Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[RonSanderson]

I've heard this description many times. Is "dull" the same for everyone? I doubt it. Is "boring" the same for everyone? I doubt it. On the flip side, is "exciting" the same for everyone? I doubt it.
In my small circle of friends, there is often sharp disagreement about these qualities. Is it not safe to assume that there is even more disagreement about these qualities among the general listening population? For example, might not I (for one) disagree with your opinion on this matter?

> The 'becomes boring' is interesting though.

Another way is to say reduced emotional involvement.

Now another one for fun. To me (and most listeners) switching from this: to this:

Improved emotional involvement and preference even is the gain difference was not compensated (that was a whole round of tests), while Amir observed:

Could it be “pace” that makes the sound more engaging?

Being new here, I don’t know if this is still considered undefinable, so I’ll be more specific.

The first charts from @Thorsten Loesch showed more 2nd harmonic distortion, while the more engaging music showed more 3rd order distortion. It was (years ago) commonly held that 2nd order and even multiples were less harmful because they added to the amplitude of the center of the base frequency’s waveform, just making a sinusoidal base frequency a little “richer”.

However, a 3rd harmonic and other odd multiples would add amplitude to either side of the central peak of the base waveform. This creates a sharper rise time to the overall wave. This steeper wavefront should be interpreted by the listener as more “punch” as the pressure hits the ear.

A bit of odd-order distortion should, then, make the impacts on the music’s beat a bit sharper and more solid sounding, making the music more rhythmic. In short, it would have better “pace” and be more engaging.

 

[DonR]

Could it be “pace” that makes the sound more engaging?

Being new here, I don’t know if this is still considered undefinable, so I’ll be more specific.

The first charts from @Thorsten Loesch showed more 2nd harmonic distortion, while the more engaging music showed more 3rd order distortion. It was (years ago) commonly held that 2nd order and even multiples were less harmful because they added to the amplitude of the center of the base frequency’s waveform, just making a sinusoidal base frequency a little “richer”.

However, a 3rd harmonic and other odd multiples would add amplitude to either side of the central peak of the base waveform. This creates a sharper rise time to the overall wave. This steeper wavefront should be interpreted by the listener as more “punch” as the pressure hits the ear.

A bit of odd-order distortion should, then, make the impacts on the music’s beat a bit sharper and more solid sounding, making the music more rhythmic. In short, it would have better “pace” and be more engaging.

Musicians have rhythm and pace, Equipment does not.

 

[ahofer]

Could it be “pace” that makes the sound more engaging?

Being new here, I don’t know if this is still considered undefinable, so I’ll be more specific.

The first charts from @Thorsten Loesch showed more 2nd harmonic distortion, while the more engaging music showed more 3rd order distortion. It was (years ago) commonly held that 2nd order and even multiples were less harmful because they added to the amplitude of the center of the base frequency’s waveform, just making a sinusoidal base frequency a little “richer”.

However, a 3rd harmonic and other odd multiples would add amplitude to either side of the central peak of the base waveform. This creates a sharper rise time to the overall wave. This steeper wavefront should be interpreted by the listener as more “punch” as the pressure hits the ear.

A bit of odd-order distortion should, then, make the impacts on the music’s beat a bit sharper and more solid sounding, making the music more rhythmic. In short, it would have better “pace” and be more engaging.

I've mused about this before, but I'd love a device that adds distortion at different harmonics to see if people like "fattening". Or what you suggest, of which I am skeptical. A 'goodness' knob. Surely it can be adapted from something you can find on Musician's Friend or Sweetwater.

 

[RonSanderson]

Musicians have rhythm and pace, Equipment does not.

If the playback has you tapping your toes or sitting on the edge of your seat, it has pace. If it is lifeless, it does not.

The manufacturer of my speakers attributed it to proper phase response.

 

[Guettel]

The premise "anything that matters can be measured" is myopic.

In 1930, frequency response couldn't be measured. But it sure does matter.

To claim that whatever standards of measurements happen to exist at this moment capture everything relevant about audio is simply ignorant.

 

[ahofer]

If the playback has you tapping your toes or sitting on the edge of your seat, it has pace. If it is lifeless, it does not.

The manufacturer of my speakers attributed it to proper phase response.

I’ve tapped my toes to a portable Bluetooth speaker.

Toe-tapping is the audiophile-equivalent expression to “rootin-tootin”.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

If the playback has you tapping your toes or sitting on the edge of your seat, it has pace. If it is lifeless, it does not.

The manufacturer of my speakers attributed it to proper phase response.

Does that apply even if the musicians are playing a dirge?

 

[tmtomh]

No one who understood data would ever give more weight to an extreme outlier than to the mean.

No on who understood data would think that this review and the other reviews are the same kind of data.

But Merry Christmas to you - joining today just to post this stuff!

 

[DonR]

The manufacturer of my speakers attributed it to proper phase response.

I am certain they do.

 

[DonR]

Pure objectivity doesn't exist.

I am looking for any objectivity, even a little.

 

[Guettel]

I am looking for any objectivity, even a little.

Well the best objectivity you have is whether you (you personally, not random strangers on the internet) like something. That's the most useful data you can find.

 

[pkane]

The premise "anything that matters can be measured" is myopic.

In 1930, frequency response couldn't be measured. But it sure does matter.

To claim that whatever standards of measurements happen to exist at this moment capture everything relevant about audio is simply ignorant.

The conclusion is inescapable: we should stop doing all science. Since there was a distant time when we didn’t know something clearly means that we can’t possibly know anything, ever!

 

[Guettel]

No on who understood data would think that this review and the other reviews are the same kind of data.

But Merry Christmas to you - joining today just to post this stuff!

I never claimed this review and others are the same kind of data!

But Merry Christmas to you too . Hope you had/are having a good one, even if you can't measure it.

 

[DonR]

Well the best objectivity you have is whether you (you personally, not random strangers on the internet) like something. That's the most useful data you can find.

Preference is at the very root of subjectivity. It has absolutely nothing to do with (in fact is the diametric opposite of) being objective.

 

[Guettel]

The conclusion is inescapable: we should stop doing all science. Since there was a distant time when we didn’t know something clearly means that we can’t possibly know anything, ever!

Not at all. It just means that what we know now is not the only thing that is relevant. The goal is to learn ever more.

 

[fpitas]

The premise "anything that matters can be measured" is myopic.

In 1930, frequency response couldn't be measured. But it sure does matter.

To claim that whatever standards of measurements happen to exist at this moment capture everything relevant about audio is simply ignorant.

In 1930 they could measure frequency response just fine

 

[pkane]

Not at all. It just means that what we know now is not the only thing that is relevant. The goal is to learn ever more.

Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing. It’s silly to argue against objective results on that basis.

 

[Guettel]

Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing. It’s silly to argue against objective results on that basis.

Totally agree. But today's objective results don't necessarily capture everything relevant.

 

[fpitas]

If you post conflicting measurements, you may get somewhere here. Other than that, it's just words I'm afraid.

 

[Guettel]

In 1930 they could measure frequency response just fine

Lol no they couldn't.