I agree entirely with both of you, and Mon, I knew exactly what you meant!
I do believe that measurements have some worth. Those measurements told me that there isnāt any remotely audible noise. It told me that channel matching is good, and that performance doesnāt change much with the signal modulation (volume). And that distortion artifacts are inaudible also. Of course that is probably true of many If not most quality dacs. This is where some of the ASR-inatti start to lose their high ground. They will proclaim one inaudible measurement superior to another inaudible measurement.
I didnāt mean to turn this into one of those endless objectivist vs subjectivist things. Especially since I donāt belong in either camp (or maybe both!).
I wonāt ignore carefully measured data. Iām also not confident that there arent things that are missed by the current set of measurements. Especially once you throw in additional variables of the signal chain and how they all work together.
And believe it or not, these measurements pushed me to order an Ares. Iāll report back in April!!!
Exactly, you should be in the middle, you use measurements to complement your real world experience, not use measurements to supplement experience. You use measurements to make sure nothing is glaringly wrong and that everything in your setup will work nicely, and even at times perhaps predict what something might sound like (although I donāt suggest doing this). Subjective for everything else
Easy answer for an engineer.
In the workplace and much of life, you get what you reward.
Noise floor, SNR or SINAD are trivially measurable single metrics that you can use to define success in your job.
Now imagine the engineer whoās given the task to design an amp that sounds better than the RNHP, how do you measure success if the whole premise is subjective?
Thatās not a situation most engineers want to be in, especially if their bonuses depend on the metrics.
To do that sort of work requires a company culture that supports it.
There is a really good interview with Nelson Pass on Steve Gutenburgs channel where he covers some of how it was done at Pass Labs. They would make up multiple amplifiers in identical cases and have one of there employees (who was considered to have a very good ear) take them home and listen for extended periods. Heās occasional put two of the same amplifier in the test as a way to validate the opinions.
This is a problem in non-engineering situations also. Iāve encountered many situations where āmanaging to the metricā doesnāt result in overall success. [To be fair it often can produce good results.] It does, however, always provide directors and their VPs something to point to during their annual reviews and say āI believe weāre making progress. Here, here and here!ā
This is a great practice, imo! Itās using an objective process to produce subjective excellence.
Just had this conversation with my AVP yesterday as Iām in the middle of goal setting for 2020. Some goals canāt be measured in conventional ways but it doesnāt mean theyāre not good goals. The short answer to your question is sales.
The ultimate measure of success is how well did it sell.
I work for the commercial arm of my large corporation and of course this is where the rubber meets the road, of course. However Iām always encountering situations where lots of teams with poor sales have good metrics. Process metrics and goals have to align with real world success, and it often doesnāt work out that way. The problem? Some of the practices that produce success canāt be measured.
Yes sales is always a good fallback, but even itās not always a good metric.
Relying on sales alone means that sites like ASR get undue influence because of the large membership.
I think innovative companies and good managers include metrics but look longer term, an see past pure metrics.
Metrics clearly have a place in management, but they can be very dangerous.
I worked in Bing for a while at one point (not directly on search), they introduced a metric that measured the difference in the quality of their search results and Googleās, it led to a very rapid closing of the gap, even with the much smaller index they had at the time.
As the results approached parity, the same metric basically prevented innovation, teams were assessed every 6 months on a single metric, if you couldnāt move the needle you didnāt get your bonus, so teams refused to take external dependencies that would risk their 6 month measurement cycle and were excessively conservative in what they would try.
Which was my argument. Itās frustrating to propose a goal that you know you can hit because customers are telling you they want that yet since it canāt be measured thereās push back on the viability of it as a goal.
Thatās ultimately why I mention sales in lieu of those tangible metrics. Getting this back on trackā¦ R-2R DACs seem to be rich in that intangible yet very real substance that people like yet donāt do well when measured. R-2R DACS seem to be the digital counterpart to class A tube amps.
To be fair, Iām a member of ASR and Iād like to think Iām a rational person.
That being said, most of the ASR site members are measurement worshippers who need to learn that most of those measurement methods used by Amir are completely inaudible.
The best contribution that ASR has provided is transparency as far as price to performance considerations. Even this contribution is one that ASR doesnāt own to itself, but boy do some of them act that way.
Bottom line: I have always believed that measurements are a good thingā¦but the variable that is being measured and how itās being measured are what is most important. If you have to spend more than a few sentences explaining your measurements, your method of measuring is either way too specific or niche to be valuable, or those measurements are not detailed enough to have any added value to itās core readers. ASR is a prime example of a Group Think mentality.
Lol, Iāve been a fan of The Pink Panther since childhood, so that is a sentimental bias for me. Amirā¦tugging at my childhood heartstringsā¦but that canāt be quantified and measured, so eff me right, lol?
Yeah, I guess what bothered me the mostā¦ is going through that threadā¦ someone came in there and decided to describe the sound of the Ares 2 in more āfluffy audiophile termsāā¦ and then a number of people jumped on the guy, putting him down and being just plain awful.
I find the audiophile fluff stuff to be plenty silly at timeā¦ but there is never any reason to treat other human beings with that kind of distasteful attitude. Itās just fucking audio gearā¦
Itās kind of gross, IMOā¦ when people act that way. And it turns into straight āother-ismā when they start referring and talking about other people who donāt share their opinion and mindset of āmeasurements are kingā mentality.
The Pink Panther can be measured (about 4" without head, 5" without), but your emotions canāt be measured. At least thatās what the compulsive measurebaters would say.
So Iām curious, you follow measurements, but if I recall correctly you donāt believe in burn in? I can understand not believing that burn in makes a significant audible difference, but do you also feel that burn in doesnāt exist in general? If you want to get scientific you really canāt deny burn in, you can deny it makes a difference though
Amen and I agree with you. Had I witnessed that first hand, Iād probably be banned from that site for sticking up for the guy they attacked with the mob mentality. I was bullied as a youngster until I started boxing, wrestling, playing organized sports and lifting weights. Because of that, I go way out of my way to vigilante bully the bullies, so to speak. Nobodyās opinion is worth any more than anotherās just because it fits a majority narrative.
