Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Xulonn]

A product that does not measure well may never sound accurate. But not all recordings are accurate and some happy coincidences make some products capable of sounding pretty great.

A product measuring well is accurate. Accuracy isn't always great sounding.

Blumlein, that is probably one of the most important things to understand about listening to recorded music. I have never understood the reasoning of those who prefer to start from technically inaccurate, e.g., "systems that distort the audio stream". There are much better methods to utilize when striving to make the majority of one's music listening to be correct and satisfying. (Also, the concept of "good" and "bad" sounding systems is really not a good way to describe preferences that vary between individuals. Three are many adjectives that are more useful than good and bad two with their variable and vague meanings.)

To me, the most logical method for building an audio system that will handle the music you like at the SPL levels you like, is to assemble an accurate system with enough power that is suitable for your listening room/environment. Then you can use DSP to deal with variants of "sound quality" you encounter in recordings, and also to adjust playback parameters to match your mood and tastes.

 

[alitomr1979]

So, this thread has degenerated into the total non-believers of any difference and those who DO wonder what we are not measuring or interpreting because we do hear differences. So much for trying to move forward in measurements. If I can hear a difference, it is measurable. SNAID is a great wheat from chaff first pass as products that measure terrible in that regard usually sound terrible. The question is in the top half. Decent measuring to superb. They don't exactly track.

I would suspect, there is a threshold of parameters we are not testing or interpreting that beyond no one can hear a difference. That would be the holy grail line in the sand. It would also probably put a lot of EGO brands out of business. From a Benchmark up to kazillion-dollar monoblocs sitting on platinum spikes, is there a difference? I am not sure. I can't afford the Benchmark, so I am not there yet.

I do know when I listened to several well made mid range integrated amps ( Atoll, SIM) they sounded the same to me. When I heard an Arcam and a Rotel, in a bad big box room, they were night and day, Even crank the Rotel clearly louder and it still was lifeless. Typical "no power supply" defective sound. I suspect, the Arcam would have been indistinguishable from the SIM and Atoll as they were all "good enough". This is why I believe we need some sort of burst mode testing on amps. Not a simple transient. Something that shows the effect of the rails collapsing, or is it poor PSRR? Is it different amps handling the reactive load differently? They do. Is where the feedback point physically wired allowing load dependent parasitic influence? How well things like this addressed are not always cost driven, but designer skill. I have built amplifiers and played with these things.

Some of this non-belief can easily be differences in hearing. I have been very careful to protect my hearing. That is not true of most people. I would like to see any participants in an ABX have a hearing test , results held for analysis not to bias their perception. I know for me, because I focus on it, I do not hear the "problems" as clearly as I did 30 years ago. I know as when doing impedance sweeps on tweeters, I know where I hear them fall off and noticed it is lower than it was. 40 years of speaker building, I have measured a few tweeters. I can still hear these issues. My wife more so.

Maybe, try this idea. We did not have children, so we did not deal with several years of our genetic evolution sensitivity to that 3K band. Maybe parents have adjusted to tune that out, where we have not. So we may be more sensitive to smaller imperfections in the sensitive band than parents. I know a weekend at my Nephew's with three young ladies ( 4,5, and 6) and a 2 year old, my hearing and nerves were shot.

I observed in college, engineers had expensive stereos, music majors cheap ones but a speed control on their record player. Almost uniformly. I can't tell if a 440 is 445, but a music major can. A difference in subjective hearing.

So, can we look to the science? What can/should we measure?

This post is great. I mean, I maybe I consider it so because it is my own hypothesis. Jaja. I am not a musician or acoustician, and that is what I think based only in experience. I do factor in the few results I hear that people fail ABX tests, but what do I do with the fact that my aunt, who is not an audiophile, do notices what my uncle and I notice when switching from SMSL M400 to the Marantz HD-DAC1?

I think these very informative threads go wrong because of that thing some call a principle of persuasion, the commitment and consistency principle. There is a bias that make People try to stick, stay consistent, to what they say/commit. And we tend to do it well beyond what’s reasonable. There are some explanations as to why our brains develop this, and it has to do with the way we, or our ancestors, infer integrity, which is a crucial part of a working society, hence it has been valued since we became social beings, and it’s what we call coherence, how we adhere to what we say or the positions we assume. Of course this is the opposite in many ways of what we need when in comes to scientific knowledge, the opposite of what @BoredErica described as the way she approaches those things she thinks she knows: “what would it take to change my mind?”. Knowing that bias exists helps us manage it a little better, although working to prevent its influence is more complicated than just knowing it exists. If we all assume @BoredErica stand we would learn more and things wouldn’t be so tribal, as “this group is so wrong and stupid and the other is so enlightened and smart”.

Back to the quoted post, I participated in another thread where somebody explained how the elements that determine timbre can be measured, but are they published with the specs we usually read and find about products? The explanation of some ended with a “the issue with timbre is solved as most equipment can handle this just fine”…The actual explanation I will keep trying to find, but in the end, What I think is there is reductionism when it comes to the measures we need to do in order to really have an idea of how an equipment or a group of them are going to sound OVERALL. Maybe it is complex, as in really hard (impossible?) to comprehend by understanding individual components. I know it is complex when it reaches a person’s earlobes, let alone when those impulses reach the brain and when we incorporate the brain’s reaction to them. The fact that such slight variations in FR make speakers sound distinguishably different

Earlier In the thread I was told I was confusing preferences with quantifiable, objective things. I am not. I am just stating that there might be things not measured or published that somehow interact with people and maybe produce a consistent response in them? No?

I based all of this in the fact that most speaker manufacturers incorporate listening tests to their testing of equipment. I’ve heard Paul from PS Audio and engineers from KEF talking about their process, and probably many others. You as a speaker developer/manufacturer could probably tell us. My thought is that if only measures were infalible why would they take subjective impressions. There’s this https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/...sive-wine-taste-the-same-in-blind-taste-tests It is not simple.

 

[Killingbeans]

True. Sometimes pigheadedness works like a mirror. Well... bad analogy, but you know what I mean.

 

[Sal1950]

Earlier In the thread I was told I was confusing preferences with quantifiable, objective things. I am not. I am just stating that there might be things not measured or published that somehow interact with people and maybe produce a consistent response in them? No?

We've been being told that for decades.
"I can hear things you can't (yet?) measure."
It's just not true. Audio is a fairly simple, solved scientific problem.
The only things really left to learn is how to make more accurate microphones and speakers.

 

[Spkrdctr]

We really need our pre-amps/receivers to have Dirac 10 due out in 2040. Just set up a mic, hit the button and bang, your system is equalized and set up for your room interactions. One button push and the whole thing is done. Then if you want you can tweak it on your own. That would be an amazing end game system. Plus it would be super easy for any consumer to use with any speakers. I'm dreaming big here! Well, if I am dreaming big than a FAR more appropriate surround system of 5.2.4 that sounds just like an 11 channel system would be nice and fit in so many more homes.

 

[voodooless]

I know I saw those Leprechauns the forrest. Now you need to help me catch one!

 

[tvrgeek]

I was just listening to a song with a snare played with brushes, which is like white noise. Nothing mystically happend to the sound of the other instruments or vocals

I suggest bushes are not that much like white noise. Broad band yes, but all the timber of the skin, snare springs, impacts, slide, or if on the cymbals. White noise is full spectrum, equal energy at all frequencies. I think we recognize brushes as intentional, so maybe our brain processes it differently from true noise. But I agree, they do not change the timber of the other instruments. Now, what is the difference if masked by bringing the noise floor from -120 to -90? Would that mask all the harmonic distortion? Or does our ability to distinguish sounds below noise come to play. How much?

The more I think about it, the big audible difference I experience is at a much higher level. With the D30 or Asgard, I had to drop 3100Hz by 4 or 5 dB and roll off 6000 to 20000 by 5 for it to be comfortable. My room is pretty bright and my speakers are too flat. With the ATOM, I only come down 1 to 2 dB and roll off 3 depending on the recording. Whatever the "bad" sound is, it is a trigger, on-off. There or not. So it is a threshold my brain senses. More confusing, it is seems to sense it relative to the level up to a point. Turning volume down 3 dB from "comfortable" listening did not make the glare go away. More does. Louder made it worse, but was still on-off with respect to the other frequencies. Of course, the difference in EQ also brings up details on some recordings when they are there, but that is not the difference I am referring to. That is simple EQ differences anyone can hear and measure.

The objectionable sound does seem related to sounds with a lot of higher frequency content. Cymbals, or female vocals with lots of overtones. Joni Mitchel can really nail the glare, where Amanda Mcbroom does not reach it. A trumpet can, but a flugelhorn does not. Woodwinds don't seem to. I can only explain what I hear to see if spurs on a thought on the cause and possible measure.

Maybe another question is what combination of sounds, original or created, fool our brains into thinking what we hear is real? Are their other clues related to timing and phase our brain is processing. A harmonic delayed or out of phase? Harmonic balances not what we expect from nature? More or less high order? Balance even to odd?

I wonder if our digital analysis can determine phase relationship with the harmonics. If so, recorded sounds would be such a mess already it would not matter logically. Maybe something though as the only almost real I ever heard was 2 mics to a Revox, and played back directly. No mixing or production, no Dolby, no additional eq, nothing. I don't remember any tape noise. Old B&W 801s have been surpassed, but it was darn convincing. I would expect the total end to end distortion was very low, even if the equipment of the time did not match up to the best today. (Levenson amps, so no slouch either)

Let's think. Someone out there may have the epiphany we are all waiting for

 

[Spkrdctr]

I know I saw those Leprechauns the forrest. Now you need to help me catch one!

I will go get a net! We can catch them......plus, I want the pot of gold!

 

[tvrgeek]

We really need our pre-amps/receivers to have Dirac 10 due out in 2040. Just set up a mic, hit the button and bang, your system is equalized and set up for your room interactions. One button push and the whole thing is done. Then if you want you can tweak it on your own. That would be an amazing end game system. Plus it would be super easy for any consumer to use with any speakers. I'm dreaming big here! Well, if I am dreaming big than a FAR more appropriate surround system of 5.2.4 that sounds just like an 11 channel system would be nice and fit in so many more homes.

AR did some research back in the 60's on what it takes to create a true 3D sound. 16 channels. One would have to record in the same precise environment. Another really funny experiment the Air Force did was to generate a perfectly pure tone as possible. You could not locate it as it moves in the vertical plane cutting you in half front to back. A pure tone does not have the clues our ears use for direction.

While you are dreaming, we need 1/2 inch thick speakers that are high fidelity. Then we could put them around the room where needed without construction or in rented spaces. BT with some battery technology that only needs recharging once a year. Take the ideas from Quad and the advances they have made making our OLED screen a speaker.

Yea, as DIRAC and others get better, we would hope the ease of use get better. But you are making one big mistake in your thought. That we want the same equalization as you do. There seems to be cultural, age, and genetic differences in our preference. So adjusting the target to preference rather than some eq to some perception if what is flat is wrong. We expect a different eq depending on how far we are from the speakers. Out brain gets involved. We perceive the room ambiences, and our brain gets involved.

2040, I guess I don't care. I hope to still be in my house by then, but you never know. If they want my money, it had better be real soon. A better 5.2.4 is fine. I would like a better 2.1* See a difference. I am not as picky watching a movie as listening to music. Don't mind if the movie gets better, but not that big a deal to me. Paramount ( pun intended) to others.

* One task on my list is to down load the demo license and see how it compares to my manual settings based on HOLM, TrueRTA and ears. It is far more fine grained than a 31 band eq. without the ability to know how much to offset bands and Q. DIRAC should do that. I have not had tome to see if I can narrow the Q of the "evil 3100" or if that is exactly the right center frequency.

 

[dc655321]

People don't understand root mean square.

To be fair, it was really only one credential-dropper.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

We really need our pre-amps/receivers to have Dirac 10 due out in 2040. Just set up a mic, hit the button and bang, your system is equalized and set up for your room interactions. One button push and the whole thing is done. Then if you want you can tweak it on your own. That would be an amazing end game system. Plus it would be super easy for any consumer to use with any speakers. I'm dreaming big here! Well, if I am dreaming big than a FAR more appropriate surround system of 5.2.4 that sounds just like an 11 channel system would be nice and fit in so many more homes.

I’m nearly 78 will you remind me about Dirac 10 nearer the date?

 

[tvrgeek]

OK, here is what I really want to know. Is a Benchmark for 3K really that good? Is the C298 for a lot less just as good? Or a P225? Atoll AM100? Exposure 3100? Vidar? If one of these was truly better than my own, I would buy it. But even on the low end, $700 is a lot of money on my pension.

 

[Blumlein 88]

OK, here is what I really want to know. Is a Benchmark for 3K really that good? Is the C298 for a lot less just as good? Or a P225? Atoll AM100? Exposure 3100? Vidar? If one of these was truly better than my own, I would buy it. But even on the low end, $700 is a lot of money on my pension.

If only you could collect per word posted.

 

[tvrgeek]

Seems it is difficult getting a few basic concepts through a few skulls here. Back several posts: What can we measure, or interpret what we have measured that indicated what we will hear, or preferably not hear.

 

[Jimbob54]

Seems it is difficult getting a few basic concepts through a few skulls here. Back several posts: What can we measure, or interpret what we have measured that indicated what we will hear, or preferably not hear.

I'm not sure its an issue with the input devices.

 

[tvrgeek]

I'm not sure its an issue with the input devices.

? You mean DACs? I have a DAC that measured poorly. One that measured fantastic, and one in the middle. The worst and best sounded the same or close enough. The one in the middle far better for the specific defect that bothers me. Why?

 

[voodooless]

Why?

Have you ever measured the damn things? If you need to EQ them several dB’s, it should be very obvious from measurements.

 

[AdamG]

 

[Killingbeans]

Somehow made me think of this:

 

[Robin L]

Apropos of nothing: