Interesting quote

[murraycamp]

Daniel von Recklinghausen, an engineer who worked for H.H. Scott back in the 1950s and ’60s said, ‘If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing.’

Just food for thought.

 

[sergeauckland]

That quote has been on subjective forums since Adam was a lad. I think it's rubbish.
If it measures good and sounds bad then YOU are at fault, not the measurements. (Assuming of course the measurements have been done correctly and comprehensively)

If it measures bad and sounds good, it just shows how uncritical we actually are.

S.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I offer my own twist on that statement.

"If it measures good and sounds bad, you either don't like the recording or your measurements are incomplete. If it measures bad and sounds good, you have a preference for bad-sounding gear."

The reason I say this is that there is no measurable definition for "good" and "bad". They are subjective and ambiguous descriptors (or qualifiers). The only measurable definitions are not "good" or "bad", but "accurate" or "inaccurate". That's why I used the word "preference".

Jim

 

[SoonToBeRetired]

My Mom got my Dad an HH Scott 344-B Receiver late 60's early 70's. It was defective. After many letters and increasingly irate phone calls, she actually got Hermon Hosmer Scott on the phone. They shipped us a brand new unit which solved all the problems. It only had an FM tuner with a beautifully weighted knob that sent the needle flying across the whole band with one twist of the wrist. I also remember the dial was beautifully and evenly lit, much like the speedometer on our 1965 Chrysler New Yorker.

 

[eddantes]

Preferrence in audio is the basis of the scientific work of @Sean Olive and @Floyd Toole . The Harman curve exists because of their efforts.

When reviews (speaker/headphone) follow the Harman curve - they follow "the likely preference of the average user" and not some absolute ideal values. Your prefernce may be an outlier to the Harman curve - AND THAT IS OK. In fact, if a company produces a product for those that are outliers on the Harman curve - that too is OK - they are meeting a particular demand. However - the largest demand - according to the science, by and large follows the Harman curve.

However - in electronics - there is an absolute value to which we measure: the input. In electronics - the output needs to be identical to the input - with the exception of the function of the device, ie: amplification. Here - a good product is one that does not deviate at all.

At least - the above - is my personal understanding of this space.

 

[Speedskater]

We have to be clear. Does 'sounds good' mean:
a] accurate sounds
b] pleasant or euphonic sounds

 

[Oddball]

It is always best to start with gear that is sufficiently transparent. After applying the Harman curve, or whatever the individual preference for room EQ is, the input will obviously be altered so that output will not be identical. And truth to be told, the older I get and the better system I have, more faults I find in the recordings.

Currently mostly into HT, where quality is quite rare and decisions about dynamics of the signal are all over the place. Even with a dedicated HT room, do you really want to blow up your ears with galactic cruiser landing into your room or T-Rex walking next to you? Apparently some think you should. This also impacts the curve as with +10 dB hot on subs, one will choke on these dynamic peaks that will be +125dB at reference level listening, which few subs (even an army of them) will be able to do at 25hz and is anyway way to loud for comfort. And without the +10 dB bass curve, the rest of the soundtrack will be like meh...

 

[Eric Natural]

If it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing.’

thinking of Magnapan speakers while reading this quote

 

[Chr1]

And valve amps.

Again, "sounds good" and "sounds bad" being sufficiently vague and subjective, such that it's kind of a pointless conversation.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I believe we've all been guilty of saying something without fully thinking it through..

 

[jcarys]

There's no problem with the quote, it's just that the world has changed since he said it. In the early days of audio there were tons of products that were designed by ear. There were objective audio values that were known or suspected but difficult and expensive to measure. Even it there were design work arounds, they were too expensive to bring to market. 50 years on, digital electronics can do things cheaply that even the most expensive designs then could only dream about. If a modern audio piece measures good but sounds bad, it simply never gets released, unless there is a specific market segment that will pay good money for a non-realistic sound (early Beats headphones, for example).

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Without "good" and "bad" being clearly defined, it's not a particularly helpful quote.

 

[Mnyb]

There's no problem with the quote, it's just that the world has changed since he said it. In the early days of audio there were tons of products that were designed by ear. There were objective audio values that were known or suspected but difficult and expensive to measure. Even it there were design work arounds, they were too expensive to bring to market. 50 years on, digital electronics can do things cheaply that even the most expensive designs then could only dream about. If a modern audio piece measures good but sounds bad, it simply never gets released, unless there is a specific market segment that will pay good money for a non-realistic sound (early Beats headphones, for example).

O yes for example practically all small signal electronics have moved into the realm of transparent, so there the struggle is done and gone.

there is no trying to squeeze a balloon and have it pop out somewhere however you try ? Like when you had to trade some undesirable factor for another different undesirable factor and make your thing different rather than better

Speakers was designed decades before thiel and small developed a working theory on how loudspeaker drivers even work and the math behind different bass alignments ? It’s must have been the wild west with flogiston and eather all around you even the most rational designers must have struggled to grasp what was really going on and made some crude model of reality for themselves to get something done . And then acoustics and directivity on top of that .

So even if they did measures transducers back then they did not had the full picture , so that quote was probably right for its time.
You probably had to judge which of your crude measurements actually meant something

 

[Blumlein 88]

O yes for example practically all small signal electronics have moved into the realm of transparent, so there the struggle is done and gone.

there is no trying to squeeze a balloon and have it pop out somewhere however you try ? Like when you had to trade some undesirable factor for another different undesirable factor and make your thing different rather than better

Speakers was designed decades before thiel and small developed a working theory on how loudspeaker drivers even work and the math behind different bass alignments ? It’s must have been the wild west with flogiston and eather all around you even the most rational designers must have struggled to grasp what was really going on and made some crude model of reality for themselves to get something done . And then acoustics and directivity on top of that .

So even if they did measures transducers back then they did not had the full picture , so that quote was probably right for its time.
You probably had to judge which of your crude measurements actually meant something

Yes, this is a good evaluation of that saying and its origins I think.

Ever wonder how they said the three driver speaker was said to have a tweeter, squawker and woofer?

 

[Killingbeans]

Daniel von Recklinghausen, an engineer who worked for H.H. Scott back in the 1950s and ’60s said, ‘If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing.’

Just food for thought.

My take would be something more in the line of: "If it measures good, but sounds bad, you're measuring the wrong thing. Other measurements will tell you why it sounds bad. If it measures bad, but sounds good, you've encountered something that's either enjoyable to you as an individual despite being bad, or something bad that's inconsequential in the grand scheme of enjoyment."

 

[Mikig]

I offer my own twist on that statement.

"If it measures good and sounds bad, you either don't like the recording or your measurements are incomplete. If it measures bad and sounds good, you have a preference for bad-sounding gear."

The reason I say this is that there is no measurable definition for "good" and "bad". They are subjective and ambiguous descriptors (or qualifiers). The only measurable definitions are not "good" or "bad", but "accurate" or "inaccurate". That's why I used the word "preference".

Jim

Totally agree. I think you said it all.

 

[rynberg]

Daniel von Recklinghausen, an engineer who worked for H.H. Scott back in the 1950s and ’60s said, ‘If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you’ve measured the wrong thing.’

Just food for thought.

Audio and listening science has advanced just slightly in the last 70 years. Food for thought.

 

[Multicore]

Ever wonder how they said the three driver speaker was said to have a tweeter, squawker and woofer?

haha. good point.

 

[Beave]

When did he say it? 1950? 1960? 2024 (not likely). That matters. Measurements have changed dramatically for the better since he was designing speakers in the 50s and 60s. The understanding of which measurements matter has also improved dramatically.

 

[solderdude]

Daniel von Recklinghausen
1925 - 2011