Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[rdenney]

...
Schiit Magni 2 - didn't measure well, but sounded really good.
Hifime ES9018 - didn't measure well here, but sounded really sweet.
...

Like your food salty, do you?

Rick "nothing wrong with that if one sees it for what it is" Denney

 

[tmtomh]

@restorer-john

But here is what I would like to know (honest curiosity), what makes these Mark Levison amps $10k? Aside from better parts and the luxurious chasis. Does it have better engineering? Does those better parts make better sound? Does the Mark Levison engineers honestly tried to give it a "sound signature." Apparently the Hegel engineers may have (if you read their response to the H190 review, they use the word "subjective"). And if these true and legit engineers believes in "sound signature" can we blast them for it? Remind you, they are real legit EE many have PhD. Or are all of these EE just playing the game because, let's face it, it's a business at the end of the day. And there is an audiophoolia ecosystem that keeps the machine running and the cash coming.

Again, these are all good questions, although I would respectfully suggest that at this point in the discussion some of these questions have been answered repeatedly, or at least addressed in a way that can enable us to ask some of the questions a bit differently.

What makes Levinson amps $10k? The cost of materials, the size and weight, the relatively small production runs, the marketing budget, and the profit built into the brand name's legacy and reputation. None of us knows exactly how much each factor contributes to the price, and I am making no comment here on whether or not each of those factors should impact the price - but nevertheless, basic factors like this are pretty well-known, and if my list is not exhaustive, I imagine it's pretty close.

Do those better parts make better sound? Some probably do, some possibly might, and some almost certainly do not. Also, some of those better parts might make zero sonic difference, but they might increase longevity or the amp's ability to withstand electrical surges or various kinds of user errors or abuse.

These questions are clear enough. But then we get to the "sonic signature" questions and things get more confused.

I think we all need to be very clear that the question of a sonic signature is really two questions:

1. Is it "valid" to alter an amp's performance to create a distinctive "sonic signature"?
2. Do "sonic signature" amps actually, in fact, have a signature - do they actually measure and sound different than other amps?

For #1, it is perfectly valid to create a sonic signature. It is NOT valid to create a sonic signature AND ALSO claim that the deviations from maximum fidelity that you created somehow make the amp MORE hi-fi than other amps that are more accurate than yours - but of course that's what most of the marketing of such amps tends to imply. This is a version of the unsupported claim that tube amps and vinyl sound more "real" than solid state and digital even though they are less hi-fi/less accurate.

For #2, it depends on the amp - but the great irony is that the hi-fi world in general and the amp world in particular are filled with "tweaks" explicitly made because they allegedly change the sound - but they don't actually make any sonic difference. Restricting ourselves just to things that can be used in amps, @amirm has rolled/swapped op amps and tested the different configurations. More tests of more op amps in more gear would be needed, but his initial results show no measurable difference (if memory serves, tiny differences were equal to or smaller in size than run-to-run variations of multiple passes with the same op amps). Similarly, there's a whole lore about how different kinds of transistors have a different sonic signature. Yet I am unaware of any measurement comparisons or double-blind listening tests of bipolar vs MOSFET amps where every other aspect of the amp's design was kept constant. (Instead, the sonic differences between the two types of transistors are taken as a given, and the amp is designed around them - a hardware-design version of the "circle of confusion.") We also get tons of claims about Class A amps having a certain special something that Class AB amps lack - and yet often folks make these claims based on having played amps at levels where the AB amp will still be in A mode, meaning they are actually comparing Class A to Class A and still claiming to hear the difference.

My point is that there are two totally different - and in some sense diametrically opposed - problems with seeking a "sonic signature." One is that you can't have your cake and eat it too: if your amp sounds fundamentally different from most other high-performing amps then there's something wrong with it, and so you can't claim your design tweaks make it sound better when "better" is supposed to mean "higher fidelity to the source." But the second problem is the converse: just because a thick copper inner chassis might provide better electrical shielding or vibration resistance, and just because your capacitors use silk rather than paper fibers, doesn't mean that the amp will sound different or better as a result.

The narrative that most equipment makers tell usually is that they design the gear, measure it, and then "tweak by ear" afterwards for the best sound. The strong implication is that they do not do this ear-based tweaking with double-blind testing, and that they do not use measurements to check whether or not the differences they heard from their ear-tweaks are actually likely to be real. Based on this we cannot know if the problem is that the amp has been customized to someone's individual preference instead of maximum fidelity, or if the amp's response has not actually been changed at all.

 

[tmtomh]

In my view, if we're trying to orient new members/visitors around the basic perspective of the site, we have to back up another step to 'before' the measurements.
I think the basic primary gulf between the 'objectivist' leaning crowd and the 'subjectivist' leaning crowd rests in the difference in perspective on the human auditory system. The 'objectivist' leaning cohort accepts the results from psychology that our hearing is actually rather flawed, and that bias (both conscious and unconscious) has a large influence on subjective perception. i.e. they understand that we really can't trust our ears in many cases. Conversely, the subjective camp believes strongly in both the resolution and repeatability of our hearing. They have a perspective that seems to be rooted in the belief of an 'invariant' listener, leading to the belief that the only possible explanation of a difference in subjective experience is that there is an objective difference in the sound field.

So, I think it's a mistake to jump straight to discussions of 'the measurements' in these cases. If the new member doesn't understand or isn't willing to accept the basic premise, then there isn't likely to be any productive discussion.

From there, I do find the question of exactly how well the measurements capture the potential range of audible differences to be interesting. I do still 'believe' that there are aspects of system performance - particularly spatial perception - that probably aren't captured by the single-channel types of measurements done here. But, it's also highly likely that speaker and room completely dominate that discussion, and so it's probably not relevant to electronics. (probably)

Well said and great points.

 

[Chr1]

Re: first: nothing in universe is the same, yet, two different amps carefully designed to be as transparent as they could be do share the same qualities, namely - transparency. There're a lot of colors until you just wash off all of them to see clear canvas.

Second: any distortions can be added via appropriate DSP. You just need to care about DSP rules and design what you need. If you cannot describe all details of a model - you cannot model...yet you can make "snaphots"! LUTs, volterra Kernels... Another very big topic by itself.
I do adore modern digital processing as being able to bring all sorts of needed harmonic distortions without any problems. A lot of people replaced their old hardware with code, i did too, to some degree...(a can solder, but cannot code!...)

Not quite sure I agree re DSP valve emulation.

A while back, I found this
on the Foobar2000 site Hyrogenaudio...

"Spoken from someone who has a master's in Computer Engineering and has taken Image and DSP processing. I do not believe any "plugin" will be able to adjust the harmonics correctly to give the "tube warmth". It's like trying to reverse the very mechanism with DSP correction, it never works out.

You can bring up even or odd harmonics, or even to the 11th order but the bottom line is you are still going through transistors. I've tried many tube amp plugins and seen the harmonic distortion, but what comes out after an amp + pre-amp, that are solid-state, does not line up. If anything it sounds too smooth and dead to me.

These plugins are likely DSP gimmicks based on mathematical convolving the source signal with some type of Fourier transform, offset, from the original wave. It's still a giant matrix.

The prob is that even if you solve the harmonics with convolving, you still have the issues of inability of the transistors to replicate the transient movements of tubes. It's like having a bottle-kneck in the whole system."

If it was so easy, no musicians would be using valve amplifiers. It would all be SS with DSP. Don't think that we are quite there yet. Not far off most likely tho.

 

[rdenney]

In my view, if we're trying to orient new members/visitors around the basic perspective of the site, we have to back up another step to 'before' the measurements.
I think the basic primary gulf between the 'objectivist' leaning crowd and the 'subjectivist' leaning crowd rests in the difference in perspective on the human auditory system. The 'objectivist' leaning cohort accepts the results from psychology that our hearing is actually rather flawed, and that bias (both conscious and unconscious) has a large influence on subjective perception. i.e. they understand that we really can't trust our ears in many cases. Conversely, the subjective camp believes strongly in both the resolution and repeatability of our hearing. ...

Sorry to cut you off

But I challenge this notion that objectivists distrust their hearing and subjectivists trust only their hearing. I rather think it's the reverse. Measurements-driven proponents trust hearing--it's the interpretation of the hearing based on the other senses that they don't trust. So, they applaud subjective testing when it is done with the proper controls, because that eliminates the biases introduced into the perceptual process by those other senses.

Feelings-driven proponents, however, only claim to trust their ears. But in fact they don't. They refuse (usually) to conduct controlled testing, and thus allow their other senses to influence their interpretation of what they hear. If they are comparing $10,000 Mark Levinson amps against a $700 Buckeye, they will hear a difference, but the difference they hear is really the difference they see, coupled to the assumptions they make about what those differences will be. Those assumptions bias their interpretation of what they hear without the option, and without any specific acknowledgement or even awareness of the assumptions.

The only way to claim one judges based on hearing alone is to apply controls to subjective testing--the one thing "subjectivists" seem unwilling to do "because the difference is so obvious". If it's that obvious, then why are they so reluctant? I doubt it's all explained by laziness. Fear that their $10,000 investment might be invalidated must play a role in those biases, too.

Rick "who trusts his ears, but not his brain" Denney

 

[pkane]

If it was so easy, no musicians would be using valve amplifiers. It would all be SS with DSP. Don't think that we are quite there yet. Not far off most likely tho.

Would so many mastering engineers ever resort to these plugins if they were so inferior?

 

[DanielT]

Not married but I have a girlfriend. That floral wallpaper is brutal and I guess, being an audiophile, I kinda dig subwoofers... In my ideal mancave I could stare at my motorcycles too. (used as room treatment perhaps?)

There is nothing wrong with dreaming about what you want.
After all, it's ultimately music we're talking about at ASR, from one of my favorite blues records:

 

[Chr1]

Would so many mastering engineers ever resort to these plugins if they were so inferior?

When top jazz guitarists and folk like Jeff Beck go the way of purely SS and DSP, I think that the technology will have arrived.
Just my personal opinion.

 

[BoredErica]

I don't understand how euphonic gear are 'hi-fi'. They're the opposite of hifi.

 

[Chr1]

I don't understand how euphonic gear are 'hi-fi'. They're the opposite of hifi.

I agree. Adding euphonic distortion is not by definition hifi.

 

[dwkdnvr]

I don't understand how euphonic gear are 'hi-fi'. They're the opposite of hifi.

Well, duh. It's musically accurate. It's higher-fi.

 

[Geert]

Are measurements everything or not? For sure they're faster for most people: https://darko.audio/2021/12/global-feedback-how-much-time-do-you-need/.

Makes one question the supreme hearing capabilities some audiophiles claim to have.

 

[rdenney]

When top jazz guitarists and folk like Jeff Beck go the way of purely SS and DSP, I think that the technology will have arrived.
Just my personal opinion.

You have a much different view of musicians than I do.

In my musical world, I advocate for a science-based understanding of how our instruments work. Yet even world-class performers are subject to a range of biased perceptions, and also show great difficulty in connecting effect to cause. Thus, they change to overweight mouthpieces (or skeletonized mouthpieces to lighten them) based on the fad of the moment. They attribute special qualities to the specific formulation of the brass. They argue about whether a lacquer finish or a silver finish (on an instrument that makes precisely zero sibilant transients) affects the sound. Their eyes glaze over if I talk about the bell as an impedance matching device--impedance not being a common topic in music school. They argue about whether brass, bronze, or stainless steel is the better mouthpiece material--again for instruments that do not produce any useful/measurable sounds above a couple thousand Hz. They can do things that make me cry--at the beauty they produce and at my own incompetence as a performer. But science ain't their thang.

I do know some extremely qualified physicists with expertise in acoustical science who also play tuba. Let's just say they have a different view of causes and effects than the above examples. This forum is populated with people like that, even those who are musicians.

Rick "doubting that Jeff Beck has subjected his listening to controls, but confident that he gets the effects he wants" Denney

 

[rdenney]

Well, duh. It's musically accurate. It's higher-fi.

How is being less faithful to the original waveforms somehow being more faithful to the music?

That just makes no sense to me.

I get where it could be more faithful to your expectation of the music, but now you are usurping some of the musician's role. The musician may or may not care, but please see it for what it is.

Rick "distortion is distortion" Denney

 

[Geert]

even world-class performers are subject to a range of biased perceptions, and also show great difficulty in connecting effect to cause. Thus, they change to overweight mouthpieces (or skeletonized mouthpieces to lighten them) based on the fad of the moment. They attribute special qualities to the specific formulation of the brass.

Pro violinists fail to spot Stradivarius in blind test.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Anyone who thinks musicians aren't every bit as prone to the same cognitive bias and all the other weird subjective bugaboos we are in the hifi world is...well, wrong. lol.

 

[solderdude]

The musicians I know all are more interested in melodies, the 'art' around it, instruments and their tonal differences than interested in high fidelity sound reproduction.
Most of them do not even have h-fi gear either. They enjoy the music not the sound quality.

 

[Chr1]

You have a much different view of musicians than I do.

In my musical world, I advocate for a science-based understanding of how our instruments work. Yet even world-class performers are subject to a range of biased perceptions, and also show great difficulty in connecting effect to cause. Thus, they change to overweight mouthpieces (or skeletonized mouthpieces to lighten them) based on the fad of the moment. They attribute special qualities to the specific formulation of the brass. They argue about whether a lacquer finish or a silver finish (on an instrument that makes precisely zero sibilant transients) affects the sound. Their eyes glaze over if I talk about the bell as an impedance matching device--impedance not being a common topic in music school. They argue about whether brass, bronze, or stainless steel is the better mouthpiece material--again for instruments that do not produce any useful/measurable sounds above a couple thousand Hz. They can do things that make me cry--at the beauty they produce and at my own incompetence as a performer. But science ain't their thang.

I do know some extremely qualified physicists with expertise in acoustical science who also play tuba. Let's just say they have a different view of causes and effects than the above examples. This forum is populated with people like that, even those who are musicians.

Rick "doubting that Jeff Beck has subjected his listening to controls, but confident that he gets the effects he wants" Denney

Ok. I guess now I would be interested to know your opinions on digital emulation of various instruments such as the tuba, violin etc? Are they accurate?

 

[cinemakinoeye]

[…] So, I think it's a mistake to jump straight to discussions of 'the measurements' in these cases. If the new member doesn't understand or isn't willing to accept the basic premise, then there isn't likely to be any productive discussion […]

So true. Any conversation across intelectual/emotional/philosophical/etc. divides proceeds best if things start off finding common ground, which often involves uncomfortable topics and tolerance and focusing on questions and listening rather than jumping into argumentative patterns.

 

[dwkdnvr]

How is being less faithful to the original waveforms somehow being more faithful to the music?

That just makes no sense to me.

I get where it could be more faithful to your expectation of the music, but now you are usurping some of the musician's role. The musician may or may not care, but please see it for what it is.

Rick "distortion is distortion" Denney

Sorry, I assumed the sarcasm would have been obvious. It is (or at least was - I've stopped paying attention) something of an Audiophile talking point - "you're measuring the wrong things. technical accuracy doesn't matter - musical accuracy does"