Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[antcollinet]

So what is quality then?

In the context of hifi - high fidelity : IE fidelity to the recording.

If you define quality as "what someone likes" then of course there is no measurement for that. Becasue the liking of it will be tied up in all sorts of things separate from the actual measureable quality of the music. Emotions, nostalgia, atmosphere, memories etc etc.

For example, I love listening to an old vinyl copy I have of A Hard Day's Night - not because the reproduction is superb quality, but because it is the only recording I have that used to belong to my Dad. I love the idea I am listing to the exact same thing he listened to when I was a baby. I am particularly looking forward to listening to it with my currently new born grandson. But these are all the emotions tied up in that particular recording, and have nothing to do with the objective quality of it.

 

[IAtaman]

I have a friend who collects 78 rpm shellac records and old 78 record turntables. Some of them mechanical and not even electric. And she enjoys listening to these recordings on the old equipment from time to time. For her, it has a quality of it´s own. Much the same as is the situation with vinyl I think. She is also a piano player so she´s really into music. What this example says is that perceived audio quality in the end is very subjective and something different than measured audio quality. The former can´t be measured in any very meaningful sense. What we can measure is transparency, ie the absence of distortion and other electrical or other physical properties. We can then note that we can in some cases hear certain forms of distortion or noise. But that in itself is only one aspect of audio quality. In my opinion, the greatest value of ASR is that it is a source of enlightenment in a HiFi-world full of myths and false information.

Very true. When I was growing up, my dad's favourite group was Led Zeppelin. We had all their albums on vinyl I think. After dinner, he'd turn on each level seperately on the 5 story tall music player bottom to top, put the vinly on the turntable, and we'd listen to the music coming out of wooden bookshelf speakers, probably very badly placed in the room due to my mom's design requirements. I would pay good money to get the exact same setup, don't care if it has 20db bast case SINAD. But I would never recommend anyone to buy that system, not even for a penny. Because those emotions that are created within us when we listen to a certain song or a certain equipment, they are not part of the music or the gear or the cable, they are part of us. If we were to measure me, with a Functional MRI maybe, we might be able to see my amygdala light up

 

[Mulder]

In the context of hifi - high fidelity : IE fidelity to the recording.

If you define quality as "what someone likes" then of course there is no measurement for that. Becasue the liking of it will be tied up in all sorts of things separate from the actual measureable quality of the music. Emotions, nostalgia, atmosphere, memories etc etc.

For example, I love listening to an old vinyl copy I have of A Hard Day's Night - not because the reproduction is superb quality, but because it is the only recording I have that used to belong to my Dad. I love the idea I am listing to the exact same thing he listened to when I was a baby. I am particularly looking forward to listening to it with my currently new born grandson. But these are all the emotions tied up in that particular recording, and have nothing to do with the objective quality of it.

Yes, that is why i wrote about perceived audio quality as something different than measured audio quality. But in the end quality is just about some form av value. There is no such thing as objective quality other than some sort of explicit or implicit agreement of a pragmatic interpretation. In practise often what can be measured or otherwise quantified. HiFi is just a reference to a set of values and an interpretation of audio quality. But if for example the recording is percived as crap, the audio quality will be low despite high fidelity.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

So what is quality then?

A case for you and your red headed side-chick?

Quality is satisfaction of a specified set of requirements.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Yes, that is why i wrote about perceived audio quality as something different than measured audio quality. But in the end quality is just about some form av value. There is no such thing as objective quality other than some sort of explicit or implicit agreement of a pragmatic interpretation. In practise often what can be measured or otherwise quantified. HiFi is just a reference to a set of values and an interpretation of audio quality. But if for example the recording is percived as crap, the audio quality will be low despite high fidelity.

But here the destinction is of perception vs. technical character. Technical the scenario would be of quality (rendering 1:1) but the perception may or may not be due to the listeners preferences.

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, that is why i wrote about perceived audio quality as something different than measured audio quality. But in the end quality is just about some form av value. There is no such thing as objective quality other than some sort of explicit or implicit agreement of a pragmatic interpretation. In practise often what can be measured or otherwise quantified. HiFi is just a reference to a set of values and an interpretation of audio quality. But if for example the recording is percived as crap, the audio quality will be low despite high fidelity.

OK - but now you need to differentiate between Music creation/recording/mastering quality vs reproduction quality.

We are mainly interested at ASR in reproduction quality - how well/accurately various equipment reproduces recorded music. That is what the measurements here are about.

Badly created music (or simply music that is not to our taste) will sound bad regardless of of the quality of the reproduction equipment.

 

[bodhi]

Yes, that is why i wrote about perceived audio quality as something different than measured audio quality. But in the end quality is just about some form av value. There is no such thing as objective quality other than some sort of explicit or implicit agreement of a pragmatic interpretation. In practise often what can be measured or otherwise quantified. HiFi is just a reference to a set of values and an interpretation of audio quality. But if for example the recording is percived as crap, the audio quality will be low despite high fidelity.

So, first you claim that there cannot be objective definition of quality and then you claim that if a person doesn't like a recording then it's audio quality is bad? So what you are actually saying is that quality depends on the person doing the assesment aka every opinion is equally valid?

That's fine, as there isn't a single definition of quality. In fact the classic book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance describes the problem very well and in entertaining way. It for example describe two points of view, the romantic one and the rational one. The romantic above all values things by how they make him feel and is not that interested in why they make him feel that way. This sounds a lot like a typical subjectivist in hifi scene and vice versa.

Audio arguments with subjectivists and objectivists exists because the former is not satisfied in sticking with the romantic view. They are making claims that the tweaks they use actually cause improvements that should be apparent to the objectivists if they could just understand audio better. Even if they don't (always) say it out loud it is apparent that they are claiming that the people not accepting that high end power cables or tube amps improve sound are lacking some talent or skill that any sufficiently advanced audiophile should have.

Just stick to the claim that the tweaks you like only enhance your experince of listening and nobody would bat an eye.

 

[fpitas]

Audio arguments with subjectivists and objectivists exists because the former is not satisfied in sticking with the romantic view. They are making claims that the tweaks they use actually cause improvements that should be apparent to the objectivists if they could just understand audio better. Even if they don't (always) say it out loud it is apparent that they are claiming that the people not accepting that high end power cables or tube amps improve sound are lacking some talent or skill that any sufficiently advanced audiophile should have.

Just stick to the claim that the tweaks you like only enhance your experince of listening and nobody would bat an eye.

The X Factor. We just don't understand the subject well enough.

Not that they know what to do about it. But we're wrong.

 

[Mulder]

OK - but now you need to differentiate between Music creation/recording/mastering quality vs reproduction quality.

We are mainly interested at ASR in reproduction quality - how well/accurately various equipment reproduces recorded music. That is what the measurements here are about.

Badly created music (or simply music that is not to our taste) will sound bad regardless of of the quality of the reproduction equipment.

Well yes. But I did not say otherwise. On the contrary. My initial post was about another comment, and must be read in that context, (i.e. If someone's view is that there are qualities to audio that can never be measured but only be perceived by humans however, then I think this view should be discussed at astrology forums and not on ASR.) My point is that this just reflects a certain definition of sound quality. Sure, it can be discussed based on objective criteria. But audio quality in and of itself can be experienced by people in a way that cannot be meaningfully measured. Just take the Harman Curve as an axample. Some prefer headphones that is close to Harman, some other people do not. This is also a question of audio quality, albeit based upon other kriteria points.

 

[sonitus mirus]

The topic of this thread is about objective measurements of an audio signal, so any mention of "quality" should probably be in reference to the audio signal quality.

 

[Mulder]

So, first you claim that there cannot be objective definition of quality and then you claim that if a person doesn't like a recording then it's audio quality is bad? So what you are actually saying is that quality depends on the person doing the assesment aka every opinion is equally valid?

No. I did not. There can be objective definitions, but any definition is based upon an agreement (or at least that the definition could be understood) and as far as quality is concerned most often rely on quantifiable values. And, I repeat, I am not talking about opinions, I am talking about perceived quality, which of cource is not objective, but can still be relevant to some degree.

That's fine, as there isn't a single definition of quality. In fact the classic book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance describes the problem very well and in entertaining way. It for example describe two points of view, the romantic one and the rational one. The romantic above all values things by how they make him feel and is not that interested in why they make him feel that way. This sounds a lot like a typical subjectivist in hifi scene and vice versa.

I also read that book once.

Audio arguments with subjectivists and objectivists exists because the former is not satisfied in sticking with the romantic view. They are making claims that the tweaks they use actually cause improvements that should be apparent to the objectivists if they could just understand audio better. Even if they don't (always) say it out loud it is apparent that they are claiming that the people not accepting that high end power cables or tube amps improve sound are lacking some talent or skill that any sufficiently advanced audiophile should have.

No, the argument between subjectivists and objectivists exist because many people don´t understand the subjective and unreliable nature of our hearing. Subjetivists are not avware of confirmation bias. Many times subjectivists arguments are about improvements or other effects that do not exist. This is a matter of reliability of listeners observations.

 

[Mulder]

The topic of this thread is about objective measurements of an audio signal, so any mention of "quality" should probably be in reference to the audio signal quality.

Yes. I agree.

 

[fpitas]

The topic of this thread is about objective measurements of an audio signal, so any mention of "quality" should probably be in reference to the audio signal quality.

This is the thread where people can get as philosophical as they please. Sometimes it does get a little puzzling.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I appreciate that this thread acts as a honey trap to protect the forums from being disrupted with fluff while also allowing for the entertainment value from participation and reading. To me, with my limited knowledge, the exchanges are often informative.

 

[krabapple]

Ever think that the actual measurements could be flawed from the get go? Just because there's a program written for testing it doesn't mean that it's going to provide accurate measurements in every single test. If all tests were done "the old fashioned" way (analog) I wouldn't ever question any results. But after dabling with digital equipment and test programs I finding there's quite a large difference in what I see compared to what I hear. Digital will never sound as good as analog except for in 1 aspect - background noise or silence. That's the one thing that digital has a purpose. Or you only listen to pure electronic music that has no strings or voices or horns or pianos or etc...

I have my own suspicions that programs are made with certain ideas in mind that aren't necessarily based on perfection but okay a role in a larger idea that could be based purely on $. Even a free program can be a huge mony generating product by changing the way people think. Controlling a single aspect within a program can make a huge shift in how people perseve audio and music reproduction. The purists know that analog is the only way to go and it's impossible to get that to change unless digital can suddenly become infinite.

..etc.

See: Dunning-Kruger effect

 

[antcollinet]

Well yes. But I did not say otherwise. On the contrary. My initial post was about another comment, and must be read in that context, (i.e. If someone's view is that there are qualities to audio that can never be measured but only be perceived by humans however, then I think this view should be discussed at astrology forums and not on ASR.) My point is that this just reflects a certain definition of sound quality. Sure, it can be discussed based on objective criteria. But audio quality in and of itself can be experienced by people in a way that cannot be meaningfully measured. Just take the Harman Curve as an axample. Some prefer headphones that is close to Harman, some other people do not. This is also a question of audio quality, albeit based upon other kriteria points.

OK - sounds like we are in violent agreement then. Sorry if I took your post out of context. It's easy to do when the thread is 300+ pages long.

 

[bodhi]

No, the argument between subjectivists and objectivists exist because many people don´t understand the subjective and unreliable nature of our hearing. Subjetivists are not avware of confirmation bias. Many times subjectivists arguments are about improvements or other effects that do not exist. This is a matter of reliability of listeners observations.

That I don't accept, that's almost claiming that subjectivists are stupid. The subjectivist audiophiles I have personally know are smart people, engineers even, and know very well all the biases that cloud our judgements. They also were people who valued rationalism and live their lives accordingly. They laugh at people who believe in gods, astrology, homeopathy etc.

But then there is hifi. For this ONE case they make an exception. No proof is needed, what they experience is not confirmation bias, they hear the things so clearly, science is not yet there when it comes to audio, blind tests hide differences... It is completely infuriating sometimes, although less and less as I have grown older.

 

[SIY]

CDs were terrible to listen to even though from an engineer's point of view CDs were perfect sound forever.

Fortunately, we had a reference, the reality we experience every day.

Over time, both CD and LCD were aligned with this reference.
With CD it had a lot to do with the filter Nyquist forgot that people wanted to hear something similar to reality.

I've seen this claim before, but haven't seen any evidence that it is true. I'm old enough to remember first hand people like Gordon Holt proclaiming that the sound was the best they'd ever heard. Were there some bad CDs? Sure, and that was true throughout the lifetime of that medium (and every other medium).

I think people knew about Nyquist in 1983.

 

[fpitas]

I've seen this claim before, but haven't seen any evidence that it is true. I'm old enough to remember first hand people like Gordon Holt proclaiming that the sound was the best they'd ever heard. Were there some bad CDs? Sure, and that was true throughout the lifetime of that medium (and every other medium).

I think people knew about Nyquist in 1983.

Dunno. Obviously a lot of our trolls haven't heard about Fourier, either. Maybe give it another few hundred years.

 

[voodooless]

Dunno. Obviously a lot of our trolls haven't heard about Fourier, either. Maybe give it another few hundred years.

Ah, Gaus invented the FFT more than 150 years before the official invention date of Cooley and Tukey. So there may still be hope