• 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 will put some trust in you the next time you describe the sound characteristics of another loudspeaker even if I have never listened to it myself.
And when the same person describes the sound of a DAC or amp..? Then you suddenly shouldn’t trust them anymore. I find all this needlessly convoluted.
 
And when the same person describes the sound of a DAC or amp..? Then you suddenly shouldn’t trust them anymore. I find all this needlessly convoluted.

As long as the person accurately describes the sound of different loudspeakers in ways that fall right in with how I would describe them myself, I see no reason for me to "suddenly" not trust them on that.
 
It's going to be about Atmos headphones for me soon. My partner has poor hearing and problems with conventional surround sound, so I doubt Atmos will help her and with other problems installing it in our living room, I won't be going there in the near future, so I will be trying headphones as partial solution.

The point is that over 90% of people who are going to listen to an album in the near future will be doing it in stereo of some kind. Driving them away with poor mixes isn't going to help support recorded music.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying these mixes on headphones, in my limited experience (limited because I don't have an Atmos loudspeaker setup to compare to). I generally enjoy the mixes from Apple Music (which will be a different selection than many of you, so I expect contrary opinions on that) and the spatial audio effect on regular stereo tends to reduce the 'music inside my head' impression.

Tangentially, mixes for video can be remarkable. I've been using the Vision Pro headset and the general 'hearing things happening out in front of you' effect is usually unshakeable (the directionality works wherever you place the viewing window) the more so when lifting the headset momentarily to wipe one's eyes or finish a drink (and thus removing the visual anchor).

Modern source material especially can do a remarkable job of presenting the enveloping ambient elements of the soundstage/mix (with the usual effect of having to check something isn't actually happening elsewhere in the room/house at times) and the beside/behind you elements are aurally convincing. Music tends to less adventurous, of course we don't want gimmicky presentations of familiar traditional instruments, but synthetic/electronic/ambient elements can go further than they usually do, I think.

The other fun part is that all this is enabled by fairly small transducers several centimetres in front of the ears (there's no real sub-bass, of course). Occasional resonances in the mix or at certain frequencies can give the game away, but not too often. Cupping hands behind the ears makes for adjustable envelopment and modifies the spatial presentation (which is educational, but not sustainable, obviously). Synchronising some bass/sub-bass drivers would help with certain material, but make for odd listening for anyone else entering the room.
 
Last edited:
As long as the person accurately describes the sound of different loudspeakers in ways that fall right in with how I would describe them myself, I see no reason for me to "suddenly" not trust them on that.

Our friend Darko often takes pains to emphasise the small degree of differences he does claim to observe, and sends up the "night and day" and "blew x out of the water" etc language of YouTube review-land. I've rarely imagined I hear different presentations between the few DACs I've owned, so mostly gloss over that area, although I recall once imagining that one was sounding 'spitty' and the other smoother/more relaxed. The spitty one failed shortly after, so it's possible some analog component was drifting out of spec before going up in smoke (but please remind me of catechism, lest I may lapse). :eek:

Anyway, that unholy transgression didn't suddenly convince me I couldn't hear what my loudspeakers were doing. I have a pair that are a bit warm in the mid-bass, and another pair that are a bit lean there while a bit hotter in the midrange. Astonishingly, my own measurements correlate. When people like Erin listen and take notes before measuring, they tend to line up. Lies and perfidy of course, because how do we know they aren't lying, how do we ever know, and where is my fainting couch?
 
Last edited:
Gonna break my rule.

Wait, you are finally breaking your rule of just showing up to mischaracterize my position to the crowd without bothering to provide any evidence from my actual writing? That would be great! If you quote me, that’s at least a step forward in intellectual honesty and allows people to see whether you are mischaracterizing things or not.

One post only.

Oh, so this return to good etiquette will only last one post. Thats too bad.

Well, on to your misrepresentations….
 
O general reader, let's look at the full paragraph from which the above in bold was cherry-picked:

I had read those pages thoroughly and so I knew quite well I wasn’t cherry picking anything. I linked it to the conversation for anybody to see for themselves.

Again: you are disputing my characterization that Toole was not just recommending tone controls to adjust for problematic recordings, but that he also allowed they are useful for adjusting simply “ to personal taste.” And that to suggest this, I am twisting misrepresenting Toole.

Anyone can see in the quotes I gave that you are obviously wrong. And I invite anyone to visit the link I gave to the Toole quotes, to see the context and they will see that you are desperately trying to squirm out of the fact you are wrong.

If you read the entirety of the Toole passages, what you will see is that Toole is recommending tone controls as being useful for ALL these three things:

1. Adjusting the general sound of your system
2. Adjusting the sound of problematic recordings
3. Adjusting the sound at whim, for instance of recordings to personal preference/taste.

The point that you keep avoiding: nobody is there to judge whether a recording “ requires adjustment” except the individual listening to his Soundsystem. Unfortunately, we don’t have a Newman with us at all times in order to judge for us “ Sonic excellence as excellence” ready to wrest our hands from the tone control: “Desist thee with thy meddling! THIS recording shall go untouched!

It’s quite obvious that deciding which recordings would sound better with some adjustment is a subjective call left up to the individual; a preference call. And you know it. And Floyd Toole knows it. This is why Floyd leaves room for personal preference.


If you take this section..

You can see that Toole is talking about integrating well-designed loudspeakers.
Toole reminds us that bad loudspeaker design cannot be corrected for with EQ and that therefore the solution is to start with better loudspeakers.

He starts off by discussing the Harmon curve, and says:

Now, if you measure such a curve or something very close to it, and your speakers are conventional forward firing designs, it means that you probably have chosen well. Small tilt-like deviations may be seen and broadband tone-control-like adjustments can be made to achieve a satisfactory overall spectral balance.

So you are starting with a well-designed loudspeaker, and if you start off with a generally good curve you can then use tone controls to dial in the spectrum balance based on PERSONAL SATISFACTION. That is personal taste.

So when we get to this portion:

If a "target' curve has been achieved, and the sound quality is not satisfactory, the suggestion is often to go into the menu, find the manual adjustment routine, and play around with the shape of the curve until you or your customer like the sound. This is not a calibration. This is a subjective exercise in manipulating an elaborate tone control. Once set it is fixed, and in it will be reflected timbral features of the music being listened to at the time. In other words, the circle of confusion is now included in the system setup. By all means do it, but do not think that the exercise has been a "calibration". 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.

It is clear that Toole is arguing against the type of “room correction” algorithms many people are using, and starting with the suggestion of having chosen a well performing loudspeaker, tone controls are preferable for adjusting the system to one’s personal satisfaction, including the overall system balance, adjusting for recordings, or “ at will” for personal taste. In English, Newman, “At will” means “ whenever you want” which of course would include at any point with any recording.

You simply can’t get away from what words actually mean.

If you still think that given a neutral set up Toole is ONLY talking about using tone controls to adjust for poor recordings, and NOT including adjusting for personal taste, which is what you are arguing, you are wrong.

Take a look at this passage

… in which Toole is discussing finessing Set up with good loud speakers, having achieved a good room curve:

It is essential to note that this is the room curve that would result from subjectively highly-rated loudspeakers.

Toole talks about steps to smooth out bass response in the room and then we get this:

Once the curve is smoothed there is the decision of what the bass target should be. Experience has shown that one size does not fit all. Music recordings can vary enormously in bass level, especially older recordings - it is the "circle of confusion" discussed in the book. Modern movies are less variable, but music concerts exhibit wide variations. The upshot is that we need a bass tone control and the final setting may vary with what is being listened to, and perhaps also personal preference. In general too much bass is a "forgivable sin" but too little is not pleasant.

Again, to help you parse English, both statements on either side of the conjunction “and” are being allowed for. Tone control adjustment that will vary with what is being listened to = adjusting for the variations in recording quality. “And perhaps also personal preference” = obviously, adjusting simply on personal preference.

So you are simply wrong Newman. Toole over and over recognizes the need for tone controls as including adjusting for personal preference, even with a neutral system.

And when we get to this:

Setting up a system according to personal preferences in spectral balance includes the circle of confusion and therefore generalization to all programs is not possible. Depending on the shortcomings in your loudspeakers and room results can vary. Better to have easily accessible tone controls that can be instantly adapted to your personal preference - for any program.

I don't have them, and miss them, so I, like you, arrived at a compromise setting that suits some programs better than others.


It’s clear that Toole is not restricting dialling to personal preference to having a poor loudspeaker. He is talking about the overall advantage to the convenience of tone controls for easily adapting the sound to personal preference FOR ANY PROGRAM to suite your satisfaction. Toole himself obviously has a neutral sounding set up and yet still bemoans not having convenient tone controls to adjust any program material to his satisfaction. Target curve algorithms are a too-clumsy solution for this.

What setting “ suits” one recording over another is clearly a subjective judgement call, and Toole recognizes the role of personal preference, where you refuse to admit this in service of “MattHooper Can Not Be Right At Any Cost!”

Again, I understand you’re wanting to squirm out of this problem: it’s very inconvenient for you. It would mean I’m actually right.

But the fact is you are still wrong about my misrepresenting Toole on tone controls.

And it would be good of you to retract your misrepresentation of both Toole and me on this matter.

(of course I’m not really expecting any such sudden burst of etiquette…)
 
Last edited:
And when the same person describes the sound of a DAC or amp..? Then you suddenly shouldn’t trust them.

People here often bring up that claim as if it is obvious and logical. But it isn’t.

The fact that any individual can imagine Sonic differences does not entail they are imagining all Sonic differences and can’t identify real sonic characteristics.

This should actually be obvious if you think about it.

Every single person is subject to bias effects.
Absolutely anyone and everyone will be prone to hearing differences sometimes where they don’t exist.

Even Amir points out in his reviews of cables, that under sight conditions even he seems to hear a difference.

And yet Amir is also quite perceptive when it comes to hearing and describing REAL Sonic differences, such as with loudspeakers.

So to me, the point that some reviewer has imagined something in sighted conditions, comparing cables, doesn’t make him different - it makes him in the category “ human, like everyone else.”

What I care about is whether a reviewer faced with equipment that produces real sonic differences, whether that reviewer is good at accurately describing those sound characteristics.

And that is something that I can either check in terms of, when it comes to Stereophile, whether the description is compatible with the measurements, or by checking myself, whether that reviewer has accurately described the sound of speakers that I am familiar with.

Fremer for instance certainly falls to obvious bias effects when he’s occasionally talking about things like power, conditioners, or whatever.

But I don’t care because I have found his descriptions of things that actually sound different - loudspeakers - to be quite accurate with my own experience hearing those same loudspeakers. (And also often enough, his descriptions aren’t out of line with the measurements).
 
That can of course be extended "from the output" to "at the listening position"


In which case DSP/room correction can be considered to be a reduction in distortion or an increase in fidelity - even if on the output of the amp, it might be worsened.

Tone controls can be similarly viewed - if in fact that are improving an unbalanced room response.


Both of these though can also be used to change the spectral balance "to taste" - for example with DSP by choice of target curve, or with tone controls by "cranking the bass"

Non linear distortion though can only ever be a reduction in fidelity, no matter how you view it - both on the output of the device, and at the listening position.

I’ve already talked to that point: the discussion has to do with adjusting tone controls for personal taste, EG if you want to adjust the sound of a recording. I’m not speaking to different ways of room correction or achieving neutrality at the listener position. That’s a different conversation.
 
If you are listening at home for your own pleasure makeing adjustments to suit your preference. Adjusting recordings because they sound "thin" or whatever. Sticking in whatever gear you like with whatever level of distortion. Then anything goes. Fill yer boots.

So sighted listening can be useful, correct? Is there some reason this is “ only useful in one’s home?” I don’t see why there is some apparently Magic dividing line like that.


The problem comes when people take this sighted listening and try to inform others about the characteristics of the gear.

Why? If one is making a fairly accurate inference from sighted listening in My Home, why does that suddenly become “ Wrong” or useless when I am part that information to other people?

I have found, for instance, that my friend’s descriptions of loudspeakers in his room are quite accurate. And he finds the same with me.

If perhaps the idea is that room effects mean one person’s impression of a loudspeaker in one room cannot tell you anything about how it will perform in another room, I would disagree. The first thing is that, as Toole remind us, We are quite adept at “ hearing through” room effects (with the exception of room effects on bass) to the direct character of a loudspeaker. That’s why loudspeakers not to sound startlingly different from room to room.

That has been my experience. if I hear a loudspeaker in one place and then another, the character remains essentially the same.
The other thing about this is that audiophiles usually aren’t randomly shoving their speakers into corners or things like that that will exacerbate the worst room effects. Most audiophile and reviewers are carefully dialling in the loudspeakers and listening position to get the smoothest most ballast sound they can get. So while not absolutely perfect, one can gain a reasonable acquaintance with the performance of a loudspeaker this way. And with good enough skills, convey that sound character to somebody else.

Some people are good at this some people less so. But you can use discretion in finding people who seem to be good at accurately describing the characteristics of loudspeakers, and you can winnow this down either by seeing if their descriptions contradict known measurements, or if they have accurately described loudspeakers you are familiar with.

That point would subsume a description about Erin as well. Of course there are liabilities and nobody is expecting perfection. But that doesn’t mean inferences aren’t unreasonable or useful.

Sighted listening therefore - while perfectly valid for getting your home system working the way you like it - has absolutely no value in informing anyone else how they will experience any particular piece of gear.

I disagree. That’s where people here tend to go too far and my view. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In my experience, the sonic reports from other audiophiles and reviewers (personally vetted in the way I described) have been extremely helpful and guiding me to some of the most wonderfully equipment I have ever enjoyed. I’ve read descriptions of certain loudspeakers that sounded intriguing, when I had a chance to listen to those speakers in various stores, that was indeed how they sounded, and some of those loudspeakers I ended up with in my home, where they continue to sound as described.

Again, the “ accuracy” of Sonic descriptions I’m talking about is not always in the context of “ first hearing the description and then listening to the loudspeaker.” It is also very often having heard the loudspeaker first and afterward encountering very accurate descriptions. It goes both ways.

Plenty of people have even found my own descriptions of equipment to be useful.
For instance, somebody on another audio forum was asking if somebody had experience with two loudspeaker brands - one that he owned (Harbeth) and one that he was interested in (Joseph Audio). As it happened I owned exactly the same Harbeth speaker he did, as well as the Joseph audio loudspeaker he was interested in! So I was able to give him a detailed description of the characteristics of each loudspeaker, the pros and cons, and contrasting their different qualities. Others familiar with those loudspeakers (including owners) said my descriptions were very accurate, and since this guy owned the Harbeths and found my description insightful, that gave him some more confidence in my description of the Joseph speakers as well. so he ended up getting the speakers in to try, and he was ecstatic, saying that I had absolutely nailed their Sonic qualities and how happy he was with his new speakers.

That clearly is an instance of subjective descriptions, drawn from sighted listening being helpful to another person.

Another example: I’ve brought this up many times before but…the Devore Fidelity O/96 speakers. This brand is pretty much excoriated on this forum for being outside of “ best practises” and not measuring up to snuff. However, subjective reviewers including Art Dudley we converging on describing some very intriguing aspects to the presentation, of the very type that I am interested in. And when I finally auditioned those loudspeakers, which I did several times in different rooms, they had exactly the specific type of characteristics described by those reviewers, a rich heavy dense sound with substantial body, beautiful timber for acoustic instruments, “ disappearing, and sound staging imaging” surprisingly well given their design, and being particularly excellent at conveying the rhythm and dynamics in recordings, especially drums.

They immediately became one of my favourite all-time loudspeakers.

On ASR, nobody would give those loudspeakers a second look, let alone recommendation to hear them. And when I would ask people to describe how they would sound just from the Stereophile measurements, I got ridiculous responses like “ would sound like a kazoo.” Grossly misleading to say the least.

See the problem is that it takes a significant amount of experience correlating the measurements of all sorts of different speaker designs to their Sonic consequences. Most audiophiles have not had that experience. That means they either rely on sighted listening, or on somebody very technically proficient to translate measurements into “ how the speaker will sound.” And the problem there is: 1. There aren’t measurements and somebody available to do this for you, for the majority of loudspeakers. 2. The type of person most adept at understanding the measurements also happens to be the type of person least likely to care about Sonic descriptions, And also typically will have strong ideas as to what they think is a good or bad design. That means that if you get any sort of description, it is usually pretty shallow, and also the same person is more likely to dismiss various designs as unworthy anyway.

And that’s a type of stuff that often occurs on a forum like this.

I personally get the gist of speaker measurements, but I cannot tell precisely how every loudspeaker will sound from the measurements (and many experienced people can’t either). That’s why I need to hear it.

A place like this would likely never have sent me towards the Devore speakers as worth anyones time. (and has never reviewed them.)

It was instead the reports from subjective reviewers that were helpful in identifying speakers as having certain wonderful qualities, that led me to discovering one of my favourite loudspeakers. Very useful!

So again, you or other people here may not find any use in sighted speaker reports, but that doesn’t mean they are useless for others.
 
Last edited:
I would never recommend Devore to anyone unless I really, really didn’t like them.
Keith
 
I haven’t read a subjective review in what fifteen years, they are completely without merit.
Keith
Heh, they're very good if they describe the facilities and 'touchy-feely' aspects of a given product :D

Even when I was more subjectively based, I gave up on reading issues of Absolute Sound that came my way, as the reviewers said in two or three pages what coul dbe expressed in a fairly short paragraph ;)
 
I don’t want to steal your recommending poor components thunder.
Keith
 
The fact that any individual can imagine Sonic differences does not entail they are imagining all Sonic differences and can’t identify real sonic characteristics.
Did I ever say that?
 
Even when I was more subjectively based, I gave up on reading issues of Absolute Sound that came my way, as the reviewers said in two or three pages what coul dbe expressed in a fairly short paragraph ;)

Hey! I resemble that comment!! :oops:

I always liked reading TAS’ Robert E Greene.
I find his stuff still holds up. He’s a good writer, are we starting off with the object of review is a particular interest in the big picture. And he brings some level of technical analysis as well.

I also like reading lots of Jonathan Valins reviews. he is terrific at putting sound into words, conveying sometimes difficult to describe qualities.

I’m a fan of MBL omnis, and I’ve had opportunities to listen to everything from there classic 101 line up to the Extremes, in dedicated rooms. I’ve also owned MBL 121 omnis for about a decade. So I’m very familiar with the MBL sound. Valin does a terrific job conveying the characteristics of well set up MBLs, both in broad strokes and in subtle observations. I personally love reading about peoples personal experience, listening, so I’m good with a few pages of that if it is well done .
 
Did I ever say that?

Isn’t that essentially what you were implying?

You wrote: And when the same person describes the sound of a DAC or amp..? Then you suddenly shouldn’t trust them anymore.

Which I took to mean: it’s unlikely the DAC or amp actually had a “ sound” Therefore, this person would be imagining such things. And if someone is going to make claims based on their imagination, then there is no reason to trust them anymore for describing anything else.

Wasn’t that your point? If not, could you clarify it for me?

If it was your point, then what I wrote follows.
The fact someone can fall for bias effects does not rule out that they can convey useful information about real sonic differences (such as loudspeakers).
 
Why? If one is making a fairly accurate inference from sighted listening in My Home, why does that suddenly become “ Wrong” or useless when I am part that information to other people?
As I pointed out - even an experienced reviewer gets it wrong 20% of the time (your own words). I'd guess the majority of less experienced reviewers would have a worse track record.

So when a reviewer gives their opinion on a speaker - we have no idea if they are getting it right or wrong. It's a crap shoot.
 
We appear to have invented the 80/20
I was referencing Erins own perception of his own accuracy, assuming @MattHooper recollection of same was correct.

Not inventing anything.
 
Wasn’t that your point? If not, could you clarify it for me?
No, that was not at all what I was implying. My point was actually the sentence right after that quote:
I find all this needlessly convoluted.
I just can’t be bothered to do the work and do due diligence on every reviewer to figure out upto what point their impressions can be trusted. So my default is: I don’t care, I’ll wait for measurements, and get what I need from them. That doesn’t mean I won’t deviate from the default, but that then happens more though “osmosis”, than me actively doing any work.

It's a crap shoot.
In a casino those odds would be pretty good though ;) Maybe something for AudioCrapShootReview?

I’m not made for gambling… probably one more reason for me not bother, no matter the odds ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom