Are measurements really telling the whole story?

[LTig]

It's the non-science factor that fill's the missing pieces of the audio puzzle.

Nope. What we really need in audio is this:

• more research (speakers, headphones, room interaction)
• more knowledge how to interpret current measurement results
• audio pros using neutral speakers in mixing and mastering (breaking the circle of confusion)

And of course people accepting what we already know which IMV is the biggest obstacle in audio.

 

[Maxicut]

Nope. What we really need in audio is this:

• more research (speakers, headphones, room interaction)
• more knowledge how to interpret current measurement results
• audio pros using neutral speakers in mixing and mastering (breaking the circle of confusion)

And of course people accepting what we already know which IMV is the biggest obstacle in audio.

"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.

 

[whazzup]

No it's not. There are tons of scientific results about the abilities and fallacies of human hearing and about the influence of expectation bias. Unfortunately those results are mostly ignored because it's hard to accept that one cannot trust ones own senses.

It's not only unrealistic, it makes no sense (at least for current way of reproducing music - this may change when we are able to inject recordings directly into the brain). The task of the play back chain is to create sound waves at the entrance into the ear as accurate as possible. What happens in the ear and behind is a personal experience. It neither can nor should have an influence on the play back chain, otherwise listening would be a one person show.

Yes, I think you misunderstood. The playback chain ends at air vibration and measurable. I totally agree.

The problem is the physiological part, including the mental aspects/learned human preferences, has a higher level of variability and not easily measured. Which opens the floodgates for people to say all sorts of things.

 

[whazzup]

"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.

Just because a human is involved, science breaks down? Don't quite follow.

 

[killdozzer]

It saddens me to see people stopped putting up resistance to this crap.

It’s the free-market preachers who are trying to remodel you and give you new upbringing and none seem to mind.

The aim is to cut the chords among people (I call it solidarity) where one man will teach his fellow man to resist being conned. For ALL of those who’d want us to believe Trump is just another choice, this is the worst thin imaginable. It effectively prevents cons from spreading.

This is why Randians insist there’s no such thing as a good/positive authority, which is, of course much like any extreme, completely wrong. They overstress the importance of individual experience to the point of producing the tears in knowledge. And thus, we have people deciding on vaccination much to their detriment.

It’s about discrediting institutions, norms, experts, state, science, knowledge and so on. The only thing I think one needs to be asking him/herself is who’s want me stupid and whether those who’d prefer me stupid have MY best interest at their heart or something else. It’s not hard to guess what I’d say.

Best thing being, they are just plain wrong. Knowledge is NOT supposed to work that way so that you have to become an expert in mathematics to check mathematics, to become Floyd Toole to check Toole’s writing.

No, it’s about one group with certain potential skill-sets going the extra mile bringing back to you what they’ve found and you giving to them the results of what you found through your research. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel to test whether it would turn.

No, we are not all that unique. This belief is something that people who feel their identity threatened use to comfort themselves. If you think you preferring rice over pasta makes you unique bc your neighbour prefers pasta over rice, you’re heading to a very sweaty last night on a death bed.

There is nothing in the least bit extraordinary about you. But if you need it to be and want to make sure there is, you’ll first have to swallow the sentence before this one.

The marketing is flattering you and tickling your scrotum. You shouldn’t giggle and enjoy but give it a good, solid slap and say your primitive ego doesn’t rule you and you don’t need it to be fed.

Equipment is technology. There is NO magic, sorry to spoil it for you. HOWEVER, your deep, life affecting emotional response to what the equipment is reproducing might just be magical.

 

[killdozzer]

A good bit of logical fallacy about all that “can’t be measured” business, to think about is a microphone. Microphone is a man-made device, a contraption that does precisely what all those marketing assholes tells you can’t be done; it registrates, captures and records ALL that you later on interpret as something that is still beyond measurements.

So... We DO have a way of making an instrument that will capture all of it!!! (Magic)

Because, remember, you're talking about REproduction. It HAS been recorded.

 

[LTig]

"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.

You're putting two separate things in one box. We have to keep them separate:

• The playback chains in the recording and mastering studio and at home must be neutral. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the listeners hears the sound as the engineer and musician intended.
• The human part is to create good sound with the existing play back chain, using all means at hand. If the engineer is good and need not adhere to other criteria by upper management (e.g. loudness war) the results can be stunning.

As an example: I own a CD which was recorded in our local opera house. Both sound and 3D soundstage are amazing, and I found out their studio uses the same speakers I have at home (Klein&Hummel O300D). Here the circle of confusion was broken.

 

[LTig]

A good bit of logical fallacy about all that “can’t be measured” business, to think about is a microphone. Microphone is a man-made device, a contraption that does precisely what all those marketing assholes tells you can’t be done; it registrates, captures and records ALL that you later on interpret as something that is still beyond measurements.

So... We DO have a way of making an instrument that will capture all of it!!! (Magic)

Because, remember, you're talking about REproduction. It HAS been recorded.

Yes yes yes yes yes. You nailed it!

 

[sq225917]

Measurements can tell you everything, but you have to measure everything and have a known reference of audibility for every test you perform.

I'd be interested to see some imd tests done to see what level of difference is audible at low level. I suspect a tilt across the board of maybe 3-5db even at -130db is actually audible with 5he right room and speakers.

 

[tvrgeek]

I noticed he mentioned compensation schema. This is what John Curl led me to a few years bask and I consider critical. There is no right answer, but best answer based on the speakers, tweeter specifically. The difference is measurable, and easy to simulate. It is not a matter of a number.

 

[killdozzer]

If you ask my opinion and I’m beginning to think few of you would, the fact that some of you went berserk over what I’m saying (which is very indicative of my main point, considering what I’m effectively saying is that there’s some magic to talk about, but it’s not contained in a stupid box being sold to you by some Grima Wormtongue) means you need to hear it.

There is something exceptional in the human’s experience of art. I just think that whatever is exceptional, it will be found in human’s brain, not in shielded, audioquest speaker cables.

I see man’s obsession with technology the same as women’s obsession with shoes and handbags. It’s completely irrational. Women are a good example of this since they have as profound (and sometimes deeper) emotional respond to art, and they couldn’t give two flying fucks about your stupid overpriced Schiit gear. (Same goes for men being able to perceive their ladies as the most beautiful ones even in 11$ porn-shoes.) Ladies can feel ecstasy hearing their favourite song on a kitchen radio-clock and I had epiphany finding my favourite piece of art printed in a magazine.

We can at least anchor eachother – all you need is, let’s say, neutral Yamaha gear with some solid JBL speakers (later you can fine-tune it to your liking) and you’re good to go. Your special moments will be derived from artists ideas. Your lady, as long as it’s the one you love can order shoes from Aliexpress, she’ll still be the one.

 

[tvrgeek]

Measurements can tell you everything, but you have to measure everything and have a known reference of audibility for every test you perform.

I'd be interested to see some imd tests done to see what level of difference is audible at low level. I suspect a tilt across the board of maybe 3-5db even at -130db is actually audible with 5he right room and speakers.

If there is a difference we can measure it. Not a question to me, but we rapidly transition from engineering to psychoacoustics. What is it that fools us into believing what we hear is "right". Why does a little higher noise floor sound better on speakers than on cans? Why can we tolerate 5% thd+n @ 100 Hz from a speaker, but clearly hear differences we can barely measure, in the 0.00 range in electronics at the same frequency? Way back in olden times ( college days) I noticed music majors had crappy stereos, but all had a speed trimmer on their record player. For them pitch was everything. I could not tell you a 440 from a 442, but they could.

 

[raistlin65]

Yeah, one has to balance between being fully objective and being fully subjective. I don't believe into going far into either sides coz that's when distortion happens and you see people being cranky and defensive with either side of the argument.

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.

 

[Tsuchi]

You're putting two separate things in one box. We have to keep them separate:

• The playback chains in the recording and mastering studio and at home must be neutral. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the listeners hears the sound as the engineer and musician intended.
• The human part is to create good sound with the existing play back chain, using all means at hand. If the engineer is good and need not adhere to other criteria by upper management (e.g. loudness war) the results can be stunning.

As an example: I own a CD which was recorded in our local opera house. Both sound and 3D soundstage are amazing, and I found out their studio uses the same speakers I have at home (Klein&Hummel O300D). Here the circle of confusion was broken.

One of the goals in the process of producing a song is to make it sound as good as possible on anything, whether it be a cheap portable Bluetooth speaker or an expensive hi-fi system. Inevitably there will be compromises.

 

[Robin L]

I was thinking more like propaganda

Propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
Gaslighting: "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Propaganda, to me, is not exclusively political. It would also include advertisement. My wife taught a unit's worth of propaganda in her reading classes, as a way of increasing comprehension of reading materials. When we would be watching advertisements on TV, I'd ask her "what specific propaganda technique is being used here?" Gaslighting would be more to the point I'm making being that people are told something would be happening, and are supposed to react as if something is happening, when in fact, measurably, nothing has changed. Propaganda would cover advertisement, gaslighting would be a review were we are told that wire "X" will alter the sound when measurements indicate that the wire that costs $10,000 does not measure any different than a wire that costs $20 and there's no rational reason why the sound would be any different. When one is being gaslit, one's perception is being actively undermined. Propaganda also includes various forms of gaslighting, but the point of propaganda is some sort of special pleading. Gaslighting involves undermining the perception of others. The two are not exclusive of each other, a venn diagram would show areas of overlap. Personally, I have fallen into the trap being gaslit many times, expectation bias told me to expect a difference, I "heard" a difference. But, in most cases, a DBT would indicate no difference, particularly as regards wire/interconnects.

 

[raistlin65]

One big difference between the audio loving people here & the people that actually work with audio everyday of their lives, is experience in how it all works. With audio, numbers are not everything (no matter how much you want to believe they are)

If you are talking about objectivism versus subjectivism, who says that it is all about the numbers? That notion is often used as a strawman argument by subjectivists to cast doubt on objectivism. Either for disingenuous reasons, or because they simply don't understand objectivism.

Objectivism does not deny the aesthetic experience of listening to music. It does explain some of it, but it does not claim to explain it all.

 

[abdo123]

I think your question is more philosophical and depends on your own belief system. Is what humanity can measure (or will measure) and repeat is all what there is (Science) or is there something more to that?

In my experience the better my gear was the more mastering imperfections showed up in the trashy pop songs I used to listen to when i was younger. Iconic beat drops in my life started sounding more and more flat and empty.

This is what clinical equipment do to your experience. Musicians don’t focus on THD or dynamic range or stuff like that, they mainly focus on making music that establishes an emotional connection with their audience (with whatever gear they have).

 

[ahofer]

Somewhat counterintuitively, hearing a difference in an uncontrolled comparison is what you should expect. This has been demonstrated in false AB blind tests where people hear differences using exactly the same equipment. It seems we prime ourselves to hear differences when set up to compare.

So hearing a difference where current measurements say you should not is not an unexpected result unless it is in a controlled, double-blind test. There isn't much of that.

 

[abdo123]

Yes, but the personal recommendation (or not) from the site owner carries a lot of power that needs to be considered. Perhaps it would be best to skip the recommendation. We can take away what we need from measurements and his evaluation which he does a good job of.

You either have an entire faith in the person (and his opinion) or you don’t. Amir can easily fake his measurements too.

 

[raistlin65]

Propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
Gaslighting: "manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."

Propaganda, to me, is not exclusively political. It would also include advertisement. My wife taught a unit's worth of propaganda in her reading classes, as a way of increasing comprehension of reading materials. When we would be watching advertisements on TV, I'd ask her "what specific propaganda technique is being used here?" Gaslighting would be more to the point I'm making being that people are told something would be happening, and are supposed to react as if something is happening, when in fact, measurably, nothing has changed. Propaganda would cover advertisement, gaslighting would be a review were we are told that wire "X" will alter the sound when measurements indicate that the wire that costs $10,000 does not measure any different than a wire that costs $20 and there's no rational reason why the sound would be any different. When one is being gaslit, one's perception is being actively undermined. Propaganda also includes various forms of gaslighting, but the point of propaganda is some sort of special pleading. Gaslighting involves undermining the perception of others. The two are not exclusive of each other, a venn diagram would show areas of overlap. Personally, I have fallen into the trap being gaslit many times, expectation bias told me to expect a difference, I "heard" a difference. But, in most cases, a DBT would indicate no difference, particularly as regards wire/interconnects.

I don't want to get into a debate about what these two words mean. I'll simply suggest that a full understanding of them cannot come from reading a one sentence definition of each. And to point out that gaslighting in the last few couple of years has become more of a sound byte term that is misused synonymously with any instance of being mislead or conned, when it is actually a more specific, very insidious form of victimization. I would recommend reading some psychology sources for a more robust understanding.

That's all I have to say.