What to trust ear or measurement?

[Vuki]

@richard12511 what you are saying is difference between "hi-fi" and "my-fi“

 

[Vuki]

I watched Steve's video and I think his point was that you need both. It's not unlike what preferences the folks at Harman have discovered regarding the sound of speakers. True to the source would mean a flat frequency response and no distortion so that the speaker's sound added nothing to the signal chain. Harman discovered that most people don't prefer that and that colored viewpoint gets lot of cred here and elsewhere.

I'm beginning to think that the "true to the source" pursuit is simply unattainable and that, given the issues that all of our rooms present combined with the differences in our hearing that we might not even be able to get very close at all.

...

Actually that's not correct. Harmans research proved (again) that linear, flat on-axis and smooth off axis frequency response is the most prefered by listeners too. What they found out is a prefered response at LP which is a result of correlation between loudspeakers response , directivity and average room acoustics. They were by far not the first who did this - Bruel & Kjaer published similar target curve in 70s, and few others after them.
Differences in our hearing influence how we hear live sounds too, so it can be ruled out as a factor that influence our audio judgment. What do influence it are our preferences - as objective as those researches are, their results are valid for the majority of tested subjects, but not for all.
And people have very different preferences - once I was in a concert with a audiophile friend who told me that his hi-fi system sounded better than unamplified jazz big band we were listening

 

[solderdude]

Ears are certainly our most important tools for hearing sound, but they're not the only tools our brain uses to "hear"; eyes and prior learnings are other(albeit less important) tools that our brain uses. And yet, we go through great lengths to exclude everything but the ears, knowing full well that those other tools will matter in the end.

If you want to select a device you feel happy with... just buy what you like regardless the method you use. It will be an emotional decision.
When you want to know the truth (if there really are audible differences) you will have to go through great lengths.
And indeed performing a properly done blind test (double blind not even needed) takes a scientific approach, measurement gear and more than one person and is time consuming and difficult.
I know very little people that actually do/did well performed blind tests. I know there are a lot of people doing incorrect blind tests.
Those that actually did do well performed blind tests often are vocal on this forum (there are about 5 of them ?) and usually are the ones insisting that you do this properly. And they know exactly why from experience.
I too still get sucked in the 'why does this sound different' until properly tested sets me straight. (not talking about transducers or effect-boxes)

All I can say to you... go through the trouble to test things blind properly. It is highly educational.
Yes, the brain is an important aspect of enjoyment. It is in the way of truthfinding. When you don't care about that... use your brain

 

[GXAlan]

And people have very different preferences - once I was in a concert with a audiophile friend who told me that his hi-fi system sounded better than unamplified jazz big band we were listening

That’s still half true. Room acoustics and seat position play a role.

I once explained to someone that the reason people cannot agree on the “best speaker” or why many audiophiles have multiple speakers is that there are always trade offs unless you had infinite money.

Sometimes, a really clean recording and a very high end reproduction chain can reproduce details like fingers striking the piano keys or a singer wetting his or her lips. It’s a bit of a parlor trick at times to experience that level of precision. However, speakers with that kind of resolution are often electrostats or magneplanar with true ribbons (or headphones). You cannot imagine that the person is really standing right there or that you are in a concert hall. It’s unnatural but intoxicating. Magnepan has an incredible ability to make female solo vocals sound transparent and detailed and all of the other failures of the speaker are forgiven when listening to that specific kind of music.

In contrast, there may be another speaker which isn’t a detailed but does a more convincing job of making you feel like you are there.



In general, I find that classical music, particularly violins sound better on recordings because you rarely get a chance to be in an optimal seat in real life. In general, I find rock and roll such as the songs from A Star is Born, sound best on compression driver speakers since the horn coloration is also how it was experienced in the theaters (and how most rock concerts are experienced live).

From a recording standpoint, should you hear a piano from the perspective of the pianist or the perspective of someone in the audience. The way something is mic’d plays a huge role, but different speakers also modify the experience.

 

[ttimer]

One of their tests used the same loudspeaker with two different crossover networks.

True. And in that case there was no significant preference for one over the other.
Which again suggests that small differences between speakers don't lead to clear preference rankings, at least in the mean.

 

[Sal1950]

given the issues that all of our rooms present combined with the differences in our hearing that we might not even be able to get very close at all.

Do we end up caring more about the measurements than how the system actually sounds? Couldn't you and I buy exactly the same well-measuring equipment and actually experience vastly different outcomes due to our rooms and our hearing?

I often read people bringing up the issue of the difference in peoples hearing somehow relating to listening and High Fidelity. Variations in our hearing has absolutly nothing to do with the acurate reproduction of music. No matter how different your hearing may be from mine, if we both go to a live concert and then come back to listen to a system that is perfectly accurate, it would sound perfect to both of us. We will hear the music with the same problems in our hearing reflected at both venues. The importance of accurate playback is equally important all, hearing variations doesn't enter into the picture. Of course if you don't care about High Fidelity that's your choice.

"I just want to reproduce the signal on the source accurately, so I concern myself with the neutrality of everything after the source," we can still ask "?

The end is obvious, once again hearing the source as intended. I don't understand why you even ask that question
But again, if it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter.

 

[ttimer]

One of their tests used the same loudspeaker with two different crossover networks.

True. Wasn't that the one where they didn't see any significant difference in average listener preference between those two speakers? Leading Harman to abandon location-specific crossovers. Which suggests that with small differences in FR there might be no "best" solution.

 

[mansr]

If accuracy to the recording isn't the goal, then why even bother playing different recordings? Just find one you like and play that. But that would be ridiculous, you say, and indeed it would. Apparently we all want to hear a variety of music. For those who decry accurate reproduction, my question is thus, just how inaccurate should it ideally be?

 

[tuga]

That may have been as they were developing and testing the system but that is not what they do now. I have been subject to two sessions of blind testing there about a decade apart and, in case, the subject speakers were quite similar.

Was this in mono or stereo?

 

[tuga]

If accuracy to the recording isn't the goal, then why even bother playing different recordings? Just find one you like and play that. But that would be ridiculous, you say, and indeed it would. Apparently we all want to hear a variety of music. For those who decry accurate reproduction, my question is thus, just how inaccurate should it ideally be?

Your first question doesn't make sense. Can you rephrase it?
You seem to be saying that people who like exaggerated saturation in their TV sets should only watch the same film over and over...

The answer to your second question is easy: for people chasing euphonic distortion the ideal amount of innacuracy(ies) is that which produces most satisfaction.
Signal-correlated distortion at some(?) frequencies sounds good to some people, just as room-induced distortion through boundary reflection sounds good to some people.

 

[snapsc]

Since Steve has likely never actually done a real listening test, whatever his says about "how it sounds" is random spew. Face it, the guy is a fraud.

I don't think Steve is a fraud. A fraud is when you pass yourself off as something you are not.

He represents himself as "Average Man" and not so much "Techno Man". What I mean by that is that he tries to tell a story about what he hears and what others he corresponds with hear without too much discussion of technical accuracy. In doing so, he allows the average guy who may not know much about measurements...or possibly care much about measurement...have a window in to what the product "might" sound like if they decide to try it.

He never really says, hey, I'm the expert and here is why my opinions/findings matter. Instead, he says, I've been doing this a long time, this is what it sounds like to me, here is what I own and why I like it...and if you want some other alternatives to what I'm telling you about...here are a few alternatives to consider and how I find them to sound and here is some of the inside scoop from when I sold the product in audio stores,

So, for many of us, Steve is entertaining and most importantly, just another resource when it comes to considering an audio product that may not just be a "short drive down to the audio shop" to audition as there are fewer and fewer shops still around.

 

[Wombat]

If you don't know what you are talking about you have little to say. The problem is that these guys say a lot with little to no relevance. I don't forgive them for their ignorance when they present as knowledgeable gurus.

 

[SIY]

I don't think Steve is a fraud. A fraud is when you pass yourself off as something you are not.

He represents himself as "Average Man" and not so much "Techno Man". What I mean by that is that he tries to tell a story about what he hears and what others he corresponds with hear without too much discussion of technical accuracy. In doing so, he allows the average guy who may not know much about measurements...or possibly care much about measurement...have a window in to what the product "might" sound like if they decide to try it.

He never really says, hey, I'm the expert and here is why my opinions/findings matter. Instead, he says, I've been doing this a long time, this is what it sounds like to me, here is what I own and why I like it...and if you want some other alternatives to what I'm telling you about...here are a few alternatives to consider and how I find them to sound and here is some of the inside scoop from when I sold the product in audio stores,

So, for many of us, Steve is entertaining and most importantly, just another resource when it comes to considering an audio product that may not just be a "short drive down to the audio shop" to audition as there are fewer and fewer shops still around.

The last line of yours is why I call him a fraud. He's deliberately dispensing caca disguised as useful advice. And makes money from that.

 

[snapsc]

The last line of yours is why I call him a fraud. He's deliberately dispensing caca disguised as useful advice. And makes money from that.

I'm more along the lines of he is pretty casual and pretty clear about telling the listener that he is dispensing his opinion of what he hears...and often times how it compares (sound wise) to other products. In that respect he isn't dispensing the measurement part you might get in a Sterophile article, just the "hearing opinion" part.

As for making money, I guess the beauty of the process is that if people don't enjoy listening to him, they don't click and/or they don't subscribe and/or they send him no patreon dollars. I suspect most people take him for what he is...an average guy who has heard a lot of products and who shares his personal opinion.

At any rate, I enjoy listening to the guy from time to time and don't own any of the products that he has "said good things about" over the past few years...and I'm assuming that you don't enjoy listening to him and therefore don't.

 

[wgb113]

Can someone point me to the industry standards for measurements of hifi gear? I'd like to learn what metrics indicate a good versus a bad performer when it comes to choosing a component. The AES seems to hide all of this critical information behind a paywall...

 

[solderdude]

Can someone point me to the industry standards for measurements of hifi gear? I'd like to learn what metrics indicate a good versus a bad performer when it comes to choosing a component. The AES seems to hide all of this critical information behind a paywall...

start here perhaps ?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/
Its all about audibilty thresholds.

 

[wgb113]

start here perhaps ?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/
Its all about audibilty thresholds.

I have to laugh because one of the articles sited contains this quote:

As Dr. Toole, one of the top experts in acoustics and speaker design is fond of saying, “two ears and a brain are much more analytical than a microphone and a meter!” Indeed, your ears told the truth better than the measurement device.

I think it's foolish to make buying decisions purely based on measurements and that it's foolish to make buying decisions completely ignoring measurements.

I also think that we can measure things to an extent that it doesn't matter (beyond our hearing capability) and also that there are things we can't yet measure that we can hear.

So to answer the original question of which to trust - ear or measurement - I don't think it's an either/or question as you need both. I think good measurements can serve as a start but I don't see how they're by any means the end. If they were most people on this forum would own all of the same gear. No?

 

[BDWoody]

I also think that we can measure things to an extent that it doesn't matter (beyond our hearing capability) and also that there are things we can't yet measure that we can hear.

Maybe keep reading...?

That's the standard fallback position, but so far no joy in actually demonstrating that.

 

[solderdude]

As said many times before on this website. It is perfectly fine to use ears and brain to compare things. The only thing is this needs to be done in a scientifically sound way. There are clear rules on how to do that. Break one and the results are suspect or flawed.

measuring should be done with proper equipment, according to certain protocols. The needed measurements should be done under specific conditions so others can independently confirm.
One also needs to understand and properly interpret all relevant measurements.

What things can be heard (in a properly conducted blind test) that are not shown in properly conducted measurements ?

When it comes to measuring acoustic and perception there are more variables which aren't all taken into account. This differs from electrical measurements which only contain 2 variables (level and time) that are accurately measurable.

 

[wgb113]

Maybe keep reading...?

That's the standard fallback position, but so far no joy in actually demonstrating that.

I'm all for learning more, that's why I'm here, but you're saying that the science of sound reproduction is complete? That we know and understand everything?