As We See It

it always speaks through
certain gear to
certain ear

(more often than not
much worse compared to what
your average audiophile has got)

so is it nothing after all
that master says through to us all?

excellent. Hold the sriracha, please.

At one time some people were advocating for 'oil filled' capacitors in audio equipment .......... They did not specify whether they wanted olive oil or peanut oil or motor oil or crude oil .......... Anyway they were saying that the music will sound oily and 'liquid' :-) ...........

What should we put on French fries? ........... May be ketchup? :-) .........

What if the restaurant serves 'macho nachos'? ........... What then? :-) ...........

In all my years of hifi'ing, I have never had someone say, "I love this song! but it doesn't sound accurate."

"Accuracy" is an idea, an ideal for some, but it is hardly a de facto standard and it is hardly ever accurate. While a given component can be scrutinized on the test bench in isolation, there's no telling what people will hear once said specimen is inserted into their hifi in their room and asked to play their music.

Heaven forbid we dance!

Making the assumption that there needs be an either/or accurate/enjoyable debate when it comes to listening to music on a hifi is like telling someone they didn't truly taste their fine food in a fine restaurant because they picked the wrong wine.

"You enjoyed your dinner? Well you really didn't taste it ya know."

I think it best to keep our ideals out of other people's enjoyment.

Michael Lavorgna
Editor/Publisher
TwitteringMachines.com

All kidding aside a component that skews the playback towards a constantly irritating "type of sound" is of no interest to me.
Whether the system makes everything sound the same---boomy for instance.
OR the system ONLY likes delicate songs. OR real LOUD songs.
I lose interest.
However, what I call accuracy is a combination of things not just ONE thing, even "invisibility."
Its when instruments sound EXACTLY like real live instruments and VOICES sound EXACTLY like the person is "right there" singing it...
And the sound works with all GENRES of music. From rowdy rock to symphonic classical to delicate ethereal Celtic harp. Everything clear and everything in proportion.
And the sound has three dimensional solidity. No question as to WHERE the music is originating and how BIG it is.
Even mono can do that trick in a properly pressurized room set up for mono. Mono actually can be three dimensional too but I digress.
Anyway add up all these playback "features and benefits" and you get pretty close to describing what I demand from gear.
And technical proficiency is pretty much a constant in what my search has found to be "old reliable approaches that yield spectacular results."
In other words there is some sort of direct correlation between well designed circuits and well organized realistic sound.
On the test bench does not tell you what your own ears will hear.
But what "hears" well usually "tests" well.
Coincidence.?
Who knows.
My two cents.

..“accurate” is an euphemism being used by many an audio reviewer in order to account for certain expensive gear that somehow makes casual recordings sound considerably worse. Euphemisms tend to give way to more literal a description when the hardware in question is cheap enough to allow for the ugly truth to be told with no serious harm done.

My new NAD M32 amp offers, as JA said, a "clean, clear quality of sound." Starkly clean and clear. But I miss the interconnects that used to connect my DAC, pre-amp, and amp. I went for clean and clear there too, but sometimes, when the recording was old, dry, thin, and upper-midrange forward, I switched to a pair of DIY Furutechs that gave me a nice, fat, fuzzy, "forgiving" sound. I regret that I can't use those any more. My only "interconnect" is the coaxial digital cable I'm using, and the only choice there is between a good cable or a bad one. There are no different "flavors."

One step forward, two steps back?

it's mic, not mike. thank you.

I am finding that it is my hearing accuracy that is more problematic than the gear seems to be these days. No doubt there is better gear, mics, cables, DACs, and the recording storage medium, but even at 71 I can hear the improvements of 2496, but not so much 24192. I have yet to buy my Tascam DA 3000 and just into the DSD recording realm, but soon.

With my high frequency hearing way down I am more worried about finding the right speaker to off set this loss, but that is not around, and the processing necessary to do this also causes artifacts and is not totally clean. I do no more mastering of my recordings. I do make extensive use of FFT analysis for frequency trouble spots, especially if I do not see a noise floor of nearly -80db in my studio...live is another story, ambient noise being what it is. AC line noise plays a big part here.

I am finding that my hearing loss is more of a problem than any gear I own or could buy. I think more should start with a hearing test first, then worry about the gear and your room.

Like Jim Tavegia, I was a recording engineer, something like 20 or more years ago. Back then I already knew I had lost acuity in the upper partials [Thank You Neil Young], I'm sure it's worse now. But I suspect that's really beside the point as regards "accuracy" in sound. Back then I noticed that microphones were the single variable that determine the "color" of the sound, that everything afterwards, assuming minimal standards of self-noise [not a given], did not have nearly the impact on overall sound quality as did the microphones. System hierarchy starts with the performer, which explains why Caruso was the first million-seller. The room follows and is more important than the microphone. After the microphone it's the microphone preamp, then the recorder.

But in all cases [including working with better paid, more experienced and better equipped sound engineers] the difference between "reality" [the ultimate "accuracy"] and the recording was a bridge too far, that no recording on any gear ever equaled the original event.

During the last ten years I have been playing guitar with a group, playing old-timey country and other "folk" musics. There's usually a few violins in the mix. No recording I have heard of a violin has the "grit", the texture of the real thing. Standing in front of the violin section of the Berkeley Symphony Orchestra told me the same thing, but of course I heard more of the microphone feed back then than the real thing. I think people don't really like the sound of a real violin as much as the smoothed out, "easy listening" version of the fiddle, the more reverb the better. I suspect that any microphone will limit dynamics and mess with the time domain of the acoustic event. Certain microphones—say, the U-47?—dominate the sound. A whole lot of people love that sound, a sound that has little to do with reality.

I used to be one of the anti-digital folks, assuming that the sonic qualities of digital recordings were due to the "sound" of the recorder. Now I realize that the drier sound of the digital feed is also a reflection of the drier sound of the venues that music was being recorded in, that the smoothed out sound of "classic" analog recordings has a lot to do with tube and tape compression. And they don't make concert venues like they used to. Davies Hall is a long way from Carnegie Hall, and I'm not talking about the 'plane ride. But in any case, "audiophile" sound is not so much a reflection of reality as it is of the audio "taste" of the performers, engineers and consumers of recordings. Audio recordings are "Post-Reality".

The only way to get the perfect "nothing" is to play music instead of recordings.

"Perfection is not attainable ......... but ....... if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence" ......... Vince Lombardi :-) ...........

As far as I know (I could be wrong of course), we know of no component that perfectly reproduces the sound heard from live music, from the recording to playback. Obviously, there are multiple and varying pieces of equipment to accomplish what we hear from our systems. Since the goal of perfect reproduction is not yet possible, we can only go by what recorded product is presented to us. From there we can try to achieve perfection in what has been recorded, whether done well or not. Each piece of equipment is an entity unto itself. Once all of these components have been assembled, we hear the result. We can only hope that the mixture of what we have put together (not including the recording end of things) will sound what we THINK is the real thing, or close to it. With all of these variables in the equation (not to mention mood, your hearing at that time of day, etc.) we can only hope we have a reasonable approximation of what was recorded, intended by those who created the sound and all others involved. For all I know, again, as I am not close to being the perfect audiophile, the piece of equipment being auditioned may actually be compensating for other components, interconnects, etc, maybe all, in the system, despite perhaps not having "great" measurements. At the end of the day, if you THINK you have all of the requisite equipment to sound like an orchestral group or whatever your cup of tea is, great, and good for you. For others who aren't sure, or don't think they have the proper equipment to get the "perfect" sound, you may or may not be right, but also good for you! As long as you're enjoying what you hear and can sit back and be happy, who is to say what is being heard is not the closest to the original recording without having heard the original recording?

Regards,
Terry

Nothing on the beach, there's nothing better
But I like nothing when I’m wrapped in a sweater
Some day soon I'll make it mine
Then I'll have nothing all the time
I want nothing!

If I owned a Benchmark DAC I would be asking myself why it makes strings sound steely, piano sound unsubstantial and orchestra dead.
I would be wondering why this paragon of hi-tech digital to analogue conversion with it's textbook lab performance messes up the timbres of acoustic instruments.

When you say “JA said, ‘If this is a 'great' DAC, I'll have to hang up my measurements.’ I took this to mean Herb liked it, but JA's test rig did not.”

You and John Atkinson broke the first, and most cardinal rule, of all science and engineering: you began your investigation with an assumption (one that played directly into you own preexisting belief system) that products with higher levels of measured harmonic distortion are somehow less qualified to perform their intended function. (An assumption that was NOT validated in your own blind listening comparisons.)

Worse yet, JA tipped you off: breaking his own cardinal rule of separating his reviewers from his measurements – until after they have completed their listening tests.

Worse yet, you admitted these prejudice(s) up front: “Sure, why not? Go ahead and send me the DAC, I thought. I'd love to hear what something covered in audio fur sounds like.”

When I read this, my Berserker roots forced me to reach for my warhammer.

Before you even listened, you dismissed my 30+ years of experience trying to correlate audio measurements (hundreds of which I made myself) with what I noticed while playing recorded music. You dismiss the Boarder Patrol DAC by simply assuming it measured poorly and that my anecdotal experiences are somehow deficient – compared to yours.

Therefore, you began your listening sessions (and your As We See It) with the assumption that my intellect, experience, and listening acumen were less “accurate” than yours and less important than John’s measurements. As even JA might confirm: I do not report on what I “like” as you suggest, I do my best to describe only what I experienced using the review product for its intended purpose of reproducing recorded music in my home.

You began your AWSI with an assumption and a put down; then you continue with a dismissive boast putting down audiophiles you assume are less informed than yourself.

You wrote,
“I thought those amps sounded quite good," an audiophile will say.
I then have to ask, "Do you mean accurate good, or pleasing good?
"Both," they usually reply, implying that accuracy is always pleasing.
You continue,
“The BorderPatrol DAC SE was something else entirely. I gathered from JA's hints that it hadn't measured well. When it arrived, I tested it with some familiar and challenging recordings, which quickly revealed that, in terms of neutrality, it was far short of accurate good.”

When you say “accurate” do you mean you examined a music signal entering the BP DAC and compared it to the output? Neutral? What is your “neutral” reference DAC? An MSB? A Wavelength? A NOS Holo Spring? Those are mine. Or the Benchmark – which you (and John) have already admitted you favor?

Please then, direct mine, the aforementioned audiophiles, and the reader’s attention towards the objective part of your assessment……and while you are at it, tell us all how we can learn distinguish “accurate good” from “pleasing good.”

You state, “If at all possible, I want to hear something as close as possible to the master tape.”

Reason forces me to ask, WHICH master tape did you use? And, how will I recognize “close to the master tape” when I hear it?

In order to answer that question, I have purchased and studied at least 80 genuine (analogue) “master tapes” taken directly from the archives of RCA. Many of them I played back on the exact Ampex machines they were recorded on (which I also purchased). Virtually all of them sounded VERY “pleasing good” and therefore, by your definition, must ALSO have sounded accurate good. In truth, I can’t remember hearing too many bad sounding master tapes.

For my reviews I always use high-res “master” files supplied to me by the recordist for that purpose. When I finished my BP/BM comparison, I told JA about my own “alarming audiophile episode” with Macy Gray’s HDTracks album “Stripped,” wherein the BP DAC reproduced pretty much exactly what I heard sitting behind the binaural head at the former church in Greenpoint and the Benchmark DAC3 which did not even get close. It conspicuously stripped away a huge amounts of what I and David Chesky know is on the recording.

I use Chesky recording sessions to review headphones because I can compare what I hear live to the sound coming off the so-called “mike feed.” The Border Patrol DAC reproduced the church walls, the reverb, the positions on the floor where the musicians were standing, and all the subtle breathiness of Macy Gray’s voice. With the Benchmark, the majority of that information (which is definitely on the master file and appears via David’s $100K MSB DAC and via my Holo Spring DAC) disappeared !!! Your neutral DAC “stripped” away information that is unquestionably on the master file. Not to mention the BM DAC made it sound hard cold and harmonically threadbare. I call this subtractive distortion. Did you measure any of that?

My definition of accurate is: the DAC that makes a real piano in a real room sound the most like a real piano in a real room is the most accurate.

My definition of a neutral DAC is: the DAC that preserves the most information I know is on the file or tape.

What is yours?

Peace, love, and jangling keys,
herb

I know you know me and what sort of character I am and what I write - so I did not really take your words personally. Likewise I did not intend my response as a personal attack on you.

Surely, everyone knows I traffic in journalistic theatre. But! I felt I must respond to your unsubstantiated claims. It is not a "fact" that the device with the lowest THD numbers is the most accurate.It is not a fact that the Benchmark DAC preserves the pulsing bit packages better than the Border Patrol. If the DAC does not reproduce ALL of what is on the recording - it is distorting. I also know from my own investigations that subtractive distortion is a bigger joy-killer than "just right" amounts of additive 2nd harmonic distortion. My forthcoming First Watt SIT-3 review will shed some relevant Nelson Pass light on this very subject. Stay tuned. Meanwhile, I vote for more blind listening comparisons. Real audiophiles are not as lame as you suggest, and real engineers don't need measurements to 'prove' what they hear is correct. peace and holiday cheer, herb

"hear" very differently than human ears. But as you said,

"A live mic is a real baseline. Others may disagree with this suggestion, and the whole idea might make another good topic for us to explore together in a future article!" Lets do it!

How about you and I and John meet at some future Chesky session and report on our findings. There we can compare live analogue to ADC-DAC headphone feeds. Very interesting concept. hr

Not only is the reviewer demonstrably wrong -- literally everyone that has actual experience with the gear in question disagrees with his conclusions -- but his conclusions are impossible to differentiate from the expectations set by his employer and editor.

The facts are clear and confessed: The Editor sent a note to a reviewer that not only irretrievably biased the result, it violated the "cardinal rule" of audio reviewing. This is a stark admission of professional misconduct. What more is there to say? This AWSI, and the review that gave it rise, should never have been published.

I didn't miss that you preferred the BorderPatrol on several recordings and it's to your credit that you reported everything, including dropping your boss in it, but your conclusions don't make sense.

You conclude that the DAC that makes acoustic instruments sound the most realistic and life-like is coloured. That's just wrong, by definition.

You suggest that this is a result of a 'corrective colouration' in the BP DAC that somehow restores instrument timbre to acoustic instruments which makes it suit certain recordings whilst flattening others.

IF, that is the case then the converse must also be true. The colourations of the Benchmark, which Herb did a great job of describing, explain why it might better suit some studio recordings and why it fails with acoustic recordings.

In my almost 30-yrs in audio I have never encountered a product that can restore the timbre of acoustic instruments but I've heard many that can ruin it. The Benchmark DAC is one of them. The sounds it produces bear no relationship to the sounds we hear in real life. In addition to sounding hard, cold and harmonically threadbare as Herb says, the Benchmark DAC is heartless, soulless and machine-like. It sounds as though it was designed by people that measure and don't listen. Just an opinion of course.

At some point you and JA should ask yourselves whether the techniques used by Benchmark to achieve the 'textbook lab specs' might be responsible for its machine-like sound and why a DAC with a very simple conversion technique sounds more natural and live.

Check out JGH article "Who's right?: Accuracy or Musicality" in Stereophile :-) .............

if you substitute solid state vs. tubed or planars vs. dynamic vs horns or tape vs. vinyl vs. digital or belt drive vs. direct drive vs. idler or belden vs. fancy wire and all the other standard fixtures of debate. Herb-I hear you and side with you-you have every reason to be upset with some of the snide sideways compliments and frank put-downs inherent in Mr. Iverson's AWSI. I happen to believe that tempers don't flare in a vacuum-this is a continuum of some snide comments about your love for the PrimaLuna pre-amp. As a consumer and observer it is easy to see the obvious. Benchmark DAC owners have a marked history of fairly quickly becoming ex-owners. In a perfect world, JA would be forced to live with each product that he declares to be "engineered beyond criticism" for a solid year without any alternative. Only then would his world-view change. When reviewing turntables and cartridges, MF is fond of saying, "it's shortcomings are those of welcome omission vs. commission" or some such construct. In the context of budget analogue his saying has some merit but in the context of overall system verisimilitude it does not. There are thousands of analogies to be used; do you like your food bland or do you like it to have punch?; do you like your car to have predictable (and boring) understeer or do you prefer a more challenging enthusiast's driver's car?; do you prefer your women to look like Puritans or....

Your test equipment is welcome to visit me any time in the valley of the sun.

I was able to reconcile the issues with the Border Patrol DAC with one phone call yesterday.

properly directed and re-produced recorded music often sounds considerably better than the original messy live event.