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

[solderdude]

The vast majority of microphones used to record instruments/voices can (and should) not be used for measurements.
Most studio microphones are 'colored' in sound and used for specific instruments voices with a bunch of different ones for different occasions.
For measurements one has to use microphones that are suited for the job.

Besides, most recordings out there have had (sometimes serious) alterations being made to the 'sound' in order to get a certain sound they are after.
The number of recordings that are 'pure' are in the majority.

For measurements one also has to use tricks like gating and positioning the microphone opposite what is measured differs from how instruments/singers are recorded.

So .. while microphones can be used for measuring acoustic events as well as recording music they certainly are not interchangeable in the vast majority of cases.
The vast majority of recorded music is anything but an 'exact record' of what was heard the moment the sounds were recorded.

 

[OCA]

Yes please lets see it!
I have flat (within +/-0.5dB) frequency response speakers and speech sounds incredibly realistic…. And I know (like all of us) what speech, unlike music is meant to sound like.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DSJR]

My audio perceptions change with my ambient beer level.

Being teetotal for a year or so (various reasons), my audio perceptions are changing worse than ever

 

[uliwer]

Interestingly Angus McKenzie ( who was blind ) was able to hear things in recordings which very few people can , eg the noise of the London underground in Solti's. Ring.

Well, they must have used great microphones if they were able to record the London underground - all the way from Vienna… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen_(Georg_Solti_recording)
You don‘t need terrific ears to hear many strange things in lots of classical recordings. Besides undergrounds or trams (probably the culprit in the Ring‘s case), there are also crickets and sparrows, footsteps outside and so forth. You might make up a listening test by counting the times one hears the famous stool of Glenn Gould squeaking in some of his recordings.

 

[sergeauckland]

Well, they must have used great microphones if they were able to record the London underground - all the way from Vienna… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen_(Georg_Solti_recording)
You don‘t need terrific ears to hear many strange things in lots of classical recordings. Besides undergrounds or trams (probably the culprit in the Ring‘s case), there are also crickets and sparrows, footsteps outside and so forth. You might make up a listening test by counting the times one hears the famous stool of Glenn Gould squeaking in some of his recordings.

I don't know specifically about Solti's Ring Cycle, but recordings made in the Kingsway Hall often had underground rumble recorded as the Piccadilly Line ran just under the street outside the hall. The line is especially shallow at that point. I also have one recording, sadly can't remember which one, where someone walking behind the performers can just be heard. On vinyl, these things were rarely audible unless the pressing was especially quiet, but when transcribed to digital for CD, became much more audible.

S.

 

[Waveform Fidelity]

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It didn’t address to question, but thanks for the reference which I did not know about and was a very interesting read.

My observation is that in many of these posts, many disagreements arise because, for example when we talk about “measurements” in the general sense it means different things to different people. For example, the classic test signals, such as constant amplitude sine waves do not represent the music waveform very well which has AM/FM and non stationary statistics. Multi-tone IMD measurements can often reveal a lot more information that is missed in simple swept frequency response measurements. However, we are still talking about measurements - so it really an issue that if one hears something different than what is expected from the measurements, then the wrong measurements are being made. I don’t believe the ear/brain is anyway better than using the correct measurements and am in complete agreement with the OP. I know this is pretty obvious to most folks except, perhaps, those suffering the Dunning Kruger effect - ha ha!

 

[danadam]

if one hears something different than what is expected from the measurements, then the wrong measurements are being made.

Yes, it's usually the "hears something" measurement that's performed in a questionable way

 

[ahofer]

What Harbeth's did you have or still have that gave you a 'pain, never heard Harbeth's before. I have Spendor's Ls3/5's that I like a lot.

Sorry, it was the shopping that was the pain. I have the super HL5 AE. I still like them.

 

[Cbdb2]

So frequency response magnitude is the only property that can affect perceived timbre? That's quite a leap

I never said that. Timbre is a vague term, define your use of it. Than tell me what you think a leaner midrange means and where it comes from? I already said what that term means in studios when your producing music.

 

[DSJR]

Sorry, it was the shopping that was the pain. I have the super HL5 AE. I still like them.

Is that the 2007 anniversary issue like mine, or the 2017 'Plus' version?

 

[OCA]

I never said that. Timbre is a vague term, define your use of it. Than tell me what you think a leaner midrange means and where it comes from? I already said what that term means in studios when your producing music.

You said leaner midrange = a freq response dip = broken electronics. That is reducing timbre to a magnitude plot. Timbre is ASA defined: the perceptual character beyond pitch and loudness, covering harmonics, envelope, and distortion. “Leaner” in reviews means drier, less warm, less dense, not a broken curve. You’re applying studio mix terminology to playback hardware and trying to talk down to me while doing it. Stop!

 

[Cbdb2]

Leaner” in reviews means drier, less warm, less dense,

And those made up reviewer words are very vague also. What makes an amplifier sound drier or less dense? Ill tell you, imagination.

 

[Cbdb2]

You’re applying studio mix terminology to playback hardware

Im apply terminology that is used to describe how something sounds by professionals who work with sound (not just music) everyday.

 

[DrJayacoustics12345@]

There are 4 disciplines in audio that all have various degrees (and methods) of measurability.

electronics (all easily measurable with a possible high degree of accuracy, way beyond hearing thresholds)
mechanical components (think, vinyl cartridges, microphones. drivers) which are more difficult to measure.
acoustics. Basically everything that has to do with moving air particles (sound waves) which are measurable but certainly has a lot of challenges.
perception, all things hearing/brain related and thus highly variable between humans ... because of the brain and ears.

All things can probably be measured (correctly) but it seldom is.
Mostly 'easy to measure' things are measured.
Then...
How well are measurements done.
Are relevant measurements done.
How are the results visualized.
How are results interpreted.

So not every relevant aspect is always measured (correctly) and even when it is interpretation of results is not always correct.
That's something we have to live with. One has to know the limitations.

Couldn’t agree more . If any one amplier , speaker or any component in the recording or playback chain was perfect, there would only be different labels on a few brands. I look at audio much like food or wine. We in the audio world are the only ones who argue the fact one specific sound should be the goalpost for everyone else. At the end of the day, we have so so many choices. Forums such as this are wonderful tools to educate those who even understand the verbiage and terminology. As many know , for example, you could audition 3 sets of speakers using the same source material all with “flat” responses and get 3 completely different sound signatures. Take those 3 and place them in your living space , that signature changes. Wonderful hobby with lively debates. Have a great week everyone

 

[ahofer]

Is that the 2007 anniversary issue like mine, or the 2017 'Plus' version?

Plus. Bought new in 2018.

 

[ahofer]

Couldn’t agree more . If any one amplier , speaker or any component in the recording or playback chain was perfect, there would only be different labels on a few brands. I look at audio much like food or wine. We in the audio world are the only ones who argue the fact one specific sound should be the goalpost for everyone else. At the end of the day, we have so so many choices. Forums such as this are wonderful tools to educate those who even understand the verbiage and terminology. As many know , for example, you could audition 3 sets of speakers using the same source material all with “flat” responses and get 3 completely different sound signatures. Take those 3 and place them in your living space , that signature changes. Wonderful hobby with lively debates. Have a great week everyone

You’ll find others of us have the view that the music is the wine and the reproduction equipment is the glass. Although even that analogy has its limits.

 

[MediumRare]

You said leaner midrange = a freq response dip = broken electronics. That is reducing timbre to a magnitude plot. Timbre is ASA defined: the perceptual character beyond pitch and loudness, covering harmonics, envelope, and distortion. “Leaner” in reviews means drier, less warm, less dense, not a broken curve. You’re applying studio mix terminology to playback hardware and trying to talk down to me while doing it. Stop!

Actually, yes, all that (including harmonics, envelope, and distortion) is reduced to dynamic sound pressure which can be translated (via pcm, for example, or an analogue track, as in vinyl) to a signal made up of a combination of sine waves. That’s all there is.

 

[Cbdb2]

If any one amplier , speaker or any component in the recording or playback chain was perfect, there would only be different labels on a few brands.

Thats not how a free market works. And nothing is perfect. All we need is inaudible distortions. If no one cant hear the difference between amps or dacs , than there good enough.

 

[Mart68]

As many know , for example, you could audition 3 sets of speakers using the same source material all with “flat” responses and get 3 completely different sound signatures.

Have you actually tried this? I didn't find it easy, if there hadn't been a tell which was a fairly small difference in the lowest frequency response I think I would have been guessing. And that was in an ad hoc test, not controlled. Conventional 3 way tower vs stand mount 2 way horn loaded coax, quite different designs but both competent.

 

[amirm]

You said leaner midrange = a freq response dip = broken electronics. That is reducing timbre to a magnitude plot. Timbre is ASA defined: the perceptual character beyond pitch and loudness, covering harmonics, envelope, and distortion. “Leaner” in reviews means drier, less warm, less dense, not a broken curve.

Who says those adjectives are right? ASA didn't, right?

Even your representation of what "reviewers" says is without foundation. When they mean "less warm," they say the sound is bright. But go ahead and show us how reviewers universally mean that.

Back to reality, frequency response errors in mid-range massively change its characteristic in the way they push that range/vocals back or bring it forward. Anything else is made up nonsense.