Does good measurement system sound good to your ears?

[lmaobrah]

Would love to know your subjective experience on highly measured system (or individual equipment/amp/speakers).
What gear did you use/comparison with and what's the outcome.

Been thinking of trying the good measurement system (e.g. Dac + Hypex Power Amp + Revel M16 Bookshelf Speakers).

 

[Chrispy]

I haven't found measurements beyond basic thresholds mean a lot. There's audibility, pleasing euphonics, specific setups/rooms, you name it to lead away from such a general experience with stats alone.

 

[dwkdnvr]

Generally, yes. The gear that I've picked up recently all seems to measure very well, and I find it all extremely satisfying:
Neurochrome Mod-86
Sabaj D5
Khadas Tone Board
JDS Atom
Kef R3
Minidsp SHD

I accept the idea of 'euphonic distortion' and am actually not really inherently opposed to it, but unless it turns out that my Acoustic Reality 3D speakers exhibit it (Scan Speak 8545 and 2905/9700 drivers) then I have to conclude that I appear to like the neutral uncolored performance of the good measuring gear.

 

[PaulD]

I would say that absolutely a system that measures excellently sounds excellent. I'm basing this on a Benchmark 3 DAC, feeding JBL M2 speakers, in a treated room. Don't forget the room in all that! The above system sounded considerably better when the room was properly treated. I think your proposed system would likely also be excellent.

 

[AudioEnthusiast]

Here’s a blog post from Benchmark that makes a lot of sense to me. I personally prefer systems that measure very well.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/124929287-how-should-i-buy-an-audio-system

 

[A800]

After reasonable room correction + personal preference adjustments it sounds good.
Take the room into account and you will be fine.

 

[Chrispy]

Measurements beat hell out of the majority of subjective only reviews....

 

[Voo]

my favorite music listening speakers dont measure as well as others. magnepans

 

[RayDunzl]

my favorite music listening speakers dont measure as well as others. magnepans

Mine (MartinLogan) are also terrible speakers.

I don't know how I have put up with them since 1998.

 

[BDWoody]

Mine (MartinLogan) are also terrible speakers.

I don't know how I have put up with them since 1998.

Well, you've been 'out of work' since somewhere around then right?
It's ok, we understand some have it tougher than others...

Maybe one day you can have nice things...

/s

 

[Pio2001]

Yes, good measuring speakers sound good to my ears.

The Neumann KH-120, with their flat frequency response, sound way better than the Kef R300, with their +5 dB peak around 700 Hz.

They also sound better than the JBL 305P mk2. The overall tilt of the frequency response of the JBL, with the treble playing louder than the bass, is audible and doesn't sound good in comparison. Their +3 dB peak at 1800 Hz is also audible in itself.
With their flat frequency response, the Neumann sound much better.

If we measure the frequency response from the listening position, however, things get more complicated. Here's the frequency response from my listening position before room correction :

The rule remains true below 150 Hz. The wild variations of frequency response at 54 and 69 Hz sound terrible. But it is only true if the music has a lot of energy at these frequencies. Classical music sound very good with these peaks, but techno music, that usually has a lot of energy down to 45 Hz, is awful.
Similarly, the peaks at 200 and 320 Hz sound bad on certain tracks, but are not a problem with other tracks.
The lack of energy between 80 and 180 Hz is wider and sounds bad with all music. The sound is better if it is corrected with equalization.

Above 1000 Hz, however, the measurement from the listening position is no more a good indication of the perceived quality. I have tried to correct the small variations visible on the curve, like the peak at 1500 Hz, but that doesn't sound good. The ear can hear "through the room" and prefers a flat anechoic response to a flat response at the listening position, even if that means a worse frequency response at the listening position.

 

[blueone]

Mine (MartinLogan) are also terrible speakers.

I don't know how I have put up with them since 1998.

Have you ever measured at your listening seat?

 

[Midwest Blade]

As a start, I think it would be better to know your gear has a decent flat response and can reproduce sound in that manner. But even with this, speakers can have some variations, safe to say based on testing we see variations both measured and by listening. Electronics I feel should be as flat and transparent as possible neither adding nor deducting anything from a signal, with as much distortion free power as you need.
I am not an evangelistic audio purist but I place a lot of importance on speakers and source material as the biggest contributor to what we are hearing especially if your middle gear can simple pass and amplify a signal without changes.

 

[MattHooper]

My personal problem in answering the question directly is I need to distinguish between "sounds good to you" and "do I like/enjoy it?" Because I can experience one, but not the other.

What I mean is: I love audio gear, but the fact is it's a very narrow percentage of speaker systems that make me feel like sitting there and listening intently to the music/system. I can enjoy music on almost anything/anywhere, but to get my ass stuck in the seat listening enjoying not just the music but the sound, there has to be an "it" factor, which is fairly rare for me, and seems to be very subjective and not always easy to pin down.

So, I can certainly sit in front of a pair of speakers that "measure well" and note all the ways the speaker "sounds good" - evenly balanced, with controlled smooth sound from top to bottom, etc. (And this would include various monitor systems I've heard/used over the years). And yet I can be unmoved by that sound playing music...just take it or leave it, "hm, that's nice"....get up and walk away.

Then there are speakers where I sit down and listen and...I'm just entranced by the music through the system, by the sound. It makes me just want to sit there and listen spinning track after track for hours. And it doesn't seem contained to just one flavor of speaker - some of the speakers that do this for me measure "quite well" in objective terms, others less so, others "terrible" as per speaker objectivists. They will sound different, and sometimes I like those specific, different traits. Though ALL share the trait of producing...to my subjective impression...a semblance of the timbral character I find in real sounds and instruments. A certain "warmth" of tone (and I don't mean merely "fullness" upper bass/lower mid emphasis - the type of "warmth" I'm talking about, where wood instruments sound like resonating wood and not metal/plastic/electronic can pertain to lean sounding speakers as well)

I don't think it's magic. If I had the knowledge I'd surely be able to know exactly why each of the speakers grabbed me, either through some direct relationship of how they measure and/or combination of bias factors. Dunno. But since I have not been able to derive the knowledge of whether a speaker will affect me this way merely from looking at measurements, good or bad, I'm stuck "having to hear the speakers in question" for myself, rather than buying on measurements.

And in fact, this is an area where I actually find worth in subjective reviews. I've often found the subjective description/assessment of a speaker by someone who seems to "hear" like I do and who can put the sound in to words, to be better at guiding me to speakers I like than pure measurements. (For me the best combination is subjective review description WITH measurements, which can place the review in context for me. It's not like measurements don't tell us anything useful!)

 

[NoMoFoNo]

As I get away from my Corona obsession the last few days, it's nice to read something other by checking in here. I'm struck by the level of subjectivist posting in this thread although I also know that speakers do sound very different from each other, and that rooms interact with the sound produced. Still, I'm most interested in getting a hold of speakers that are as flat as possible in their frequency response, followed by room correcting DSP to produce the flattest, most accurate signal possible where I sit. Nothing more.

When I think of 'pleasing', 'euphonic', being 'drawn in' to the music, it starts to sound an awful lot like the subjectivist stuff that infests other audio forums. What a wonderful world of audio it would be (for me) to be able to buy speakers that are the Toppings of the speaker world, transparent and cost effective, and then use similarly cost-effective room correction to make them accurate, just accurate. The world of audio puffery and runaway $$$ certainly exists in the realm of speakers, and if ASR can knock some of that shine off of that part of the market, that's a win for all of us.

Further, sorry to say for domestic speaker manufacturers, but as a regular-Joe buyer, I'd love to see Asian manufacturers become the Toppings of speakers.

 

[MattHooper]

I'm struck by the level of subjectivist posting in this thread

Why?

The question of the thread is specifically: Does a system that has good measurements sound "good" to your ears?

This is necessarily asking for a report of one's subjective experience. Does it sound "good" to YOU.

So, other than that anyone actually answering the question must provide a subjective response: what else might you mean by "subjectivist posting?"

Thanks.

 

[NoMoFoNo]

Aren't you actually marking the opening question then as a troll within a forum that prizes objective measurement? I don't interpret the question that way, as a provocation, but simply like to add that my approach is one of achieving flat measurement at the listening position. I also note responses that focus on the magical thinking so prevalent in other forums. Does that bother you?

 

[MattHooper]

Aren't you actually marking the opening question then as a troll within a forum that prizes objective measurement?

No, not a troll, but it certainly does bring in, or expose, a tension in what we want to be able to discuss in this forum.

It brings in the question of just how strict this forum wants to be in terms of talking about subjective impressions of gear, like speakers.
If we say "no subjective talk or descriptions allowed" then the forum ends up doing the same as HydrogenAudio forums. It's an approach that certainly makes sense given a very specific goal. But from what I've seen forum members here appreciate that this place is not that "draconian" in it's approach. It seems more welcoming to a wider range of members. What I've inferred from being here a while is an approach that generally goes like this: This place should be an oasis from anti-scientific nonsense - e.g. dubious claims not backed up by measurements or controlled testing as one usually finds in purely subjectivist forums. Rather, let's try and find out what's really going on in a way that can be quantified, and also correlated (to the degree possible) to subjective effects. (Which is one reason why Amir will often point out in his reviews that something was measurable, but in all likelihood not subjectively audible. Or when a speaker measurement will likely lead to a "bright" sound etc).

I think most of us understand the variables involved with sighted, subjective evaluations and when subjective impressions are discussed it's generally understood as, or couched in, "these are subjective impressions, not results of controlled tests."

This is what Amir is doing in his speaker reviews too: including subjective impressions, where we all understand they are not done blind and so they are taken "for what they are," with a grain of salt.

In general: subjectivity is a fact of life, the whole point of our audio systems is to produce a subjective experience. Let's just not bullshit ourselves or others with any poorly supported truth claims when we are discussing these matters.

This is how I couched my own subjective impressions.

I don't interpret the question that way, as a provocation, but simply like to add that my approach is one of achieving flat measurement at the listening position. I also note responses that focus on the magical thinking so prevalent in other forums. Does that bother you?

I didn't notice responses focusing on magical thinking in this thread. If anything the opposite for the most part. Can you indicate which posts suggest to you "magical thinking?" Please be careful to not straw-man people, but to at least try a charitable take on what they likely meant.
Thanks.

 

[NoMoFoNo]

Well, how about this entire paragraph from your post above, which is 100% subjectivist in its tone and thrust:

"Then there are speakers where I sit down and listen and...I'm just entranced by the music through the system, by the sound. It makes me just want to sit there and listen spinning track after track for hours. And it doesn't seem contained to just one flavor of speaker - some of the speakers that do this for me measure "quite well" in objective terms, others less so, others "terrible" as per speaker objectivists. They will sound different, and sometimes I like those specific, different traits. Though ALL share the trait of producing...to my subjective impression...a semblance of the timbral character I find in real sounds and instruments. A certain "warmth" of tone (and I don't mean merely "fullness" upper bass/lower mid emphasis - the type of "warmth" I'm talking about, where wood instruments sound like resonating wood and not metal/plastic/electronic can pertain to lean sounding speakers as well)"

I get that people like what they like. Our brains are not capable of operating objectively. But I can't help but notice when posts muddy the waters, and discussions of warmth, timbral character, tone, these are the key building blocks of the magical-ists in audio.

 

[MattHooper]

Well, how about this entire paragraph from your post above, which is 100% subjectivist in its tone and thrust:

"Then there are speakers where I sit down and listen and...I'm just entranced by the music through the system, by the sound. It makes me just want to sit there and listen spinning track after track for hours. And it doesn't seem contained to just one flavor of speaker - some of the speakers that do this for me measure "quite well" in objective terms, others less so, others "terrible" as per speaker objectivists. They will sound different, and sometimes I like those specific, different traits. Though ALL share the trait of producing...to my subjective impression...a semblance of the timbral character I find in real sounds and instruments. A certain "warmth" of tone (and I don't mean merely "fullness" upper bass/lower mid emphasis - the type of "warmth" I'm talking about, where wood instruments sound like resonating wood and not metal/plastic/electronic can pertain to lean sounding speakers as well)"

So for an example of "magical thinking" you quote my post and leave out what I wrote directly following those words: "I don't think it's magic. If I had the knowledge I'd surely be able to know exactly why each of the speakers grabbed me, either through some direct relationship of how they measure and/or combination of bias factors."

Do you remember my caution about strawmanning people's view?

Acknowledging that measurements may explain certain subjective preferences isn't "magical." It's actually what drives scientific research like that done by Toole et al. Acknowledging that bias factors can produce subjective impressions isn't "magical." It's an acknowledgement of what we know scientifically about the variables of sighted bias. In neither case is the explanation I was reaching for "magical" or anti-scientific. Exactly the opposite!

I get that people like what they like. Our brains are not capable of operating objectively. But I can't help but notice when posts muddy the waters, and discussions of warmth, timbral character, tone, these are the key building blocks of the magical-ists in audio.

So, do I have this right? Any attempt to describe the characteristics of how something sounds is simply the gateway to magical thinking and we should stop putting our subjective impressions in to words in order to communicate with one another?

Do you think discussion of timbral character of sound is unscientific?

Do you realize that your critique should, to be consistant, appy to ANY subjective description of ANY speaker? UNLESS it was done under strictly controlled blind testing conditions a la Harmon Kardon facilities or the like? That would mean that you should jump down the throat of anyone who also answered the question "Yes, Revel speakers measure very well in terms of predicting subjective impressions, and I do find that Revel speakers sound quite good to me." Even THAT sentence would be barred because the reference is actually to someone's personal anecdote not done under blind test conditions.

Do you object to Amir providing any subjective descriptions in his speaker reviews, even when couched with obvious caveats as "sighted evaluation?"

Just wondering if you've got all your ducks in a line in terms of thinking through the implications. Thanks.