• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

After recently doing a level matched AB test between a number of my headphone amps with a switcher, I came to the realisation that they all sound exactly the same. However, before I had certain ideas of them sounding different which I was very sure about until then. Even then I used to level match all the same, but the amount of time it took to switch didn't seem to be fast enough for me to identify them as identical sounding. Once I could quick switch, certain factors I believed were different between amps such as soundstaging, tonality and dynamics seemed to disappear.

Something I'm not sure I've seen addressed here, is where exactly do theses ideas of the different sounds of different source gear come from? Where does the very idea that they sound different originate from?
 
Something I'm not sure I've seen addressed here, is where exactly do theses ideas of the different sounds of different source gear come from? Where does the very idea that they sound different originate from?
Great question. I think three primary factors: first, the initial part of the 70 plus-year history of modern-era hifi showed genuine differences between gear, often associated with price, to the point where the notion became baked in to the conventional wisdom, and survives in the present day.

Second, simple human intuition: different units, different manufacturers, circuits, topography, appearance ... how would they not sound different?

And third: the retail trade has an obvious economic imperative to encourage dissatisfaction and hence churn.

As a side note, I find it fascinating that optical illusions are generally accepted as a "wow, that's cool ... who would have thought?" kind of thing, whereas audio illusions, when demonstrated, produce such hostility. So perhaps we should add a fourth factor - the genuine pleasure found in cult-like belief and behavior.
 
where exactly do theses ideas of the different sounds of different source gear come from?
Perceiving a difference (real, or imagined, or due only to selective attention) and trying to articulate it.
 
After recently doing a level matched AB test between a number of my headphone amps with a switcher, I came to the realisation that they all sound exactly the same. However, before I had certain ideas of them sounding different which I was very sure about until then. Even then I used to level match all the same, but the amount of time it took to switch didn't seem to be fast enough for me to identify them as identical sounding. Once I could quick switch, certain factors I believed were different between amps such as soundstaging, tonality and dynamics seemed to disappear.

Something I'm not sure I've seen addressed here, is where exactly do theses ideas of the different sounds of different source gear come from? Where does the very idea that they sound different originate from?
If you've paid twice as much for your new amp than what your old one cost, it must sound better right? Otherwise you've wasted your money.
 
Something I'm not sure I've seen addressed here, is where exactly do theses ideas of the different sounds of different source gear come from? Where does the very idea that they sound different originate from?
A friend of mine described his Stageline 1000D (Pascal modules - it measures like the Crown XLS series) power amplifier as being much more dynamic and punchy than the Lyngdorf 3400 he compared with. He used the Lyngdorf as a preamplifier, where Amir showed it didn't measure that well, so I called BS. I think the perceived difference is just down to different volume level, as the description of the Stageline just sounds like it was louder.
 
Well, we have answered any questions regarding this topic. No fighting, no demeaning, no insults. A lot of us who have been around for awhile will engage politely, until the questioner digs in his heels and says "Your wrong" or "I don't care what the science says, I hear it" and other statements like this. A willingness to learn is VERY appreciated here but discussing the same incorrect ideas and settled science without any real knowledge of the subject doesn't go very far.
 
Nothing is settled here and the OP's point continues to be made regarding the psychology of all of it. Many have shared their opinions. Many of those opinions were loaded in bias. What I didn't anticipate but probably goes back to the OP's point is that some people just like to hear themselves talk and there's probably some psychology buried in that. I will say that in large part everyone has been polite, but it would be hard not to with the constant reminders in this thread. The OP desperately wanted to avoid this turning into a discussion about audio and we all failed to stay on task, there's likely some psychology there too.
 
the waveform itself doesn't tell much more than the peaks and valleys of its contents.
So, mathematically speaking, that is a full description of the entire sound - at a point in space.

We can use more mics and measure at more points in space.

The main difference in what ears hear, and what mics hear - there aren't earlobes, heads, and bodies between the sound source and the microphone. But there are those things between our ear holes and the sound source. But when you consider the size of our ear holes, we're still just hearing things as they exist at a point in space. Mics and ears are different but they're not that different.

As far as whether there's anything "in there" beyond the waveform. Short answer - no. Long answer - you can look at the spectral view to see a representation of all the frequencies that make up the sound, and even manipulate those if you want. That's what FFTs are for.
 
So, mathematically speaking, that is a full description of the entire sound - at a point in space.

We can use more mics and measure at more points in space.

The main difference in what ears hear, and what mics hear - there aren't earlobes, heads, and bodies between the sound source and the microphone. But there are those things between our ear holes and the sound source. But when you consider the size of our ear holes, we're still just hearing things as they exist at a point in space. Mics and ears are different but they're not that different.

As far as whether there's anything "in there" beyond the waveform. Short answer - no. Long answer - you can look at the spectral view to see a representation of all the frequencies that make up the sound, and even manipulate those if you want. That's what FFTs are for.
Thank you so much! Fourier transform seems like it's exactly what I need to get a better understanding of. I don't believe it's something I've been exposed to before, so thank you so much for sharing. For anyone else interested, here's a link. It's admittedly going to take me some time to wrap my around it and how it applies to my question, but it's a starting point, and I'm grateful for your help.

 
Why does factors not considered need to be limited to preconceived notions. The earth was flat until it wasn't. Pluto was a planet until it wasn't. How closely does a microphone replicate our hearing? There's certainly room for improvement there. While I think it's amazing what we can measure within a loud speaker, I believe there are things that will one day be measurable that aren't today. If you've been following the assorted 3255 chip amp reviews there have been some measurements presented that have challenged the perception of that amp and they're initial reviews. Science continues to evolve. Technology continues to evolve and all of the tests being performed on this forum are important, but the science of audio is not settled science. We've done little more than scratch the surface.
Analog audio measurement is a long-solved problem. There are no surprises waiting to be discovered. Understanding how different listeners perceive the same identical sound to be different is where research could be done.
 
Thank you so much! Fourier transform seems like it's exactly what I need to get a better understanding of. I don't believe it's something I've been exposed to before, so thank you so much for sharing. For anyone else interested, here's a link. It's admittedly going to take me some time to wrap my around it and how it applies to my question, but it's a starting point, and I'm grateful for your help.

Glad to hear it!

It's VERY enlightening to watch music on a spectrogram, which is basically what we're talking about. I am not sure what the most direct way to get that is, but I know FLStudio has a free demo and the plugin Wave Candy has a spectrogram view (it's based on FFTs) along with other visualizations of sound. You can load full songs as MP3s and play them while watching it. It will show you exactly what's "inside" the waves. You can also look at the waveform at the same time, and over time you start to see what correlates with what.

There are probably faster and easier ways to do it, that's just one I happen to be familiar with. But I definitely recommend messing around with one if you're curious.

There are whole suites of "spectral editing" tools that not only let you see what's "inside" but manipulate it directly. Very futuristic stuff if you haven't seen it before. :)

In fact there are now AI tools that let you de-mix a track, i.e. take the saxophone and drums out and manipulate them separately. This is related to (and probably based on) the FFT stuff, but it's a step beyond.
 
Here's an example of something I don't think we currently understand well. I shouldn't speak for others. I'll say that I don't understand it well. A waveform is a 2 dimensional illustration of sound (amplitude?) over a specific length of time. We can compare waveforms to a degree by overlaying one waveform on top of another and saying that they're more or less the same. But the waveform itself doesn't tell much more than the peaks and valleys of its contents. I'd love to see a more 3D representation that analyzes what's inside that information. What's the signal of the saxophone in that track look like? What's the signal of the drums looks like? What about the guitar etc. Basically reverse engineering the track.

Huh?

I mean, seriously...huh?

To get 'the signal of the saxophone', you 'd either have to have the separate saxophone track (in which case you could analyze that, or you could use it to subtractively process the ensemble track), or do what's called 'de mixing' with modern software.

It doesn't require '3D' anything. It's possible now, with the right resources.

You faffed on about distortion and waveforms. But what you didn't do was plainly answer my question. What measurement result would unequivocally lead you to decide, yeah, I don't need to audition this A and B, there's no audible difference there?
 
I see some of that myself. While we CAN measure everything a person can hear (I think this should be obvious, but will expand on this if need be) that doesn't meant we always DO measure everything a person can hear, or have measurements on hand that explain everything someone might have heard.

Which quite, quite different than claiming that A sounds different from B because of something 'we don't know how to measure yet'.

Really, words matter.
 
Which quite, quite different than claiming that A sounds different from B because of something 'we don't know how to measure yet'.

Really, words matter.
Well, people don't know what they don't know. And if your experience with audio is mostly through people that reject measurements as a concept, you will come away with that impression.

I do think OP's point - that we need to be accommodating to people who come in with faulty beliefs, is a fair one. There aren't a lot of places on the web where you can get a no-BS education on audio, ASR can be one, but it doesn't work well if the burden of education falls on a handful of posters who are fed up with the nonsense. If you expect superhuman patience from a bunch of audio hobbyists, you're going to be disappointed eventually.


So - I will keep lobbying for a robust FAQ or wiki until we have one!
 
At this point, I feel compelled to explain, (if not defend), my earlier comment. Manipulation is coercive or unethical behavior driven by the goal of exploiting or controlling another person for your own personal gain. I spent over 35 years in industrial management of one type or another. The things I was asked to do and the way in which the HR guys, (psychologists, all of them) wanted me to treat the employees under my supervision was the very picture of this definition.

er....are you saying the HR folks were doing this for their own personal gain, or that they were directing you to behave this way for your own personal gain?
 
Well, people don't know what they don't know. And if your experience with audio is mostly through people that reject measurements as a concept, you will come away with that impression.

And if you've never bothered to educate yourself further, which has never been easier than it is today....you come here and make a nuisance of yourself?

I do think OP's point - that we need to be accommodating to people who come in with faulty beliefs, is a fair one. There aren't a lot of places on the web where you can get a no-BS education on audio

There actually are. Really. And google is there to help you find them.

It's utterly remarkable how the information landscape of audio has changed in my lifetime, from the days when audio 'white hat' resources were largely confined to Stereo Review, and Peter Aczel... to now.

The fact that there still are *more* places touting BS doesn't change that.
 
And if you've never bothered to educate yourself further, which has never been easier than it is today....you come here and make a nuisance of yourself?



There actually are. Really. And google is there to help you find them.

It's utterly remarkable how the information landscape of audio has changed in my lifetime, from the days when audio 'white hat' resources were largely confined to Stereo Review, and Peter Aczel... to now.

The fact that there still are *more* places touting BS doesn't change that.
Well, sure. And if you have a technical background of some kind, you are probably prepared to navigate and judge which resources are credible and which aren't. I took an entire minor in music technology in college, and my own father is a long-standing audio objectivist who lectured me on the practical equivalence of power amps from a young age... so that gave me a leg up.

The reality is a lot of people don't have that background, and despite an honest desire to learn, end up on the wrong path for a while. If they eventually end up here, it doesn't benefit anyone to get cranky with them because they happened to fill their heads halfway with garbage through (arguably) no fault of their own.

They have often been assiduously educating themselves... with wrong ideas. They were lied to. It's a bit harsh to turn them away or scold them if they later happen to show up at a place with a firmer grip on the truth.

If you are a high school student or an english major or something, I don't see how you could know for sure (for example) that $$$ cables are a scam. There are lots of apparently credible and knowledgeable people touting them.
 
Back
Top Bottom