For this post, let's discuss a few other audiophile items that have come my way in recent weeks.
First, let's talk about something I haven't brought up for awhile now: sample rate conversion (SRC).
A few weeks ago, Spoon (a.k.a. Steven Elkins of Illustrate) sent me an E-mail about his new src.hydrogenaudio.org page evaluating and ranking the qualities of various software sample rate converters. I believe the page has been online since late 2025. Check out the forum discussion about the project as well.
As you can see in the screenshot above, settings using FFmpeg, dBpoweramp (new ARDFTSRC algorithm since Release 2025-11-12), and foobar2000 all rate very highly based on "Balanced" weightings with clean spectrograms, full bandwidth, low aliasing, low intermodulation, etc. With scores above 99.5% of ideal, this should be well beyond any Golden Ear listener's capabilities I suspect. 😉
It's nice to see some new tests like the "Gapless Sine" result. Click on the specific application/algorithm links on the page to have a look at the details like this for one of the SoX settings:
When reviewing these results, make sure to consider the performance score in context. These tests are very precise! For example, take a good look at the details like that gapless sine frequency plot above to appreciate just how microscopic the changes are between the SoX setting (left) and the ideal (right).
Another example of very small differences:
[Let's not forget that for years, we've also had the src.infinitewave.ca site with comparison graphs; still a great resource.]
[As usual, the whole MQA/Lenbrook saga including the most recent iteration with QRONO d2a, is very much about fooling around with digital filters as if there's something of audible significance worth spending money on. IMO, this is all very silly and should be put to rest.]
Along with launching the SRC comparison page, there have been updates to the Illustrate home page with Spoon's Audio Guide including articles on Audio Channels including common multichannel configurations, Bit Depth, and Sample Rate Conversion with more topics to come, I am told.
--------------------
For those interested in the history of audio, make sure to check out a couple of excellent articles recently published on Substack by my friend Frans Keylard hailing from Seattle:
The Other Father of MP3 - James D. Johnston "JJ"
Like with other technologies, it's tempting to imagine possible directions portable digital audio could have developed. Maybe somewhere in the multiverse, like on Earth-828, AT&T came out with something like this flash player shown above in 1998. It would have competed with the likes of the old Rio PMP300 before Y2K but using the more advanced AAC codec, standardized in 1997 with significantly better sound quality at lower bitrates, instead of MP3 (older, finalized in 1993).
Well, in this Earth timeline 🙂, the first Apple iPod was announced in late October 2001 and another notable early device was the Creative NOMAD Jukebox Zen released about a year later - I had fun with one of those as well.
Whether you like the company or not, Apple's successes and enduring effects on the music industry, the company's historical fingerprint on how portable music is consumed and marketed, have been monumental.
--------------------
Are measurements important?
Next, let's address a question/discussion I've seen asked online a number of times (like here recently) and one that audiophiles have written to me about with comments like:
"Come on Arch, you can't seriously think measurements are important!!! ..."(an audiophile from Miami)
Well, obviously after all the articles on this blog, I must be finding that measurements are important to understand audio device performance; otherwise I would not be wasting my time publishing graphs and results, right?
As an audiophile who appreciates high-fidelity reproduction, measurements are essential and definitely do correlate with audible sound quality; to think otherwise in 2026 is actually absurd to me after all that's been said, done, demonstrated and understood about the importance of even basic results like frequency response, room reverb time, effect between amps and speakers, even distortion to an extent!
However, I appreciate that the world is nuanced and we have our own perspectives. Permit me to offer a couple of different perspectives on that "Are measurements important?" idea.
From the perspective of art enjoyment, I would say that measurements are not important. We do not measure paintings like da Vinci, van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, DalÃ, Klimt, etc. to confirm enjoyment. Art itself is appreciated subjectively just as bottles of wine and favorite albums. Other than maybe measuring the dynamic range and comparing other qualities of different masterings of the same album, or appreciating the resolution differences among the analog and digital formats, I believe that as a music lover, an AM radio version of my favourite album will always be superior to the very best hi-res playback of anything from an artist I do not care for. A music lover does not need to read graphs nor care about technical specs.
However, from the perspective of an audiophile who wants high quality playback, measurements and specs are important. It's not the music itself, but rather the presentation of the music that is being quantified. A poor presentation is like experiencing the Mona Lisa behind thick plexiglass that obscures the view, standing far back, in a hot, stuffy, distracting room (as discussed). Measurements can tell us if the devices/system are performing to high quality, high fidelity standards, presented in a way that's unobscured in a comfortable, quiet room free from other distractions.
An end user audiophile might not want to do measurements him/herself. And they might not understand what the numbers mean or how to read a graph. But do not misconstrue the fact that some hobbyists do not understand nor care for measurements as measurements being meaningless! For every great sounding piece of gear, at some point in the design and production process, someone must have measured it and felt the quality was good enough to continue making the investment to create the final product.
I suspect that there are exceptions of course... Snake oil products probably aren't measured - or even measurable! For example, did Machina Dynamica measure their tweaks? Does Synergistic Research?
This then brings us to some basic reasons why measurements matter even for the non-engineering, non-audio-nerd consumer:
1. Measurements tell us if something is likely snake oil. Is there any value to this or that cable, tweak, or "upgrade"? What actually improved with the money spent?
2. They help confirm the specs advertised for the product. Are those speakers really capable of 35Hz-20kHz +/- 3dB frequency response? Is that DAC really capable of hi-res playback with dynamic range beyond 16-bits and with low jitter? Is that amp truly capable of 150W into 8-ohms <1% harmonic distortion? Third party measurements that can confirm advertised claims add to the trustworthiness of the company.
3. Measurements are essential for acoustic optimization. What's my room's ambient noise level (as per here, and here)? What's the reverb time of my room? did this or that acoustic treatment help? Did speaker/sub placement make things better? Are there nasty nulls and peaks I need to deal with - exactly where and how much? Has the DSP room correction improved or worsened the frequency and time-domain accuracy at my listening position?
Sure, one could just "use your ears" to listen and make sure it sounds at the very least "good enough" or even "great" and be happy with it. But beyond one's own satisfaction, subjective opinions communicate very little to others compared to using quantification techniques with actual data to understand and potentially improve upon.
4. Measurements can teach us to listen for high quality, high fidelity reproduction. There's a discipline to becoming a "trained listener" and measurements are part of that feedback process to help correlate the subjective and objective.
Suppose for years I've been listening to "colored" speakers, amps, source and convinced that a turntable with inevitable surface noise using US$5,000 speaker cables from some highly regarded brand is the best sound ever. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this viewpoint if I'm happy and enjoying my music. However, if I then go on a public forum and expressed the greatness of this system, I'm sure there will be some who agree with me, but I must be prepared for critiques. A high-fidelity (transparency-loving) audiophile is completely correct to come along and critique the LP surface noise, the non-flat frequency response, and the fact that I spent a lot of money on my questionable cable.
As much as I might not like to read the comments or see the graphs. As much as I might not want to feel intellectually a little embarrassed about the critique on the $5,000 cable because I followed the recommended "10%" cable cost for my $100,000 system. I must still acknowledge the facts, arguments, and challenges to my opinions. I must make sure not to unhealthily retreat into a kind of defensive "autistic fantasy".
Regardless of one's leanings, audiophiles are hobbyists who love engineered hardware. It's good to know the kind of sounds and even colorations we prefer if that adds to our enjoyment. But embrace objectivity as this is how we define high fidelity reproduction. Objective knowledge combined with personal experience is what leads to real wisdom rather than stumbling down the paths of the foolish.
[Speaking of foolishness, there is a multitude of snake oil salesmen out there, but few as "good" in what they do as these guys.
Apparently there is "beyond" grad level science embodied in these Synergistic Research products - all self-proclaimed of course 🤣. Also, check out this portion of the discussion on the use of AI. Phenomenally impressive post-doctorate level bullsh*tting:
This is what top-tier, high-grade snake oil discussions sound like, audiophiles! A great example of the niche confidence game shamelessly played through confabulation, jargon and gibberish, creating an "air" of knowledge to catch potential "marks".]
--------------------
The Absolute Sound's "objective" confusion...
One final discussion topic before wrapping up: have a look at this recent The Absolute Sound article "How The Absolute Sound Works – Incentives and Ethics".
Seriously? After all these years of discussing the difference between "subjective" and "objective", why is it that these guys either are unable to understand or perhaps more likely refusing to grasp the proper language to describe what they're doing?!
While this TAS article does not specifically addressing objectivity vs. subjectivity but rather the important issue of whether magazines are trustworthy and truly independent of Industry connections, Tom Martin claims (emphasis mine):
"Another misunderstanding for some readers and viewers is that we are “judging” the products we review, in the sense of proclaiming “better” and “worse”. That, however, is not the primary goal. Functionally, we want to help identify product that is interesting for you to investigate further. To do this, we focus on describing how each component sounds, using a reference of “the absolute sound” which is simply “the sound of real instruments and voices in a real space”. Each component will have distortions, and those distortions will be of different importance to different listeners. Therefore, we think you must be the “judge” of suitability for your sensitivities, system and music. We can objectively define the distortions, but you have to subjectively determine what is best for you. We think the standard we use is relevant to everyone, but the mix of particular errors or distortion that is best for you may not be the best for someone else."Let's put aside the specious idea that there's even an "absolute sound" that can ever be truly referenced when writing reviews.
"But nothing I’ve heard matches Theta anywhere near this price segment. At least, not yet. Kudos to Caelin Gabriel and Team Shunyata for bringing to market such a top-notch, category-busting wire for the rest of us. My highest recommendation."Is this not making a judgment that these ~US$1,000 cables comparatively are "better" than others that are thus necessarily "worse" at this price point which he also judges as cheap enough for "the rest of us"? Regardless of whether Tom Martin believes TAS reviewers are offering judgments, there is no other way for readers to interpret these words than as comparative judgments made by a supposed expert writer with experience! Without an ability to freely express critical judgment, what's the difference between a review and just another product announcement?
But the main issue I have with this article from Tom Martin, the CEO of this magazine, is he still doesn't seem to appreciate that TAS, as a purely subjectively-oriented magazine, cannot "objectively define the distortions" of what they're reviewing simply because they are not utilizing any objective means to evaluate! None of these TAS reviews I've seen in the last many years try to objectify device performance or quantify distortions in any meaningful way (including grossly speculative articles like this). None of these reviewers seem to have any way to show that even if they perceived "distortion", they're not simply expressing an opinion based on faulty ears, have ruled out interoperability issues (for example, how an amp being evaluated interacts with the reviewer's specific speakers), or that their opinion isn't merely based on bias due to sentiment towards a brand, the appearance, or their relationship to a company.
If the message in this article is truly representative of what they all believe, I think TAS lacks insight into what they're actually doing! Despite my disagreements with Stereophile (like this, and this), at least they acknowledge and explore performance from both sides. And this is why Stereophile has always been the superior audiophile publication - in my subjective opinion, of course.
Well, with the busyness of January and early February behind, I figured it was time for me and the family to head off for a short visit to San Francisco this coming week. Sadly, I haven't had a chance to explore the city in more than 20 years! Maybe I'll check out some audiophile stores while in town. 😉
Time for some parting music...
Westlife's version of "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" from Allow Us To Be Frank (2004, DR7):
And Nenad Vasilić's "Bass Drops" from Bass Room (2019, DR9):
No comments:
Post a Comment