Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[NattyLumpkins]

it could well be due to psychology effects that the magic of R2R have you fell like that. Don't get me wrong, I myself have been using a $1300 Holoaudio Spring 2 R2R DAC and enjoyed it a lot. yes, back then when my purchases decision was made it was due to the tempt to try the R2R magic, which, it did sound good but not distinctive/discernable from my previous ESS 9018 dac, but since it was set up, looks great and functions well, yet still measuring better than 16bit at ?100db SINAD I just don't bother changing again for impercievable improvement

The whole notion that components do not sound different because they are supposed to all sound the same is astonishingly idiotic. All DACS do not sound all the same because they not only have different design architectures but they have different power supplies and different components. If someone thinks that all digital bits are the same they are living in the 1980's when Sony came out with the CD. Perfect sound forever, it all sounds the same now just like the master tape! Not.

By all rights tubes should sound terrible, but because it is a particular harmonic where their distortion resides, they do not. You would think that all solid state would sound same but it does not. More perhaps bizarre is when you create a speaker cross over and take the exact same spec capacitors from different manufacturers and switch them out. Well guess what, they sound different, most of the time in a very apparent way, as in anyone with tin ears can hear the difference.

If Julian Hirsch, the man who personified the state of audio criticism for nearly half a century taught us anything, it was that measurements only tell a very small part of the story. That story more often than not, is an indicator of how well something is designed from an electrical engineering standpoint, but does not always mean by any stretch of the imagination that it will sound as good as it measures or the opposite.

The other piece is that since the mid 1990's clipping distortion in creating the final master tape is always present. The loudness wars have made that clipping distortion a permanent resident on all pop/rock music published after about 1995. Some people notice it, some people do not but most can have the feeling of fatigue after listening for a long period of time but they do not know why. Likewise, some people are not bothered by 320kbps MP3, other people (me included) cannot stand the sound of it.

Since hearing is variable it is a bit ridiculous to tell someone that what they hear does not exist because the opposite is also true. Maybe you don't hear it because over time it is your ears that have become conditioned to the distortion. At the end of the day, decent engineering and good sound, with sound being the most important, is what audio is all about. Today's engineering far far exceeds the final product that people listen to or can even hear.

 

[JSmith]

Well guess what, they sound different

Hey guess what... data please or it's simply waffle.

Likewise, some people are not bothered by 320kbps MP3, other people (me included) cannot stand the sound of it.

So you can tell straight away can you, in any circumstance and any music, known or not? People must envy your golden ears.


JSmith

 

[DonR]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[NattyLumpkins]

Hey guess what... data please or it's simply waffle.

So you can tell straight away can you, in any circumstance and any music, known or not? People must envy your golden ears.


JSmith

You don't have to have data on the capacitor example because as I stated, each capacitor is rated exactly the same with the same specs. They are for all intents and purposes exactly the same, yet they sound different. Surely this isn't news to you. If it is, welcome to the audio world. You will learn a lot on your journey. What is going on here is that there must be some physical or chemical characteristic of the capacitor that is outside of capacitance, resistance and inductance which is what is usually important and usually measured but, there isn't a measurement for it.

"So you can tell straight away can you, in any circumstance and any music, known or not?"
Don't put words in my mouth. If the recording is shit it's going to sound like shit on MP3 or any format.
You don't have to have golden ears dude. Please. I'm so sorry you can't hear the difference between anything. Count it as a blessing.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

You need to familiarize yourself with Julian Hirsch and his take on the value of measurements vs listening. I am sure you know who he is.

 

[SIY]

You don't have to have data on the capacitor example because as I stated, each capacitor is rated exactly the same with the same specs. They are for all intents and purposes exactly the same, yet they sound different. Surely this isn't news to you. If it is, welcome to the audio world. You will learn a lot on your journey.

"So you can tell straight away can you, in any circumstance and any music, known or not?"
Don't put words in my mouth. If the recording is shit it's going to sound like shit on MP3 or any format.
You don't have to have golden ears dude. Please. I'm so sorry you can't hear the difference between anything. Count it as a blessing.

Evidence is a whole lot better than handwaving.

 

[Beave]

You need to familiarize yourself with Julian Hirsch and his take on the value of measurements vs listening. I am sure you know who he is.

Not only is this an "appeal to authority" fallacy, but also you haven't even shared specifically what Julian Hirsch believed about measurements vs listening.

 

[BDWoody]

I just moved a few more in. Round and round...

 

[Steven Holt]

All DACS do not sound all the same because they not only have different design architectures but they have different power supplies and different components.

Would you care to back up that statement with a level - matched ABX test?

 

[NattyLumpkins]

Not only is this an "appeal to authority" fallacy, but also you haven't even shared specifically what Julian Hirsch believed about measurements vs listening.

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy, it can be seen as a dodge but that depends upon context. Julian was the mac daddy of introducing measurements into the world of audio and started his thing in the 1960's. Julian Hirsch was one of the central figures at Stereo Review. He was also the co-founder of Hirsch Houck Laboratories whose stated inception was performing test measurements on various types of electronic equipment, including stereos. It is estimated that Hirsch Houck Labs conducted about 2400 equipment tests for Stereo Review alone and some 4000 in total.

During the many years of his tenure he came across many examples where there was a difference between what was measured and how it sounded. This was not often the case but it was regularly the case which made him a very controversial figure. Many people felt that what he often wrote about a particular piece of equipment did not jive with their impressions and figured that he was doing this to make manufacturers happy or unhappy, it really didn't make sense. They did not feel he was objective because he wanted his reviews to somewhat reflect what he measured and audio equipment just didn't work that way as we all learned during those decades. I was a Julian Hirsch disciple because it just made sense. How could it be otherwise. Well, as it turns out what we can measure all at the same time while audio is being produced is very limited. It is enough however to guide us through design and building, but it does not account for everything by any stretch.

He famously said that all audio electronics — amplifiers, CD players, etc. — sound the same. For example, in April 1977, he stated: “I do not believe that any amplifier that is reasonably good and operating as intended has any sound quality of its own, at least not in the sense that phono cartridges, speakers, and listening rooms have their distinctive sounds.”

This did not go over well because it suggested that people did not actually hear any difference when the overwhelming consensus was they did hear differences. He later changed his position somewhat by saying in his October 1986 column on the subject of analog vs. digital audio: “To the extent that individual preferences in sound — digital, analog, or live — arise from a listener’s personal idiosyncrasies, one can hardly take issue with anyone else’s beliefs about sound quality. . . Listen for yourself. If you agree with those who say that CD sound is ‘unmusical,’ don’t make the change.” It was a nod to the notion that he might not be able to hear differences but some people can.

Eventually Stereo Review became Stereophile and John Atkinson took over the duty of measuring equipment and the magazine changed its approach to reviewing equipment giving hearing more weight and when there was a disconnect between what was heard and what measured they acknowledged it and talked about it. This was the reasonable approach because overwhelmingly what is heard is not always what is measured. Today, there is less measuring and it is mostly focused on hearing. It is this way in pro-audio too depending on where in the chain of creating music as a musician or engineer you fall.

 

[Chrispy]

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy, it can be seen as a dodge but that depends upon context. Julian was the mac daddy of introducing measurements into the world of audio and started his thing in the 1960's. Julian Hirsch was one of the central figures at Stereo Review. He was also the co-founder of Hirsch Houck Laboratories whose stated inception was performing test measurements on various types of electronic equipment, including stereos. It is estimated that Hirsch Houck Labs conducted about 2400 equipment tests for Stereo Review alone and some 4000 in total.

During the many years of his tenure he came across many examples where there was a difference between what was measured and how it sounded. This was not often the case but it was regularly the case which made him a very controversial figure. Many people felt that what he often wrote about a particular piece of equipment did not jive with their impressions and figured that he was doing this to make manufacturers happy or unhappy, it really didn't make sense. They did not feel he was objective because he wanted his reviews to somewhat reflect what he measured and audio equipment just didn't work that way as we all learned during those decades. I was a Julian Hirsch disciple because it just made sense. How could it be otherwise. Well, as it turns out what we can measure all at the same time while audio is being produced is very limited. It is enough however to guide us through design and building, but it does not account for everything by any stretch.

He famously said that all audio electronics — amplifiers, CD players, etc. — sound the same. For example, in April 1977, he stated: “I do not believe that any amplifier that is reasonably good and operating as intended has any sound quality of its own, at least not in the sense that phono cartridges, speakers, and listening rooms have their distinctive sounds.”

This did not go over well because it suggested that people did not actually hear any difference when the overwhelming consensus was they did hear differences. He later changed his position somewhat by saying in his October 1986 column on the subject of analog vs. digital audio: “To the extent that individual preferences in sound — digital, analog, or live — arise from a listener’s personal idiosyncrasies, one can hardly take issue with anyone else’s beliefs about sound quality. . . Listen for yourself. If you agree with those who say that CD sound is ‘unmusical,’ don’t make the change.” It was a nod to the notion that he might not be able to hear differences but some people can.

Eventually Stereo Review became Stereophile and John Atkinson took over the duty of measuring equipment and the magazine changed its approach to reviewing equipment giving hearing more weight and when there was a disconnect between what was heard and what measured they acknowledged it and talked about it. This was the reasonable approach because overwhelmingly what is heard is not always what is measured. Today, there is less measuring and it is mostly focused on hearing. It is this way in pro-audio too depending on where in the chain of creating music as a musician or engineer you fall.

Just because someone may "hear" a "difference" isn't particularly important. Usually just listening conditions that make the differences. You really need to back up your postulations....

 

[NattyLumpkins]

Evidence is a whole lot better than handwaving.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

Just because someone may "hear" a "difference" isn't particularly important. Usually just listening conditions that make the differences. You really need to back up your postulations....

You need to get in touch with reality and get out a bit. You do know this is a forum about audio? I suggest you go to youtube and look at some information regarding recording and mastering. You might look at vids talking about amplifier design. The "debate" you are trying to bring up was settled in the 1990's. You have an enormous amount of investigating to do. I suspect you have not been in the audio world very long because this is old stuff.

I also want to point out that there are many publications that have been available since the 1950's which test and audition audio equipment in the exact same environment and discuss this. You might also do some research on audio design and how more advanced companies like Harmon do it. There is also Nelson Pass you might look into and read about or listen to his discussions on design and sound. Why do jfets sound better than mosfets for example.

I've built at least ten amps. I know many others who have done similar things, knowledgeable, competent people. I have clearly heard the sonic differences between polypropylene and polystyrene, mylar, and so on. My clear perceptions are echoed by every person I know of, who has experience with these things. Online, we see general agreement, broadly speaking, on these matters. So, the fact that competent people everywhere seem to have the same impression, is perfectly valid and valuable as evidence for this subjective perception. In this situation, the perception of those experienced in the matter is important, and your suggestion that the general agreement that I described is invalid, is wrong. The judgement of the competent and experienced is the best evidence available. You are being foolish.

 

[Chrispy]

You need to get in touch with reality and get out a bit. You do know this is a forum about audio? I suggest you go to youtube and look at some information regarding recording and mastering. You might look at vids talking about amplifier design. The "debate" you are trying to bring up was settled in the 1990's. You have an enormous amount of investigating to do. I suspect you have not been in the audio world very long because this is old stuff.

I also want to point out that there are many publications that have been available since the 1950's which test and audition audio equipment in the exact same environment and discuss this. You might also do some research on audio design and how more advanced companies like Harmon do it. There is also Nelson Pass you might look into and read about or listen to his discussions on design and sound. Why do jfets sound better than mosfets for example.

I've built at least ten amps. I know many others who have done similar things, knowledgeable, competent people. I have clearly heard the sonic differences between polypropylene and polystyrene, mylar, and so on. My clear perceptions are echoed by every person I know of, who has experience with these things. Online, we see general agreement, broadly speaking, on these matters. So, the fact that competent people everywhere seem to have the same impression, is perfectly valid and valuable as evidence for this subjective perception. In this situation, the perception of those experienced in the matter is important, and your suggestion that the general agreement that I described is invalid, is wrong. The judgement of the competent and experienced is the best evidence available. You are being foolish.

LOL. Yeah, youtube is a great source for research of recording/mastering. Which isn't the particular subject but rather audio reproduction. I've played around with audio gear for 50 years now. I haven't found the differences you have. I'll pass on Pass. Just because a group of people agree with each other doesn't mean much....audiophilia is full of that kind of nonsense. Good luck in your "beliefs"

 

[Beave]

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy, it can be seen as a dodge but that depends upon context. Julian was the mac daddy of introducing measurements into the world of audio and started his thing in the 1960's. Julian Hirsch was one of the central figures at Stereo Review. He was also the co-founder of Hirsch Houck Laboratories whose stated inception was performing test measurements on various types of electronic equipment, including stereos. It is estimated that Hirsch Houck Labs conducted about 2400 equipment tests for Stereo Review alone and some 4000 in total.

During the many years of his tenure he came across many examples where there was a difference between what was measured and how it sounded. This was not often the case but it was regularly the case which made him a very controversial figure. Many people felt that what he often wrote about a particular piece of equipment did not jive with their impressions and figured that he was doing this to make manufacturers happy or unhappy, it really didn't make sense. They did not feel he was objective because he wanted his reviews to somewhat reflect what he measured and audio equipment just didn't work that way as we all learned during those decades. I was a Julian Hirsch disciple because it just made sense. How could it be otherwise. Well, as it turns out what we can measure all at the same time while audio is being produced is very limited. It is enough however to guide us through design and building, but it does not account for everything by any stretch.

He famously said that all audio electronics — amplifiers, CD players, etc. — sound the same. For example, in April 1977, he stated: “I do not believe that any amplifier that is reasonably good and operating as intended has any sound quality of its own, at least not in the sense that phono cartridges, speakers, and listening rooms have their distinctive sounds.”

This did not go over well because it suggested that people did not actually hear any difference when the overwhelming consensus was they did hear differences. He later changed his position somewhat by saying in his October 1986 column on the subject of analog vs. digital audio: “To the extent that individual preferences in sound — digital, analog, or live — arise from a listener’s personal idiosyncrasies, one can hardly take issue with anyone else’s beliefs about sound quality. . . Listen for yourself. If you agree with those who say that CD sound is ‘unmusical,’ don’t make the change.” It was a nod to the notion that he might not be able to hear differences but some people can.

Eventually Stereo Review became Stereophile and John Atkinson took over the duty of measuring equipment and the magazine changed its approach to reviewing equipment giving hearing more weight and when there was a disconnect between what was heard and what measured they acknowledged it and talked about it. This was the reasonable approach because overwhelmingly what is heard is not always what is measured. Today, there is less measuring and it is mostly focused on hearing. It is this way in pro-audio too depending on where in the chain of creating music as a musician or engineer you fall.

I know who Julian Hirsch was. I subscribed to Stereo Review when I was in high school. His work was one of the things that led to me majoring in EE in college. Then I got a job in a/v electronics.

By the way, Stereo Review did not become Stereophile and John Atkinson didn't take over for Julian Hirsch. Those were always two completely separate magazines.

 

[Chrispy]

@NattyLumpkins mostly am interested in what you've been doing here the last 3 and a half years, just building up a bit of steam?

 

[NattyLumpkins]

@NattyLumpkins mostly am interested in what you've been doing here the last 3 and a half years, just building up a bit of steam?

Personal grooming. I take my hair very seriously. I encourage you to do the same.

 

[NattyLumpkins]

LOL. Yeah, youtube is a great source for research of recording/mastering. Which isn't the particular subject but rather audio reproduction. I've played around with audio gear for 50 years now. I haven't found the differences you have. I'll pass on Pass. Just because a group of people agree with each other doesn't mean much....audiophilia is full of that kind of nonsense. Good luck in your "beliefs"

I apologize for my snarkiness, I run out of patience so easily these days it damned annoying. I'm the typical mean old man. The truth is that the main thing is that we enjoy the music and in that I think we all have a common goal, I seem to have forgotten that. It doesn't really matter how you get their, the main thing is that you enjoy it. I don't believe in those doodads people put on top of their speakers to channel the sound, but by god if they think it helps, more power to them. And thank god for the idiots that spend $20k on audio equipment because that funds a lot of innovative ideas. Idiots make the world go 'round I guess and it is possible I am one of them.

There really are good vids that include ideas from folks like Flood etc that talk about mastering.

 

[JSmith]

Please. I'm so sorry you can't hear the difference between anything. Count it as a blessing.

You speak as if you're an authority on all subjects audio, yet produce nothing but opinionated text. This forum doesn't operate that way... you should know that since you've been here apparently for 3 years. The quality of the trolling has surely dropped off... pick up your game.


JSmith

 

[Chrispy]

I apologize for my snarkiness, I run out of patience so easily these days it damned annoying. I'm the typical mean old man. The truth is that the main thing is that we enjoy the music and in that I think we all have a common goal, I seem to have forgotten that. It doesn't really matter how you get their, the main thing is that you enjoy it. I don't believe in those doodads people put on top of their speakers to channel the sound, but by god if they think it helps, more power to them. And thank god for the idiots that spend $20k on audio equipment because that funds a lot of innovative ideas. Idiots make the world go 'round I guess and it is possible I am one of them.

There really are good vids that include ideas from folks like Flood etc that talk about mastering.

There or their? What doodads what I place on speakers unless I was an absolute fool following someone like Thed at SR? That makes no sense in this forum particularly. If you need placebos, you just don't belong here. Vids about mastering are not interesting as far as reproduction gear goes....

ps I am a generally pissed off old man, especially towards audiophools, so....