Are measurements really telling the whole story?

[dominikz]

Usually I tend to avoid these kind of discussions, but decided to chime in here anyway.

The reason IMHO why many people here prefer a 'transparent' audio system is because the recordings themselves are many times actually quite 'coloured', and to make it worse they are that way in various random ways: bright, bassy, muddy, distorted.... depending on what the artists/engineers wanted to achieve for a specific record. There is usually no rule and IMHO no genre/artist-specific sound that is consistent enough to base a system design on.

It is perfectly OK to prefer a specific kind of sound, but one should be aware that if you imprint that sound via your audio reproduction system it will be imprinted on to *all* recording you listen to, so you will get mixed results depending on the specific recording you listen to. Some recordings will for sure sound "better" to you (e.g. the system's colouration will correct for the original deficiency in the recording), but some will just as likely sound "worse" (as the original colouration of the recording will be over-emphasised by the system's colouration of the same type). It is basically like you are doing engineering corrections to the master recordings - but to all of them in the exact same way. It will fit at times, and not at others. It is unlikely (and difficult to argue) that a specific, constant colouration would make everything sound better.

With a 'transparent' system you should hear what is on the recording - be it good or bad. Again some recordings will sound good to you and some bad, but now the result depends mostly on the recording itself. To me this is quite liberating and allows one to focus on the music rather than listening to the equipment.

In addition, research on listener preference seems to confirm this hypothesis. Anecdotes showing other results don't really challenge the established research. That is not to say established research is infallible and couldn't be ultimately improved by more (controlled) research

Note that if we're using what the 'majority' feels as an argument, we could possibly also argue that audio reproduction quality is almost irrelevant and we should all be using BT speakers, soundbars and built-in TV speakers Without statistics and controlled research to back it up even this statement be a straw-man argument, however, and wouldn't carry much weight in reality

 

[pma]

Are measurements really telling the whole story?

They are telling the measurements story. Not less, no more. This should be understood.

 

[battopi]

Usually I tend to avoid these kind of discussions, but decided to chime in here anyway.

The reason IMHO why many people here prefer a 'transparent' audio system is because the recordings themselves are many times actually quite 'coloured', and to make it worse they are that way in various random ways: bright, bassy, muddy, distorted.... depending on what the artists/engineers wanted to achieve for a specific record. There is usually no rule and IMHO no genre/artist-specific sound that is consistent enough to base a system design on.

It is perfectly OK to prefer a specific kind of sound, but one should be aware that if you imprint that sound via your audio reproduction system it will be imprinted on to *all* recording you listen to, so you will get mixed results depending on the specific recording you listen to. Some recordings will for sure sound "better" to you (e.g. the system's colouration will correct for the original deficiency in the recording), but some will just as likely sound "worse" (as the original colouration of the recording will be over-emphasised by the system's colouration of the same type). It is basically like you are doing engineering corrections to the master recordings - but to all of them in the exact same way. It will fit at times, and not at others. It is unlikely (and difficult to argue) that a specific, constant colouration would make everything sound better.

With a 'transparent' system you should hear what is on the recording - be it good or bad. Again some recordings will sound good to you and some bad, but now the result depends mostly on the recording itself. To me this is quite liberating and allows one to focus on the music rather than listening to the equipment.

In addition, research on listener preference seems to confirm this hypothesis. Anecdotes showing other results don't really challenge the established research. That is not to say established research is infallible and couldn't be ultimately improved by more (controlled) research

Note that if we're using what the 'majority' feels as an argument, we could possibly also argue that audio reproduction quality is almost irrelevant and we should all be using BT speakers, soundbars and built-in TV speakers Without statistics and controlled research to back it up even this statement be a straw-man argument, however, and wouldn't carry much weight in reality

So, I'll mark you down as a measurements don't tell the whole story guy based on your post. You are not claiming that transparent equals the best sound per force. You post suggests that noise "could" very well end up in a more satisfying experience for the listener. A couple of comments: your argument that coloration applies to all recordings and could over-accentuate on certain recordings is probably not a concern. Most coloration involves imaging, space, instrument separation. I am not saying that those things exist or can be affected at all by components, I am merely stating that MOST coloration (supposed though it may be) involves characteristics which would benefit ALL recordings. Lastly, regarding "what the majority feels", nobody suggested using what the "majority" uses. The talk of the majority had absolutely nothing to do with which side of the debate was stronger. But even if you wanted to talk about what the majority uses, it was the majority of audiophiles and manufacturers that was at issue, not the majority of people listening to music. The majority of audiophiles do not believe that soundbars and built-in tv speakers sound better than Genelec's.

 

[dominikz]

So, I'll mark you down as a measurements don't tell the whole story guy based on your post. You are not claiming that transparent equals the best sound per force. You post suggests that noise "could" very well end up in a more satisfying experience for the listener. A couple of comments: your argument that coloration applies to all recordings and could over-accentuate on certain recordings is probably not a concern. Most coloration involves imaging, space, instrument separation. I am not saying that those things exist or can be affected at all by components, I am merely stating that MOST coloration (supposed though it may be) involves characteristics which would benefit ALL recordings. Lastly, regarding "what the majority feels", nobody suggested using what the "majority" uses. The talk of the majority had absolutely nothing to do with which side of the debate was stronger. But even if you wanted to talk about what the majority uses, it was the majority of audiophiles and manufacturers that was at issue, not the majority of people listening to music. The majority of audiophiles do not believe that soundbars and built-in tv speakers sound better than Genelec's.

It seems to me you are interpreting my post differently than how I read it.

Anyway, if you can provide references for some peer-reviewed research to back your claims, I would be happy to give them a look.

 

[JoeKickass]

Some people don't care about maximising individuial subjective quality, they simply want the unvarnished truth.

I place myself in that category I'll learn to love measured perfection, warts and all.

I think this is incredibly fascinating!

The traditional argument leveled at "audiophiles" is that they are convincing themselves they can hear something that they really cannot.

But what if following the measurements and not your ear is a new kind of "audiophile"?

Even if the sound is subjectively harsher or less enjoyable, being aware that a device has very very good measurements could be enough to convince our brains that we like the sound!

 

[raistlin65]

I wasn't intending to get into a debate. Perhaps I am seeking a more exact way to describe my experience of "knowing" that something sounded different/had improved sound when, if I was subject to a DBT to hear that difference, I would hear no difference. I'd say that perception is at the core of the OP's question. "Knowing" that the more expensive speaker wire sounds better than the 14 gauge zip cord it replaced. "Knowing" that a piece of electronic gear that measures worse sounds better. It's that "Knowing" part I'm pointing to. And if there's better language to describe that false "knowledge", I would be happy to find out what it is.

I'm not sure. I know that gaslighting involves creating serious self-doubt in someone for nefarious purposes. To the point that it affects their sanity. So it's not what's going on in audio marketing.

Advertisers use the same basic strategy with audio equipment that they always do for other industries They play upon a person's desire for a better product, and the consumerism belief that more money can often equate to better performance. And like they always do, they reinforce cognitive biases to sell their product through exaggerated marketing prose and misleading specs, and by building brand loyalty. Only with audio equipment, it's especially effective because of the perceptual bias effects, and product reviewers feed right into this.

Of course, we also have some companies that outright lie with their refutation of audio science (e.g. PS Audio's Paul McGowan). I wish they could be fined for false advertising.

It would seem to me that doubt about the experience of hearing the difference in personal listening tests, and then hearing no difference in DBT seems to be about coming to grips with the unreliability of perception bias. For some people, because this requires an epistemological shift away from subjectivism, I would say it's the angst of embracing a personal paradigm shift.

 

[Inner Space]

Even if the sound is subjectively harsher or less enjoyable, being aware that a device has very very good measurements could be enough to convince our brains that we like the sound!

No ... if the sound is subjectively harsher or less enjoyable, being aware that a device has very very good measurements could be enough to convince our brains that ... we're listening to a poor recording.

 

[Killingbeans]

Most coloration involves imaging, space, instrument separation. I am not saying that those things exist or can be affected at all by components, I am merely stating that MOST coloration (supposed though it may be) involves characteristics which would benefit ALL recordings.

From what I've seen so far, almost every single time a piece of gear is claimed to have "coloration" that makes all music sweeter, when the audibility gets tested in a controlled manner, this added goodness disappears like a drop of water on a hot frying pan. And the few time when something audible is actually confirmed, it turns out to be nothing more than factors resulting in a lumpy frequency responce.

 

[raistlin65]

Upon further reflection, to a certain extent, we probably should not be discussing this. "Measurements don't tell the whole story" is a subjectivist cliche that they throw at everything. It's a sweeping generalization that is used to be dismissive of audio science to end the discussion, and/or to drag objectivist down into debate where they can lay out fallacious arguments. By engaging with this cliche, we give it life.

Probably be better off to simply say "Nope. Best to go learn about the science behind measurements."

 

[Frank Dernie]

I think this is incredibly fascinating!

The traditional argument leveled at "audiophiles" is that they are convincing themselves they can hear something that they really cannot.

But what if following the measurements and not your ear is a new kind of "audiophile"?

Even if the sound is subjectively harsher or less enjoyable, being aware that a device has very very good measurements could be enough to convince our brains that we like the sound!

The essence of "high fidelity" has been accurate reproduction for all the 52 years I have been following it.
For quite a long time now electronics has been available which achieves this.
Speakers and rooms not yet.
If the sound is harsh it is a crap recording, there are quite a few of those.
IME there is a bigger difference between recording quality than between bits of hifi kit by a substantial margin.

 

[battopi]

It seems to me you are interpreting my post differently than how I read it.

Anyway, if you can provide references for some peer-reviewed research to back your claims, I would be happy to give them a look.

I am not making any claims. I'm refuting them.

 

[battopi]

From what I've seen so far, almost every single time a piece of gear is claimed to have "coloration" that makes all music sweeter, when the audibility gets tested in a controlled manner, this added goodness disappears like a drop of water on a hot frying pan. And the few time when something audible is actually confirmed, it turns out to be nothing more than factors resulting in a lumpy frequency responce.

I have no dog in the fight, but if you have controlled tests which actually settle the debate, this would be a good time to post links to them. Perhaps you single-handedly (with the assistance of an appropriately controlled study) can put an end to all debate on this topic forever more.

 

[battopi]

Upon further reflection, to a certain extent, we probably should not be discussing this. "Measurements don't tell the whole story" is a subjectivist cliche that they throw at everything. It's a sweeping generalization that is used to be dismissive of audio science to end the discussion, and/or to drag objectivist down into debate where they can lay out fallacious arguments. By engaging with this cliche, we give it life.

Probably be better off to simply say "Nope. Best to go learn about the science behind measurements."

Maybe we should at least require participants to be at least 16 years old. Young people could easily get swept up by "sweeping generalizations" designed to "drag objectivists down" by using "fallacious arguments". Come to think of it, let's make it 18 years, not 16.

 

[Leporello]

I am not making any claims. I'm refuting them.

Such as?

 

[raistlin65]

Maybe we should at least require participants to be at least 16 years old. Young people could easily get swept up by "sweeping generalizations" designed to "drag objectivists down" by using "fallacious arguments". Come to think of it, let's make it 18 years, not 16.

And also remove participants who make bad whataboutism points

Who cares what science has to say about what sounds good to my ears? "Science" can't even agree on whether face masks are effective, though with the introduction of politics into the subject, consensus is certainly accumulating.

 

[Killingbeans]

I have no dog in the fight

Me neither. Just have a dream about designing and producing audio electronics at some point in my life, and I'd like to do so while chasing as few ghosts as possible

but if you have controlled tests which actually settle the debate, this would be a good time to post links to them. Perhaps you single-handedly (with the assistance of an appropriately controlled study) can put an end to all debate on this topic forever more.

I'd love to post some tests (if I was smart enough to actually have bookmarked them when I came across them), but I get what you are saying. Even if I posted a thousand, it wouldn't put the smallest dent in the debate. Most of the time no amount of reasoning or evidence can stop people from going:

 

[battopi]

Such as?

Namely, that those who contend that transparency necessarily yields the best sound possible to the subject rely on an assumption -- that all noise degrades sound quality from a listener perspective. They may be right, like I said, but they have not proven it. It is quite possible that added noise (coloration) can enhance sound quality and that in a few decades there will be software that will actually enhance sound/imaging/separation directly by mucking with input. I think we've been back and forth enough to agree to disagree on the matter.

 

[battopi]

And also remove participants who make bad whataboutism points

Why not simply leave the discussion rather than try to have people removed? Isn't this a place to discuss ideas? The thread title is "Do measurements tell the whole story". I'm fairly certain that the idea was to discuss the topic, but you suggest we don't? I'm confused.

 

[Leporello]

Namely, that those who contend that transparency necessarily yields the best sound possible to the subject rely on an assumption -- that all noise degrades sound quality from a listener perspective. They may be right, like I said, but they have not proven it. It is quite possible that added noise (coloration) can enhance sound quality and that in a few decades there will be software that will actually enhance sound/imaging/separation directly by mucking with input. I think we've been back and forth enough to agree to disagree on the matter.

No. The problem is you are refuting a view very few actually share. Same goes for bursting bubbles earlier in this thread.

 

[killdozzer]

The only fair answer to OP's question would be a difficult one since, as I said, I don't see the question as fair. One should first ask what OP considers to be the whole story.

However, since the OP opens this discussion with a post where he clearly overlaps two separate topics, the fair thing would be to first separate them.

When talking about the performance of the equipment, extensively measured in its final resting place, in a listening room of the person who will use the equipment, set up the way they are meant to remain and being able to conduct sight-specific measurements, nothing is left out. There’s no part of the story left uncovered. You can even see such things as a sub walking from the measurements. You can predict the performance and if the owner of the listening room and the system in it is apt enough o describe what he likes about sound, you might be able to tell whether he’ll like the gear. Gear is just technology, acoustics are physics, they can be described.

As I already tried to imply, what is left out is simply not a part of the gear. It is not an intrinsic property of the amp, CD player or speakers. What is wondrous is what art stirs up in people. Mind you, it would also be fair to point out that if some neuro-scientist found a way to precisely measure our response to what we hear, a considerably larger difference might be detected in our response to the very same piece of art (same gear, same SPL, same seating position, same all) on Monday and Friday than any variables needlessly induced by the technology mystifiers.