scope of measurements.
While this line of thinking might resemble the “measurement-first” philosophy, I am, in fact, quite the opposite. I believe that the subjective listening experience should ultimately take precedence in this hobby, even as the pursuit of technical perfection in DAC design continues to fascinate me from a more analytical standpoint.
You don’t seem interested in learning about perception science, so I don’t have much else to say. This is anything but audio “subjective.”
Follow your own path and enjoy it.
2 Likes
@generic —
Not everyone knows about your professional experience in perception science. It would be constructive to point to some of your more expansive posts in this area.
3 Likes
Check out these links regarding sound quality and measurements:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/if-it-sounds-good
I found them interesting.
1 Like
Sorry to hear you say this. But I understand.
Can you expound on this? Are you referring to listener fatigue?
This is not my experience. And the one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other.
I’ve found very close correlations between my enjoyment of gear and the measurements of that gear. And have provided some detailed examples of that on this forum (for headphones)… So no, I don’t agree that measurements are useless as a tool for assessing the enjoyment potential of your gear.
They shouldn’t be conflated. But the relationships between them also shouldn’t be ignored in my view.
There are some good thoughts in this, SSN757. And I also recommend taking a look at it. Especially for folks new to these kinds of discussions.
The Atkinson article isn’t totally on point for me. But I certainly respect John’s views and opinions as well. And I also understand where he is coming from.
I wonder if either of you read the article or cherry picked tidbits to support the self-validation, or better yet received it from a more influential friend blindly believing it supports your argument.
The irony is the author focuses on speaker measurements specifically! He also clearly states that the same cannot be applied to measurements of amplifiers and DACs to demonstrate any causation with satisfaction. The reason he states…..the objective views shared by listeners.
A note on transparency. I see that term being used quite a lot as the only attribute look at for a DAC. However I believe it is being thrown around in a narrow definition within the tolerances of D/A conversion, ergo the heavy narrow reliance on measurements,
While also being conflated with what many of use refer to as resolving, or more resolute of what is being heard. The obvious here being actual listening with actual music.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this assessment of the focus on”transparency” measurement.
Some tidbits for clarification:
1)
The context is this researcher, who a few have referenced several times to portray him as the omnipotent one initially considered; fidelity to the performance, and to the sound of live instruments was the most important thing
He should have stuck with this, most music lovers I know including myself enjoy the hell out of attending live performances as nothing can recreate the magic o4 the misery of an evening with an artist one loves. We hear live instruments, we become familiar with how they should sound, especially attending orchestral performances. Talk about “transparency” ain’t nothing getting close to that.
Now that’s not how I base my criteria in choosing gear, perhaps 20% is due to live performance experiences, 40% is how the music made me feel when I listened to it the first time, and whatever I used was likely inadequate such as Walkman, car stereo, or a boombox with detachable speakers all on cassette tape. I know blasphemy, it’s okay I transitioned to CDs shortly after and set up a nice modest 2 channel system to sit back and enjoy. That leaves 20% for the mood I am in, oh yes if a song or album elicits an enhancement or the opposite of my current mood then all bets are off. Now the final 20%, experimentation with gear to listen and learn how the different brands, types, design approaches can sum all parts for a truly aural sensation .
Attempting to focus on the artists intent as to what they heard in the recording studio is damn hard. Imagine the time, money, travel, to interview every artist in your music library to understand their intent, or how they heard it in the studio. I got a shortcut for this, and will disclose if you ask me kindly.
I will repeat an early question I had which went unanswered last weekend; do you folks listen to music and let the music play, or do you spend more time listening to measurements rather than music as this self-validation argument approach provides insight that you spend more time on the latter rather than enjoying the beauty and art of listening.
C’est La vie
2 Likes
Thank you @Roark. Well said if poorly copy edited. Don’t change a thing. I laughed at the “misery” of live performances. Having a seat too far to the side. That annoying drunk girl. Tall dude in front.
But I always suggest that people endure that misery and listen to live music, particularly non amplified music. We have all been to too loud concerts and halls with bad acoustics.
My take on measurements is simple:
Measurements may be useful in determining if something is wrong
I have never had a measurement that could tell me if something is right.
Talking about audio equipment of course. Automotive is different. I had a timing light that was just dandy. And then there is the famous 36-24-36.
1 Like
Of course I read the articles. That’s why I bloody well posted it. There were many good points made. Whether people agree with it or not is up to each individual. Put 12 audiophiles in a room to evaluate a given setup, and expect to get 13 varying opinions. That’s the nature of the beast.
Regarding transparency, the term “natural” could easily be substituted. Does a horn sound like a horn? Does a cello sound like a cello? That to me is what transparent or natural means.
Where to me things get interesting is not so much when evaluating a given two or more DACs within the same system, instead, take the same DACs, evaluate the DAC’s with two different headphone amps, and one could perhaps notice differences in sound. In other words, the synergy between the DAC and different headphone amps could cause the listener to notice a difference. One DAC could have better synergy between headphone amps than another DAC, which could get missed if changing out DACs with the same playback setup.
Agree that live performances are indeed the holy grail of music enjoyment.
I do remember reading about Paul Klipsch conducting a test between a live performance and the Klipschorn, and people were not able to easily to tell the difference.
1 Like
Not at all wanting to start an argument here, but I wonder if a person’s enjoyment of something they know measures well (in an engineering sense) is a kind of confirmation bias? i.e. if it doesn’t measure well, then the listener is incapable of enjoying it because it doesn’t measure well? Does the listener enjoy it because it measures well in spite of one’s ears (at least to some degree)? I agree that subjective and objective enjoyment are often are different animals, but I guess that personally I fall into the category of “If it sounds good to you (regardless of the reasons why), then go ahead and enjoy the hell out of it!” The objective measurements are useful to me to weed out poorly designed, bad sounding equipment, or a very poor cost/performance ratio. I have limited time (and very limited funds) and no ready access to stores that stock a variety of equipment for audition; so that ‘weeding out’ is quite useful. Once I have found units that sound equally good to me (i.e. I like them but I can’t really tell that one is better sounding than the other), then I look at other subjective things: form factor, convenience, price, and (these days) country of origin. I guess I am saying that in the end for me, my ears trump measurements. As always, YMMV
4 Likes
Hard to argue your approach. The number one point is that if the user likes and enjoys their setup, that’s what matters,
The argument about measurements is not easy to quantify. What exactly is a poor measurement these days? There are very few modern audio components that truly measure poorly, especially when it comes to digital.
The intent of this thread was to point out that DAC’s have advanced to the point that one does not need to spend a large sum of funds on the DAC portion of the headphone setup to get great sound. Finding headphones that meet your needs, and providing them with a quality amp to drive them, provides the best bang for the money.
1 Like
DACs have reached a perceptibly perfect level of performance already a number of years ago
Who do you define a “quality amp”?
Torben
Nothing is perfect, including the level of performance with DACs. Agreed that DAC’s have gotten to the point where its difficult to discern differences with DAC playback.
Not who, but what defines a quality headphone amp? I think it’s largely self explanatory. The headphone amp needs to be a optimum match to drive the headphones. Headphones have a wide variety of impedance and power requirements. What works well for a sensitive low impedance headphone may not work as well with a high impedance headphone.
1 Like
Err…that’s one of the oddest things I’ve ever read in a discussion of audio.
I ask in all seriousness, you find a very close correlation in your preference for 0.00001% distortion over 0.0001% distortion? What is the point of diminishing returns in these very close correlations? Have you heard the infamously poorly measuring and often mocked Bottlehead Crack tube amp, where even Saint Amir of Objectivity didn’t hate its sound? When and where do these correlations fall apart? Is there a limit to the improvements you feel with measurements, or are (nominally) better measurements always more enjoyable?
You’d likely be very unhappy listening to my Decware tube amp, as its SNR is only 86dB, even though it caused me to turn off and rarely use my solid state RebelAmp (SNR = 114.8dB; THD = 0.00018%). I loved the Rebel until I got the Zen Taboo Mk 4. Furthermore, Decware argues that lowering THD backfires:
Ironically the very thing that works to destroy an amplifiers transparency improves it’s specifications on paper by lowering total harmonic distortion.
WHICH measurements matter to you? WHICH measurements cause you so much enjoyment?
Enjoyment can come from having a stereo setup per its price tag, massive size, or style (e.g., Oswald Mill Audio at the link; also see McIntosh amps, etc.). Or, enjoyment can come from intellectualizing about measurements and technology. With the car hobby this is known as being a gearhead – some guys spend all day in the shop and never drive their cars. They leave it up to others to assess real-world performance such as speed and handling.
I’d LOVE to give you some blind tests with false measurements.
Biases biases – everyone gets a different bias if they want one.
4 Likes
I saw this, but I haven’t had the time to dig up some of my old comments. Here is some (semi) relevant stuff:
I hope I still agree with myself. 
2 Likes
I did stumble on one item that is improving the sound from my audio playback systems. When playing back CD quality files via Foobar 2000 using PGGB-RT Real Time Upsampling, the results are remarkable. Every aspect of the sound is improved. It is amazing just how well this update for foobar 2000 works. This will motivate me to continue to transfer my CD collection to USB sticks and use that to play music back via foobar 2000.