The secret to wonderful sound!

[@PassionforSound]

Error corrections: 1) There's a typo around 14:27. When it says "Appox." on screen, it should be "Approx." It's not just some fancy scientific term ;) 2) At 17:10 the 6dB quieter sound is the one perceived further away than the 6dB louder sound

[@colinmaynard2879]

Nah! It’s a pox on both our houses 😊

[@stephenmeckley]

I have been waiting for this video for about a decade! Cannot thank you enough for this. Our brains are so fascinating, and the studies discovering how we precieve sound are mind blowing! Would love to learn more of these studies.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it. I've got more like this planned for 2025. 🙂

[@scottspencer4018]

You just blew the "measurement-only" crowd out of the water. Far too many audio folks try to cling to specs as the answer to good sound quality. As of now, specs are not a reliable indicator of how something will sound, and many have known this for ages. Thank you for putting together an incredibly well thought out and thorough explanation of how it all works. Our ear-brain network hears far more than what we can currently measure in audio. For years I've known that measurements only tell a fraction of the story. Listening is a skill that can and should be honed.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it! I think many of us have been frustrated by having our experiences denied by those citing measurements as their evidence. I was excited to find research that supports what we have heard with our own ears. 🙂

[@michaelrossmaessler200]

While we hear with our ears, we listen with our brains. Ten different people can hear the same recording in ten different subtle ways and this is not new information despite what the measurement "cult" believes.

[@RLM-TV]

This was absolutely brilliant. A true gift to us for Christmas. A Ted Talk for audiophiles. Thank you.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it! Merry Christmas!

[@RLM-TV]

@@PassionforSound Merry Christmas

[@RichardMathieson-j3l]

Part of my University education was spatial acoustics but that was much more interesting. Thank you. I have always trusted my ears and this really helps to understand why.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you found it so interesting!

[@earlgixxer]

This video was one hell of a piece of work, and VERY informative! I really appreciate the objective nature of it. Thanks very much!

[@PassionforSound]

Thank you so much! I'm glad you found it informative. 🙂♥️

[@popzeus3000]

This really nails the core argument that I make in head-fi and other areas when I feel like engaging. The current battery of tests used by manufacturers to determine if audio equipment is functioning correctly doesn’t cover the full spectrum of human hearing. And to make overly wide or universal claims as to how something sounds based purely on a handful of tests is just plain unwise. Of course, he gets into more interesting detail with capacitors and negative feedback, so that’s really helpful when engaging with the ASR types who listen with their eyes.

[@PassionforSound]

I hope it helps build more informed and complete conversations about enjoying music.

[@chrislesnar]

Headphones are for dorks.

[@carlitomelon4610]

@@chrislesnar Be kind. I don't own any, unless Magnepans count;-) But some of us might like to listen at odd hours and not not wake the family. 🎵🎶

[@Melkitzedeq]

When you go to a phisician to evaluate your hearing capabilties, you can bet he won't ever measure it by ear, it will use instruments, which doesn't mean "with eyes", it means with science and common sense. Using science to claim scientific measurements, based on data, are meaningless in order to give credit to subjective listening is rather pathetic, beside of totally incorrect, because scientific measurements do not erase the value of listening tests and personal pleasure, they simply are a tool to evaluate proper engineering and fidelity of reproduction, which add, and not exclude, to the listening test. To evaluate an instrument using solely abstract and absurd marketing terms to sell an opinion as a product by itself it's not a tool, it's an oax...

[@PassionforSound]

@Melkitzedeq when they assess your hearing, they're only assessing your ability to hear specific frequencies at various volume levels. It's about as rudimentary as it gets. Suggesting that it somehow negates all of the research and biology in the cited study is like measuring the air pressure in your tyres and thinking it explains how a car works...

[@Rezzzn0r]

All of these points are why I laugh at frequency response graphs so widely used in our hobby.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Graphs have their place. 💯 🎄Merry Christmas!🎄

[@Rezzzn0r]

@ReverendDr.Thomas Merry Christmas!

[@peanutbutterjellyjam2179]

You sound like you listen to music on Bluetooth speakers.

[@johnrus7661]

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me...... Graphs are incredibly important and DO accurately measure sound. It's a way to conclusively disprove bullshit audiophile crap. Like $50,000 power chords.

[@pd5338]

I was already a big fan, but with this video and your wonderful presentation, I’m truly impressed. This video should be required watching/listening (pun intended) by all audio skeptics who think all cables, DACs etc must sound the same. Excellent job, continue the great work. Enjoy the holidays!

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you found it so valuable! Happy holidays to you too!

[@giorgosapo4508]

Incredible video 👏🏻 very educational and a pleasure to watch. Thank you very much for all the content that you have been producing and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ❤️

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it! Merry Christmas!

[@ThePolarOpposite]

I'm in school for electrical engineering in hopes to move on to acoustical engineering. I've been waiting to hear someone concisely put the receiving end of the acoustical environment into one video- our ears and psychoacoustics.

[@PassionforSound]

I hope this was a step in the right direction. This is still only scratching the surface of most of the specific mechanisms mentioned in this video. 🙂

[@ThePolarOpposite]

@PassionforSound you got more!? I just got done mansplaining everything in this video to my wife 😁

[@PassionforSound]

Haha. Yep, plenty more where that came from. You'll be an expert in no time!

[@richardpena6201]

Impressive! Mind Blown! You have communicated a very complex and controversial subject in a way that makes perfect sense and further supports the fact that the industry's measurements do not and cannot accurately predict how a product fully sounds. I have shared this video with my audiophile friends and they are equally as impressed with your presentation and the supporting data. Thank you!!

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it and thank you for sharing it!!

[@nunoferraz5426]

Legendary video .... well done!!

[@PassionforSound]

Thank you! I'm so glad you think so

[@edwardkane7708]

OMG. Thank you for the hours & hours of work you put into creating this amazing presentation. I learned so much. I feel like I’m a new level of understanding and appreciation.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad it was helpful. You're very welcome.

[@kyleo2113]

Great video!! Love all the science you pulled together and will be doing some more reading as this is a topic I am very interested in (thanks for the link in your earlier video response). Would love to hear thoughts on using applications like Acourate, Focus Fidelity etc that address speaker time/phase induced by cross overs, driver distance , room etc to provide a better impulse/step response, phase, FR, etc at the listening position. This is a practical and measurable improvement and to my ears improved detail and imaging focus and accuracy. Maybe not as applicable to headphones but for a multi driver system I think this is a lost opportunity that many could benefit from and is relatively inexpensive.

[@PassionforSound]

That's a great point about those various time and phase focussed adjustments. I remember using basic time alignment in my car audio days and the huge difference that made. Taking it to the levels of transients and phase adjustments at high resolution with advanced DSP could be a game changer.

[@phantomplastics6582]

You should watch Thomas Tan's video on how many months he spent testing capacitors as they changed the sound so much. Reinforces your capacitance comments. Alpha Audio proved that cables can smear sound, they measured it.

[@jakobgooijer]

You're absolutely right. Humble Home made hifi hast a big list a tested caps

[@PassionforSound]

Yes, capacitors can have a major influence on sound. I learned this with the Bottlehead Crack and Mainline kits I've modified.

[@carlitomelon4610]

​@jakobgooijer I've much enjoyed that series and comparing caps in my zero feedback Musical Paradise MP701mk2 preamp. The v-cap ODAM came out later, but so far my favourite for clarity and ineffable "just rightness" 😊

[@EngrRomero]

**A Reflection from My Perspective** I’m not saying you're wrong; I’m just offering another point of view. Tube equipment typically has limited bandwidth due to the tubes' capacitance, wiring, and the output transformer. They also exhibit magnetic hysteresis, which impacts delays at different frequencies, and they filter high frequencies due to inductance. Despite these factors, many people love the sound of tube equipment. Additionally, consider the resonances of a turntable's tonearm and the cartridge, which is a magnetic transducer with its own hysteresis. Many people also love this sound. I agree with you that more study is needed in this area.

[@danielwalsh8168]

Unusual offering from an audiophile channel, purely educational, and very much appreciated by those who are interested in how the science of music reproduction may guide our buying choices for optimal sound...loads of great info, many thanks!

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it!

[@moviespizzaand]

Wow. This gift of knowledge about hearing is much appreciated. Thanks. I will be sure to share it.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it! Please do share as broadly as possible. I don't normally ask that on my videos, but I think this research is so valuable to our community.

[@sjqideez6626]

Wow, another very fascinating video. Thank you so much for putting all this together & sharing, I can imagine a lot of research & effort went into this one. Happy holidays man

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it and yes, this one was a beast to pull together, but I'm happy to do it if people are finding it valuable. Happy holidays!

[@HowardGoodfriend]

Another aspect that degrades sound is vibration. The microphonic aspect of electronic components cannot be underestimated. Vibration introduces sonic disruption some of which is in the time domain.

[@PassionforSound]

Absolutely! Vibration can affect clocks in DACs and (I assume) transistors in amps/preamps. Once we realise how sensitive our ears are, some of these seemingly fringe tweaks start to make a lot of sense.

[@eliben85]

What wonderful overview of the importance of the unmeasurable, thank you!

[@PassionforSound]

My pleasure! I'm glad it was valuable.

[@ccdccd8615]

I appreciate this video, but all this detail masks some underlying truths. 1st, you could get the idea that the human ear wants the most accurate sound reproduction. Our ears might, but we certainly don’t. A couple of quick examples. Tubes are not more accurate, but the sound is very appealing to many audiophiles. One reason is that they produce a fair amount of 2nd order harmonic distortion which is pleasing to our ears. Another example: speakers. If our ears are such highly tuned and accurate instruments, why don’t we all agree on what are the best kinds of transducers and speakers??? You simply cannot take the subjectivity out of the hobby. I agree with your point about specifications. There is a tenuous connection between specs and the sound we appreciate. Take damping factor. A high damping factor indicates that the amp has full control over the woofer. But that doesn’t mean that is the bass presentation that we want to hear. I can think of several amps, even all amps produced by a certain company that have low damping factors that are so low as to be in the audible range and these products are well reviewed and liked. One of the things I love about Galion is that Thomas Tan isn’t even pretending to make the best measuring equipment, he is trying to make the best sounding equipment based on his ears and his experience. Lots of other companies are quietly doing the exact same thing because most audiophiles, including myself, are not interested in the most accurate sound. We want the sound most pleasing to our ears. And we all have music we love with crappy recordings and don’t want the crappy recording spoiling our love of that music. All of this raises some troubling questions for lots of equipment. Let’s take SS amps. If most audiophiles want the amp most pleasing to our ears, specs be damned, what are reviewers or audiophiles listening for??? Are there sound signatures to strive for? Do they change with the type of speakers or other equipment you have??? I’m building a system right now. The tweeter is a compression driver in a horn. Because of the synergy between horns and tubes, I chose the most “tubes” SS amp I could find, based on the comments of reviewers and people who previously purchased the amp. If I upgrade at some point in the future, tube amps need only apply. But what if my equipment had been different? What sound signature would indicate a good match with my equipment. And doesn’t this indicate that, in many instances, one piece of equipment is not better than the other, just suited best for different uses. Finally, you completely ignore the impact of psycho-acoustics. We expect impressive looking equipment to sound better and often “hear” differences that are not there. You rarely see any reviewer blind test equipment. The truly blind tests I have seen suggest that our ears are not the finely honed instruments this video would suggest. To make matters worse, reviewers listen to equipment and then pack it off to the next reviewer and to the manufacturer. When a new piece comes in, you can compare it to the equipment you have on hand, but not necessarily against other equipment in its price range or outside its price range. So the reviewer is forced often forced to compare the equipment under review to memories of other equipment and human memory is hardly reliable. This is not say that reviewers such as yourself should be completely discounted. The reality is that, for most of us, you are all we have. This is also not to say that you are not trying hard to be as informative and accurate as you can. But this is a tough area. What all audiophiles want to know is how this piece of equipment will perform for my ears with my other equipment in my room to produce the sound signature most pleasing to me. That is the bar. This video on the complexity of our ears doesn’t change the fact that we are FAR from coming any where close to clearing this bar.

[@PassionforSound]

A lot of what you're talking about is the harmonic makeup of the sound, but what the studies discussed in this video tell is that the timing of the sound is more important. If you take it a step further, tubes don't switch like transistors so they're going to have less timing issues (although capacitance may be a factor).

[@ccdccd8615]

@ Class A solid state amps do not switch. Topologically, this is the advantage of Class A over Class AB and Class D. Push pull tube amps do switch. My understanding is that they switch like Class AB solid state amps.

[@PassionforSound]

That's true about class A amps, but we're also potentially talking about power supplies and the speed of components like capacitors and resistors. Basically, every component in an audio device can influence the timing of the signal via switching, capacitance, the time it takes for the voltage to ramp up and down as needed, and probably a bunch of stuff I don't understand.

[@rikardekvall3433]

Reading your comment, i got the feeling that your experience and knowledge are far above anyone else, watching this video. You must make informative videos to the rest of us. Educate us. “Pass on knowledge thru time”

[@ccdccd8615]

@@rikardekvall3433 I appreciate the vote of confidence, but any channel I started would be VERY short lived! I’m asking questions no one really wants to address. Take my last response in this thread. Topologically, the advantage of a Class A amp over a Class AB amp is that the Class A amp does not switch. And that was a real advantage when Class AB first came on the scene and there was audible distortion at the switching point. Now fast forward to today and any distortion at the switching point for Class AB amp is well below the levels of human hearing. Other than that, I do not know of any difference between the two and you have a number of Class AB amps that operate at Class A at lower power levels. So what is the advantage of Class A really??? Why is the industry charging thousands of dollars for low power Class A amps??? How does Class A allow you to voice an amp differently from Class AB??? You can draw your own conclusions. I suspect mine are pretty clear. You as an audiophile have to look at these things and draw your own conclusions. There are lots of “camps” in audio and you have to decide which camps you fall into. VERY few people want to hear my personal opinion on these matters.

[@nunoferraz5426]

Thanks!

[@PassionforSound]

Thanks so much!! ♥️

[@PhongTran-xc3bn]

That was awesome Lachlan! Well done

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it!

[@Really_Unfortunate]

This is an excellent video. You're directly addressing a lot of the issues that I personally have with how we talk about the "science of Hi-Fi," if that's what you want to call it.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it! I wasn't sure how this video would be received, but I felt it was an important video to make.

[@carlitomelon4610]

Very interesting. Now i better understand why i prefer to listen to planar magnetic speakers and zero feedback amplification. Thanks Lachlan. Still reading the Sound Mind book. Enjoyed this presentation. Food for appreciative contemplation 🎶🤔🎶

[@PassionforSound]

That's great news that you've found this informative and that you're reading Of Sound Mind too. Hearing this and other comments encourages me to continue with these videos.

[@theaudiophilebarista2424]

A much needed, great video. Thanks

[@PassionforSound]

My pleasure!

[@Tanner_o]

What you said about masking sound with timming is how MP3 works and nobody had talked about the brilliant idea. That's why time is the most important part on sound.

[@HiFilurar]

This was an excellent video. I like reviews too, but there's really too few well explained videos like this for those of us who like to go deeper into this hobby. Please, do more videos like this, with soild science as the basis for explanation.

[@PassionforSound]

I have some more planned for 2025. Thank you for letting me know that you enjoy them scattered in amongst the reviews!

[@vaneast411]

very interesting thanks! Great video Lachlan touching on the complexity of our hearing along with aspects of the complexity of electronic sound reproduction. I'll definitely come back to this video again. Two additional intrinsic layers of complexity relating to music -- related to our minds... the projected intent expressed within the musical information by the artist/s, and the unique interpretation processed within the mind of the listener...

[@PassionforSound]

It's a very good point. There are so many layers to the subjective enjoyment of music.

[@vaneast411]

@@PassionforSound yes... and indeed subjective - and so often subconscious as well

[@mikelm222]

Thanks for this insightful explanation. It's good to hear about some solid scientific research that clearly explains that thetr's a lot more to good audio reproduction than just THD & Frequency response.

[@PassionforSound]

My pleasure. I'm glad you found it interesting!

[@Tanner_o]

Thank you a lot for these words. I've tried many times to explain how time is FUNDAMENTAL and not frequency response, I had notice day and night changes in DSP with 0.01ms delay between Woofer an Twitter.

[@PassionforSound]

Exactly! I'm glad you liked it

[@tubefreeeasy]

My latest lesson I’ve learned. My TV cable/wifi modem uses signal booster pods to amplify my WiFi. I recently placed the pod on wall outlets to achieve a better signal. My stereo was sounding weak. Then, I thought, what if i place the pod next to my MacMini computer? After placing one on an extension cord, the music sounded full of thickness, texture and visceral depth. So, the lesson I learned, Place my xFi Booster pod next to my computer.

[@tubefreeeasy]

C= Copper S= Silver From professor’s findings.

[@sokrebis]

Small donation for your effort. Really appreciate it.

[@PassionforSound]

Thank you so much for your support! ♥️

[@MrRosscoz]

Having been in the hobby for a while, and an addicted internet surfer lol, it’s amazing how many different people view different systems.. differently. Many talk about genres and source chains that complement each other. But personally I think certain SONGS synergies with certain headphones/ speakers more than gear. And I think that comes down to how the recording studio set up affects the sound layering/ positioning and how that translates to the driver design and set up. Often I’ll listen to a song, think “man that sounds good” on headphone X.. and when I check the info on the recording etc, it lines up with other songs that sound great on the headphone. Our ears go way beyond measurements.

[@PassionforSound]

That's a great point! I've been tricked in the past when selecting test tracks because I chose them with one setup only to realise that those same songs didn't sound as special on any other setup. 🙂

[@mTLpHfumfaomd]

Amazing topic and discussion building up and leading to what is a complex understanding about what we hear

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you found it valuable

[@peternunn5054]

Thanks for the great “holiday gift”! This is the most interesting video I’ve seen in a long long time. I wonder how long it took to research this? I appreciate your effort and hard work.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it! This one was an absolute beast to produce and I actually wish I'd taken even longer to make it even better, but a produced and watched video is better than one still in the research phase! 🙂

[@leopotim862]

I agree with you. When I started spending hours of my day listening to music it was very difficult to listen to more complex recordings like jazz, but as I found more accessible tracks my brain began to demand more and more complex sounds. I'm not an expert in the genre, nor do I claim to be, but there is no longer a single album of any musical genre that I consider inaccessible today. Excellent work. ❤

[@stephenmeckley]

Thanks!

[@PassionforSound]

Thanks so much, Stephen!

[@joehrisaac]

Nice to see a technical approach to the audiophile hobby

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it!

[@carminedesanto6746]

Best of Christmas and the new year to you and yours . Like good food …you either like it or you don’t …always trust your ears 👂.

[@PassionforSound]

Merry Christmas and happy new year to you too, Carmine!

[@edelweisskoenig]

Danke!

[@PassionforSound]

Bitte! 🙂

[@ten2055]

Thanks!

[@PassionforSound]

Thank you so much!

[@marstedt]

I suggest doing more research on how much we know about hearing and coherence. There has been plenty of blind and double-blind tests done to show that what you are being led to believe does not exist. We know that analog signals cannot be smeared, or have their "timing" disturbed in a typical cable. ABX testing is a great place to start I think.

[@PassionforSound]

I've got a video coming up that discusses why ABX testing in audio produces unreliable results (based on peer reviewed science once again)

[@marstedt]

@@PassionforSound - Very looking forward to it. Without science we are incredibly lost which is what what this video appears to be.

[@PassionforSound]

It seems like you are only interested in exploring the science that supports your existing opinions...

[@chrishmeet]

Mustec Dac and preamp were designed on a specific sound the company wanted regardless of measurements

[@johncallaghan3097]

Thankyou for this highly interesting and informative video -- and BTW, have a merry Christmas! 🙂

[@PassionforSound]

Merry Christmas to you too. I'm so glad you enjoyed the video!

[@taidee]

Class in session, Merry Xmas everyone and thank you Lachlan for this comprehensive explainer.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it! Merry Christmas!!

[@eugenefudge1883]

The secret to great sound. Is reasonable good equipment and great sounding recordings. It all starts with great recordings. And you can get great sounding electronics and cables for aliexpress at reasonable prices.

[@brianmalzahn4035]

Capacitance Issues. Yes! And the issues…the effects on our hifi systems, they come from everywhere. Did you ever try meticulously brushing every cable and component, also every wall and table near them with one of those grounding brushes they make for cleaning records? You must try this! As a side note, ever play a Theremin? I have one and can’t really play any music on it but what a fun use of capacitance from our own human bodies. This great electrical fun!!

[@PassionforSound]

That's very interesting about the grounding brush. It sounds like voodoo, but I'd believe anything with an influence over noise and capacitance could have a noticeable impact. I have always been fascinated by Theremins too, but have never tried one. I wonder if there's a video in that???

[@tubefreeeasy]

Now that you’ve informed us about the importance of cables, I’m in the process of increasing the speed of my modem’s power cord. I can see that correcting the initial weakness of sound from the true real source. I’m purchasing a linear power source.

[@phantomplastics6582]

Worth noting that Nelson Pass did experiments to find what sound customers liked best and it was not 100% accurate. "This effect is described as having negative phase 2nd harmonic at approximately 1% of the amplitude of the original signal..." from Stereophile. You can even make a second harmonic generator using his design to test it yourself.

[@middleearthltd]

Yes you can It is called a SE Tube Amplifier

[@PassionforSound]

That's a slightly different phenomenon I think, and not one I've explored yet. The mix of harmonics in the sound definitely alters our subjective enjoyment of the music, but timing accuracy and system resolution achieved through low noise, etc. will create the sense of realism that the harmonics can then build on.

[@MixtressB]

Understanding how the human ears process frequency(ies) over time is so important for reproduction and accuracy in recordings. This is a beautiful way to explain how important time and frequency are within the recreation of audio/music within our brain. Being able to bring out the best in sound reproduction, timing to the ears makes a huge difference. This is where DSP can greatly improve both time and frequency adjustment, for a much more refined and accurate reproduction. Thank you for the detailed dive into the complexity of hearing and why frequency over distance and time matters.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it. It's worth being aware that some DSPs can actually damage timing and small signal accuracy so it's about finding the right DSP.

[@MixtressB]

@PassionforSound thanks for the response back 🙃 I have personally used the correction from Yamaha, Denon, and Onkyo HT AVRs. I'm currently taking a dive into Dirac via an Onkyo TX-RZ-50, which will most likely lead to miniDSP hardware that meets my current and future needs.

[@kenstaroz1536]

Thanks

[@PassionforSound]

Thanks so much, Ken!

[@rg3388]

These phenomena can account for perceived differences among audio systems and superior audio equipment may provide opportunities for potential additional perceptions. However, there are no guarantees because another function available to the brain is sensory gating, which allows it to ignore certain details if it so chooses. Nevertheless, that is the prerogative of the brain, not of the reproduction equipment.

[@PassionforSound]

Absolutely. Our brains choose what we focus on and examine out of the mammoth number of potential sensory cues available to us in each moment.

[@SteveD-m6z]

Spectral Audio is one company that has a design approach that includes a consideration of the aspects of human auditory perception together with GEP (Good engineering practice). They have been producing high speed, ultra-wide bandwidth amplifiers since the 70’s. These high slew-rate designs help preserve the critical timing cues within the audio signals. There is an interesting interview with Richard Fryer from Spectral Audio on the Alpha Audio channel. The guru behind the engineering team is Keith O Johnson. The Rocky Mountain International Audio Fest channel has a video entitled RMAF10: High Resolution from the Masters. The key topic is high resolution digital, but his talk covers far more: jitter, signal timing, cables, hidden feedback mechanisms, power supply coupling, grounding, and isolation, etc.

[@PassionforSound]

Thanks for letting us know. I'll go and hunt some of these discussions down!

[@SteveD-m6z]

@@PassionforSound If the time domain response of an audio system influences the critical cues for timbre and spatial quality of a reproduced sound source, then this includes the system interconnect cables. You might be interested in the cable high-speed pulse testing on the Alpha Audio channel. The introduction video covers the procedure: Alpha Labs - Explaining the HUGE Cable Test! More than 70 Cables!

[@PassionforSound]

@SteveD-m6z yes it absolutely does and their videos measuring the cables and also their video about network switches were very interesting when combined with what this research tells us.

[@Chuckster0]

I love this video so much!

[@PassionforSound]

Thanks Chuck. I do too! In hindsight, I wish I'd structured it differently because the opening isn't as strong as the midpoint onwards. I just hope lots of people get to see it because the research is so valuable to understand.

[@mebaugh1]

Exceptional, technical message! I noticed that my headphone listening had further trained my ears when I run live sound for mini concerts or at mega churches.

[@PassionforSound]

I feel the same way about headphone listening despite some people saying you can't hear as much on headphones as speakers.

[@rafograph]

This is what premium internet looks like. Thank you!

[@PassionforSound]

Thank you! I'm so glad you liked it!!

[@williammitchell3586]

Fantastic information and explanation. Thank you.

[@PassionforSound]

My pleasure! I'm glad you liked it.

[@larsv6144]

Excellent video..... for sure this made some more enemies again on the ASR cult website 🤣🤣

[@tothemax324]

ASR crowd recommendations are useless 🤮

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked the video. It's not my intention to upset anyone, but this is important knowledge that I thought was worth sharing.

[@Daryl42]

It’s funny because the reviews themselves are very well done. But there are a lot of comments about how everything is the same. If a tree is a tree, how long do you keep checking to make sure it’s a tree?

[@MrRosscoz]

It’s an interesting topic, and could be why although we often feel like a type of cable or system sounds better, we never seem to be able to successfully ABX test that. The brain wants music to sound good, and work out a way of making it sound like it thinks it should. But maybe that is why some chains may sound awesomely detailed but become fatiguing, the brain is working overtime to make something sound as good as you expect it to, due to pre conceived ideas based on price and reviews etc. the best way to chose is to listen and find something that sounds instantly relaxing and enjoyable to YOUR ears .. and brain lol

[@PassionforSound]

Absolutely. You're definitely onto something there and I've got some more research to share soon that explains why AB tests often don't work for audio.

[@thefourthcolor]

Really good vid. Thanks for sharing the knowledge.

[@PassionforSound]

My pleasure!

[@gavinwagner1766]

WOW! Great video!

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you thought so!

[@PRicanGeek]

Completely blown away at how detailed, yet easily broken down to make the information into digestable chunks. Quick question, though... so different cables can introduce "smearing"? I've recently purchased a HEKse based a lot on your reviews, and I absolutely love the new headphones! But if I can even further improve the sound, in general, what best bang for the buck cables would be recommended? New into the audiophile world, and everything I've seen from other enthusiast videos is that going nuts over cables is stupid and they all basically sound the same no matter the price or quality. ...so that's not really true, and the audio snobs were right? Lol Again, not looking to spend hundreds or throusands of dollars on cables, but any general advice would be welcome. 🙂

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you found the video digestible. This was a big one! As for cables, HiFiMan use silver plated copper cables on most (maybe all) of their headphones. I feel that this is always a negative choice of cable material because the signal can travel at different speeds through the silver plating compared to the copper wire underneath. As I understand it, different frequencies travel at different depths in a wire so the plated cables are probably delivering a signal that is not time coherent across all frequencies. The output of that is that I find pure metal cables like pure copper and pure silver are preferable and I personally use pure copper cables, generally of the litz variety (that's where each strand is individually insulated). The Apos Flow cables are an excellent example of those without spending too much, but only if you're in the USA, Canada or Australia. There are also plenty of other manufacturers of that type of cable and they shouldn't be wildly expensive.

[@PRicanGeek]

​@@PassionforSoundExcellent, and thank you so very much for the prompt and very informative response. I'm new to your channel as I've just been roughly a year into the audiophile world. I was afraid that this video being a few days old now that you'd likely ignore any more comments. I went ahead and purchased the Apos Flow cable (I'm in the US, so no worries there). I never really knew about the high quality audio until about a year ago. I've always been an orchestral music kind of guy with some pop and music by System of Down and the like thrown in there. I honestly don't remember how I stumbled upon it, maybe I did a Google search for best bang for the buck headphones and landed on Reddit posts singing the praises of the Edition XS. I ordered that and then went through the painful process of learning what dacs and amps were, how to determine better qualities, learning names such as SMSL, Topping, Schiit, etc. I thought the XS were decently cool for half a year, but wasn't blown away. I then looked into and purchased the closed back DCA E3. That bastard forced me to learn even more as those headphones sounded... meak. Better dac and better amp purchases (Chord Mojo 2 [my first recolection of watching your video reviews] and the Schiit Jot2) And holy cow, I finally was able to hear the E3s in a much better circumstance). And coincidentally I also plugged in the XS's and was equally blown away at the improvement of quality. (Gawd, this is longer than I expected, but quickly...) I knew the XS wasn't end game for my style of listening. The Aryas seemed like a minor step up and the Susvara prohibitively expensive on their own and then the necessary gear to run them well (now that I had first hand experience of realizing this fact). But people were praising the Susvara left and right and I almost made the painful decision to purchase that beast... ...until I stumbled upon to one of your videos where you were comparing the HEK Stealth, SE and Susvara (I was like, "oh yeah! That's the Chord Mojo 2 review guy!"). Your final comment that you always came back to the SEs and already sold away the Susvara nailed it for me. I had an inkling that we likely had similar listening styles. After receiving the SEs about two weeks ago, I've been in musical nirvana every day I have them on while working my remote job at home. My long story has been compressed as best I could and would be 5x as long. But just wanted to gush at what a fan of your videos I am, and to thank you profusely for the insanely good work that you put in. Looking forward to enjoying your future videos. Have a happy new years 😊

[@PassionforSound]

@PRicanGeek I'm so glad I've been able to help you! Happy holidays and happy new year!

[@PRicanGeek]

@@PassionforSound Hi, and sorry for bothering you as if you were my personal tech support. But I've searched online at forums and whatnot and couldn't quite find my situation. If you happen to read this and don't mind giving some insight, I'd be very grateful... Still rocking my brand new HEKSE and will be ordering the Dayzee soon. I had seen this video here and previously had asked you if there were any cables better than the stock XLR cables provided by Hifiman, and you had suggested the Apos Flow, which i had ordered and received yesterday. However... oww!!! I'm an orchestral music guy, and strings, trumpets and piccolo are piercing something fierce to me now with those new cables. I have learned what sibilance means, but it feels like the instruments are actively attacking my ear drums and I get listening fatigue within 5min. Luckily, I also recently got a Schiit Lokius to go with my Jot 2. Before, with the stock cables, I simply boosted the bass frequencies a little and also the 2k, 6k and 16k so ever slightly to give me a magical experience. Then I saw your video that better cables can provide an even better experience. I've had to now tune down those higher frequencies to below the normal setting. And now everything sounds muted and even still somehow with ear fatigue. I've tried playing around individually with the 2k, 6k, and 16k nobs on the Lokius, but I can't seem to get the music to an acceptably enjoyable listening experience. In my online searching, I did run into people mentioning the Dekoni fenestrated sheepskin replacement ear pads. Supposedly those will help with toning down high frequency "brightness". I already ordered them, but hoping to get your input or recommendations as I'm only less than a year into the high audio quality world and I'm just grasping at straws without any deep knowledge. I remember that your Dayzee review mentioned that it sounded like it provided a more relaxed listening experience. I would certainly hope so compared to my current Mojo 2. Anyway, forgive me for the long story, but I hope I've been able to accurately convey my situation with the new cables and hoping for some input, or to at the very least be told, "yeah, replace the ear pads with the Dekoni ones and the music should no longer feel like it's attacking your prefrontal cortex through your cerebellum." At worst, I can simply go back to the stock cables that didn't seem to give me any issues. I'd still hold on to the Apos Flow cables because, well... you know know, right? 😄

[@guystpierrecomposer]

Very interesting! Well done! I was very skeptical of the cables or power supply influence… but I did experienced it with very good system and then, I changed my opinion. One thing to mention is that if one component of a system (let stay speakers) mess the timing of a recording, the better cables can’t probably being heard… The other thing to mention is that blind test still don’t show that “supernatural” capability of the human ears/brain…

[@PassionforSound]

Both excellent points. I've got a video coming up in 2025 that will take some more of the studies discussed in the same paper as this video to explain why blind tests fail to reveal anything meaningful.

[@freovegan]

Fascinating. Great video essay 👏

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it!

[@trekkis]

One from very best materials regarding topic. Btw, all delta Sigmas (dsd conversion) are using feedback loops. From this and other reasons native pcm decoding like r2r is considered much better, much faithful in time domain.

[@PassionforSound]

I don't know that that's completely accurate about DSD and Delta Sigma using feedback loops. I know that DSD can output using a very simple low pass filter and designs like Rob Watts' delta sigma approach in Chord DACs don't use any feedback to the best of my knowledge.

[@trekkis]

Basically all DS are using the same set of filters, slow, fast, linear etc. Pure dsd is using simpler set. All typical DS must use feedback loop by definition, but chord implementation is known as one from the best or maybe the best one.

[@PassionforSound]

I don't know enough about digital filtering to discuss in any depth here, but I think I mostly agree with the essence of your point and it's why I mostly prefer Schiit Multibit DACs, R2R DACs (if well done) and Chord DACs.

[@GavinHodgson]

Wow what a video! Amazing work.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it!

[@2ChannelAudio]

Thanks for this video 👏👏👏 The truth indigestible for many 😊

[@PassionforSound]

My pleasure! I'm glad you liked it.

[@BillyKueekSG]

Thank you Lachlan! Very educational

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it, Billy!

[@SimonP2]

Very interesting, thank you, I learned a lot.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad it was interesting for you!

[@vladimirrusev468]

very interesting video two things coming to my mind ... Before speaking of reproduction of music, doesn't we have to start with the recording? Who says that the timing errors are not in the recording itself? After all this signal goes trough a bunch of electronic parts before gets stored as data. Or the recordings are actually deliberately wrong because all instruments are recorded nearfield and then mixed in artificial space and each instrument often in his own space. On the other hand we can measure impulse response ... we just don't do it for each frequency. It shouldn't be much of technical challenge to make a protocol and benchmark for measurements of transients. And coming back to the first point - there is also better way to recording sound for measurement purposes - laser. I know only few who are measuring speakers with laser (but they are producing drivers, not the whole speakers or systems). So ... its possible. The question is - how much it costs an if its worth it for the industry, or will be anybody beside handful enthusiast willing to pay for it. Our hearing may be very very precise, but our brain actually doesn't need all this precision to reconstruct enjoyable emotion for most of the people. Sadly for the few of us - audiophiles :) As an engineer I am pretty disappointed form this industry ... knowing what is theoretically possible. But the commercial side of the things is sadly not in our favor. And another problem is, that those companies getting hundreds of thousands $ for a speaker or amp or dac are actually not investing in science. They just make status symbols for those who have money.

[@PassionforSound]

There's a lot in that comment but two points in particular I want to respond to. 1) you're absolutely right that the recording matters as much as the playback chain. I think of it as a cumulative effect where each piece of the sonic pathway from microphone through to speaker is influencing the final sound. The better each piece is, the better the end result. That's probably why some recordings sound so much better than others. After all, the pitch and loudness is always being captured accurately and I doubt modern recordings have issues with distortion and noise so it must come down to timing. We can't control the timing in the recording, but we can minimise the additional impact that our output devices have on the reproduction of the recording. 2) unfortunately, many product designers aren't aware of the importance of timing or the detailed workings of human auditory perception. Those who are tend to make wonderful devices. Others who aren't, but who trust their ears are also making great devices. Those who focus on distortion and noise as the primary factors in their design tend to make gear that's overpriced for what it delivers at a perceptual level.

[@FisherMan-bh9dn]

It's almost like our ears were designed but we all know it came about by random chance.

[@robertschlechter4407]

You might think that the ears came about by random chance but I believe they were made by the Creator God and his Son, Jesus. Such complexities as how the human ear works cannot originate anywhere else. If it isn't man-made, it is understood that those things are seen as attributes of our God. (Romans 1:18:23; Colossians 1:15-18)

[@FisherMan-bh9dn]

@robertschlechter4407 If I wrote what you did YT would have censored it. 😆👍 Well said.

[@carlitomelon4610]

Hallelu-JAH!!!

[@PassionforSound]

I don't know where it came from, but I do agree that it's remarkably well designed. 🙂

[@jh7531]

This is mind-boggling...but apparently my brain is able to handle being boggled.

[@PassionforSound]

I'm pleased to hear that. A good boggling every now and then is very good for us, I think. 😂

[@RocketLauncherwithInfiniteAmmo]

Have I just stepped into an alternate universe Lachlan? All the comments are suddenly sensible and agreeable. Nice to see other folks think like you and I. I’m really beginning to think the measurements only people are just in their ‘junior’ years of their audio journey.

[@PassionforSound]

I think you might be largely right, but there are also some hardcore, experienced audiophiles committed to that perspective too. The comments section has definitely shifted lately and I'm not entirely sure why.

[@redkh2017]

Just WOW!! Great informant video

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it!

[@arthurhaywood2184]

PREACH!!! I’ve been saying a lot of this for years! I stopped because I just got tired of the cable denier stuff. Thinking that everything you need to know is all in a FR graph is just plain foolishness to me!

[@PassionforSound]

Absolutely. Even before I found this research, there were too many aspects of sound that just couldn't be explained by a FR graph, distortion numbers or similar.

[@SuperMcgenius]

Great work on this video.👍❤️☃️

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it!

[@20CycleMonger]

Appreciate the gift Lachlan. Well researched and presented. Thank you! My appreciation for the AWESOME Gifts of hearing and Music is heightened by all of this new scientific research. Of couurs4we might turn on each other and argue about music reproduction equipment .... Or we could meditate on the meaning of all this complexity. Its Cause? To qouote a famous ancient Song: "Understand this, you who are unreasoning; You foolish ones, when will you ever show insight? The One who made the ear, can he not hear? The One who formed the eye, can he not see?" (Ps94)

[@carlitomelon4610]

Music appreciation that has no upper limits?

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it! I definitely find it fascinating to consider how intricately and often quite perfectly we, and all of nature are "designed"

[@AverageNiceGuy]

Nicely done 😎👍

[@PassionforSound]

Thank you!

[@50slump]

Psalm 139:14 “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”

[@VisionCarrierDreamCatcher]

This episode should come with a warning given we are in the end year holidays. "CAUTION - Watch when sober. Otherwise sudden brain damage may occur"

[@PassionforSound]

Haha. So true!

[@kurthill7030]

Always buy what sounds good to you and your music 🎶 🎵

[@PassionforSound]

💯

[@garynewlove1982]

Love this, feel none the wiser about anything but love it nonetheless. Keep up the good work mate 👍

[@PassionforSound]

Haha. I'm glad you loved it!

[@Pierre-Leloup]

Very informative video, I've learned a lot, thanks for the hard work and sharing. Eevery audiophile should view it before talking nonsense and arguing out of ignorance 👍 🎄Happy Christmas🎄

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you feel that way about it! Merry Christmas!

[@robinkleinsteuber5217]

Super video! Have a Merry Christmas!! 🙂🎶🎶🎶❄️☃️🍾🍾

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it! Merry Christmas to you too.

[@Some-Ryan]

This does beg the question as to how many set ups are really capable of such accuracy when it comes to timing given the literal infinite variations, there are surely no manufacturers who have equipment capable of measuring down to the microsecond are there? Even if there were, there's then the added complication of different head size, ear shape etc. Is it just trial and error for the user? Is it even worth the effort to strive for this level or accuracy? So many questions... Great video though. Following ❤

[@PassionforSound]

The fascinating thing is that our brains adapt to our physiology so we actually do all hear the same way when it comes to timing and the overall perception of sound. The frequencies we hear vary from person to person in terms of us all having slightly different sensitivities to various frequencies, but as I discussed in the video, that is less important than timing. When it comes to manufacturers, they actually do all have the tools to assess the performance of their gear in the timing domain: their ears. The brands that use a combination of electrical measurement/modelling AND extensive listening tests consistently deliver some of the most pleasing designs. Of course, there'll always be preferences as to what each individual enjoys and that's great because it provides variety and the opportunity to find the synergies between devices that work best for our tastes and our rooms (if we're talking speakers).

[@Some-Ryan]

@PassionforSound fair comment. I've only had experience of 4 pairs of so called audiophile headphones but I have 20 years of music production and sound design, mixing, mastering experience. The main benefits I perceived from these models is mainly in the stereo imaging/soundstage and tonality/character departments. However, I often find the eq is worse than out of the box 'studio' cans but that's likely a case of horses for courses. Thanks for the response!

[@tothemax324]

Brilliant, like how do you explain a Beethoven symphony? You cant, you experience it.

[@PassionforSound]

Yep. There's accuracy and then there's feeling, soul and emotion.

[@Hare_deLune]

@@PassionforSound It reminds me of something Joseph Campbell once said. He was talking about a Zen Master who asked his students: "What is the meaning of a flower?" The answer is that there IS no meaning. The flower simply exists, without rhyme or reason.

[@PassionforSound]

Yep. Sometimes we try too hard to create certainty around inherently uncertain and subjective topics.

[@Hare_deLune]

@@PassionforSound I was wondering just a few days ago whether some of what we experience with audio that can't be explained with measurements may be in similar realms as quarks and other examples of quantum physics. Electrons are, after all, a part of that micro-realm if I'm not mistaken.

[@michaeljbus]

Lachlan, I've been following you for a long time and have enjoyed a number of your videos, but I think there are some problems with this one, both in terms of the content and the overall message. The title and content suggest the 'secret' to good sound quality is time accuracy, based on the paper you cite. If we're talking about sound quality in the sense of what is pleasing to the listener (since accurate reproduction of the sound is effectively impossible in a 2 channel system), then why not mention the things we know definitely do have significant effects on perceived sound quality? In particular, it's been repeatedly demonstrated in preference research (including in research by Floyd Toole, whose work you mention, as well as Sean Olive, and Gaetan Lorho) that the general shape of frequency response in speakers and headphones, including on average a boost to the bass and a cut to the treble, is generally preferable to most people. You could also have talked about differences in how we as individuals perceive sound, with our unique head-related transfer function (HRTF), which explains much about how the same frequency response can be perceived differently by different people. Instead, you've talked about things that are perhaps circumspect at best, and appear to be misconceived in some respects. There are some parts of this video that I found useful, including some of the anatomy descriptions, and particularly the section on processing complex waveforms (the trampoline analogy was a good one). But your first message in your 'The keys to great perceived sound' section is that the speed of components matters and the responsiveness of drivers matters, and also that this won't show up in frequency response. I don't understand the focus on these things - while I don't deny the possibility that amps, DACs and the like can affect perceived sound (I myself have experienced this with my Singxer SA-1 and the DC offset mod you've done a video on, as well as having experienced small but audible differences between different DACs), the differences in perceived sound in such components are marginal at best. We're talking about the last 5%, so to speak. By far the most important elements of sound quality are (for speakers) the room and (for speakers and headphones) the transducer, but you haven't mentioned these things at all. If this is supposed to be assumed knowledge, it hasn't been made clear, so I fear it may be misleading for newcomers to the hobby. In a couple of places you make statements along the lines that smearing and masking caused by capacitance or other factors "won't show up in frequency response measurements, because it's a timing thing". I don't understand what you mean by this. Time domain information is measurable, and in fact *is* measured as a direct consequence of frequency response. When we talk about frequency response, we're talking about a measurement of magnitude response (i.e. what's shown on a flat frequency response graph), and the phase response, which is the timing measurement. So the amplitude measurement is directly linked to the time domain, and measurements like impulse response, group delay, and CSD / waterfall plots will show timing issues. I'm mainly into headphones, which further simplifies the matter because (possibly with limited exceptions) headphones are, unlike speakers, essentially minimum phase devices within their intended operating bandwidth and level (i.e. 20Hz-20kHz), so we can infer the time domain behaviour directly from the frequency response behaviour. A result of this, for example, is that any resonances or other 'timing effects' would show as peaks in the FR of the headphones. From about 18:48 you talked about hearing more of the room with the Heddphone 2 than with other headphones, and your theory that the 'speed' of the headphones is more capable of delivering the tiny, reflected signals in the recording than other headphones. But because headphones are minimum phase, the Heddphone 2 is not operating with any greater 'speed' than any other set of headphones. Speed, including the speed of transients and the ability of a headphone to transition between one frequency and another, is itself reflected in frequency. If a headphone can operate at approximately 20Khz (let's notionally call this the top of the audible band for present purposes), then it will not operate any 'faster' than any other headphones playing back the same musical information. Treble extension can be a relevant factor, but it would be extremely rare that a recording would actually capture information above about 20kHz, or if it does, not very much information. This may also be limited by the recording equipment, most of which would lowpass audio content. So I think the better hypothesis would be that you probably heard more of the room with the Heddphone 2 because of the particular frequency response characteristics of that headphone, including things like the relative balance of bass and treble, emphasis of some parts of the frequency range over others, relative amplitude of fundamentals and harmonics of different instruments, etc. You go on to say that because timing is so important and our hearing systems so complex, measurements such as frequency response, harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion can't consistently predict the perceived sound quality of a system. It's true that there are limits to what frequency response graphs can tell us, but they are nonetheless very useful predictive tools that contain a lot of valuable information. They can give a visual impression about likely preference, and they can tell you whether and where there may be issues in an audio system (e.g. indicating bloated bass, a warm, cold, dark or bright tilt, modal issues, etc.). But this video seems to be suggesting they are less important than the speed of your components, or other things that can 'damage' the 'agility' of the system. This doesn't strike me as a particularly useful suggestion. How could I possibly know if the transistors in my Chord Mojo 2 switch 'faster' than those in my Qudelix 5k, or my old FiiO K5 Pro? Do you have any practical advice about this? You seem to be simultaneously warning people away from specs (as mentioned in a comment above, and which could be considered a proxy for measurements), but also pointing us to specs as something to focus on. Conversely, in my time in this hobby I have learned much more about my own preferences and improved my own perception of sound quality listening to music by learning what sound signatures I like (in other words, what different frequency responses I like), as associated with difference headphones and speakers. Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not a measurement worshipper or anything, and I certainly mean no disrespect by this comment - but I simply don't understand the focus of this video.

[@PassionforSound]

Hi Michael and thanks for your comment. What I'm about to write is written with respect, but the written word doesn't always convey that well so please read it knowing that my intent is respectful. I think you've missed the detail in what I've said in this video. The point being made here is that whilst frequency response, distortion and noise are all important, they're also VERY easy to measure and correlate to perceived sound quality (recognising some variance due to HRTF or the room). With that understood, what separates a great system from a mediocre or good system is its timing performance. Where that gets challenging is that there IS currently no commonly used set of measurements to describe that to us as consumers. You're right that you don't have any way of knowing if the Mojo 2 is better at timing than the K5 Pro and that's where subjective reviews (if you trust the reviewer) and auditions are vital. Finally, waterfall plots and phase measurements can't show the timing discussed in this video because those are based on a single tone (or at least a continuous series of rising tones) frequency sweep. The performance of a headphone, IEM or speaker in the time domain is about more than phase (i.e. how long each frequency takes to arrive), it's also about the ability of the driver to react and change directions as the complex waveform shifts in the realm of 1-2 microseconds of accuracy. Those measurements aren't available and I think the push from sites like ASR and The Headphone Show to suggest that we can measure everything there is to know it's actually the more damaging approach because it asks people to stop trusting their ears when our ears are actually far more advanced assessment tools than any analyser when it comes to understanding the totality of a device's or system's audio performance. I hope this all makes sense.

[@michaeljbus]

@@PassionforSound Hi Lachlan, thanks for taking the time to respond. You've suggested I have missed the detail in what you've said in the video. I don't think I've missed the detail in what you've said - rather, I don't agree with some of what you've said, or the focus of this video on the importance of timing as being 'key' to great sound quality. This is as opposed to the importance of frequency response, which in headphones is I think clearly the most important factor for great sound quality, and in speakers is at least equally important to timing (to the extent timing is necessary to address to avoid phase issues resulting in peaks and nulls due to misalignment of drivers or room modes as heard at the listening position). I think the fact that frequency response (and distortion and noise, which are less important) is, as you've indicated in your comment, very easy to measure and correlate with perceived sound quality is *exactly* why it's what you should be talking about in a video that discusses 'The keys to great perceived sound', and 'How to build a great system'. You say that what separates a great system from a mediocre or good system is its timing performance, but that there is currently no commonly used set of measurements to describe that to us as consumers. But what evidence is there that, other conditions identical, timing performance of an audio system results in perceptible changes to sound quality? I think this is only conjecture. If you are not aware of measurements to describe timing, how can you make this generalised statement that audio products with 'faster' timing produce better sound quality? If we can't measure it, how can we demonstrate it? If we can't demonstrate it, how can we trust that it is having a real and perceivable effect? If there's no way of testing something and producing evidence, then what you're describing is essentially an article of faith. This seems to be borne out in the example you pose at 19:54, which refers to a hypothetical involving 'perfect frequency response' and asks us to 'imagine' the impacts of a cable with greater capacitance. Can you point to a real world example where the timing differences of a component demonstrably affects the sound quality? If your claims are based only on Kuncher's papers, you should be aware his works are controversial, and some aspects of them are obviously concerning. The paper you mentioned, 'An electrical study of single-ended analog interconnect cables', did not include any listening tests, only measurements of electrical properties, so it is quite a leap to say it demonstrates audible differences in cables due to smearing or masking issues. Regarding waterfall plots and phase measurements, I do not think your statement that these can't show the timing discussed in the video because they are based on a single tone, or continuous series of rising tones, is correct. It *is* possible to conduct frequency response measurements using complex waveforms like pink noise or M noise, or music. Indeed this is something that Resolve on the Headphone Show has talked about doing, e.g. he mentioned this in his recent Airpods Max video because ANC headphones have dynamic volume adjustments which can preclude the use of test tones. I can't speak to ASR, but I keep up with the Headphone Show and listen to their Noise Floor podcasts. I don't think it's fair to say they suggest we can measure everything - they don't, they acknowledge the limitations of measurements, and I trust them as reviewers that apply the scientific method, value objectivity, change their minds with new evidence, and question themselves constantly. I don't think they would ever say not to trust your ears - rather the issue here appears to be that you seem to be attributing what your ears (and brain) are hearing to one particular factor (timing), which is not clearly backed by evidence. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence of the effects of frequency response at the eardrum, and indeed you can easily demonstrate this yourself with EQ. Whatever your own opinion might be about these matters, I think it's problematic to make declarative statements like you do in this video from a platform that (in my impression) may be broadly trusted within the audio community. Perhaps you might consider couching your statements in more careful terms, e.g. indicating some of these are things that Kuncher has claimed, rather than asserting these matters as if they are fact when they are actually unproven.

[@PassionforSound]

@michaeljbus I can't explain this any differently than how I have in the video and my original reply. Everything I've discussed in the video and my reply is based on a deep scientific understanding of the human auditory system which is far more complex and variable (i.e. variable depending on the input received) than any measurement setup currently available. None of this is my opinion or faith based beliefs, it's all the combined knowledge gained from 218 peer-reviewed studies. Again, I never said frequency response, distortion and noise aren't important. I said they're easy to measure and understand so we can build a system around those factors VERY easily, but that won't guarantee great sound. Ergo, it's not a secret - everyone has access to that information and knowledge. If you're hung up on the way I titled the video, I'm sorry. If you wish to ignore the science and pretend it doesn't exist, you're welcome to. There's really nothing else I can say on the topic at this point.

[@michaeljbus]

(Edited for typos sorry)@@PassionforSound Hi Lachlan, thanks for indulging my comment with a response again, I appreciate it. So, I acknowledge the angle of this video that you've gone for with the idea that timing issues are a (or perhaps the?) secret to good sound quality. But in effect you seem to be suggesting that people should make purchase decisions based on the timing of components, whilst simultaneously saying this is essentially unknowable and can't be (or at least isn't) measured, so we should trust reviewers (and, to the extent possible, auditions). This is without clear evidence that the timing issues you're talking about - which are distinguished here from known timing issues like phase issues - actually exist. A couple of years ago I was just getting into this hobby, and I think advice like this would have steered me seriously down the wrong path in terms of trying to get a better sound quality experience. My concern is that this emphasis on an issue whose significance is marginal at best could equally be misleading to other newcomers to the hobby. That's the thing I'm most hung up on, not the title of the video. I understand the angle you've gone for, in that the timing issues referred to are not often talked about, but I think that is because these issues are not well established by the research or indeed provably audible within the community, putting aside other possible explanations for sound quality issues (including things like biases and placebo). Speaking of the research - and your statement that I'm welcome to ignore the science and pretend it doesn't exist if I wish - I don't wish to do that. I confess I'm only an amateur hobbyist and have no specific knowledge or skills base in acoustics, physics or engineering, but I am very interested in engaging with and understanding the science. A part of that is questioning what we know and looking at whether research can be replicated, and also whether there is evidence that contradicts a stated position. In the case of the Kuncher studies cited by your video, I watched Mr Kuncher's video titled 'High End Audio and the Domain of Time' (which shares significant similarities with your video), and did some follow-up reading and watching about his other works. What I discovered was a number of authors pointing out significant problems with Mr Kunchur's methods and conclusions, and not one other author replicating his findings. One of the more readily accessible items of content is a video by Amir M of ASR on youtube in which he goes through and effectively debunks Mr Kunchur's paper which purported to prove measurable and audible differences between RCA cables. One obvious problem with the study was that the cables were being measured with bandwidths in the MHz or GHz range rather than the audible band of 20Hz-20kHz. That is, the paper was effectively looking at transmission line effects, which are well understood by engineers, and are known not to be relevant to audio frequencies. Amir also talked about how the purported problem of capacitance in cables was totally conceptually wrong - and indeed audio components in amps and DACs would never work for audio if Mr's Kunchur's characterisation of the issue was correct. I was also surprised that Goldensound's video on the Headphones Show channel released just this morning, titled 'Is SINAD important? - Myths about measurements!', also specifically mentions issues with Mr Kunchur's cable paper, its methodology and test setup, and how its findings don't actually support the conclusion that cables make a difference in audio. None of this is to deny the complexity and variability of the human auditory system, or the notion that we don't fully understand how our brains work and what the limits of human hearing are. It was interesting to learn more about this in the first 15 or so minutes of your video. But the biological element does not, of itself, appear to provide any grounds for the claims you've made in this video about the importance of timing in audio components as a factor relevant to sound quality. I am content to leave this discussion there if you are, but I would very much welcome any further constructive discussion you're willing to engage in about these interesting issues. Related, on the most recent Noise Floor podcast the members mentioned they'd love to have you on to talk through your ideas (I imagine it might be a *robust* discussion). As a follower of both channels interested in the limits of what we know about human hearing and sound quality in audio systems, I would really welcome more constructive debate about these ideas, and would love to see you go on the show.

[@SEAKPhotog]

Very interesting!

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad it was interesting for you!

[@thepracticalaudiophile]

Awesome video

[@PassionforSound]

I'm so glad you liked it!

[@EtaiAflalo-yc2qg]

And then there’s my wife. Try listening to her for a few minutes

[@sqcaraudio]

Mr presenter. This is about 5 videos' worth of information. Take it easy on us.

[@PassionforSound]

I know it was a lot - sorry! There was no way to arrive at the conclusion of this video without all of that information. And believe me, I do know how you feel because I had to read the scientific paper about five times to make complete sense of it and then I still left out a bunch of the information!

[@sqcaraudio]

@PassionforSound As a side point, I arrived at this very same end point about hearing and measurements. Two stark examples are one: Sparkos opamps in amplifiers. They probably measure the same before and afterwards, but the depth and clarity get immensely better. Two improved power sources to amps or dacs.

[@PassionforSound]

@sqcaraudio great examples!

[@TuanMinh-sv2gq]

Wow this was such an amazing video! I learned a lot, while I was already quite familiar with the subject. I also think this video is proof that reviews from the likes of Audio Science Review, although interesting, dont come even close to painting the whole picture. This explanation is so thorough, that Im sure it will help many people in the difficult dilemma of objectivity Vs subjectivity. Btw, I've been following your channel for years now and we conversed in the past regarding cables and several other topics. I've recently converted to your side of the argument. Main reason is a change in how I view blind tests. If you are interested in this, feel free to reach out. I think it could be good for content. If not no hard feelings of course. Cheers and merry Christmas 🎄🎁 Martijn

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you found the video useful and even happier to hear that you have explored things for yourself and reached a conclusion based on that curiosity. I'd be curious to speak more because I'm producing a video in the new year about why audio blind tests don't deliver reliable data. Did we email previously? If so, can you drop me a fresh note so we can chat more?

[@TuanMinh-sv2gq]

​@@PassionforSoundHmm I tried replying twice but it seems after uploading the comment they disappeared? Perhaps because I was trying to share an email address.

[@PassionforSound]

@TuanMinh-sv2gq yes, KZbin automatically deletes comments with email addresses and links. I assume it's to prevent bots spamming with advertising.

[@daemon1143]

Good video. I note that many of the components which are considered superlative, have a very high capacity to handle rapid transients. Also, and on another matter, I've spent a fortune with Adam and never got a t-shirt; bastard.

[@PassionforSound]

Haha. Sorry about the Adam Audio t-shirt. The local PR rep scored this one for me when he arranged the D3V, H200 and full sized monitors for review (all coming soon). Great point about the excellent devices being designed to handle rapid transients. I'd noticed the same trend but previously had no solid science behind my inkling that it was a common theme.

[@daemon1143]

@@PassionforSound I hope you get the opportunity to listen to the Adam equipment driven by an Octave amp; they synergise beautifully with the Octave gear.

[@PassionforSound]

@daemon1143 I don't have access to an Octave amp at the moment, but I've got some lovely preamps to use them with

[@chervokas]

I'm not sure why you claim, and base many of the assumptions in the second half of this video, on the proposition that we don't and can't measure transient temporal accuracy. We do tons of routine measuring of timing accuracy in audio. We measure impulse responses, square wave rise times, square wave ripple, phase coherency, group delay, velocity of propagation in cables, slew rates in amplification devices, waterfall rise and decay measurements in acoustics, jitter tests in digital audio. And, you know, frequency is a time function too. We have tones of routine measurements timing accuracy in audio, plotted against frequency, amplitude, and all kinds of other things. I think you're starting from a faulty proposition that we don't measure transient time accuracy in audio. I also think you proceed from the faulty premise that the hifi reproduction gear has to capture both all the direct sound and reflected sound, but that's all baked in at the time of recording. Whatever choices the people making the recording have made to encode direct and reflected sound -- in frequency, timing, amplitude, etc -- in order to replicated a particular sound in two channel audio, will be baked into the resulting complex wave form. The replay gear doesn't have to resolve direct sound from reflected sound. It has no access in fact to any of that. All it has access to is the complex waveform on the recording medium in which information about those things is encoded, and all it can do it play it back without changes or with changes, either deliberate or unintended, and we can measure the changes and discern from those measurements what kind of sound perceptions are likely to result from changes of the waveform by the playback gear. Good 30K foot recap of how the ear and brain work in hearing and auditory perception, but I think some leaps to conclusions about what it means for audio that are either questionable (but could be put to a clinical research test) or require a presumption -- that we don't and can't measure transient temporal accuracy -- that I don't think holds up.

[@PassionforSound]

Can you show me a measurement that's commonly available on the majority of DACs or amps to help a buyer understand exactly how quickly that device can respond to a transient or shift in the musical signal to within 1-2 micro seconds? My comments are based on the fact that I've not seen this type of information published by either manufacturers or measurement-based review sites.

[@JasonChervokas-x9e]

@@PassionforSound Sure, in terms of timing measurements of that sort that are common for DACs and amp, the rise time of a 10kHz square wave

[@PassionforSound]

Is that published on the retail sites and manufacturer sites for the majority of DACs and amps? I don't think I've seen it there. I also don't think I see it commonly appear in measurement based reviews.

[@JasonChervokas-x9e]

@@PassionforSound Sure, John Atkinson pretty much always publishes a 10kHz square wave test with is amp measurements; 10kHz square wave as well as impulse response measurements are pretty ubiquitous in measurements of reconstruction filters in D/S DACs. Often you'll see group delay measurements too so you can see differences in group delay, so timing across frequency. I was just looking at 1kHz not 10kHz square wave measurements in Archimago's review of the 3e A5 and A7 amps recently. You also see specs like slew rate specs for amps sometimes. Going outside of amps, you see waterfall graphs for acoustic transient rise and fall times, impulse response measurements of loudspeakers and of drivers. These are common measurements. And square wave measurements are good for showing not only transient rise and fall times, but they can tell you a lot about frequency response too (frequency, as we know by the name, is in fact a time response anyway). I'd go further and say I doubt 1 and 2 microsecond differences in electronics impulse responses are going to wind up being audible with loudspeakers in the room -- they're going to be swamped by much higher magnitude room reflection and decay effects and speaker crossover and driver response time effects. Maybe with some sealed or in-ear headphones. Beyond what's commonly published, these kinds of measurements are normal parts of product development. It's certainly a very interesting area -- the biomechanics of our hearing and the cognitive aspects of our auditory perception. I've lately been reading Brian Moore's standard intro to psychoacoustics, An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, which covers a lot of what's in your summary, have you read it? Kuncher is obviously not the only researcher in the area, in fact I think his primary work is astronomy and superconductors. There's lots of science obviously about auditory perception, brain response, ear functioning, etc. It's obviously where the rubber hits the road when it comes to our individual experience of our audio systems (and in ways that may or may not be shared and may or may not directly reflect differences in the auditory stimulus). But I'm not sure the research you're summarizing accurately supports the assertion that our hearing is better resolving or more accurate or whatever then what we can, and do, measure. And certainly it's not true that there are no measurements in audio for transient timing accuracy, whatever is or isn't commonly published.

[@StephenMcGregor1986]

Cocktail deafness is another interesting one

[@PassionforSound]

Yes, that's all wrapped up in the functions of all those different brain centres and the cochlear amplification function, I believe.

[@error079]

Audio Science Review might dislike this video...

[@PassionforSound]

That's ok.

[@harrisarp3841]

Thank you for this video!!I have the same exact opinion about this!!Many of the reviewers especially audioscience........ they don't even hear at all they only see measurements.Maybe many of the best speakers manufacturer in the world are "stupid" when they say that they trust first their ears and far less the measurments!!!

[@PassionforSound]

I'm glad you liked it!