Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Newman]

Find me one who claims he values "accuracy uber alles" and I'll show you one who never plays the 1812 Overture at an accurate volume!

Again, on repeat play, accuracy to what the studio team heard when they were satisfied. Whatever volume they were playing the 1812 at is the accuracy under discussion.

 

[Jim Taylor]

My conclusion is that there is a bigger difference in sound between recordings than there is between the mediums we buy the recording on.
I have superb sounding LPs and CDs
I have poor sounding LPs and CDs.

I agree ... as far as that goes. But ... my CDs don't wear, and neither do my files. Not only that, but they don't pop or exhibit wow. After so many plays, even the best LP degrades to the point that the recording is no longer entertaining. (I admit the number of plays varies. )

I had LP and tape for years. I don't miss either one of them.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Again, on repeat play, accuracy to what the studio team heard when they were satisfied. Whatever volume they were playing the 1812 at is the accuracy under discussion.

The accurate volume of timed canonade (or even the called for Bombardone) exists outside of 'the studio team' and represents an objective point of comparison.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

I agree ... as far as that goes. But ... my CDs don't wear, and neither do my files. Not only that, but they don't pop or exhibit wow. After so many plays, even the best LP degrades to the point that the recording is no longer entertaining. (I admit the number of plays varies. )

I had LP and tape for years. I don't miss either one of them.

Many of the more objective "audiophiles" recorded their favorite LP pressings onto DAT in the 90s.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Many of the more objective "audiophiles" recorded their favorite LP pressings onto DAT in the 90s.

DAT?
Slap DAT!

 

[Newman]

The accurate volume of timed canonade (or even the called for Bombardone) exists outside of 'the studio team' and represents an objective point of comparison.

You are confusing what recording/production is for and what playback is for.

 

[Galliardist]

The accurate volume of timed canonade (or even the called for Bombardone) exists outside of 'the studio team' and represents an objective point of comparison.

Recording and production intended for domestic playback will always change the relative volume of these things.

And in any case, what do you know about the accurate volume:- What cannon? What distance - are they next to the orchestra, in the next field, five miles away? Made at what distance? How much charge? Firing shot or just powder? Or did the performance only feature recordings of the artillery? Maybe the orchestra was recorded separately and the cannon added later. Still outside of the "studio team"?

We have no idea of what your "objective point of comparison" actually is. Or, at least, we only have the recording's word for it.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Find me one who claims he values "accuracy uber alles" and I'll show you one who never plays the 1812 Overture at an accurate volume!

Accurate from how far away?

 

[Frank Dernie]

even the best LP degrades to the point that the recording is no longer entertaining. (I admit the number of plays varies. )

I have LPs which are 60 years old which are still entertaining.
The entertainment comes from the music and performance, not sound quality. I have historic recordings with dire sound quality which are highly entertaining.

I do seem to remember the Bruel and Kjaer frequency test records we used in R&D in the '70s were only guaranteed above 10kHz for 5 uses, but that was probably to cover potential deterioration due to poor cartridges in some places.

I rarely listen to LPs, mainly CDs, just when I want to listen to that music, I haven't played one for a year or so.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have LPs which are 60 years old which are still entertaining.
The entertainment comes from the music and performance, not sound quality. I have historic recordings with dire sound quality which are highly entertaining.

I do seem to remember the Bruel and Kjaer frequency test records we used in R&D in the '70s were only guaranteed above 10kHz for 5 uses, but that was probably to cover potential deterioration due to poor cartridges in some places.

I rarely listen to LPs, mainly CDs, just when I want to listen to that music, I haven't played one for a year or so.

I seem to remember an LP thread on whatsthebest forums (Amir's old forum). One in which they purchased new records and recording the result. Seems they found a surprisingly large drop in the above 10 khz range with just a few plays. This was all using top notch LP gear too.

 

[JoetheLion]

Interesting: We are currently experiencing a wave of colds in Germany. Today, a daily newspaper reported on a scientific study on the topic: “How well do essential oils help?” One result was that a meta-analysis from 2022 found that almost all study participants felt a relieving effect - and were able to sleep much better after using a cold bath or balm. However, one study result was also that objective measurement parameters such as nasal breathing resistance did not improve measurably. The newspaper says: Nevertheless, the study authors from the UK are mild: sometimes the evidence is not so important. “The application (. . .) leads to an improvement in a number of subjective feelings associated with a cold.”

In the end, that's what counts, isn't it?

 

[voodooless]

In the end, that's what counts, isn't it?

If you sell the stuff, sure...

Do you feel the same about medical quackery for cancer?

 

[JoetheLion]

If you sell the stuff, sure...

Do you feel the same about medical quackery for cancer?

I don't think that's the point I was trying to make. The authors of the study said sometimes evidence is not so important, not always. The title of the thread is Are measurements Everything or Nothing? My conclusion from the article is that in medicine, as in music, measurements are very important, but other things like subjective feelings are not unimportant either. For example, if you were to measure how many people hear a difference between hi-res music and CD quality, the evidence would be low (to put it mildly). So what? What if the listeners feel better? Let them buy hi-res music.

And no, of course, I do not feel the same about medical quackery for cancer.

 

[voodooless]

So what?

This industry has perpetuated lies and sleazy marketing tactics for decades under the guise of "why not if it makes them feel better", and this way makes billions from unsuspecting customers. Never mind the "essential oils" industry, they claim to cure anything and everything

And no, of course, I do not feel the same about medical quackery for cancer.

What about buying a $ 10k DAC, while a $ 300 DAC sounds the same? What about insanely priced cables? What about sound-improving crystals? Where do you draw the line?

Nobody denies that subjective feelings aren't important, BTW. But basing them on real tangible differences would be of great benefit to everyone.

 

[JoetheLion]

Where do you draw the line?

I don't have a clearly defined line. But I think that proportionality is a good guide. Of course I wouldn't buy a DAC for $10K. The medical profession didn't say: buy a $10K essential oil for your nose if you feel it will help you, even if it doesn't objectively. If there are two DACs for 300, one of which has worse measurements than the other, but both below the audibility threshold, then I might buy the “worse” one because I find it nicer. That gives me a better feeling, just as someone else might buy the other one because of its better (but just as irrelevant) measurements.

Second example: Amir recommends absolutely useless devices such as the Fosi Audio LC30 or McIntosh MPM4000. Why? Because they have a fun factor and - at least in the case of the Fosi - won't do too much damage to your wallet.

As long as I keep proportionality, money spent on objective useless equipment can be a win in my system.

That's all I wanted to say.

 

[voodooless]

f there are two DACs for 300, one of which has worse measurements than the other, but both below the audibility threshold, then I might buy the “worse” one because I find it nicer. That gives me a better feeling, just as someone else might buy the other one because of its better (but just as irrelevant) measurements.

But that is something completely different. You know upfront that it doesn't make a difference.

Second example: Amir recommends absolutely useless devices such as the Fosi Audio LC30 or McIntosh MPM4000. Why? Because they have a fun factor and - at least in the case of the Fosi - won't do too much damage to your wallet.

They are recommended because they don't interact with the source and can therefore be used without potential issues.

As long as I keep proportionality, money spent on objective useless equipment can be a win in my system.

Those VU meters might be useless, but they are also objectively not detrimental. The same goes for your $ 300 DAC that you liked better than the other one.

 

[DSJR]

Are measurements Everything or Nothing?​

I'd say 'most-thing' if such a term ever existed. I've been told first hand by speaker designers that even a 'pretty darned perfect' measuring speaker (okay, on axis), can be further refined by tweaking crossover frequencies and tweeter level by a tad each way. I don't know enough to delve into the phase tracking over crossover points but on a three-way for example, it's vital I'd suggest, getting the blending right, and not sure this can be fully and seamlessly done in a passive crossover...

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Another question is "Are the measurements sufficient?". Now, that leads to what does "sufficient" mean?
I would wager the usual/commonly used measurements are sufficient for most applications. However, are not scientifically exhaustive.

One example is system compatibility. Two devices can measure practically identically in the usual tests, yet one may experience common mode induced noise (say 60Hz "hum") in a system while the other does not. Similarly with amplifier tests into purely resistive loads.

Now, I do not believe all test methods must be expanded. That would be impractical.

Simply that one does have exhaustive evidence that there would never be any audible differences in specific cases.

 

[Newman]

I don't think that's the point I was trying to make. The authors of the study said sometimes evidence is not so important, not always. The title of the thread is Are measurements Everything or Nothing? My conclusion from the article is that in medicine, as in music, measurements are very important, but other things like subjective feelings are not unimportant either.

And that is a valid comment on the thread title. But the journalists were describing a simple example of the placebo effect, yet the way they wrote, "The application (. . .) leads to an improvement in a number of subjective feelings associated with a cold", suggests they think the cold bath was actually improving colds due to some physical effect that was being subjectively noticed but not measured. Although that is one possibility, it cannot be the conclusion until the placebo effect has been eliminated as a variable.

 

[MattHooper]

My conclusion is that there is a bigger difference in sound between recordings than there is between the mediums we buy the recording on.
I have superb sounding LPs and CDs
I have poor sounding LPs and CDs.

That’s my experience too.

However, I think we of course, have to acknowledge that when CDs came out people dropped LP’s pretty quickly for CDs.
Some of this may be attributed to the marketing of CDs, And the various conveniences associated with CDs. But also most of us heard better quality with CDs. So there was definitely a “ better sound quality factor” associated with the format itself.

My own experience in getting back into records, and purchasing what seems to be a really good turntable, was to revisit those comparisons. As it turns out, at least in terms of my impressions through my own system, yeah CD maintains those well-known Sonic advantages.

But on revisiting the differences, I have found the gap closed from perhaps how I perceived it when CD first arose, and the Sonic experience was totally new.

It turns out that I actually enjoy some of the Sonic character of LPs for its own sake, even while acknowledging I can hear it’s not as accurate. And also, the reacquaintance has reminded me of just how fantastic vinyl can actually sound. Over the years I started to associate vinyl sound with old dusty moth-eaten records, not well taken care of, with all sorts of noise and pops and ticks.

But now I’m experiencing newly produced vinyl, as well as picking up plenty of used vinyl in good (“NM” or “M”) condition which I clean with an ultrasonic cleaner.
And the result is that I can enjoy fantastic sound from vinyl as well as fantastic sound from CD. And in the end, I find the quality of recordings themselves more prominent in establishing the sound quality than Weather. I happen to be playing a record or a ripped CD.

That’s how it’s worked in playing things through my own speakers in my own room.

If I were listening through really high-quality headphones, I might find a shortcomings of vinyl more pronounced. But it sure sounds great through my speakers!