For what I know of statistics, you first need to determine which type of statistical methodology you are going to use, this depends on what data you have available and how the requirements for the validity of the test statistic are met. Stuff like parametric or non-parametric, sample size, population size, mean, variance, standard deviation, the shape of the distribution (if using parametric methods). Also, stuff such as p-values and r-squared values are great to have, but that is the reason we establish that correlation does not lead to causation. It is interesting to have indicators that point where you want, but that doesn't mean that your conclusion has to be correct.Proof requires that it be demonstrable. When statistically, enough people report an agreed upon perception, the likelihood of there being something to it greatly increases. Can all those people be imagining it? Rejecting as a waste of time something that can't currently be measured is to lock oneself into a mindset that is authoritarian rather than investigative. Given that you dismiss as a waste of time perceptions that can't be measured, upon what basis do you declare a perception by others that they describe as organic... to be "unrelated to the sound"?
or an instrument will be designed that will measure it.
The number of times a demonstrated sonic difference was not measurable is zero. And it’s particularly straightforward with electronics.
I’d like to have a reference on which subjective descriptions correlate to which measured properties. One in particular that escapes my understanding of measurement is “soundstage”, either “depth” or “breadth”.
I’d like to have a reference on which subjective descriptions correlate to which measured properties. One in particular that escapes my understanding of measurement is “soundstage”, either “depth” or “breadth”.
Alan A. Shaw wrote ;
"Really! You are both worrying far, far too much! Do what seems right to you. This question of "what is best" can not be answered scientifically because there are so many variables, including where the microphones were positioned, the shape of your outer ear etc, etc, etc. I have already stated in my post here, stereo imaging is an illusion. It is entirely a construct inside your own brain. Your brain (somehow) builds a mental model by mapping the sound that you hear over your speakers via your two ears to those you have previously experienced in real. All this exposure is knitted together in to a sonic model that allows you to imagine in your head how performers were arranged in 3D space at the recording venue. But the person sitting next to you may have a radically different mental model. Wives, for example, frequently can not understand or appreciate their husbands fascination with hi-fi-they are entirely happy with their kitchen radio. This is because they have a different mental model of how music sounds.
Your brain creates a sonic database before birth and refines it throughout your life according to your sonic experiences, the concerts you have attended, the types of instruments you have heard, different acoustic environments etc. If you have not been to a live concert, never hear a live instrument but only been exposed to the sound via a cheap radio you would have a very different mental sound database to draw experience from. Conversely, if you are a professional musician playing and working with your instrument, you may find it impossible to listen to hifi sound. Many professional musicians seem perfectly satisfied with very modest low- fi audio equipment at home.
Throw the grand theory out of the window- what is right for your brain, your music, your taste is right. Go with what sound best to you.
P.S. I strongly recommend that you make an effort to go to live (classical) concerts where instruments can be heard live not via a PA speaker system. Your concept of stereo imaging, great depth, perspective etc, may well radically changed after such exposure. For one thing, at a real live concert, you will find that "pin point imaging" and great depth does not exist. What you experience live is a wash of sound....
P.P.S the fact that many people have different exposure to live sound - and hence, a different internal sonic database in their brain to draw on - makes the business of hi-fi reviewing rather problematic. When we read a hifi review, there are so many unknown for us, the reader to contend with. Not only have we no exposure to the equipment under review we do not know about the reviewer's associated equipment, his room, his musical taste or his previous exposure to live music (if any) and how sophisticated his mental sonic look-up table is. However, one thing that we all do know about is speech since we are all surrounded by live speech all our lives if we have not seen of heard an instrument. That make speech an excellent test material for evaluating loudspeakers.
Alan A. Shaw
Designer, owner
Harbeth Audio UK
I remember seeing something similar to this in the forum, but can't seem to search it out:
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1397700/all
I’d like to have a reference on which subjective descriptions correlate to which measured properties. One in particular that escapes my understanding of measurement is “soundstage”, either “depth” or “breadth”.
I read the book “The Feather Thief” recently, A true story about a young man who learned how to tie flies and stole a bunch of endangered bird species from a natural history museum.
Along the way, you learn that a) most devotees of salmon fly-tying don’t fish, b) Salmon will hit anything colorful, yet c) there are many complicated flies that simply must be made with the original Malaysian or South American endangered species’ feathers. Trout require highly accurate fly replicas made mostly from drab black and brown materials. The hardcores tie Salmon flies.
Almost all men, as well. It had a familiar feel.
Mine do, and the noise is well below “good enough.”I suspect that tube line stages can measure quite well, with the possible exception of noise.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.I agree with the idea of good enough. Why fret over the difference between -90dB or -105dB N/S? Both are inaudible.