Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Suffolkhifinut]

"Science says..." is a key indicator that someone doesn't know what science is.

Ditto the use of "theory" to mean "hypothesis."

Think if you’re referring to my post just above yours? You must either not have read it correctly or are attempting to misrepresent it?

 

[nonnyno]

"Science says..." is a key indicator that someone doesn't know what science is.

Ditto the use of "theory" to mean "hypothesis."

Science says ... is actually a key indicator that someone is being sloppy in their use of language or simply using the convenience that the incredible richness of the English language gives them in the context of informal chat.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

The fact that they hadn't correctly identified where consumption could be productive is a different issue and does not disprove Keynesian economics. Furthermore what was the goal of the German government? The driving of more economical, newer cars, or stimulus of the German car manufacturing industry? I assume dealers in Korean cars in Germany did very well out of it so it probably stimulated some areas of the economy quite well!

For what it cost was this example of Government spending worth it? Purely on economic grounds. Never suggested Keynesian economics was bogus, just for economies like ours at the moment, what it would cost is economic madness.

 

[symphara]

The "room" in PIR is just a statistical representation, of course. Most domestic listening environments are of scales with a similar order of magnitude (~< 10m in any direction, etc), so amenable to such treatment.

You may already be aware of this, but Amir's first speaker measurement/review also provides a reasonable overview of the many components that go into a "spinorama" set of measurements. One thing that @hardisj often does with his reviews (and lacking here) is plot the his actual in-room response against the PIR (Kef R3 review here):

That’s all fine. But so far I bought three loudspeaker systems and all three sounded in some way substantially different between my showroom audition and their final home environments. Therefore I think that the room effect is larger than what you seem to suggest (although the difference in your two response curves also seems rather substantial, perhaps I’m misinterpreting it).

So a major part of your dissonance here is that you don't understand what you're looking at (using step response as a particular example)?
What makes a "good" step response, etc? Is that correct?

Let me give you an analogy.

I look (quite a bit) at display measurements. Like peak brightness, screen uniformity, color accuracy, response time, presence of artifacts such as posterization or “dirty screen effect” etc. These things can tell you a lot about a display. Most of these things can be measured very precisely.

However when we watch TV we look at moving (not static) pictures and one of the most important things about a display is its motion processing. I, like many others, loathe the so-called “soap opera” effect. But I also find a lot of judder distracting and annoying. Screen manufacturers are aware of this, it’s a sensitive topic, and they come with different image processing strategies to address this.

This is hugely important. It can make or break the way you perceive your display, and yet it’s not measured nor is it clear if it’s measurable in any way, so you can look at all the measurements in the world and all the subjective opinions, and it won’t tell you if you’ll like or not a TV’s motion processing without seeing it.

Based on reviews and measurements I expected Sony to be better than LG, it turned out the other way around (for me!).

In speaker-land, I’m not convinced we know what to look for. The Revel Salon 2 isn’t just a KEF R11 with more bass.

 

[nonnyno]

Think if you’re referring to my post just above yours? You must either not have read it correctly or are attempting to misrepresent it?

Actually both us were being sloppy. It would have been more appropriate to state that possible definitions of science are.... Science says nothing. It is a convenient informal use of English though. It also brings me back to the whole aspect of the communication issues between objectives and subjectivists. The tone was dismissive. That in itself prevents both positive discussion and debate.

 

[alitomr1979]

What? A microphone to test DAC’s? That’s not a good way.

No! Thinks like SPL meters are not good enough.

I am talking about a ABX test, to see if a few listeners are able to distinguish between a group (or two) DACs.

I have a calibrated Mic.

 

[SIY]

I have a calibrated Mic.

To do what with in this context?

 

[nonnyno]

For what it cost was this example of Government spending worth it? Purely on economic grounds. Never suggested Keynesian economics was bogus, just for economies like ours at the moment, what it would cost is economic madness.

This whole subject isn't really relevant to the thread but again I disagree. Are you talking initial stimulus cost or the ultimate cost of the stimulus when one considers eventual outcomes? The new deal produced incredible wealth which lasted decades (and which we are still benefiting from the tail effects of). had the Uk borrowed trillions at historically low fixed rates at the start of the brexit/Coronavirus crisis through long term > 200 year or near perpetual fixed rate bonds (we could have been paying less for our debt than we are now whilst investing) and started investing in education, transport, energy, water, national comms, the NHS. We might have had world leading infrastructure and welfare and the people to run it all in 20 years time. Instead if anything we'll end up spending much the same (in terms of whole life investment) to get nothing back except an increasingly wealthy leadership class. We've spent a fortune on nepotism, corruption and cronyism and got nothing back other than the highest taxes we've had in ages and shoddy infrastructure and welfare. The only reason our deficit isn't as high as it once was is that our economy has shrunk. What I find remarkable is that we will find any excuse to spend stupid money on going to war (whether a war was necessary or not) but to level up or make the country and the population healthier and richer - oh no there's no magic money tree. A countries finances are not like an individuals finances - no matter how much it suits the incumbent government to try to draw parallels when they want to make cuts.

 

[voodooless]

I am talking about a ABX test, to see if a few listeners are able to distinguish between a group (or two) DACs.

I have a calibrated Mic.

You don’t need a mic, preamp or mixer for that. Just the DAC’s and a very decent ADC is all that is needed.

See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-are-put-in-place-spoiler-probably-yes.29353/

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

This whole subject isn't really relevant to the thread but again I disagree. Are you talking initial stimulus cost or the ultimate cost of the stimulus when one considers eventual outcomes? The new deal produced incredible wealth which lasted decades (and which we are still benefiting from the tail effects of). had the Uk borrowed trillions at historically low fixed rates at the start of the brexit/Coronavirus crisis through long term > 200 year or near perpetual fixed rate bonds (we could have been paying less for our debt than we are now whilst investing) and started investing in education, transport, energy, water, national comms, the NHS. We might have had world leading infrastructure and welfare and the people to run it all in 20 years time. Instead if anything we'll end up spending much the same (in terms of whole life investment) to get nothing back except an increasingly wealthy leadership class. We've spent a fortune on nepotism, corruption and cronyism and got nothing back other than the highest taxes we've had in ages and shoddy infrastructure and welfare. The only reason our deficit isn't as high as it once was is that our economy has shrunk. What I find remarkable is that we will find any excuse to spend stupid money on going to war (whether a war was necessary or not) but to level up or make the country and the population healthier and richer - oh no there's no magic money tree. A countries finances are not like an individuals finances - no matter how much it suits the incumbent government to try to draw parallels when they want to make cuts.

Think you’re right about how relevant it is to the thread. Much as I would like to continue this economic debate it’s time to call a halt.
Can’t resist though! The New Deal did work but the means of production were at the time in the US. Is getting the unborn to pay off the debt for our excess spending ethical? Throwing more money at the education system and the NHS without reform is lunacy.

 

[BDWoody]

Much as I would like to continue this economic debate it’s time to call a halt.

Amen.

Let's please move along.

 

[dc655321]

That’s all fine. But so far I bought three loudspeaker systems and all three sounded in some way substantially different between my showroom audition and their final home environments. Therefore I think that the room effect is larger than what you seem to suggest (although the difference in your two response curves also seems rather substantial, perhaps I’m misinterpreting it).

I don't think I suggested anything about the magnitude of the effects that different rooms can have. Below a certain range, the Schroeder frequency, room effects dominate. That is clearly visible in the plot. The Schroeder frequency varies with room dimensions, treatment, etc.

i.e. why would you not expect significant, audible differences (below Schroeder) in different rooms?

However when we watch TV we look at moving (not static) pictures and one of the most important things about a display is its motion processing. I, like many others, loathe the so-called “soap opera” effect. But I also find a lot of judder distracting and annoying. Screen manufacturers are aware of this, it’s a sensitive topic, and they come with different image processing strategies to address this.

This is hugely important. It can make or break the way you perceive your display, and yet it’s not measured nor is it clear if it’s measurable in any way, so you can look at all the measurements in the world and all the subjective opinions, and it won’t tell you if you’ll like or not a TV’s motion processing without seeing it.

The Soap Opera effect is (poorly) interpolation between frames and is certainly measurable - video is just a signal after all, a digital sequence in this case. Physical measurements of that signal won't explain individual preferences though. That's a different sport.

I find it amusing though that, again, human preference seems to be for accurate reproduction of input signals

In speaker-land, I’m not convinced we know what to look for. The Revel Salon 2 isn’t just a KEF R11 with more bass.

This is isn't a dig at your personally, and I've noticed this frequently on this forum, but you seem to be confusing what you don't know with the notion that no one knows what to look for. The former seems true, but the latter certainly is not. Much is known about the physics that must go into a accurate sound reproduction.

 

[symphara]

I don't think I suggested anything about the magnitude of the effects that different rooms can have. Below a certain range, the Schroeder frequency, room effects dominate. That is clearly visible in the plot. The Schroeder frequency varies with room dimensions, treatment, etc.

i.e. why would you not expect significant, audible differences (below Schroeder) in different rooms?

In that case I’m at a loss regarding your point. If room effects are large and you cannot know them until after you have the speakers in the room, how are your graphs the end-all of knowledge?

The Soap Opera effect is (poorly) interpolation between frames and is certainly measurable - video is just a signal after all, a digital sequence in this case. Physical measurements of that signal won't explain individual preferences though. That's a different sport.

Really? I must be ignoring those “certain” measurements. Please do share.

I find it amusing though that, again, human preference seems to be for accurate reproduction of input signals

I‘m not sure I fully understand your phrase but my baseline here is that audio - unlike, say, an MRI machine - is something for enjoyment alone. Human preference is essential. It is essential that you like what you hear. Therefore my baseline is that whatever measurements you bring to the table are valuable only insofar as they are strong predictors for my preference. Otherwise what’s the point of it?

This is isn't a dig at your personally, and I've noticed this frequently on this forum, but you seem to be confusing what you don't know with the notion that no one knows what to look for. The former seems true, but the latter certainly is not. Much is known about the physics that must go into a accurate sound reproduction.

Well based on what I read, I’m pretty certain that no-one knows. Much is known about atmospheric physics yet we cannot accurately predict the weather outside a small window.

Frequency response and directivity are interesting and important (to me). But based on what I listen, I don’t think they tell the relevant part of the story. As in, if speaker A does better in both compared to speaker B, it follows that A will sound better in my room, or that A would even sound better (to me) in any room.

 

[hardisj]

Oh cool thank you for that explanation and plot.

FWIW, I have gotten to the point where I don't really worry about providing my in-room measurements. I did it enough early on to prove to myself it's valid in the way it is expected to be: within a few dB of actual in-room above the transition frequency which is about 300-700Hz in most rooms, depending on room size (remember, it's a transition so there is no 'instant flip', thus the range). It's incredibly accurate in my experience; not just in my own living room and home theater room but even looking at in-room measurements that friends send me of speakers I've measured.

I discussed the PIR stuff in a video here:

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

It's worth mentioning again that most of us ASR Objectivists would agree that transducers are the part of the audio system chain where the line between measurements and performance is blurriest. Most of the debates here come down to subjectivists claiming to hear/trying to prove that there are differences in sound quality between things that have essentially the same measurements. It's not so easy to find different speakers that measure anywhere close to as similarly as say 2 dacs. Mostly what the measurements tell you is how well, or easily a speaker is likely to work in a room. A speaker that has great measurements is likely going to be less sensitive to different rooms and positioning and likely easier to "tune" for the room...which is a process most of us advocate. A speaker that doesn't measure all that great could still sound very very good in the right circumstances. But those circumstances are likely more narrow than a better-measuring speaker and if you don't happen to have that set of circumstances you might not be able to "fix" things via EQ.

 

[nonnyno]

It's worth mentioning again that most of us ASR Objectivists would agree that transducers are the part of the audio system chain where the line between measurements and performance is blurriest. Most of the debates here come down to subjectivists claiming to hear/trying to prove that there are differences in sound quality between things that have essentially the same measurements. It's not so easy to find different speakers that measure anywhere close to as similarly as say 2 dacs. Mostly what the measurements tell you is how well, or easily a speaker is likely to work in a room. A speaker that has great measurements is likely going to be less sensitive to different rooms and positioning and likely easier to "tune" for the room...which is a process most of us advocate. A speaker that doesn't measure all that great could still sound very very good in the right circumstances. But those circumstances are likely more narrow than a better-measuring speaker and if you don't happen to have that set of circumstances you might not be able to "fix" things via EQ.

To what extent is the variation between supposedly identical speakers an issue and factors like room temperature and humidity?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

To what extent is the variation between supposedly identical speakers an issue and factors like room temperature and humidity?

I don't know...I would guess that factors like room temp and humidity would have to be pretty extreme before they would affect SQ in a different way between different sets of speakers. Ambient noise would have a much bigger potential impact I'd imagine...and would be universal of course.

 

[Xulonn]

I don't think self-hypnotism exists. I know self-hypnotism exists. I know people who claim to have "golden ears" are usually delusional. Probably due to self-hypnotism. That process of repeating an idea to oneself as a collection of words---like "expanded soundstage" or "more vivid midrange" or "better microdynamics"---makes that thought override whatever actual evidence is presented to that person. One of the central post-hypnotic suggestions, one that pervades the "high-end", is that more money = better quality. Looking at the measurements often points out that money does not necessarily correlate to quality.

I've long had fantasies about a test where a properly treated listening room is set up a "high fidelity" stereo system with one link in the electronics chain (DAC, preamp, or power amp) is switchable between good-measuring components. Then several "golden-eared" audiophiles with experience in writing reviews replete with flowery audiophile language are invited to listen and write reviews of each configuration based on sighted listening, e.g., knowing what components they are listening to.

Then, the next day, when they are expecting to review something else, they are instead invited to re-listen to the same systems in a different random order while blindfolded - and re-write the reviews using the same audiophile vocabulary.

I believe that the results would be very interesting...

Partial vocabulary for "florid pretentious language used in audiophile reviews":

Airy – Describes space and openness.

Analytical – A term used to describe a high level of detail about the music being played back

Balance – The attributes of not having one particularly dominant frequency, e.g., the bass, mids, and highs are all balanced.

Bass – This is the lower end frequency of human hearing. You can measure bass in quantity (heaviness) and quality (the clarity within the frequency). Other bass descriptors are muddy and boomy.

Bloat – Bloat is usually present in the mid-bass.

Bright/Brightness – usually displayed in the upper frequencies or upper mids. Brightness is a feature enjoyed by many but walks a thin line to becoming unpleasant due to a potential of treble peaking.

Congestion – Sounds overlapping each other and poor clarity.

Crisp – Clear

Dark/Darkness – Usually where the higher frequencies are less prominent.

Decay – How a sound/note/resonance fades away, i.e., the note decay was lengthy.

Depth – How far away the instrument’s spacing is from back to front.

Detail – The attention to a full reproduction with all sound/notes being audible and present.

Forward – A more intense overall presentation of the sound. Opposite of laid back and relaxed.

Fun – A usually high-energy sound with an emphasized bass.

Harsh - Usually used to describe the upper mid to upper frequencies when you get too much treble, which is an unpleasant quality.

Highs – The upper frequencies/ higher notes.

Imaging – The placement and position of instruments.

Lush – A rich tone and usually with some warmth to the overall presentation.

Mids/Midrange – The middle frequencies (usually the main body of vocals and acoustic guitars amongst others.

Muddy – Unclear presentation of sound the opposite of clean/clear.

Natural – Sounds as it should, real and true to life.

Openness – Displays good width and depth in the presentation, plenty of room in between instruments.

PRaT - Pace, Rhythm and Timing

Punch – The impact and pop of a particular sound/frequency etc

Sibilant – The overly prominent sound of consonants like the letter "S".

Soundstage – Described in 3d terms (height width and depth)

Timbre – The quality of sound that makes voices or musical instruments sound different from each other

Transparent – Similar to clarity, it is a clean, clear, open, and detailed quality.

Warm/warmth – Engaging vocals, bumped mid-bass and clear and lush midrange.

 

[Blumlein 88]

@BDWoody I just ordered the pre90 to extend the inputs of my preamp, and will buy locally the mixer I need to use my microphone in order to tests the DACs I have here. I know data not only suggests that I wont be able to notice differences, they practically predict I wont, but I will perform the tests to provide MORE evidence to the subjectivists in the thread.

Question to the knowledgeable people in these matters: Is it acceptable to level match using pink noise?

For DACs matching them with a 1 khz sinewave is better. And do it with a voltmeter maybe at speaker terminals. Not with a microphone or SPL meter. Also you won't find out anything if you test with a microphone. So you don't need a mixer. An ADC might help. Maybe go into more detail about what you intend so as not to waste your efforts on something we can already tell you .

 

[nonnyno]

I've long had fantasies about a test where a properly treated listening room is set up a "high fidelity" stereo system with one link in the electronics chain (DAC, preamp, or power amp) is switchable between good-measuring components. Then several "golden-eared" audiophiles with experience in writing reviews replete with flowery audiophile language are invited to listen and write reviews of each configuration based on sighted listening, e.g., knowing what components they are listening to.

Then, the next day, when they are expecting to review something else, they are instead invited to re-listen to the same systems in a different random order while blindfolded - and re-write the reviews using the same audiophile vocabulary.

I believe that the results would be very interesting...

Partial vocabulary for "florid pretentious language used in audiophile reviews":

Hows about swapping the phrase invited to for forced at the point of a gun ;->. Actually more seriously I think one needs bits of music or sounds which demonstrate each of the qualities of the vocabulary you've attempted definition of. Also some terms are conflating several ideas and vocab elements from your list such as congestion. Would that not muddy or congest the waters? I agree I think it would be a very interesting exercise.