Are measurements really telling the whole story?

[battopi]

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

I'm fairly confident that most here believe that transparency yields the best sound possible to the listener. This is the central holding that allows the identification of "delusional" personal anecdotes of subject sound quality. I give you the last word.

 

[raistlin65]

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.

Hey, I'm not the one that put a minimum age on participation to reduce the use of logical fallacies. I'm just following your lead.

Maybe you might want to think about your double standard here? (This question is rhetorical in nature, and not intended to initiate discussion)

 

[killdozzer]

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

Yes, yes. Absolutely. Neutral equipment makes it easier to set it up. It's much more controllable. But you have to see what the room does to your sound and you need to "smooth out the in-room response", you just don't want to waste time meddling in someones idea of sound signature, first untangling what they did only to see what you need to set up to get close to "what you feed the speaker - speaker gives back".

I see reproduction as a task with a rather clear and simple goal. That's because I see the recorded material as the blue print. If the material is not bass heavy neither should your listening experience be. That's why you need to set it up right. I don't think people should fret over what a sound engineer heard. Simply because it's a unique experience never to be heard or shared. You have the recorded material and what you need to do is to minimize the room modes and equipment coloration. After that, I think everyone should fine-tune it to it's liking.

 

[battopi]

Hey, I'm not the one that put a minimum age on participation to reduce the use of logical fallacies. I'm just following your lead.

Maybe you might want to think about your double standard here? (This question is rhetorical in nature, and not intended to initiate discussion)

Are you serious? You are the one trying to stifle debate, not me. I welcome it. My minimum age post was meant to be a humorous reply to your post below:

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."

You thought I was seriously suggesting that we limit debate to 18 year olds???

 

[dominikz]

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

Even so, those would still be claims.

Some examples:

A couple of comments: your argument that coloration applies to all recordings and could over-accentuate on certain recordings is probably not a concern.

This is a claim. One that seems at odds with the literature I have read.

I am merely stating that MOST coloration (supposed though it may be) involves characteristics which would benefit ALL recordings.

This is also a claim, which again I personally found no supporting evidence for during my studies (nor listening tests I did).

There are other examples, but I see no benefit in going over them. Of course I see you are using your personal experience and what you feel is common knowledge to strengthen your argument, but it really doesn't work that way in science and engineering - because what may seem as a pattern to you could really just be a poor choice of sample There really is a ton of research on audio technology and perception available, and people working in the research really do put in a lot of work to make sense of the results and control the variables.

A lot of great reading is referenced in this thread, if you're really interested in audio science.

I also noticed that you are often using terms like 'best sound', e.g.:

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.

To me this seems quite different to what people are saying as I'm reading it. My interpretation is:
1) 'Transparent' equipment introduces minimal distortion to the source signal, and
2) Listeners in controlled blind listening tests seem to prefer such equipment with statistical significance
You as an individual are free to pursue whatever you like, and it can surely be different to what majority prefers. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in preference.
However, even then you can look at measurements and, if you know how to interpret them, use the information to select the type of distortion/colouration that you like. It is still much more deterministic system vs relying on subjective impressions. However there's nothing novel here either.

Honestly, I don't feel I've often been very surprised by equipment. IME audible artefacts usually show-up in measurement quite clearly. Also, equipment that e.g. had some kind of emphasis in frequency response usually sounded wrong with certain tracks but sometimes good with others. If it was neutral, I usually just listened to music and didn't care to investigate further So my personal experience has been in line with what the research seems to show.

 

[killdozzer]

Also, my main point is quite reaffirming and shouldn't rattle anyone's cage. I DO believe there's something quite remarkable in how people react to art (music in our case). I just don't think that this remarkable part is in let's say an electromagnet forcing a cone to move or audio signal arriving at it or ones and zeros being converted to an audio impulse. Your gear doesn't play a piece of art, it reproduces it.

 

[ahofer]

Those in the "transparency" camp simply assume that deviation is incapable of enhancing sound.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else here, but I don't. The problem is there are usually *much* less expensive ways to introduce 'pleasing' distortions than high end audio jewelry like tube amps, resistor ladders, etc. So a lot of high end electronics are a rip-off either way.

 

[sq225917]

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!

I'm just hearing what's played. I do my best to have built a true high fidelity system and tuned the room to be moderately benign without it looking like a sci-fi experiment. I either like the music or I don't, I can live with poorly produced/recorded music if the songs or performance are good, Pablo Casals Bach cello concertos for example. But if the music doesn't speak to me then the best production in the world won't fix it, any reggae for example.

I don't think I'm hearing any 'magic' just what's on the disc, good or bad.

 

[ahofer]

The entire premise of the transparent camp is that noise is degradation incapable of enhancing sound.

You keep making this assertion, but that doesn't make it true. Punching a straw man.

 

[BDWoody]

This has all been covered in so many ways, in so many threads...

This is dead horse territory.

There is a huge library of reference material available through the links in the menu, and it seems like there are many who could stand to read a lot more of what's available here to answer the question in the thread.