Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[birdog1960]

Static. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship." Dictionary.com from the Greek stasis: mid 18th century: modern Latin, from Greek, literally ‘standing, stoppage’, from sta- base of histanai ‘to stand’.

 

[pma]

Post #5213
Now - stationary deterministic signals are made up entirely of sinusoidal components at discrete frequencies. This is quite important to know.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

A DAC reproduces a music signal from [the music signal's] FT components? Well, I've learned something new today.

A DAC only gets an instruction set, a recipe you could call it.
Using this recipe, it cooks a fresh music signal from scratch, using artificially generated frequencies, shaped and moulded to equal the original.

 

[MattHooper]

In the majority of all recordings today, there is no such thing as a reproducible original event. Most of what is produced today is synthetic. It's layers upon layers, electronic echoes, auto tune and so on. Even live recordings aren't particularly live, with all the overlays and post-production adjustments that are routinely made today. It is completely impossible for a listener to determine what is most correct in relation to some kind of original event. Even symphony orchestras and the like are recorded in a way today that does not correspond very well to what you hear in the concert hall. But if a recording really contains information that realistically reproduces an original event, then why would there be a need to reproduce that signal with anything other than as high signal fidelity as possible, or to put it another way - why would it be more realistic if the signal is degraded, so to speak.

Obviously a very reasonable question!

I'll give my answer, and it will appeal to why I continue to use tube amplification.

But first, there are two different questions: 1. Whether some distortion is audible. 2. If it is, why would you want it?

I'm not offering in this post an answer to #1 because only #2 would be relevant to answering your question. So it's up to you if, for the sake of argument, you accept that my tube amplification is distorting the sound enough to be audible, so we'd talk about why that might be desirable at all. (I'll be referencing my tube preamp, which I have identified in blind tests against my Benchmark preamp).

Ok, moving on:

I can switch between my Benchmark preamp (utterly neutral solid state) and my CJ tube preamp at the click of my remote, while listening. I had a typical experience last night, listening to Talk Talk's track Happiness Is Easy. For many years that track has always produced an extremely palpable sense of the drum kit through my system. I could close my eyes and the drums would be easily sensed as fairly solid sounding. But listening through my Benchmark LA4 (a newer addition to my system) it just wasn't "there" as much as I was used to - the snare, the high hat, the kick drum, the toms, were all super clean and clear, but didn't have the density. I switch over to the signal going through the tube preamp and...boom!...the drum kit just became that much more solid and dimensional sounding, the sense of a solid snare being hit, solid toms, solid high hat. It was now easier for me to slip in to the illusion of hearing right through the recording to 'real drums.' I'm talking subtle, but to my ears significant.

It wasn't just the drums, it was everything: the acoustic guitar, the keyboards, percussion, everything took on this added density and solidity to my ears.

This is a fantastic recording, and yet it took this step forward in realism for me.

I find this to be the case on every single recording. Whether it's "audiophile level" recordings of vocals and accompaniment, or excellent orchestral recordings,
this "everything sounds more dense, there, palpable, solid, real" applies. String sections sound less wispy and see through. Horn sections less ghostly, more dense. It applies to pop recordings. It applies to much of my beloved electronica, where all the dancing synth parts, sequencers, synth drums etc take on more corporality. I find it a very gratifying effect for all music.

But it's a trade-off. I do lose something too. Through the CJ preamp I lose a bit of clarity and nuance, and there is slightly more homogenization. Slightly.
So the question is always "which do I find more gratifying, the slightly better retrieval of detail from the recording, including some timbral nuance from the Benchmark preamp? Or do I choose the added sense of "thereness" and believability with the tube preamp? I go back and forth, but often when I really want to sink in to that stronger illusion of hearing solid instruments and voices, I choose the tube preamp. Which, again, works for any recording, high quality or low quality.

Cheers.

 

[manisandher]

A DAC only gets an instruction set, a recipe you could call it.
Using this recipe, it cooks a fresh music signal from scratch, using artificially generated frequencies, shaped and moulded to equal the original.

Yes, happy with that. Less happy that the "instruction set" or "recipe" is the music signal's FT.

But happy to be shown to be wrong. (Wouldn't be the first time.)

 

[Mnyb]

Not happy! Fixed it for you. The limitation has nothing to do with the Fourier transform. We simply don't have infinitely precise measurement devices or digital computers with infinite precision. These don't exist in nature and never will. But we can get close enough to where it really doesn't matter.

This is also true in the analog domain to ? Is it not . There is some flawed beliefs that analog has infinite resolution ?

Would not -120dB already take to the random motion of air molecules already in your ear canal ( given sane volume to begin with )

 

[SIY]

"showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship." Dictionary.com from the Greek stasis: mid 18th century: modern Latin, from Greek, literally ‘standing, stoppage’, from sta- base of histanai ‘to stand’.

A sine wave changes every instant and sweeps through every value between its negative and positive maxima. Not static. Stationary is correct, static is not.

 

[birdog1960]

A sine wave changes every instant and sweeps through every value between its negative and positive maxima. Not static. Stationary is correct, static is not.

I'm referring to hearing. Auditory thresholds which definitely change and varies among individuals. I was responding to this:
ofer said:
"Below well-researched limitations of human hearing." Something that has stilll not been addressed in any hifi measurements I've seen and should be. What may be important equipment measurements for a 20 yr old may not be in a 60 or 70 yo.

 

[tomelex]

Obviously a very reasonable question!

I'll give my answer, and it will appeal to why I continue to use tube amplification.

But first, there are two different questions: 1. Whether some distortion is audible. 2. If it is, why would you want it?

I'm not offering in this post an answer to #1 because only #2 would be relevant to answering your question. So it's up to you if, for the sake of argument, you accept that my tube amplification is distorting the sound enough to be audible, so we'd talk about why that might be desirable at all. (I'll be referencing my tube preamp, which I have identified in blind tests against my Benchmark preamp).

Ok, moving on:

I can switch between my Benchmark preamp (utterly neutral solid state) and my CJ tube preamp at the click of my remote, while listening. I had a typical experience last night, listening to Talk Talk's track Happiness Is Easy. For many years that track has always produced an extremely palpable sense of the drum kit through my system. I could close my eyes and the drums would be easily sensed as fairly solid sounding. But listening through my Benchmark LA4 (a newer addition to my system) it just wasn't "there" as much as I was used to - the snare, the high hat, the kick drum, the toms, were all super clean and clear, but didn't have the density. I switch over to the signal going through the tube preamp and...boom!...the drum kit just became that much more solid and dimensional sounding, the sense of a solid snare being hit, solid toms, solid high hat. It was now easier for me to slip in to the illusion of hearing right through the recording to 'real drums.' I'm talking subtle, but to my ears significant.

It wasn't just the drums, it was everything: the acoustic guitar, the keyboards, percussion, everything took on this added density and solidity to my ears.

This is a fantastic recording, and yet it took this step forward in realism for me.

I find this to be the case on every single recording. Whether it's "audiophile level" recordings of vocals and accompaniment, or excellent orchestral recordings,
this "everything sounds more dense, there, palpable, solid, real" applies. String sections sound less wispy and see through. Horn sections less ghostly, more dense. It applies to pop recordings. It applies to much of my beloved electronica, where all the dancing synth parts, sequencers, synth drums etc take on more corporality. I find it a very gratifying effect for all music.

But it's a trade-off. I do lose something too. Through the CJ preamp I lose a bit of clarity and nuance, and there is slightly more homogenization. Slightly.
So the question is always "which do I find more gratifying, the slightly better retrieval of detail from the recording, including some timbral nuance from the Benchmark preamp? Or do I choose the added sense of "thereness" and believability with the tube preamp? I go back and forth, but often when I really want to sink in to that stronger illusion of hearing solid instruments and voices, I choose the tube preamp. Which, again, works for any recording, high quality or low quality.

Cheers.

Totally understand your preference for extra harmonics, but of course, you would not want your source component to do anything but be neutral.

 

[SIY]

Something that has stilll not been addressed in any hifi measurements I've seen...

You need to get out more.

 

[birdog1960]

You need to get out more.

wow. solid argument (not). ad hominem's are always weak but fairly common here. uh, huh... it's a salient point, if one can't hear it, it doesn't matter. Are you typing while on a treadmill or exercise bike? Perhaps while at a concert? Time to go walk my dogs...

 

[solderdude]

Why? (Asking a question)

"I feel that dynamic response to transients is not well understood or measured".

An amplifier simply follows the signal. It does not react differently between transients and continuous signals (unless the circuit is supposed to change/compress/limit or is flawed in design).
This is not the case with transducers and coupling with air and ear where resonances, mass and compression is king.
The output signal does not resemble the input closely, in electronics it can.

The holy signal passes through the whole chain.

Only whole signals pass through the whole chain.
Holy signals can only be found in places of worship... (audio has similarities to religion though)

Why should we differentiate when in the end what matters is what.... ehhhmmmm... comes out at the end?

Its about measurements in this case.
Measurements in the electrical domain can be extremely accurate. In the acoustic domain they are not.
So when it concerns measurements of electronics compared to headphones and speakers there should be a distinction when it comes to the accuracy and perception.

 

[pma]

A sine wave changes every instant and sweeps through every value between its negative and positive maxima. Not static. Stationary is correct, static is not.

Let’s get deeper. Stationary random signals have a spectrum which is continuously distributed with frequency. This is in contrast to stationary deterministic signals, that are made up entirely of sinusaidal components at discrete frequencies. Let’s be exact, if we ask the others to be.

 

[tuga]

Well yes, but it's unfair to judge a community based on the believes of the least informed members. Otherwise Amir needs to introduce an entrance exam.

I bet the least informed members make up the majority.

 

[tuga]

As regards scientific inquiry, there is no such thing as an "uncomfortable" question. Discomfort indicates emotional involvement. That's not science. We need to separate the sword from the swordsman.

There is discomfort when things are questioned.

 

[Xulonn]

wow. solid argument (not). ad hominem's are always weak but fairly common here. uh, huh... it's a salient point, if one can't hear it, it doesn't matter. Are you typing while on a treadmill or exercise bike? Perhaps while at a concert? Time to go walk my dogs...

Respond to mild ad hominem with a retort ad hominem? Weak argument!

Most of us are aware of - and respect -@SIY 's experience, expertise and credentials. What is your background in relevant fields? You seem to believe many things that go against the findings of the audio sciences. Have you successfully challenged any of the works and findings of Toole & Olive?

 

[IPunchCholla]

I'm referring to hearing. Auditory thresholds which definitely change and varies among individuals. I was responding to this:
ofer said:
"Below well-researched limitations of human hearing." Something that has stilll not been addressed in any hifi measurements I've seen and should be. What may be important equipment measurements for a 20 yr old may not be in a 60 or 70 yo.

What do you mean by hifi measurements? We know the effect of estrogen on hearing and can characterize hearing across the population. We can measure any individual FR sensitivity. We know thresholds of sensitivity to distortion and how that is effected by behavior.

I work at a university so have at home access to many databases and have gone down the rabbit hole of scientific literature. There is a lot of it about any aspect of hearing. Auditory memory structures were especially interesting. If you are US based and have a public university in town, you can use their libraries. Though it can be intimidating as safety precautions now mean getting a pass at many. So if you have a particular hearing element you are interested in, you can likely find the original research if it isn’t on Wikipedia.

 

[SIY]

Let’s get deeper. Stationary random signals have a spectrum which is continuously distributed with frequency. This is in contrast to stationary deterministic signals, that are made up entirely of sinusaidal components at discrete frequencies. Let’s be exact, if we ask the others to be.

This is true, but because we force periodicity, in reality the spectrum is still discrete for signals of finite length. Admittedly the frequencies are spaced close enough that we can approximate it as a continuous spectrum (the one minute sound capture I mentioned earlier will have frequency components spaced 1/60 Hz apart), but if we want to be exact...

 

[MattHooper]

Totally understand your preference for extra harmonics, but of course, you would not want your source component to do anything but be neutral.

Uh-oh. I also listen to plenty of vinyl.

I want all the wrong things, apparently.

 

[ahofer]

which is another variable that should be considered. it is not static (pardon the pun)

But we know where the right tail is, so that is a practical extreme. (search, for instance, ISO 7029. And be humbled, with respect to this conversation, if you are over 30)