Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Sokel]

I use my system for films, music (CD, vynil...), videogames and some TV. Neutral and transparent is the most convenient I can do due to the variety of sources I play.

My system has a neutral orientation as well,it's the safest way to go.
But I do have plans for a little set-horn system in the future,just for the fun.
I don't take sides in fun

 

[Vacceo]

My system has a neutral orientation as well,it's the safest way to go.
But I do have plans for a little set-horn system in the future,just for the fun.
I don't take sides in fun

I hope I can experiment with Dirac precisely for that.

 

[Sal1950]

No one can dictate taste.I absolutely adore a big tube-horn system (colored obviously) as much as I enjoy the neutrality of other systems.
Sometimes one wants to cut through music,sometimes it's only fun and it's not wrong to like black-n-white.

I can understand that, but if home and/or budget limit you to one system, get a neutral one.
You can always introduce coloration's to please your taste when desired.

 

[Mart68]

Wel, that is the big mistake that many make here: take statistically tests and think that is the only truth, while it's a generalisation of tendences and personal preference is not something that can be used generalised for individual cases. Those generalisations are great for speaker designers who want to know what will sell the best.

Many like a coloued sound, even people like me who worked or still work in studio's and know very neutral systems (i regulary listen to Genelc 8030C and Kii Tree speakers for instance), but we still prefer some harmonic colouration. I know even a top level mastering engineer who have a extreme neutral setup (Kii Tree BXT in an extensive treated room) in their studio, but have a vinyl setup with a SET tube amp and an oldskool fullrange driver in horn setup as hifi system. He says his Kii system is a very good mastering tool, but don't engage him to enjoy music while his tube setup is useless as studio monitor, but make him enjoy music more. This guy is btw reading this forum, but don't engage due to this fundamentalistic view of many here (and he is not the only one).

You make a good point, the research shows 1 in 5 are outliers, globally that is a lot of people.
Use case is very important, a studio monitor system won't necessarily be presenting in a way that will encourage relaxation, if that is the aim of listening to music, even though it will be impressive and will lay out the art of the engineer before you.

Although it does seem to me that using EQ is a better way to 'tone down' the explicitness of a system, as opposed to building the relaxation factor in from the start. There's nothing 'fundamentalist' about pointing that out.

 

[Sokel]

I can understand that, but if home and/or budget limit you to one system, get a neutral one.
You can always introduce coloration's to please your taste when desired

Yes,that's a solid foundation you can built upon.

 

[Waxx]

You make a good point, the research shows 1 in 5 are outliers, globally that is a lot of people.
Use case is very important, a studio monitor system won't necessarily be presenting in a way that will encourage relaxation, if that is the aim of listening to music, even though it will be impressive and will lay out the art of the engineer before you.

Although it does seem to me that using EQ is a better way to 'tone down' the explicitness of a system, as opposed to building the relaxation factor in from the start. There's nothing 'fundamentalist' about pointing that out.

You can use eq to make a "house curve", that is true, better use it than precook it in the passive crossover. But you can't eq harmonic distortion and what orders you want and what not. Plugins don't do it realisticly (at least the ones i heared). Transistors, transformer and tubes can do that, and that is why they are still popular with diy builders also (who know stuff)

I can understand that, but if home and/or budget limit you to one system, get a neutral one.
You can always introduce coloration's to please your taste when desired.

I would say, if you don't know what you need get a neutral one. If you know what you want on sound colouration, you can dab into colouration trough amps, speakers or other stuff. But don't get a tube amp or class A transistor amp because someone says it's the best (technically it isn't). And it helps to choose he right thing if you know the science behind it.

And btw: I'm busy with designing a system for a friend, that will be high power garden system and use a dsp to get the sound he wants (which is retro with the top rolled off and bass heavy). The system itself can also be set fairly neutral and with good dispertion with the dsp, but we will make a preset that fits the music (old reggae) he wants to play trough it, and the amps will be high quality class D as to much power and mobilty is asked for other (tube or class A) options...
.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And as you know, software EQ is the best and cheapest way to get the particular coloration you like.

For me, it's easier, as I get what I want by cranking up the subwoofer.

Yes and, often, it is the best and cheapest way to remove/correct the particular coloration you dislike.

 

[Vacceo]

Yes and, often, it is the best and cheapest way to remove/correct the particular coloration you dislike.

Plus, it allows you to try a different coloration too.

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper I honestly don't think you read me well, or you just don't understand the issue properly. Actually, the above makes it pretty clear that it's both.

You are so confused on these issues. And you refuse to listen and learn.

Uh...you literally just posted information that shows precisely what I was saying.

I pointed out that whether you are trying to recreate the "intent" of the musical artists, or are trying to constrain that to the "intent" of the engineers (an artificial division as I've explained), you STILL hit the circle of confusion! That's because the engineers monitor their work VIA speakers and in rooms you don't have! Which in all likelihood deviate from what you will have at home! That's why you don't escape the circle of confusion by appealing to reproducing "what the engineers put on the recording."

That's RIGHT THERE in the graphic: "Unless the loudspeakers involved in the creation of the recordings are similar in performance to those used in reproduction, the "art" is not preserved."

It has been laid out clearly enough and often enough in the past, and next time the topic is up....here you go again. My previous post was so clear, there really isn't anything I can add. The answers to your questions are all within it. Honestly. So frustrating.

The Circle of Confusion is Toole's creation. So what he says is in it, is what is in it, and what he doesn't show as in it, is not in it. Okay? Well here it is from his book:-
View attachment 217650

Show me where it says "Artist's Intent".

It's literally right there - directly above the words you just typed. What do you think the "art" is, if not the creation intended by the artist?

Also: please remember that, especially in regard to the circle of confusion, it's not just the engineers who are monitoring the sound and making decisions via their particular speakers/room...it's typically THE MUSICAL ARTISTS as well. They are recording in the studio, monitoring playback on that equipment, and involved in making artistic decisions via that monitoring system, ensuring the work of the engineers is in concert with their goal! (And often these days it's the artists themselves doing it all, in lots of indie stuff).

As one of countless examples, here is ABBA in the recording studio with their famous audio engineer Michael Tretow:


460 × 347

513 × 350

640 × 462
Newman, your replies suggest you may have some technical knowledge. But forgive me, I'm not the only one to observe: Your posts read like someone who has never actually worked in the professional audio industry (in particular, producing content), which would explain the naivete of your arguments.

It's one thing to read Toole's book. It's another to put together a cogent argument.

 

[Azazello13]

Agreed, generally speaking.
KenTajalli said:
If I remember correctly, Archimago once said "All we can expect a device to do, is to be faithful to the recording at hand, we can not guess the intentions of the artists or the engineers who produced it".
That is very true! a harsh recording should sound harsh, a soft recording . . . . .
The same goes for bright recording, Warm recording (whatever that means).

The problem there, though, is the one I keep raising: it seems to leave the ultimate aim for this hobby unmoored - just hanging in the air without justification.

Maybe we need to acknowledge two different hobbies.

1) where the goal is the accurate rendering of an audio recording. no muddling on about what this or that person intends or prefers, because the recording itself is treated as sacrosanct and the only target worthy of focusing on. This hobby is completely "moored" on one thing, and that is high fidelity to the source.

2) where the goal is taking a recording and effecting changes making it more pleasing to ourselves or others. Here we can be led by any number of things: what we like, what we think others like, what we think the musicians or recording engineers were trying to get across but weren't initially able to for whatever reason. We might prefer the same changes to nearly all recordings, or we might decide everything needs a different approach. This hobby is indeed "unmoored" in terms of ultimate aims, but that's fine, it's pretty much completely subjective by definition.

I mostly leave the second hobby to those who either make original recordings or those who take existing recordings and re-mix, re-master, restore, etc. I appreciate and respect the efforts of these people enormously. If I tended to like all music colored and modified in the same direction, maybe I would seek playback equipment that consistently reproduces those colorations, much like a person who likes their food saltier than most others who might consistently add salt when dining out. But I don't have that kind of general preference, so when it comes to reproduction I just want to hear the recording as it is.

 

[krabapple]

3D is just a gimmick, like excessive CGI. Someone discovered that it was easier to use gimmicks to get people into the theatres than it was to provide a good plot, characters, and memorable dialogue. So we get films that no-one is interested in seeing more than once, and no-one will be quoting classic lines from them twenty years on.

I can watch a film like 'The Maltese Falcon' any number of times and enjoy it just as much as the first, yet it's just a handful of people talking in a room.

I played that to a bunch of 30 somethings in a nice cinema room recently. They were politely bored. (though 'you'll take it and like it ' got a laugh)

It really does have a lot of expository dialogue and fairly static 'action' (I say this as a fan having seen is at least a half dozen times before). And Bogey is not today's idea of eye candy.

 

[krabapple]

IMAX can be fun. 3D can be fun. I liked Avatar in 3D, but it washed out the color too much. I liked an old 3D flick, Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. Also thought it was worthwhile in of all things Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Didn't see Gravity in 3D, but it probably was one that would be fun.

Gravity in 3D was awe-inspiring. Really well done.

 

[krabapple]

I care more about it sounding good to me.

That is not at odds with a mandate that the home output device be 'faithful to the recording'. You're free at that point to tweak the knobs and options as you like. But the device shouldn't 'color' the sound at the source by non-override-able default. (Unfortunately, we have speakers and vinyl, for that)

 

[MattHooper]

Gravity in 3D was awe-inspiring. Really well done.

One of the advantages of having a good home theater projector is with 3D. (That is, if you care for 3D in the first place). At home I can ensure a nice bright, crisp, vibrant image with 3D, whereas we all know it can be very hit or miss in the movie theaters. (Sometimes it's just dreadfully dim).

Gravity 3D in my home theater is just surreal, like a trip to space!

 

[MattHooper]

I figure this may be the most apropos thread to post a link to this old ditty...

Blind Testing Video Cables.

Over the years I've reported results of various blind tests I've done, on various forums.

Here's a link where I did my best to involve the members of the AVSForum in blind testing. I did a shoot out between a variety of video cables, from cheap to expensive (including Nordost). This was back when we were still with DVD resolution, and still mostly analog connections, so the boutique cable companies where still making money selling expensive video cables making all sorts of claims for how they improve your image. As far as I know, nobody had publically produced any attempt to test the claims. (Mostly you either believed boutique video cables improved picture quality, or you didn't).

The test seemed to be well received by the AVS members. I'm sure you can all guess the results:

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/screen-shots-4-brands-of-component-video-cable-compared.496077/

 

[Newman]

Seems like so many review threads get challenged with:

1. Measurements are not everything.

2. You all never listen.

3. I trust my ears, not graphs.

4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music.

5. You all must not listen to music at all.

6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear?

7. I have heard your best SINAD gear and they sound terrible. I don't like any of this Chinese stuff.

8. You don't trust your ears. I/we do.

9. All these reviewers/youtubers/audophiles say these amps, DACs, etc. sound different and you say they don't. They can't all be wrong.

10. Surely designers have created certain house sound for each equipment which your measurements don't show.

11. Your measurements are only at one frequency. You need to also measure X, Y and Z like impulse response, slew rate, etc., etc.

12. You guys run a cult here where you only go by measurements and no one is allowed to disagree.

On and on...

I have had to answer these so many times that I thought it is time to stop having them go into every review as they are not product specific. From here on, any such questions should be posted here. Answers will be given in this thread and simply referenced in future challenges in other threads.

@AdamG247 and @BDWoody, please direct any future posts in review threads to here and not allow discussions there.

Thanks. You all are free to discuss this topic, provide answers, argue, whatever, in this thread.

Hi all,

I just thought, you know, 147 pages later, I might re-post post #1 from this thread.

I think it is a sweet reminder that this thread is a dumping ground for posts made elsewhere by science-refusing believers who have sucked up all the cool-aid myths of recorded-audio reproduction and playback. And where they can find answers. Or they can go full denialist and refuse to learn or understand the answers, and argue to the ends of the earth. Yes, you know who you are, and this is your thread, guys. Have at it.

Or learn. Your choice.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

^^^^ *yeesh*

That post is like watching someone hallucinate in public.

(And unfortunately it's a perfect example of the type of attitude that turns some otherwise agreeable people away from forums like this. Thankfully
most people here are less dogmatic and less in to browbeating others with their All Powerful Wand Of Science).

 

[JP]

All Powerful Wand Of Science

So many thoughts. So little time.

 

[MattHooper]

So many thoughts. So little time.

Since that reads as sarcastic (another indication: it was "liked" by SIY ), it suggests you may have misinterpreted the point.

Given the context of the views I've defended on this forum (which to remind you includes many defenses of the relevance of measurements, the scientific method and an objective approach over a purely subjective approach to audio).......What is your Good Faith interpretation of the point I was making?

(I presume you seek Good Faith interpretations of other people's arguments given your tag line).

 

[JP]

I simply found the numerous connotations amusing.