Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I'm not a scientist. Nor am I an electrical engineer or anything like that. When it comes to the notion that there must be "some sort of audio magic" that we are missing with measurements - some unmeasurable mystery factor that would account for the qualities that the golden ears are claiming to hear - I come at it from a perspective of logic and reason. Before I will believe there's something we have yet to discover about audio I need to know that the claims of the golden ears are actually representative of reality. Are they able to reliably identify whatever it is they claim to hear?

Part of my skepticism arises from my own appreciation for how sensitive the (known) measurements are to pretty tiny (even inaudible) changes. I have a couple of spectrum analyzer apps on my phone. Mostly just for fun...but they are actually surprisingly sensitive. If I hold my phone up in front of me at my listening position and blast pink noise from my system I can clearly see how moving the phone around even just a few centimeters dramatically changes the waveform being measured by the analyzer app. Even without the device, I know that moving my head around in relation to my speakers - even just a few inches - can significantly alter things like soundstage and imaging. In fact, I do this almost constantly as I listen to music - I'll sit back or lean forward or turn my head a bit to the left or right - unconsciously adjusting as I listen. The point is, I can hear these changes - and they are totally measurable with even the most basic devices. These are not magical effects. They are about speaker positioning and room setup (in relation to the specific recording being listened to as well). The idea that I could accurately compare (in a way that is more precise than what I can glean from measurements) any reasonably competently engineered audio component by buying a new one, unplugging the old one and putting it in the closet, connecting the new one and then listening to it is ludicrous to me. The difference between where my ears are at any given moment is more impactful than almost any actual difference between most of the gear we're talking about. And even with speakers, the effect of EQ, positioning and room setup is going to be at least as impactful as the difference between speakers with average measurements and great measurements.

I guess what I've come to learn over the past few years is humility about what my ears are capable of.

 

[solderdude]

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

Transients are covered in the frequency range. When the max frequency can be reached at max amplitude then the device can handle all transients as well (electronics, not necesarilly transducers)

timing accuracy,

Covered with phase measurements

rise and decay,

see transients. Rise and decay exists in intstruments, transducers and filters. Electronics just have a simple job and don't care about the waveform.

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.

people's descriptions often are just that. Flowery wording or associations they may have. They don't need to have any relation with reality.

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.

That's why there are multitones and several different kinds as well.

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

Yes, has been discussed many times. In the end audio electronics is just like any other electronics. There is nothing special about audio except that the frequencies used (analog) are very low compared to limits.

 

[MJT]

Thank you. I didn't actually post here. I posted in Psychoacoustics but it was moved here. I have searched through the forum and there is a ton of helpful information. How sound nuances are perceived as impact, detail, and soundstage is something that is covered well here, and I found it interesting how the basic understanding hasn't dramatically changed since I last looked into it during the early web.

solderdude, your answers confirm much of my understanding surrounding the basic question and I very much appreciate you having directly answered the question.

I have to apologize to everyone. I'm seeing that I made a grave mistake which led me even ask the question. I just realized, that by luck of the draw, I just so happened upon reviews that only included simple noise and jitter measurements due to instrumentation limitations. And now I'm also seeing that the vast majority of reviews do in fact include all of the measurements which clearly explain everything.

I'm all set. What a great forum! Thank you! Thank you!

 

[HammerSandwich]

If some people don't trust their EBS, I am sorry.

We distrustful folks mostly want to be sure that you're using the EBS uncorrupted by other influences. An easy example of how this can go wrong is the McGurk effect.

Our senses can deceive us. Our brains do lie to us.

 

[frullo]

We distrustful folks mostly want to be sure that you're using the EBS uncorrupted by other influences. An easy example of how this can go wrong is the McGurk effect.

Our senses can deceive us. Our brains do lie to us.

Yes, I think everybody knows that our senses can deceive us and our brains do lie to us. But I still don't see the point. For music listening, our tool is just perfect. We play the music we listen the music, with all (all) the brain and senses effects, illusions included (thank God, those are part of the show).

 

[frullo]

When a biocomputer will change the game we will listen something different. By now I prefer the human version of the play.

 

[Doodski]

When a biocomputer will change the game we will listen something different. By now I prefer the human version of the play.

Auditory implants! That's the solution. With PEQ too...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Yes, I think everybody knows that our senses can deceive us and our brains do lie to us. But I still don't see the point. For music listening, our tool is just perfect. We play the music we listen the music, with all (all) the brain and senses effects, illusions included (thank God, those are part of the show).

and as has been said many times here, that's all well and good. When it's just you sitting in your living room and enjoying your music, whatever delusions you choose to allow while doing so are yours to enjoy as well. That all changes as soon as you jump onto a forum (especially a forum specifically dedicated to a more scientific approach) and state that "this new amp I have which measures exactly the same as my old amp, unquestionably is more musical, more detailed, provides improved soundstage and imaging, is warmer and more revealing...I can hear it easily. It's definitely not my imagination!"

It's worth noting also that those delusions definitely aren't required in order to enjoy music. I have none of those delusions, and I love listening to music. I do it on a system that I know is getting pretty much all that can be gotten out of a recording. It's actually to my mind a benefit of the objective approach...I haven't "lost the magic." I've gained a certain confidence that I'm hearing things the "right" way.

 

[rdenney]

Yes, I think everybody knows that our senses can deceive us and our brains do lie to us. But I still don't see the point. For music listening, our tool is just perfect. We play the music we listen the music, with all (all) the brain and senses effects, illusions included (thank God, those are part of the show).

The problem is that the brain processing of our senses is flighty and fickle. What works today won't tomorrow or next week, whereupon we are motivated to change something, only to discover a couple of months later that what we had before is better again for us on that future day. We end up chasing the uncatchable--our tails.

Once I have as system that is demonstrably true to the input signal, any remaining problem will either be the room or my experiences with coloration that have polluted my expectations. The latter fades with time (particularly time spent listening to live music), but correcting room issues is expensive and better started sooner rather than later.

(Any remaining problem could also be the recording, but I'd rather make adjustments to that on purpose than try to apply what a bad recording needs to all recordings.)

Of course, buying electronics is fun, but that's not exactly the same hobby as listening to music.

Rick "likes cinnamon in some things, but not in everything" Denney

 

[HammerSandwich]

The problem is that the brain processing of our senses is flighty and fickle. What works today won't tomorrow or next week...

Amen. And, if you have a different experience tomorrow, what's more likely to have changed: the hardware or you?

 

[Killingbeans]

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.

The 'B' part does things on its own and blames it on the 'E' part. It also takes data from eyes, nose and just about all other nerve endings on your body and confuses it with data from the 'E' part. It's built to react strongly to sounds that indicate danger, and to be most sensitive in a small frequency band that lets you be social without going "Huh? What did you say?" all the time.

The system tells you everything you need to know about your personal perception of the world through sound, but it's a terrible measuring instrument.

The physical rules that give rise to sound? If you look a point in space in the air in front of a speaker at point in time, you see a specific pressure. If you change the point in time, the pressure changes value, and that's what gives you sound.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

The B part also wants you to be happy. It knows that if you think that new thing you just dropped a bunch of change on sounds better than the old thing it will be able to give you a nice little dopamine jolt and all will be good with the universe for a while and it's totally not against doing a bit of clever "creative interpretation" of the evidence to get you there.

 

[frullo]

I don't see the pleasure of discussing and exchanging opinions, if the forum administrator deletes everything ... Polite enough to be anodyne.

 

[BDWoody]

I don't see the pleasure of discussing and exchanging opinions, if the forum administrator deletes everything ...

It wasn't deleted, it was moved to a more appropriate thread.

 

[frullo]

It wasn't deleted, it was moved to a more appropriate thread.

Ok. Sorry for my mistake. I see where it is, thank you!

 

[audio2design]

Once I have as system that is demonstrably true to the input signal, any remaining problem will either be the room or my experiences with coloration that have polluted my expectations. The latter fades with time (particularly time spent listening to live music), but correcting room issues is expensive and better started sooner rather than later.

You mean other than all the problems with the hearing / equipment setup / mood of the person who created that input signal you are trying to recreate which makes "recreation" flawed anyway?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You mean other than all the problems with the hearing / equipment setup / mood of the person who created that input signal you are trying to recreate which makes "recreation" flawed anyway?

We only have that input signal to work with. It’s what the artist and engineers signed off on. We aren’t going to improve it by applying our own filters and distortions after the fact. And even if one does think they can improve it by doing so, does it not make more sense to get a clean, undistorted signal to the speakers as much as possible and then apply distortions in a controlled and adjustable way via EQ rather than having some blanket inaccuracies applied to every single recording you listen to?

 

[GiFi]

Probably many ears stop well before -120db but there is no doubt that different devices provide different musical timbres also because music is too complex and different from the signals used in the laboratory. If we add up the different personal tastes, the variables involved begin to make everything unique for each device. It is right in my opinion to make auditory comparisons even between equipment that measures at the highest levels.

 

[kiyu]

After -120dB you'll hear NO differences at all. Just probably a bit of "tonality".

so if an R2R measure -120 db will sound exactly the same as a D90Se, because they both measure the same?
so the only important is how it measured?, if has hybrid components like discrete components and opans or fully discrete or solid-state they will all sound the same!! as long as the measure the same -120db..
really?
ok if you say so, looks like the sinad is the only and more important thing to look for...

 

[Veri]

so if an R2R measure -120 db will sound exactly the same as a D90Se, because they both measure the same?
so the only important is how it measured?, if has hybrid components like discrete components and opans or fully discrete or solid-state they will all sound the same!! as long as the measure the same -120db..
really?
ok if you say so, looks like the sinad is the only and more important thing to look for...

120dB is infinitisemally small, it's cited as a "hard" audible limit, if both the discrete and non-discrete measure in distortion and noise levels that low, they will sound the same, there is no magic dust to somehow give it a sound of its own still.