Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Petrushka]

I don't know if it will or not. The Klippel already can eliminate the room for measurements. You get results like the finest anechoic chamber in a small garage. So in principle it has already been done. Can that one day be done real time to eliminate room effects while playing music? Seems to me in principle it could.

Will require AI.

Which isn’t as futuristic as it used to be.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Will require AI.

Which isn’t as futuristic as it used to be.

Maybe, maybe not. AI isn't part of Klippel and how it works.

 

[goat76]

Yeah, I was wondering the same. In defence, I think the point behind it is that if musicians are finding the sound of valve amps preferable to SS, then home audio people might do the same.

Exactly.

But they are overlooking the fact that for playback, this loses sight of the exact tone/shimmer/whatever that was being created by the musician. And applies it to every instrument, every vocal, and all forms of music.

Yes, those things should be in the recording, and especially for the instruments that have tubes in their chain. But still, I think the same characteristics that guitar players like about tube amps can be the same reason why some people prefer the sound of tube amps in the playback system.

And the sound doesn't necessarily have to be affected much, it can be enough with that extra “shimmer” I mentioned earlier.

 

[Petrushka]

Maybe, maybe not. AI isn't part of Klippel and how it works.

I think you don’t understand the problem. Room effects are different depending on your position. Static corrections are useless if you move around.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think you don’t understand the problem. Room effects are different depending on your position. Static corrections are useless if you move around.

And obviously a first step is selecting a listening position and correcting for only that position. Already plenty of people optimize for a given LP. I understand the problem. I know how insidious a solution would be. I don't see that it in principle is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Petrushka]

And obviously a first step is selecting a listening position and correcting for only that position. Already plenty of people optimize for a given LP. I understand the problem. I know how insidious a solution would be. I don't see that it in principle is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.

I don’t sit down to listen. I move from room to room.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don’t sit down to listen. I move from room to room.

I can imagine a solution to that as well. It may never be done, it may never be cost effective, but it isn't impossible.

 

[MattHooper]

It is a foolish way to select stuff and ends up with colored sounding gear.

How is it “ foolish” for someone to choose the gear they enjoy most? Even if some colouration is involved? A great many audiophiles have ended up with systems they are thrilled with, whether you would be or not with the same gear.

Gear selection is not to be done by coloring the sound with each piece added to a system because that is what the PEQ is for.

I think a more precise way of putting it would be: that is the approach you prefer.

I’m sure we both really enjoy our sound systems, but I could not be happier with my own, even though I did not take the approach you would insist is correct.

 

[MattHooper]

I must say that I'm extremely happy for not being an audiophile. I trust nothing but measurements.... which to me is the only way to achieve really good sound.

If you are the type of person posting on a forum like this and you care about audio gear measurements, in my book you are an audiophile.

Of course you are free to have your own definition.

 

[MattHooper]

I think "chasing neutral" is vastly more achievable than chasing something ephemeral that is "life-like and real to ourselves". After all, what sounds "life-like and real to ourselves" can change from season to season, year to year and place to place, as in changing houses or apartments. Neutral is a quality that is confirmed for everyone by tests and measurements. It may not yet be perfect, but we get closer every year.

You certainly have a good point there!

I would mitigate that somewhat by proposing that those of us chasing more life like sound to a degree don’t generally think this will be fully achievable. From the many discussions I’ve seen on this in many forums, most audiophiles don’t expect truly lifelike sound from a system. But we do tend to look to certain aspects of real sound as touchstones for general characteristics we are seeking…. another words having an idea of what we are moving towards or away from.

It immediately strikes me that you are right that just seeking neutrality is easier, so long as you are willing to put the effort into understanding the measurements that will get you there. Especially with loudspeakers.

On the other hand, I can think of how easily “ greater realism” came to me early on. It just took hearing some quad ESL 63s at my friends house hooked up to a Dynsco ST70 amp and it was paradigm changing for me.
After that I just bought my own 63s and a tube amp, and there I was!

 

[MattHooper]

And the sound doesn't necessarily have to be affected much, it can be enough with that extra “shimmer” I mentioned earlier.

Yup. There are of course, various ways to affect the sound in ways that might be more enjoyable for somebody. Simply angling your loudspeakers in your room as we know can achieve somewhat different presentations. If I toe in my loudspeakers more towards me, I get more upper frequency shimmer And smaller denser imaging. If I angle them closer to straight ahead, which is my preference, I get to my ears a smoother, richer, and more spacious sound.

This affects, of course, all the instruments and vocals. Which is fine because that’s what I would want.

Same with my tube amps.

 

[Doodski]

How is it “ foolish” for someone to choose the gear they enjoy most? Even if some colouration is involved? A great many audiophiles have ended up with systems they are thrilled with, whether you would be or not with the same gear.



I think a more precise way of putting it would be: that is the approach you prefer.

I’m sure we both really enjoy our sound systems, but I could not be happier with my own, even though I did not take the approach you would insist is correct.

In the commentary the member made reference to the musicians using distortion effects, the mixing being what it is, the mastering being what that is and all this adding to a artistic endeavor and creation that oftentimes does not sound anything like what people expect from electric instruments and even acoustic instruments sometimes too. My viewpoint is that they created something that was intended to sound a specific way, be a expression and any modifications to that sound-stream is not what they intended. By using colored gear they are deviating from the artists' creation and listening to something different when it has sizzle, grinding distortion, a soft mid bass and midrange leading to a more relaxed sound and glimmer/shine in the sound. I guess I'm being a purist of sorts but that makes sense to me. I guess this is like the turntable thread where I was against the revival but changed my ways and now appreciate that it is a viable format for those with a collection of records. I suppose if something floats ones' boat then that is what the heart wants but I'll be selecting neutral sounding electronics gear , selecting accurate speakers and headphones and using PEQ to fill in the deficiencies and add what is missing from the recording(s).

 

[Doodski]

@MattHooper and additionally if the sound is colored by the electronics I think that some tracks will sound OK and others will be deficient or too strong in areas of frequency response.

 

[Petrushka]

I can imagine a solution to that as well. It may never be done, it may never be cost effective, but it isn't impossible.

I have a solution that works very well and is inexpensive by audiophile standards. It even has room correction.

But it doesn’t sound like live music.

When I think about it, I don’t want live music. Too loud.

 

[MattHooper]

In the commentary the member made reference to the musicians using distortion effects, the mixing being what it is, the mastering being what that is and all this adding to a artistic endeavor and creation that oftentimes does not sound anything like what people expect from electric instruments and even acoustic instruments sometimes too. My viewpoint is that they created something that was intended to sound a specific way, be a expression and any modifications to that sound-stream is not what they intended. By using colored gear they are deviating from the artists' creation and listening to something different when it has sizzle, grinding distortion, a soft mid bass and midrange leading to a more relaxed sound and glimmer/shine in the sound. I guess I'm being a purist of sorts but that makes sense to me. I guess this is like the turntable thread where I was against the revival but changed my ways and now appreciate that it is a viable format for those with a collection of records. I suppose if something floats ones' boat then that is what the heart wants but I'll be selecting neutral sounding electronics gear , selecting accurate speakers and headphones and using PEQ to fill in the deficiencies and add what is missing from the recording(s).

I think your viewpoint makes some fundamental sense. Do you want to hear the recorded material as precisely and neutral as possible. So that makes your choice of gear make total sense.

I just think other viewpoints can make sense as well for other people.

For instance, is my view that we don’t need her efforts towards neutrality in order to hear the musicians art.

I grew up a Rush fan like my buddies. I listened to them on records, cassette in the car, headphones, whatever loud speakers my dad had at the time, and my buddies listed on whatever set up they had. When we discussed Rush were we discussing “ did you hear that sleep extra shimmer in the top end on Peart’s cymbals?” No. It was all about the fundamental musical qualities we all admired: the musicianship, the composition, the lyrics.


And the essential production choices came through on a range of equipment. It didn’t matter if we were listening to the most neutral system in the world or not: when Geddy Lee starts playing the Notes for Cygnus X-1, you hear that identifiable Rickenbacker bass guitar making its way from a distant cove of reverb, right up to blasting through your speakers.

And in the audiophile world, I can listen to Rush or some other tracks on my friends system, which sounds somewhat different from mine, but on either system, I can hear all the relevant recorded detail in the tracks: the specific guitar tones, reverbs, you name it.

This is why I am not fussed at all about
“ missing the art of the musician.” I can nudge the sound gently in a direction that I prefer, but such levels of colouration our swamped by the information of the actual recorded detail, in the big picture.

@MattHooper and additionally if the sound is colored by the electronics I think that some tracks will sound OK and others will be deficient or too strong in areas of frequency response.

But given the variation in quality found in recordings, you face precisely the same situation with a neutral system: Some stuff will sound good, some stuff will sound worse.
And many people with slightly coloured systems, feel that it makes more of their music sound enjoyable. I had to sleep bit of colouration with my tube amp and that’s how it works for me: I enjoy the sound of more of my music than when I’m using my solid-state amp.

Someone else with a perfectly neutral system could have a different experience, and find they enjoy more of their recordings with their neutral system.

 

[Doodski]

I think your viewpoint makes some fundamental sense. Do you want to hear the recorded material as precisely and neutral as possible. So that makes your choice of gear make total sense.

I just think other viewpoints can make sense as well for other people.

For instance, is my view that we don’t need her efforts towards neutrality in order to hear the musicians art.

I grew up a Rush fan like my buddies. I listened to them on records, cassette in the car, headphones, whatever loud speakers my dad had at the time, and my buddies listed on whatever set up they had. When we discussed Rush were we discussing “ did you hear that sleep extra shimmer in the top end on Peart’s cymbals?” No. It was all about the fundamental musical qualities we all admired: the musicianship, the composition, the lyrics.


And the essential production choices came through on a range of equipment. It didn’t matter if we were listening to the most neutral system in the world or not: when Geddy Lee starts playing the Notes for Cygnus X-1, you hear that identifiable Rickenbacker bass guitar making its way from a distant cove of reverb, right up to blasting through your speakers.

And in the audiophile world, I can listen to Rush or some other tracks on my friends system, which sounds somewhat different from mine, but on either system, I can hear all the relevant recorded detail in the tracks: the specific guitar tones, reverbs, you name it.

This is why I am not fussed at all about
“ missing the art of the musician.” I can nudge the sound gently in a direction that I prefer, but such levels of colouration our swamped by the information of the actual recorded detail, in the big picture.



But given the variation in quality found in recordings, you face precisely the same situation with a neutral system: Some stuff will sound good, some stuff will sound worse.
And many people with slightly coloured systems, feel that it makes more of their music sound enjoyable. I had to sleep bit of colouration with my tube amp and that’s how it works for me: I enjoy the sound of more of my music than when I’m using my solid-state amp.

Someone else with a perfectly neutral system could have a different experience, and find they enjoy more of their recordings with their neutral system.

I never heard it explained this way before. I'll loosen up my purist ways and accept that some electronics tweaks to the sound can be beneficial over the musicians' expressions and not color that to the degree that things don't go according to the musicians plan. I too have heard RUSH on many systems and I admit that I loved it playing on anything. So that makes me appreciate your ideas.

 

[ahofer]

I don’t sit down to listen. I move from room to room.

My EQ is optimized for the kitchen where my wife is making me a sammich and preparing to run in and pretend to hear big changes.

 

[goat76]

It wasn't obvious until you mentioned the Fender guitar amp. See my reply to your post.

If you think that I am trying to misinterpret things and you have no time for me, that's perfectly fine to me. You are now on "ignore".

Jim

It should have been obvious as I mentioned the comparison of tube guitar amps in my first post, where I also described the possible similarities that may be the reason why some listeners prefer the sound of tube amplifiers for the reproduction of music in a similar (but not the same) fashion as many guitar players prefer the sound of a tube amp.

 

[Galliardist]

I never heard it explained this way before. I'll loosen up my purist ways and accept that some electronics tweaks to the sound can be beneficial over the musicians' expressions and not color that to the degree that things don't go according to the musicians plan. I too have heard RUSH on many systems and I admit that I loved it playing on anything. So that makes me appreciate your ideas.

So, answer me this: is it only the musicians' tonality that is up for grabs, or can we also tweak, say, the tempo, or the pitch? At what point do we stop being listeners, and start to impose ourselves on the music?

The question of tonality goes to the heart of the subject under discussion. Is not tonality the underlying thing being addressed by several key measurements - frequency response, distortion? Isn't tonality the feature of the performance that is addressed by EQ, and a key aspect of what is being addressed in good speaker design and room treatments?

Throw away the pursuit of good tonality, and what are we left with in that area, other than the pursuit of the personal subjective alternative?

Am I in fact just rephrasing the original question about measurements here, or am I missing something?

 

[danadam]

Then I heard Max Richter's "re-imagining" of the piece in his Recomposed series ... here:

Note: this is 2022 version (discogs):

There's also 2012/2014 version (discogs):