• 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?

I have never felt the need to change the overall tonality of my system to suit differences in tonality on an album-to-album basis. Any possible small deviations/colorations one (as a member of ASR or similar evident-based HiFi sites) might have in their systems are most likely subtleties, just small touches that make pretty much everything sound just a little bit better, but likely nothing drastic.

Every sound system has its particular flavor no matter how accurately tuned it is, and you will very likely be able to recognize your sound system in a blind listening test because of that particular flavor. This doesn't necessarily mean that everything played through the system will have some sort of "sameness" effect, as the differences from album to album will still be as large as in any other in-the-ballpark accurate systems.



My answer to the thread question "Are measurements Everything or Nothing?" is NO.
Measurements are good for pinpointing possible faults, but beyond that, it's more about finding the equipment that suits your preferences and maybe tuning the overall tonality to taste (or what sounds more accurate to you). A little bit of coloring that makes everything played through the system sound a little bit better to you... will probably not kill you. :)
 
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?

That’s a good question. In practice, though, I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy, that one cannot both tweak the sound of music to taste while also being able to listen to music.

But your point about what else is up for grabs other than tonality is interesting.

I think it’s worth pointing out that it seems, of all musical characteristics, tonality seems to be the one most subject to change and hard to pin down.

By that I mean: If you go to see live music, people will be experiencing changes in tonality, depending on where they are sitting (or standing). For instance, when I attended symphonies, and I had a choice of seats, I preferred the more vivid instrumental timbre heard from seats close to the Orchestra. Other people prefer mid hall or back hall seats, for a tonal mix with the acoustics.

The same goes for watching live acoustic jazz in a club, you were going to get different total balances, depending on where you are sitting in the club, and even whether you are on axis with a saxophone player or off axis.

The same would go for even amplified concerts - the sound will change somewhat tonall as you move around to different axises.

So in terms of live music, we have already accepted a rather wide variety in tonal balance, while most other characteristics of the musical performance stay constant.

That’s pretty much what I get out of tweaking the tonal balance of my systems slightly. Most of the musically relevant information stays the same. Slight changes in tonality don’t destroy the timber of the instruments, making them unrecognizable suddenly, any more than a different seat does so for a cello performance. (the cello player after all isn’t even receiving the same tonal balance as the audience.)
 
Last edited:
It will not count because it was not measured?
It will not be dispositive until properly tested to remove bias, and measurements can reveal the source of difference, because they are more sensitive than ears.

Any more than people feeling better after homeopathy proves that homeopathy works.
 
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?
Hear hear!

Good guy Doods is the most recent fly who got caught in the web of clever argumentation and misdirection, and accepted the unacceptable, at least for now. Let's hope he soon breaks free and flies back towards the light.

The web's underlying premise is that we are all about self-pleasuring. And that we come to music in order to self-pleasure. For those of us who are more into music for a love of music itself, we want to hear the music as-expressed. Not just as-expressed live, but also as-expressed in a recorded production that was vetted in-room as a total musical expression including much nuance and subtlety. We want our gear to not change that. We most certainly don't want our gear to change that in fixed ways that are overlaid onto all the music we experience. If that is the choice, then self-pleasuring be damned, especially considering that proper experimentation has determined that accurate sound reproduction is optimal to pretty much everyone, because it sounds closest to real instruments and music. So it's not like accurate reproduction has even the slightest of problematic aspects, when well mastered. And for bad masters, like Dr Toole says, get a (good) tone control and use it on the odd occasion.

At the root of all the web-weaving is a rigid misunderstanding of the realities of the sighted listening effect, which seems to derive its rigidity from the weaver's professional and online integrity feeling threatened. It's just not worth debating. Trust me, I've tried, and with good intentions. The result is endless defensive argumentation in favour of vinyl colourations, valve colourations, and self-pleasuring tweakery (uncontrolled/sighted, with all the wormholes and spirals that entails).

The rest of us can fly towards the light.

cheers
 
True. However, isn't there a practical limit? If you have a Baxandall tone control (for the sake of simplicity) and wish to boost the bass, how far can you go before the cellos in Bach's Brandenburg Concerto Nr. 3 cease to sound like cellos and start to sound like bass viols?

Yes, fair enough. As someone who manipulates sound for a living, I’m familiar with tweaking things to sound entirely different from what they are.

I’m trying to keep perspective on the difference between what it takes to get the musical message, the most relevant content, of an artist or recording, as opposed to what it takes in an audiophile sense to “ reproduce the signal with the highest possible accuracy.” Most people do not need the latter to get the former.

But I think this distinction can somewhat get confused here when people insinuate that unless you are an audiophile devoted to the highest accuracy you are not caring enough about the music or the artist intent, and that it requires a high-level of accuracy to do so.
That’s what I’m pushing back against.

Somebody blasting Van Halen or Earth, Wind & Fire on their boombox or car stereo or modest sized speakers at home in the 70s or 80s wasn’t hearing fully accurate sound. But I do not see this as them “ imposing themselves” on the artistry. The artistry translates through many different playback systems.
Can't this go on and on, with the listener reaching for the tone control to adjust the bass ten times on ten different pieces of music? And what about the treble?

I think one can imagine somebody fiddling so often with her EQ they become distracted from the music. I don’t know how often that actually happens though.

But to that point: for me, that’s one of the reasons I like my tube amps. They are a
“ set and forget” solution for getting my system to how I wanted to sound, such that I can play anything I want without thoughts of reaching for an EQ. (in fact it’s because of this my digital parametric EQ in my system laid dormant for so many years. I finally sold it a while back).

And how much will the high output impedance of a tube amp color the music in a manner unpredictable to the listener? Won't that change as the frequency spectrum of the instruments change?

Not much. It’s subtle. I always have to recognize. I’m making mountains out of molehills. But that subtle difference is to me very important.

I’m just trying to satisfy my own perception. Since I keep an ear to the character of real sound, to me all systems, including the most neutral, sound “ coloured” compared to my perception of real voices and instruments.
For instance acoustic guitar on most systems to me sound “wrong” or unconvincing in timber. If I can nudge the sound in the direction of “ OK, my brain is recognizing THAT is what an acoustic guitar sounds like when I’m playing live” then I find sitting to listen to music more engaging experience.
I only have to fool my own perception, and my own memory faulty as it may be.

And I find once certain instruments sound “ right” to me, pretty much everything follows from there and I can enjoy any music through the system.

But hey, that’s me….

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Good guy Doods is the most recent fly who got caught in the web of clever argumentation and misdirection, and accepted the unacceptable, at least for now. Let's hope he soon breaks free and flies back towards the light.

So someone actually being able to change their mind somewhat and acknowledge the point somebody else has made - usually seen as a good sign in good faith communication - is now a negative thing?

Weren’t you complaining in another thread of people making derogatory accounts of your posts? Why bother with all this strange “ flies caught in webs” characterization and just deal with the sub substance of what I wrote instead?

The web's underlying premise is that we are all about self-pleasuring. And that we come to music in order to self-pleasure.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote (again!)

My post was making no such generalization about “we” (suggesting everybody ).

In fact, I specifically started out stating the opposite, to 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.”


So I was clearly acknowledging the good reasons for anybody seeking neutrality to pursue that, and I simply pointed out why someone else can have their own reasons for not being an absolute stickler for accuracy.

If you or anyone else seek only the highest possible accuracy in your system GREAT! Good for you! Mazel tov if you’ve reached your goal! Nobody’s taking that away from you!

For those of us who are more into music for a love of music itself, we want to hear the music as-expressed.

Putting it that way, as usual, smacks of audiophile virtual signalling; “ My aims are more pure than yours, I am only about The Music.”

I find it amazing you keep going down that route, given how many times has been pointed out it’s a stone thrown in a glass house. Most music lovers don’t need to bother thinking about and fussing about audio equipment remotely as much as you apparently do to commune “ correctly “with the music. They would probably laugh at your pretences to be “ all about the music.”

There is, of course, nothing about being into gear that entails we aren’t also passionate about music, whether that’s you with your system or me with my system. And this is a strange thing: why is it that I can acknowledge the good reasons you have for how you choose gear, and what makes you happy, but you can’t acknowledge someone else like me can have slightly different goals than you, and that’s OK?

Not just as-expressed live, but also as-expressed in a recorded production that was vetted in-room as a total musical expression including much nuance and subtlety. We want our gear to not change that. We most certainly don't want our gear to change that in fixed ways that are overlaid onto all the music we experience.

Wonderful! Your choices make lots of sense for you! And for plenty of other people on this site. Bravo.

especially considering that proper experimentation has determined that accurate sound reproduction is optimal to pretty much everyone, because it sounds closest to real instruments and music.

So if I put on a record for instance, and I find myself really enjoying the sound, am I supposed to catch myself, remember your post and remember the science, Shake my head and say “ hold on you! Don’t go thinking you are really enjoying the sound as much as you did a moment ago streaming digital! To play it safe you must subdue this impression so as to bring it in line with The Science - never think you are enjoying vinyl as much as digital!”

Nah. I will keep enjoying my perception of the sound of the record, without making claims that vinyl is a superior medium , understanding there’s always possible bias is playing a role, and not suggesting anyone has to take my anecdotal experience as facts they need to accept.

So it's not like accurate reproduction has even the slightest of problematic aspects, when well mastered.

Ay, there’s the rub. What percentage of music is “ well mastered” and who exactly is to make that assessment? Do you remember how this went last time?

And for bad masters, like Dr Toole says, get a (good) tone control and use it on the odd occasion.

Here we go again. Yes Dr. Toole has talked about employing tone controls (a form of introducing colouration to the signal ) to help with poor sounding recordings.

But the fact remains, there is no objective list of “ recordings in your collection that require adjusting tone controls.” Thus, this is an entirely subjective assessment by the individual listener as to which recordings will benefit from some tweaking. And as Dr Toole acknowledges, the decision to tweak recordings to one’s preference is ultimately up to the individual. Here’s a reminder, from Toole:

Better to have easily accessible tone controls that can be instantly adapted to your personal preference - for any program.”

and :

“Old fashioned bass & treble tone controls and modern "tilt" controls are the answer and they can be changed at will to compensate for personal taste and excesses or deficiencies in recordings”


And remember that Dr. Toole has extolled the virtues of up-mixing two channel recordings to surround (using good up mixing decoders).
Which is of course departing from accuracy, and as such rather massive type of colouration added to the original signal. But that’s OK, Because colorations the listener perceives as pleasurable or better are allowed for. And in this case allowed for upmixing (departing from accuracy, adding pleasing colouration ) any two channel recording you want.

So in fact, Toole HAS allowed for the listener to alter the sound of ANY recording to the listener’s preference.

At the root of all the web-weaving is a rigid misunderstanding of the realities of the sighted listening effect,

Wrong as always. Any of my impressions formed under sighted listening, are always presented in the context of possible sighted bias. You forgot this so many times I literally had it in my signature for years (“ of course it could always be my imagination”)

And remember: I have blind -tested more of my equipment over many years, than you have. And when you claim I only talk about things like tube colorations in uncontrolled conditions, you know quite well I have found some of my preferences for tube amplification has held up under blind testing, the results posted on this forum.

So your ongoing attempt to paint me as naïve about sighted bias is at this point beyond disingenuous.

Trust me, I've tried, and with good intentions.

You haven’t interacted with what I’ve written in good faith for years. The very post I’m responding to is yet another example.

Why not for a change interact with what I’ve actually written, communicate, rather than depicting me to others as some spider or “ the web” trying to nefariously snare people with deceitful arguments. It’s really not that hard to be civil.
 
Last edited:
So in terms of live music, we have already accepted a rather wide variety in tonal balance, while most other characteristics of the musical performance stay constant.

That’s pretty much what I get out of tweaking the tonal balance of my systems slightly. Most of the musically relevant information stays the same. Slight changes in tonality don’t destroy the timber of the instruments, making them unrecognizable suddenly, any more than a different seat does so for a cello performance. (the cello player after all isn’t even receiving the same tonal balance as the audience.)
My emphasis.

Most.

And my experience of recordings of solo instruments over decades suggests that the majority these days are close miked. We don't get a live in the hall performance. It sounds different. As for players not receiving the same tonal balance as the audience, even as an amateur guitarist I am aware of that effect. A very large part of advanced teaching is all about that difference. Guitarists have to learn to vary tone and dynamics more than they think they do from where they are sat. Opera singers have to learn to sound "nasty" to project their voices with some diction into larger halls and have also these days to learn different techniques for singing in studios, or with wearable microphones for even larger theatres and open air performance. The same types of things apply to other solo instrument performers.

In other words, they know what they are doing, and trying to get a "live in a hall" experience is possibly not the right way to do things. At least, unless you are actually dealing with a "live in a hall" recording. I worked out after trying with "in a hall recordings", though, that guess what? - I didn't know what out of a wide variety of possible tonal balances was right for those recordings, any more than for electronic recordings where we may only know the sounds through the recording. I feel more confident about these categories because I have some recordings where I do have a better ballpark for the sound - and I find more accurate electronics to work for me in that situation.

A bad recording is a bad recording. A bad recording of great music is still great music, while a good recording of nonsense is... I tend to want to get at the truth of the recording (let's not mix that up with "artist's intentions") and I actually prefer better measuring equipment anyway. But, as I think you answered Jim Taylor, "that's just me".
 
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.

after watching the video above the link below is also interesting

 
Last edited:
I have noted previously that any person can satisfy their private preferences however they please .... privately. When they post on a public forum, they act as a PUBLIC advocate for their PRIVATE opinion.

Because of Amir's generosity, ASR exists as A PUBLIC advocacy for accurate reproduction of audio recordings.

Because of that, ASR is the target for Subjectivists who make a PUBLIC advocacy of Subjectivist principles. These Subjectivists put forth the opinion that the Subjectivist point of view has as much PUBLIC legitimacy as the ASR point of view .... which is accuracy in reproduction.

The following is my opinion.

The ASR view is that audio equipment has a purpose, and that purpose is the retrieval of information on the recording. To serve that purpose, the equipment must be dispassionate (or neutral), offering the least possible characteristic of perceivable deviation to the listener.
If the equipment has a detectable "passion", "emotion", "sheen" or "body", that is an overlay that corrupts the information in the recording.
It is not that ASR rejects the notion of passion or emotional involvement. Such is definitely not the case. The ASR viewpoint is that emotional involvement is with the MUSIC, and not the EQUIPMENT.
It is my view that this advocacy in no way deprives listeners from achieving their PRIVATE goals; any listener can do as they please with the recording after they have purchased it. This includes choice of equipment.

So there is no possible way that the advocacy of ASR (which is accuracy in reproduction) can "police" what the Subjectivists do. It is impossible for ASR to deny access to recordings, to deny access to equipment (tube or otherwise), deny access to pleasure or IN ANY OTHER WAY have any affect on the PRIVATE conduct of people.

Any assertions otherwise are a canard.

The discomfort that Subjectivists feel seems to come from the PUBLIC disconnect between their point of view and the view held by members of ASR ... including that of the founder, Amir Mejidimehr. There seems to be the feeling among Subjectivists that they have a legitimate right to use ASR to advocate their PERSONAL opinions which run counter to the ASR view.

I disagree. I think many other members here also disagree. We don't disagree with the pleasure Subjectivists enjoy when they use their equipment, we disagree with the idea that they have an intrinsic right to use ASR to legitimize their views.

If you have Subjectivist views, or you wish to promote the Subjectivist point of view, you will receive pushback here. That includes the point of view that your PUBLIC advocacy is not legitimate ... here. It may be considered legitimate on other sites.

Perhaps you are offended by the defense that ASR members display towards neutrality and accuracy, We do not mean to offend. ASR does not promote uncivilized behavior. We simply defend the stated goals of ASR, among which is the accuracy of audio reproduction, whether music or spoken word. If you are offended by that, I suggest you pony up the quite substantial sums of money to create your own website and support your own views.

Jim
 
Last edited:
the unacceptable
Is it? I responded with questions for a reason.

There are a few things that may still leave pause for thought, are there not?
proper experimentation has determined that accurate sound reproduction is optimal to pretty much everyone,
"Pretty much", and determined in an artificial environment through blind testing. Let's consider that for a moment. We prefer different amounts of bass when listening through headphones, and a couple of percent of us seem not to prefer accurate sound production with loudspeaker testing. So let's be harsh on this, and say that just 0.2% of people don't prefer "accurate" sound production at some level with loudspeakers. Those people are not well catered for in the mass market where equipment is either well designed and pleases the other 99.8% to a greater degree, and may well end up in the audiophile space. And that space is a few million worldwide: what, 400000 US residents in a position to buy some sort of audio equipment for starters? That would cover the ardent subjectivists in the "hobby" and many more. I presume that a large group of such people would still be happily served by accurate sound production in practice, but would all of them?

Not that it necessarily works like that - the number of "golden ears" who hear definitely non-existent sonic differences and come here to tell us we're wrong about them gives the lie to any numbers game as the only truth. But we should bear it in mind. And I have a distinct philosophical argument against "most enjoyable", which seems to put me in a smaller minority - I want to get close to the truth even if I don't "enjoy it".

So, for me

And for bad masters, like Dr Toole says, get a (good) tone control and use it on the odd occasion.
doesn't work. I fall into a different trap - if a master is bad, I want to know it's bad. Good music will survive most bad masters, and the really bad ones won't recover through tonal change.

I've owned amps with tone controls, and just found that I never got a real advantage from them. I don't have them in my current main system and don't miss them. I have EQ'd headphones but don't change the equalisation for a bad master. The truth works for me, I guess. I listen mostly in a narrow range of volume, and so don't miss loudness, either, though I did use loudness controls at low volume in different living conditions in the past, so maybe I'm not so dogmatic.

At the root of all the web-weaving is a rigid misunderstanding of the realities of the sighted listening effect,
For our benefit, please tell us all you know about the science behind the sighted listening effect.

I don't deny it, but how much do we know about it? Should we cater for non-sonic differences that are "heard"? Should we worry about which pieces of transparent and well measuring equipment are chosen over others? What about preference for a cable that makes no difference from another? Should we even be testing and trying to understand non-sonic preference that is "heard"?

My points here aren't a coherent argument, I know that. More questions, I guess.
 
Good post Jim. I would add a caveat to where you state several times that ASR advocates accurate reproduction of audio recordings. I would reframe it as "ASR advocates reproduction that is accurate to the best available science on listener preferences".

cheers
 
...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?
...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?
Is it?
...There are a few things that may still leave pause for thought, are there not?
...what, 400000 US residents in a position to buy some sort of audio equipment for starters?
I presume that a large group of such people would still be happily served by accurate sound production in practice, but would all of them?
...I don't deny [the sighted listening effect], but how much do we know about it?
Should we cater for non-sonic differences that are "heard"?
Should we worry about which pieces of transparent and well measuring equipment are chosen over others?
What about preference for a cable that makes no difference from another?
Should we even be testing and trying to understand non-sonic preference that is "heard"?
Fair suck of the sauce bottle, mate! Can you distill this barrage of questions into something more manageable please.

cheers
 
We don't disagree with the pleasure Subjectivists enjoy when they use their equipment, we disagree with the idea that they have an intrinsic right to use ASR to legitimize their views.
So either I think the same way or I don't belong here? Seriously?
 
So either I think the same way or I don't belong here? Seriously?

An astrologer posting on an astronomy forum will be laughed at and ridiculed. We generally don’t do that here (ok, maybe sometimes), but if you expect members to just accept your contrarian point of view without any evidence or scientific support, you’re in for a surprise..
 
Hi

For many the premises of measurements, thus of Science in the Audio field is unsettling: That something that was perceived as an "art", is "reduced" to mere measures. Flat, emotion-less numbers.

What they seem to forget is that an accurate reproduction chain, is like a blank canvas: , one can add to it whatever one prefers at a given time.
To achieve such a state of neutrality, requires numbers, the language of Science, measurements, to be able to replicate it. One adds its own spices to the blank canvas for personal, enjoyment..
It has been shown, that many of our preferences, those that we heretofore thought as very personal, are in fact, shared by many, when these are ... measured.
:)


Peace


Peace
 
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!
FWIW, I usually run my 988s (basically 63s) from a Purifi amp. To verify proper operation of a large VTL amp I was modifying, I substituted it for a listen. WOW! Incredible! Stunning! I.e., it sounded exactly the same.

OTOH, I tried using a 300B SET amp and that sounded different. Not in a good way. Fuzzy and, as the music got louder, increasingly harsh and confused. That experiment ended quickly.
 
So either I think the same way or I don't belong here? Seriously?

You can think however you like. Has anyone said otherwise?

The issue is with those who believe their anecdotal stories should carry any serious weight, especially combined with an aggressive, snarky tone that generally involves telling us all some mix of how dumb we are, how deaf we are, how poor we must be and how we'll never know what we're missing, and it becomes overly tedious.

We aren't here to encourage the same nonsense that can be found in any number of other places. Maybe go preach to the choir that enjoys storytime instead.
 
Damn. Guys. Why so serious? Why so offensive? Did I seriously hurt your feelings that much? Or maybe you don't have them because they can't be measured?
 
Damn. Guys. Why so serious? Why so offensive? Did I seriously hurt your feelings that much? Or maybe you don't have them because they can't be measured?

:rolleyes:

Disingenuous much?

That's enough for a while.
 
Damn. Guys. Why so serious? Why so offensive? Did I seriously hurt your feelings that much? Or maybe you don't have them because they can't be measured?
Thanks for the laugh. This is the least self-aware thing I’ve seen on the internet today.
 
Back
Top Bottom