Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[dc655321]

I just find it interesting result.

It is certainly interesting.
More corroboration would be also be useful, as would contact with the vendor (if you have not already).
Maybe @JohnYang1997 could comment?

For the topic it is just interesting that let's say having nice result for 1 kHz 0 dBFS THD test tone doesn't necessarily indicate that there are no other hidden problems.

True, and it is disappointing to think that there may some that assume the "standard" test regiment on ASR would capture all corner cases.
And this, if verified further, would be such a corner case.

As for your assertion of audibility here, that also requires evidence.

 

[Miska]

As for your assertion of audibility here, that also requires evidence.

Or evidence of the contrrary. To err on safety, assume everything measurable to be audible unless proven otherwise.

 

[Holmz]

Or evidence of the contrrary. To err on safety, assume everything measurable to be audible unless proven otherwise.

I think I have seen numbers like -90dB or -100dB (SINAD) as the limit of audibility.
Or maybe it was -60dB?

You can have measurable things that are below the bar of what is audible.

So it is not “safe” to assume that, it could even be disingenuous in some cases to make that assumption.

 

[pkane]

Or evidence of the contrrary. To err on safety, assume everything measurable to be audible unless proven otherwise.

You’re setting the bar way too high! To prove a negative may be possible in mathematics, but not anywhere else since you need to prove it under all possible conditions. Proving a positive takes just one example of a properly conducted experiment, so infinitely more simple to do.

 

[dc655321]

Or evidence of the contrrary.

Any evidence at all would be welcome. What you've provided so far suggests inaudibility.
I didn't quote the remainder of your response, as I feel you're just being contrarian (and it's nonsensical anyway!).
The "why" of that, I'm definitely not interested in.

 

[Blumlein 88]

OKAY, mystery SOLVED. OPERATOR ERROR and/or IGNORANCE.

I know less about Mac systems than Windows or Linux.

In the Mac OS you need to open Midi and choose a Default device and sample rate or bit depth. I've wondered why for some devices you have to do this to get more than 48 khz and for others you don't. Anyway one of my choices was of course D10B which I chose.

Now you open REW and you can pick Default device (which I had assigned as D10B), and it works. Only when you do this it is going thru a MacOS mixer. Which is what caused the noise floor to rise and the spurious tones to appear. There are lots at 44.1 khz and not many at 192 khz or higher. Another choice in REW on MacOS is Default Audio, which apparently does go straight thru to the Default assigned D10B. Works great, no rise in the noise floor no spurious tones. Final choice is D10B which I probably should have chosen which also goes directly to the D10B and gives the low noise clean results just like Default Audio and not like Default. Mea Culpa!

Then using Audacity your choice is the internal speakers or D10B. Select D10B and you get the direct clean results. Same with Reaper.

So nothing to see here. Odd that the result was pretty much identical to what Miska was seeing at low sample rates, and cleaner, but not fully clean at high sample rates.

 

[rwortman]

Measurements are not the only things that matter. Sound quality isn’t even the only thing that matters. My speakers are covered in beautiful, real cherry veneer. This adds cost but does nothing for the sound. Aesthetics are not just to bias sighted testing. People that buy high end watches don’t generally do so because they think they keep better time (they don’t). but because they admire cool looking, finely made things.

I didn’t run out and buy a Topping DAC because I don’t like the project box with a teeny display design. I am about to spend the most money I have ever spent on an audio component for a new preamp. I am old enough to have a decent collection of vinyl records and a good turntable. I also have a large collection of digital music, a Roon, and a Tidal subscription. I have a stereo and surround setup in the same room. I have a manual switch to connect either my preamp or my AVR to my L/R power amp. There is a ground potential difference between the stereo and surround racks so I have to use a transformer to break the ground loop hum from the unbalanced interconnect.

The “you only go around once” thinking makes me want to finally splurge a bit. My new preamp has to have an automatic home theater bypass function, a built in good quality DAC, a topnotch phono stage and a balanced output. It would be good if it let me rename inputs, disable unused inputs, and had tone and balance controls. I don’t like the way my current preamp displays “CD” when my phono preamp is playing. I also don’t like squinting at little LED dots above or next to tiny input labels that can only be read from a foot away. (Looking at you Parasound and Benchmark) This lets me get rid of (and sell) 4 other little boxes and operate my system whilst sitting on my behind. It helps if it looks nice. It also can’t cost more than the last motorcycle I purchased.

I have looked at most of the widely available preamps that cost $5K or less and only two have all that. Anthem STR and Mcintosh C49. Only one of those is made in the USA and has a sterling record of resale value and service. I would be happy if this sounded better than my current setup. I doubt it will have much effect other than being able to optimize the loading of my cartridge, and thereby its frequency response. It will be a tidier setup and look great, I like the Mcintosh look.

From a strict measurement and sound quality perspective this is a useless and frivolous purchase. So what. This is supposed to be joyful and fun. You can’t measure that.

p.s. I don’t give a rat’s behind what the artist intended. I’d have to duplicate the mixing and mastering studios to hear that anyway. I’m pretty sure the artist intended for people to listen to the music and to get paid. If my EQ preferences differ from the mastering engineer, again, so what? All the going on about fidelity is only so we know what we are getting. I want the final EQ to be up to me, not some amp designer or some cable warlock.

 

[dc655321]

So it is not “safe” to assume that, it could even be disingenuous in some cases to make that assumption.

There isn't really any "could be" about that...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

From a strict measurement and sound quality perspective this is a useless and frivolous purchase. So what. This is supposed to be joyful and fun. You can’t measure that.

Nobody around here would take issue with that statement at all. Buy whatever you want. Enjoy your money. But if you're going to claim it actually is more musical, or more revealing, or has better imaging or detail or whatever other purple prose you want to come up with be prepared to be challenged to provide some sort of explanation for what might actually account for those qualities...or some sort of evidence they even exist in any real way.

I have to ask though...if that's your feeling about the subject...why are you hanging around here?

 

[BoredErica]

Big difference between claims about facts (this sounds different to that) and preference (this box is ugly/etc and I don't like it). Nobody cares either way about your opinion on the latter. It's all about the former.

I am very much into measurements. I'm willing to get something which measures a little worse but has an amazing look when it comes to speakers. I've never seen anyone criticize me for that.

 

[rwortman]

Nobody around here would take issue with that statement at all. Buy whatever you want. Enjoy your money. But if you're going to claim it actually is more musical, or more revealing, or has better imaging or detail or whatever other purple prose you want to come up with be prepared to be challenged to provide some sort of explanation for what might actually account for those qualities...or some sort of evidence they even exist in any real way.

I have to ask though...if that's your feeling about the subject...why are you hanging around here?

Never said measurements did’t matter, just that other things matter too. I hang out here because I am engineer and I think measurements tell us a lot. All that other gibberish was invented by magazine writers to fill pages. “I really like this thing” doesn’t sell magazines.

 

[rdenney]

Before I spent five large on a preamp with software and a processor that will be obsolete in no time, I would by a vintage preamp and little, inexpensive boxes to handle the software stuff. Hide it in the back of the cabinet.

In fact, that’s what I did. I’m currently using a very good B&K MC101 preamp, and the DAC is a separate box not front and center.

Rick “not that his system will win any aesthetics awards” Denney

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Never said measurements did’t matter, just that other things matter too. I hang out here because I am engineer and I think measurements tell us a lot. All that other gibberish was invented by magazine writers to fill pages. “I really like this thing” doesn’t sell magazines.

It's been stated over and over again in this thread that there are other considerations such as features, build quality and design to consider (not to mention budget). The debate about measurements relates solely to sound quality. Nothin else. I don't think most of us would choose to buy a component that measured poorly just because it looked cool, but once we have an array of gear to choose from that all measures great...well of course all the other things contribute to the decision.

 

[rwortman]

Nobody cares either way about your opinion on the latter. It's all about the former.

Makes for a boring conversation. When my riding buddy and I talk about bikes, if all it was was spec’s and measured performance it would be a short conversation. That stuff matter there too, but it’s not the only thing. If people here only talked about the numbers, the review threads wouldn’t be so long.

 

[rwortman]

Before I spent five large on a preamp with software and a processor that will be obsolete in no time, I would by a vintage preamp and little, inexpensive boxes to handle the software stuff. Hide it in the back of the cabinet.

In fact, that’s what I did. I’m currently using a very good B&K MC101 preamp, and the DAC is a separate box not front and center.

Rick “not that his system will win any aesthetics awards” Denney

The analog section won’t be obsolete in my lifetime and the DAC section is a replaceable module.

 

[dieselmilk]

Some people can't accept their speakers can't play sounds like they want them to, so it has to be the amp/preamp/phono/DAC that has proven to deliver a clean signal. Nah it magic/$9999 cables/meteorite cable risers that do the trick.

 

[dieselmilk]

Makes for a boring conversation. When my riding buddy and I talk about bikes, if all it was was spec’s and measured performance it would be a short conversation. That stuff matter there too, but it’s not the only thing. If people here only talked about the numbers, the review threads wouldn’t be so long.

Anyone can like whatever bike/amp they want. But measureables are measureables. One bike will have better power to weight, acceleration, handling. But you can like something with different characteristics. Every thread devolves into "my opinion is better" however. Where people get screwy is that electronics should do one thing, pass a signal with the absolute minimum amount of noise and distortion with the highest accuracy. If the electronics do that and people don't like it, they blame the electronics over the source/speakers/their ears. The electronics are playing you what was recorded. If someone likes a colored signal, that's cool, but taste is irrelevant. The equipment does something measurable. Subjective opinions are worthless, either you like the recording with uncolored signal through your specific speakers or you don't. Taste defines if you like that or not, but a lot of people who claim to want the purest, unmolested signal denounce equipment that does exactly that simply because they don't want to admit they don't actually like the purest sound. They like the slightly altered sound other equipment gives them.

Not directed at you, rant over.

 

[Holmz]

There isn't really any "could be" about that...

A good marketing department can craft a message in a variety of ways.

As I am not ^that^, I need to maintain some attempt at gentlemanly behaviour.

 

[Holmz]

You’re setting the bar way too high! To prove a negative may be possible in mathematics, but not anywhere else since you need to prove it under all possible conditions. Proving a positive takes just one example of a properly conducted experiment, so infinitely more simple to do.

And there is also the crown that says that they can hear the unmeasurable.
That group would say that we are setting the var too low, “sciences ain’t everything”, etc.

 

[Dave Tremblay]

I have a scale for how much measurements matter for each category of products:

DACs: 100%
Amplifiers (headphone and speaker): 80 to 90% due to variability of available power. Hard to internalize how much power is available/enough without listening tests.
Speakers: 70 to 80%
Headphones: 50 to 80% (measurements too variable)

@amirm, this is a great answer and almost exactly what I tell people.

The underlying issue is that some classes of products have distortion mechanisms that are difficult to test. These tend to stem from the system being stressed to their limits, which is common in transducers (speakers and mics). In a DAC, you’re operating at 3V maybe, with minimal current requirements. If you do the simple stuff right, it’s pretty easy to hit good specs, and the performance isn’t affected by particular signals. Measurements almost perfectly correlate to real world performance. I trust the AP way more than my ears in this case.

Amps can get stressed with high current and voltage swings. Headphone outputs are often overlooked by the pro industry, and often underperform at low and high impedance loads. Hitting current limitation of an amp is clipping and sounds terrible. And it can be easy to hit if all channels are driven hard. Measurements still rule here, but it makes sense to listen for issues that may pop up with multi-channel signal dependent current draw.

Speakers, for me, are one of the most challenging to correlate measurements to enjoyment, but I still measure everything. It is the first cut. If measurements are terrible, the speaker won’t sound good. Full stop. If the measurements are mediocre, but not terrible, it could still outperform a better measuring speaker in practice, so it stays in the running and gets listened to. If the measurements are perfect, that’s a real good start, but not a guarantee. Take a 5” 2-way design. We measure that at reasonable level, say 86dB, like Amir. It might measure great, but it’s unlikely that you won’t see transient peaks at higher SPL level even if you listen at a quiet “slow” SPL level. And what happens to the midrange if that 5” driver is really moving due to loud low frequency content? The midrange doesn’t stay clean. It distorts like crazy. Not an easy thing to measure because you’d have to measure IMD at all frequency combinations, at all mixed power levels, to see a complete picture. And I’m not even sure how you’d visualize that in a graph.

So going to that JBL that measured mediocre, but sounded good. It’s a large diameter woofer with a compression tweeter. The woofer doesn’t have to work as hard to produce a given output volume, and the tweeter isn’t breaking a sweat.

In my personal experience, I’d weight speaker measurements roughly like this:

Axial Frequency Response: 30%
Polar Response: 20%
Intermod Distortion at 100dB: 30%
THD@100dB: 20%

And those last two, especially IMD, are rarely measured, and even more rarely at that level. So while that JBL may only be mediocre in the top two, it’s likely crushing the bottom two. And with that weighting, I’d likely prefer that JBL over a speaker that was excellent in the top two, but poor in the bottom two.