Are measurements really telling the whole story?

[sq225917]

I'm pretty close to certain that we can measure every sound we can hear. In fact I'm 100% certain that devices exist that far exceed our auditory sensitivity at both ends of the scale.


I'm not so sure that we can do that across the entire audible range with a single microphone. Some loss is guaranteed, no electrical conversion is 100% efficient. Whether that loss is below the threshold of audibility I genuinely don't know.

But nothings perfect. Our own auditory response is unique to us, we have unique ear mechanics, head shapes and distortion profiles that will be slightly different to everyone else. Throw preference into the mix and its easy to see why we can find broad agreement in what sounds good but once you dig into the finer details opinions start to diverge.

 

[Weeb Labs]

Questions such as this one are akin to asking whether there is more to the color rendering of light sources than the radiated spectrum because your indoor lighting appears orange during the day and white at night.

 

[raif71]

Depends on what you mean by that statement.

If you are talking about subjectivism versus objectivism, there's no line to straddle there. And anyone who thinks there is, is confused about what these two things are.

These are two different epistemologies about how knowledge is made in audio. By definition, one cannot be both. For subjectivism is about believing that human perception trumps scientific knowledge making when it is convenient to the individual's beliefs or needs.

But of course, both subjectivists and objectivists both make use of subjective evaluation and objective data. To not understand how objectivists can do that, would be not to understand what objectivism is. Or someone who is merely mischaracterizing objectivism to suit their own needs to promote subjective evaluation of audio gear over what science tells us.

Like I said, I'm in the middle. Got one foot on objectivism and the other on subjectivism. I believe in measurements but I empathize too what others are saying subjectively and enjoy listening to their arguments as I enjoy reading the objective reviews and measurements. I believe I get more out of the audio experience by not fully embracing either side of the fence. You might say that I'm bitivism (if there is such a word)

 

[raistlin65]

Like I said, I'm in the middle. Got one foot on objectivism and the other on subjectivism. I believe in measurements but I empathize too what others are saying subjectively and enjoy listening to their arguments as I enjoy reading the objective reviews and measurements. I believe I get more out of the audio experience by not fully embracing either side of the fence. You might say that I'm bitivism (if there is such a word)

By definition of the two terms, that makes you a subjectivist. Or, you don't understand the two terms.

 

[Zensō]

amirm gives his "personnel" subjective opinion with his speaker, monitor & headphone reviews....

No one is disputing that the differences in transducers are relatively easy to discern. On the other hand, the differences between decent-measuring electronics are most often well beyond the threshold of hearing. This is where bias leaks in.

 

[Zensō]

Yep agreed. Maybe pointless comments should be stopped. This site has to be either "science" based-only, or on a broader scale, an "audio" based site. ATM it's both & it causes never-ending conflicts...

If you’re conflict averse, you might want to avoid Internet forums altogether.

 

[Zensō]

"Audio Pros" will never be using the exact same "sounding" speakers/monitors to mix/master with, so unlike science "fact", there will always be a human element with audio production. As it is, mixing & mastering is 100% a human element in the audio chain anyway.

As someone who does lots of mixing and mastering, I can tell you that engineers go to great lengths to monitor their work on transparent gear that measures flat. This ensures they’re hearing exactly what is intended.

 

[raif71]

By definition of the two terms, that makes you a subjectivist. Or, you don't understand the two terms.

If you say so... not gonna argue with you.

 

[Killingbeans]

In science and physics getting unexpected results is actually the most exciting thing because it means there is something new that you still need to understand. I wonder if that's what is happening right now in the audiophile world. We have measurements like THD and freq. response, etc. but they are actually incredibly basic static tests compared to the complexity and dynamics of a music signal...

These kinds of tests also give unexpected results: http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I'm leaning heavily towards the notion that talking about "the complexity and dynamics of a music" is nothing but wishful thinking, and that what's really happening right now in the audiophile world is a deep state of denial regarding how much psychology plays a role in our experiences.

 

[raistlin65]

If you say so... not gonna argue with you.

If you are here to learn, in which case maybe you are misunderstanding what the differences are between the two, maybe you might want to gain a better understanding of it. This is an objectivist forum. People are willing to help people better understand what objectivism is, not just how to read measurements.

 

[ZolaIII]

By definition of the two terms, that makes you a subjectivist. Or, you don't understand the two terms.

It really is about about subject and object in traditional linguistic form. Example; Nedim did a measurement of NN equipment using a gear XX in controlled environment. Nedim is a subject no matter what, equipment is object & we determine objectivity by measuring exactly the same equipment in same conditions (scientific experimental method).
Nedim may be a person who is devoted to expressing as objective as possible but that doesn't mean that will be really objective by it self or every single time. In the end we are all subjects and subjective and as such we tend to round the thing's up and simplify. As we for instance do with Pi that we understand as constant so that we can rationalise it in order to understand it (couple of digits instead of infinite).

 

[raistlin65]

It really is about about subject and object in traditional linguistic form. Ehample; Nedim did a measurement of NN equipment using a gear XX in controlled environment. Nedim is a subject no matter what, equipment is object & we determine objectivity by measuring exactly the same equipment in same conditions (scientific experimental method).
Nedim may be a person who is devoted to expressing as objective as possible but that doesn't mean that will be really objective by it self or every single time. In the end we are all subjects and subjective and as such we tend to round the thing's up and simplify. As we for instance do with Pi that we understand as constant so that we can rationalise it in order to understand it (couple of digits instead of infinite).

If I am understanding you correctly, that does not explain audio objectivism vs. subjectivism as epistimologies.

 

[drfous]

Audi diesels measured well.

I have no background in this. Just trying to learn.

Can a designer create a speaker that tests well when passing a signal, but not sound musical because it's missing other qualities?

 

[Arno Fennix]

Audi diesels measured well.

I have no background in this. Just trying to learn.

Can a designer create a speaker that tests well when passing a signal, but not sound musical because it's missing other qualities?

Yes. Some measurement deltas might still look good but can have a significant impact on how you perceive it (Simple example, 1dB difference in most ear sensitive F-range)

 

[drfous]

Yes. Some measurement deltas might still look good but can have a significant impact on how you perceive it (Simple example, 1dB difference in most ear sensitive F-range)

I'm thinking about the nature of the signal that's measured vs the music signal which to my simple thought process would be much more complex to reproduce (ever changing dynamics and frequencies).

 

[tomelex]

OP says: I think the ultimate quantifiable test would be to feed in a piece of reference music, and then compare and analyze the resulting output waveform with the reference.

Yes, but if you are just doing this on a device say measure the input and output of a pre-amp is one thing using established input and output impedances, then everything can be measured that affects voltage, frequency, current , transients, spectrum, gain, all possible distortions, noise, everything, end of story as far as that set of input and output impedances.

However, when you now say measure the input to your amp then we now bring in the electrical to air conversion from the speaker, where do you now put your mike to record the result etc. You can put your mike in one spot and compare what you get when you change out devices and even speakers but at that point it is just comparison for that given set of circumstances, move your mike and now its a new game. Now, ask person "A" to provide a preference between two speakers and same old thing, now the variable is also the person, who depending on the circumstances can change their opinion from moment to moment. Think about this, you do not even know who you are , ie, where do your thoughts come from?

 

[Arno Fennix]

I'm thinking about the nature of the signal that's measured vs the music signal which to my simple thought process would be much more complex to reproduce (ever changing dynamics and frequencies).

Indeed, sine waves is not the complex music signal, and our brains/ears are sensitive to the differences in complex signals (phase/impulse/distortion in the same mix for example). Measurements do give directions for developments but for audio, listening is a must to verify the total result (instead of a combination of limited measurements)

 

[ZolaIII]

If I am understanding you correctly, that does not explain audio objectivism vs. subjectivism as epistimologies.

Scientifically objective is only a experiment which can be conducted again and which will give the same results (verification/rejection). Everything else is subjective including representation of results. Subject can't become a object in true sense of it only a object of experimental observation but that's Psychology and i really wouldn't want to extend it to Philosophy. There is no final answer just certain, certainly with which we could claim something. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stick to methodology even when their's little we can claim.
For your personal reading I recommend René Decares Cartesian doubt as a intro to the Epistemology. I had a great time during my formal studies regarding it and pretty much most things tied to theory of knowledge mostly because I had a good professor.

Best regards.

 

[Arno Fennix]

A rather reverse example. A mono vinyl record from the fifties played with an SPU conical tip can sound absolutely stunning. When measuring, limited bandwidth, distortion, limited dynamics....

 

[Chrispy]

"feel that the current measurement test suites are giving a complete picture?"

So far I think I think sergeauckland's response summed it up pretty well.

To answer that question, it's as complete a picture as is interesting to me....as subjective comments I really don't care about....I find reading them somewhat interesting sometimes and not particularly informative. Amps would be a good example....they sound close enough to me in my experience with many of them where it's simply something I don't worry about let alone care what some strange person may wax poetic about as a consumer's emotional experience.