Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Sal1950]

Same instrument used by Mr. Steinway, Mr. Stradivari and so on... Defective? Still waiting for a better one.

You confuse production with reproduction
Production is guided by preference, what the producer or listener likes.
Reproduction is guided by accuracy to the source. You may hate the way a component sounds playing any particular recording, but if that's what the microphone heard, that's all that's important.
Sighted listening is the same, you may love or hate any particular component, but numerous bias is controlling your reaction.
Measurements, or tightly bias controlled blind listening tests will keep your preferences under control and reveal the true value of the device under test.
In short, sighted listening evaluations are worthless.

 

[frullo]

Confondi la produzione con la riproduzione
La produzione è guidata dalle preferenze, da ciò che piace al produttore o all'ascoltatore.
La riproduzione è guidata dall'accuratezza alla fonte. Potresti odiare il modo in cui un componente suona durante la riproduzione di una registrazione particolare, ma se è ciò che il microfono ha sentito, è tutto ciò che è importante.
L'ascolto a vista è lo stesso, potresti amare o odiare qualsiasi componente particolare, ma numerosi pregiudizi stanno controllando la tua reazione.
Le misurazioni o i test di ascolto cieco strettamente controllati dalla distorsione manterranno le tue preferenze sotto controllo e riveleranno il vero valore del dispositivo in prova.
Insomma, le valutazioni di ascolto vedente sono inutili.

I am fully aware of the difference between production and reproduction (reproduction of what has been "recorded"). As a listener, first of all I listen; and at the end of it all I listen again. Before, after, in the meantime, I'll gladly check the measurements. But the last word is listening.

 

[frullo]

You confuse production with reproduction
Production is guided by preference, what the producer or listener likes.
Reproduction is guided by accuracy to the source. You may hate the way a component sounds playing any particular recording, but if that's what the microphone heard, that's all that's important.
Sighted listening is the same, you may love or hate any particular component, but numerous bias is controlling your reaction.
Measurements, or tightly bias controlled blind listening tests will keep your preferences under control and reveal the true value of the device under test.
In short, sighted listening evaluations are worthless.

If, on the other hand, we wanted to build a microphone, an amplifier, a speaker, we would clearly have to start from the theoretical and design part, having a very specific goal. Because we know that the perfect microphone and the perfect speaker don't exist. Each reproductive system is an approximation with its own sound characteristics. But the most important judgment is up to us, with all the subjectivity of the case, which includes preferences (for tubes or without), and this is part of our musical culture.

 

[frullo]

Let me give an example of a device. Many years ago, after having listened to dozens and dozens of CD players (for every price range), I chose Rega Planet I. From the point of view of the technical measures available, nothing exceptional; but overall more euphonic, less screaming and unbalanced than 90% of CD players. It still defends itself today; however, I believe that now there are better machines (regardless of price), capable of returning excellent results in terms of numbers and sound. Anyway only the measures (which, then?) I still would not trust!
I still trust my most refined reference system, blind or not.

 

[frullo]

After all, designing a musical instrument or designing a music reproduction system are not two activities that are so distant from each other. And this also applies to the design of complex measurement systems, which, if well thought out, can be compared to a set of medical analysis tools: better, for their purposes, if they are more refined, comprehensive and useful for interpreting the good rendition of music, which is the real challenge here.
Last judgement is up to us.

 

[frullo]

Why is the EBS system the best? because it is built to interface with sound, based on the same physical rules that give rise to sound, including those we may not know.

 

[Sal1950]

After all, designing a musical instrument or designing a music reproduction system are not two activities that are so distant from each other.

Yes they are, they have night and day different goals.
When creating a instrument, it can sound like anything the builder desires, there is no absolute.
The other to reproduce accurately the sound of the instrument on the source.
But I've already pointed that out and you chose to avoid the facts.

Many years ago, after having listened to dozens and dozens of CD players (for every price range), I chose Rega Planet I. From the point of view of the technical measures available, nothing exceptional; but overall more euphonic, less screaming and unbalanced than 90% of CD players.

So you chose the one you liked, not the one best reproducing what was on the source.
You had no idea what the recording was supposed to sound like
Critical measurement would have shown you which was closer but you believe you know better.
You have a lot to learn about the science of audio.
Spend some more time here listening and not talking.

 

[frullo]

Yes they are, they have night and day different goals.
When creating a instrument, it can sound like anything the builder desires, there is no absolute.
The other to reproduce accurately the sound of the instrument on the source.
But I've already pointed that out and you chose to avoid the facts.

So you chose the one you liked, not the one best reproducing what was on the source.
You had no idea what the recording was supposed to sound like
Critical measurement would have shown you which was closer but you believe you know better.
You have a lot to learn about the science of audio.
Spend some more time here listening and not talking.

I think I made myself clear. read better, thanks.

 

[LTig]

I think I made myself clear. read better, thanks.

In fact you did: refusing to learn how audio really works and what the combination of ears and a brain can and cannot do.

You should read @Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction (newest edition) which covers a lot of the science about how audio works, the hearing sense and how speakers work in a room. It's a must read for anyone interested in getting the best sound at home.

 

[frullo]

In fact you did: refusing to learn how audio really works and what the combination of ears and a brain can and cannot do.

You should read @Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction (newest edition) which covers a lot of the science about how audio works, the hearing sense and how speakers work in a room. It's a must read for anyone interested in getting the best sound at home.

When I want to know better what the ear-brain can or cannot do I prefer to talk about it with a good conductor.
That said, I know all the arguments about sound reproduction pretty well. I just want to point out that too often the best tool is underestimated.

 

[LTig]

That said, I know all the arguments about sound reproduction pretty well. I just want to point out that too often the best tool is underestimated.

Knowing all arguments about sound reproduction does not mean knowing all about it. I would never claim to know all about sound reproduction - far from it. Actually I'm very sure even the highly reputed experts at ASR won't claim this.

 

[MJT]

Please don't shun me, I'm only an objective observer with a question I'm hoping to articulate as clearly as possible.

I'm seeing the growing number and types of listeners whom describe sound quality differences not reflected in amirm's measurements has become quite significant. It doesn't seem to be just manufacturers, snake oil salesmen, and overly eager HiFi enthusiasts susceptible to confirmation bias anymore, but also casual listeners, friends and spouses seemingly everywhere. When even the laymen describe audible differences with OpAmps, LPS, dedicated USB PCIe cards, etc, it might not be driven by financial motivation when many of these experiences are with extremely low cost components. I wouldn't want to pass all of these people off as ignorant until I understood what's behind this dynamic.

Is it a misinformation trend that has just grown that much out of control? Or do these measurements not fully correlate with what's heard?

Please bear with me if I'm missing something completely obvious as I'm relatively new to interpreting the measurements here, however I'm not seeing how the measurements are related to factors affecting sound quality. Noise and jitter etc are related to how clean the signal is, but this is almost never an audible factor with even half decent audio components anymore.

The tonal aspects people are describing when comparing various components and configurations are detail, soundstage, and impact, all of which are comprised of transients, the sound shape in the time domain, rise and decay, timing accuracy, and with many multiple concurrent frequencies at once.

The most immediate question this leads me to is, are all of these aspects somehow already inherent in amirm's noise measurements? If so, that makes this all very easy to ascertain.

However, if these aspects need their own measurements, then the testing methodology would need to be revised for assessing component sound quality, and we couldn't pass off everyone's observations as ignorant.

I honestly would like to know which situation it is at hand.

 

[Purité Audio]

It is just their imagination, if anyone ever bothered to compare unsighted ‘level matched those perceived differences would often disappear.
It is not however in the industries interest.
Keith

 

[anotherhobby]

People think they hear stuff all the time when they know what's plugged in and what's happening, myself included. It's amazing what the brain does when it thinks it knows what's happening and that there should/could be a difference. Show me all the growing types of listeners doing blinded testing with high correlations.

I'm pretty new here also, but I've already learned what I just said is the normal response: "show me the data, show me the blind tests, tell me how you conducted your test." And I have to say, now that I've done several blind tests on things I was confident I could hear a difference with, I really understand why. It's with very good reason. Our brain constructs differences when we expect them to be there and when we know what's changing. I don't trust my ears the same way when it comes to testing gear.

This doesn't mean everybody's anecdotal evidence is worthless, but if $1 is good accurate information, anecdotal audio opinions on anything between the source and the speakers is worth about 2 cents to me.

 

[Chrispy]

I think most people make poor comparisons so their opinions of such are highly suspect to begin with.

 

[MJT]

Thank you all.

To remain objective rather than subjective, it needs to be observed the tests account for not just noise, but also factors such as transients, timing accuracy, rise and decay, the sound shape in the time domain which form detail, soundstage, and impact, which are the tonal aspects people are describing when comparing various components subjectively. Also would need to be observed that single tone tests are indeed also reflective of multiple concurrent frequencies at once, otherwise tests with multiple concurrent frequencies would need to be performed when making comparisons.

Has this already been considered and explored with a clear observation these factors are inherent in amirm's measurements?

 

[Chrispy]

Good golly with a mess or factors and ways of observing/measuring such, who knows? WTF does detail soundstage and impact mean particularly? Vague/emotional terminology certainly doesn't help. If trying to relate to some of the silly reviews out there....meh

 

[anotherhobby]

Has this already been considered and explored with a clear observation these factors are inherent in amirm's measurements?

You should spend some more time perusing the forums here. There is a ton of info and discussions on the topic that you can dig into. As an example, you could start with the sticky thread at the top of the forum you posted in: Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

 

[frullo]

Knowing all arguments about sound reproduction does not mean knowing all about it. I would never claim to know all about sound reproduction - far from it. Actually I'm very sure even the highly reputed experts at ASR won't claim this.

Who said this? Things are put in my mouth that I do not say. Can we try not to use the "troll method"?
However, I have nothing against the measures of electronics and in the environment; but just six or seven measures do not explain or describe enough.

 

[frullo]

One for sale locally for $350. Wish I needed another amp... I'd definitely give it a whirl, but I'm already overstocked.



That's a pretty remarkable thing to believe.

My English could be not so good, or someone pretend not to understand what I'm saying. Knowing everything about sound or sound reproduction is a joke. Yet not even the measurement systems know everything about it, right?
Mankind produces music. Mankind has the best tool to judge about sound. Since 100 years we have new tools to measure electronic equipments and whatever... 100 years, more or less. Thank God we have them; but they are NOT the Music Holy Grail. Maybe in the future...
Until then my first guide is my Ears-Brain System, if we talk about music. A good trained EBS is unbeatable when we talk about sound perception (because primarily we are talking about that: interaction between music and men/women playing and listening music).
If some people don't trust their EBS, I am sorry. They better will buy following other parameters.