“Human ears are better than measurements!” / “Humans can hear things we can’t even measure!”

[xanalog]

It sounds like measuring amplitude and frequency is more important in Amateur Radio then high-end Audio.

I don’t think you even understand what you meant by that.

I think I do... but lemme get my popcorn first...
I think he means modulation but he forgot SSB/PM versions.
The hams most certainly got more to measure 'then' us baseband peeps!

 

[mpw]

I think I do... but lemme get my popcorn first...
I think he means modulation but he forgot SSB/PM versions.
The hams most certainly got more to measure 'then' us baseband peeps!

If ahofer wants to learn more about measurements he should read the Extra Class Ham Radio Exam book from the ARRL .

 

[Keith_W]

If ahofer wants to learn more about measurements he should read the Extra Class Ham Radio Exam book from the ARRL .

Okay, you have piqued my curiosity. I found that book on Amazon, it's $73. I know nothing about ham radio. Would you be able to explain how ham radio measurements differ from audio measurements, and why those measurements are relevant?

 

[amirm]

Really do you know anything about Amateur radio ? amplitude and frequency is used all those place in Amateur Radio where it actually can be measured and is important in getting the best signal for ones' rig and antenna.

I do. Repaired a ton of RF radios in my day. To the extent you are dealing with a regulated frequency band, max power is fixed by the government and that is what all in one and linear amps provide. Of course, you can delete the limit and then, power can be increased, usually at the cost of distortion.

As for frequency, it is PLL controlled crystal synthesizer so is off little importance and has been for decades.

There are unique measurements such as SWR and antenna radiation pattern/gain that have no parallels in audio.

Any more off-topic digressions yo want to throw out there hoping folks don't know?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

It may be the gold standard

gold standard as in "the standard for people old enough to have celebrated their golden wedding anniversary"

 

[mpw]

I do. Repaired a ton of RF radios in my day. To the extent you are dealing with a regulated frequency band, max power is fixed by the government and that is what all in one and linear amps provide. Of course, you can delete the limit and then, power can be increased, usually at the cost of distortion.

As for frequency, it is PLL controlled crystal synthesizer so is off little importance and has been for decades.

There are unique measurements such as SWR and antenna radiation pattern/gain that have no parallels in audio.

Any more off-topic digressions yo want to throw out there hoping folks don't know?

There are many things that you don't know and I don't know. I am just answering 'ahofer's one-liner that I don't know what I am talking about,I suggested that if he s really interested in audio measurements then read about Amateur Radio where measurements are quite important maybe he should subscribe to QST or the ARRL Handbook.

 

[ahofer]

Really do you know anything about Amateur radio ? amplitude and frequency is used all those place in Amateur Radio where it actually can be measured and is important in getting the best signal for ones' rig and antenna. Ahofer, you are such a cult follower with no real thoughts of yourself. Respond with an argument at least, say something towards a discussion.

All waves arriving at a particular point can be described by amplitude and frequency over time (phase being a function of the latter), not just radio waves. Certainly this can actually be measured in realms outside of radio. This was a revealing comment, in many ways.

You misread me in other ways as well - I said you don’t know what you meant *by that* (specifically), and I stand by it.

(I got my radio licenses in 1978 at 14, but gave it up shortly thereafter)

 

[mpw]

Okay, you have piqued my curiosity. I found that book on Amazon, it's $73. I know nothing about ham radio. Would you be able to explain how ham radio measurements differ from audio measurements, and why those measurements are relevant?

I am not electrical engineering guru to give you an accurate explanation. If you are really interested then check out the ARRL website or look for a used copy of the ARRL Handbook on Ebay. I bought that book (exam book) years ago to help me pass the Extra Class Ham Radio License which I passed ! Note: used copies of that $73 book are fine as well as ones from prior years.

I could go into a more detailed explanation about why science/measurements are important in Amateur Radio but I don't want to bore others about an off-topic, check out the QRZ forums its a fun an interesting hobby.

 

[mpw]

All waves arriving at a particular point can be described by amplitude and frequency over time (phase being a function of the latter), not just radio waves. Certainly this can actually be measured in realms outside of radio. This was a revealing comment, in many ways.

You misread me in other ways as well - I said you don’t know what you meant *by that* (specifically), and I stand by it.

(I got my radio licenses in 1978 at 14, but gave it up shortly thereafter)

You should get back into the Amateur Radio hobby its fun with lots science to explore. I have my Extra Class license, k4mpw !

 

[Mort]

I am not electrical engineering guru

We've figured that out.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I suggested that if he s really interested in audio measurements then read about Amateur Radio where measurements are quite important maybe he should subscribe to QST or the ARRL Handbook.

why though? he's here on Audio Science Review dot com, the foremost internet venue to discuss the science of audio, a practice that involves a wide array of measurements and analysis of those measurements. Anyone interested in audio must be attentive to measurements or they are interested in audio voodoo, not audio science.

 

[rjp]

All waves arriving at a particular point can be described by amplitude and frequency over time (phase being a function of the latter), not just radio waves.

I work with RF signal processing professionally (radar and comms) and in my experience it is much more common to describe complex received/transmitted signals in terms of amplitude and phase. Where are you seeing amplitude and frequency? Of course we can calculate frequency from the time rate of change of phase as you mention.

Yes, this absolutely applies to any coherent field, including sound waves.

 

[ahofer]

What has our digression told us about the usefulness of measurements vs ‘ears’ in audio reproduction? May I suggest we return to my distinctions upthread:

1) creating the original music signal in soundwaves or electrical signals with an instrument, voice, or synthesizer
2) capturing, storing, and reproducing that signal faithfully with transducers and electronics
3) listening to the reproduced signal with your human brain

....

Fidelity means accuracy in the second step and is a matter of measuring amplitude and frequency over time with respect to a reference. Steps one and three are intrinsically much more subjective.

Electrical and soundwave measurements can describe everything about #2, and much less about #s 1 and 3.

 

[ahofer]

Of course we can calculate frequency from the time rate of change of phase as you mention.

And vice versa. It’s not intended as some brilliant insight, just that we know the ingredients of waveforms and can measure them all. There seems to be no lacuna in measurement technology that our ears need to fill (with respect to the fidelity of reproduction).

 

[mpw]

why though? he's here on Audio Science Review dot com, the foremost internet venue to discuss the science of audio, a practice that involves a wide array of measurements and analysis of those measurements. Anyone interested in audio must be attentive to measurements or they are interested in audio voodoo, not audio science.

Why, because the original OP started the thread 'measurements vs Ears' in evaluating audio. If one reads all the threads there many opposing views on the subject for and against which makes for a lively discussion about a fun musical hobby.

 

[xanalog]

...I found that book on Amazon, it's $73...

OT: Don't do it!
I have the 'Sixty-sixth Edition' (1989) of the ARRL Handbook (over 2 inches thick and w/yellowed pages).
A true 'gold standard'!
I would gladly provided it to you (au gratis and on 'permanent loan' basis) if you are interested.
PM me.

fixed typo

 

[mpw]

OT: Don't do it!
I have the 'Sixty-sixth Edition' (1989) of the ARRL Handbook (over 2 inches thick and w/yellowed pages).
A true 'gold standard'!
I would gladly provided to you (au gratis and on 'permanent loan' basis) if you are interested.
PM me.

It is the 'Gold Standard" The newer additions add digital modes that did not exist in 1989, the theory remains the same.

 

[xanalog]

I do. Repaired a ton of RF radios in my day.

You mean, you'd be willing to do some AP measurements on one of these $150 uSDX/uSDR gadgets:

If I drop-ship you one?

 

[STC]

While I’m generally an objectivist and agree with most of the OP — instruments far outperform human hearing in raw sensitivity, frequency range, and detail detection — I still think there are limits to what standard measurements can tell us.

Human hearing is vastly inferior to a good microphone (or a cat or dog) for picking up fine detail. Measurements dominate for the electrical signal chain and basic performance. However, when it comes to final reproduced sound in a real room, they still can’t fully explain certain perceptual effects like the “Missing 6 dB” loudness mismatch and other room/spatial phenomena.

It’s not that the measurements are wrong. It’s that the human brain actively decodes stereo signals and acoustic cues in highly individual, context-dependent, and adaptive ways that current common metrics don’t completely capture yet.

I trust objective measurements for most things. But for evaluating stereo imaging, soundstage, and room acoustics, I ultimately rely on critical listening as the final arbiter. And if I (or anyone) can reliably tell the difference under proper blind testing, it doesn’t matter to me what the measurements or renowned reviewers say.

ST

 

[sergeauckland]

While I’m generally an objectivist and agree with most of the OP — instruments far outperform human hearing in raw sensitivity, frequency range, and detail detection — I still think there are limits to what standard measurements can tell us.

Human hearing is vastly inferior to a good microphone (or a cat or dog) for picking up fine detail. Measurements dominate for the electrical signal chain and basic performance. However, when it comes to final reproduced sound in a real room, they still can’t fully explain certain perceptual effects like the “Missing 6 dB” loudness mismatch and other room/spatial phenomena.

It’s not that the measurements are wrong. It’s that the human brain actively decodes stereo signals and acoustic cues in highly individual, context-dependent, and adaptive ways that current common metrics don’t completely capture yet.

I trust objective measurements for most things. But for evaluating stereo imaging, soundstage, and room acoustics, I ultimately rely on critical listening as the final arbiter. And if I (or anyone) can reliably tell the difference under proper blind testing, it doesn’t matter to me what the measurements or renowned reviewers say.

ST

Of course, stereo imaging and soundstaging have no objective reality, so can't be measured, only appreciated subjectively, as they're created in the brain of the listener. Room acoustics can be measured for things like RT60 and room modes, but again, the 'feel' of a room and the effect that has on the perceived sound is subjective, and in the mind of the listener. For electronics and even loudspeakers, there's nothing in their performance that can't be measured, although for any sighted listener, the cosmetic performance and knowledge of the manufacturer greatly affect the perceived sound.

S.