Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Purité Audio]

The same.

Looking for other people's opinions...

I use a mixture of voiced and neutral equipment. What I find curious is that there seems to be a certain reverence for lots of very expensive voiced speakers here on ASR, yet voiced anything else is generally frowned upon. Curious why.

My feeling is that it is most likely down to the view that, in the analogue domain, it's seen as OK to EQ your system via speakers. Anything else, not so much.
Perhaps I am wrong here though.

Usually ‘voiced’ means ‘poorly designed’.
Keith

 

[Theta]

Usually ‘voiced’ means ‘poorly designed’.
Keith

Voicing speakers can be a good thing. Your logic seems to be the same for every room and every size speaker, if you are a retailer who advises customers, that's a problem.

 

[Purité Audio]

Supporting good design is a bad thing?
Keith

 

[Frank Dernie]

HiFi in this sense is really only a theoretical definition. And possibly as an ideal, but the latter is more questionable. In practice, a HiFi system will largely more or less always be a “home sound generator”. Because even though the electronics today can be transparent, i.e. complete signal fidelity can now be achieved, the speakers and the listening room will practically never be “identical to what the artist heard in the mixing room”.

When the definition of HiFi is reduced to accuracy compared to a recording, it becomes uninteresting except from a purely technical point of view. I have several vinyl records that sound better than later digital remasters of the same music. In a technical sense, it is possible to achieve higher accuracy when playing the latter than is the case with the original vinyl. This illustrates how uninteresting the HiFi concept can be as a measure of the quality of sound reproduction. The recording itself, and the mixing and mastering of a recording, are at least as important for the sound quality as we experience it, and the recording itself is not covered by the HiFi concept, in the sense defined here, since only the actual playback of the recording is covered. Another way to define HiFi is to relate it to the degree of perceived realism when listening to a music recording.

Yes but since all the recordings you buy will have been produced and mixed by different companies they themselves will differ and the nearest you can get to a reasonable reproduction of ALL of them is to seek accuracy.
Certainly if you aren't able to arrange your room to suit you have no chance so yes, most home music systems won't be very accurate but one might as well try as to give up.

I have 4 record players, they all sound different but now I only have one of them connected. Yes a lot of re-masters have poor sound but you won't fix that by making your hifi bad.

 

[Mart68]

Yes, this makes sense. Thank you.
As it happens, my less neutral speakers are large pro audio Tannoys, which I very much like for their off-axis response.
I wouldn't say that they are voiced per se, but their natural FR is slightly ragged. I don't think this is of huge importance anymore. With a bit of EQ, they can be made to sound rather nice.
They also cost a tenth of what I had to pay for my naturally neutral Neumanns.

You're absolutely right of course. We can only get in the ballpark of accuracy but that's really all that's needed.

Outside that ballpark some recordings will be rendered very badly, inside it all recordings should be at least listenable, and the vast majority will be good to excellent.

 

[Mulder]

Yes a lot of re-masters have poor sound but you won't fix that by making your hifi bad.

Yes, but you can also turn it around and say that good HiFi can't fix masters that sound bad. My point that I was trying to make was that a less accurate media, such as for example vinyl or reel to reel, can be preferred to a more accurate media, such as CD, because the mastering in the former case simply makes it sound better. One could then of course say that in HiFi terms the latter, i.e. CD, is by definition better HiFi , but then it also means that the HiFi concept itself does not necessarily say much about audio quality. In a way you could say that sometimes Lower Fidelity sounds better than Higher Fidelity.

In my first post I wrote that HiFi defined as accuracy is a theoretical definition. On reflection, that was probably not very well-formulated. It would have been more correct i think to say that it is a technical definition.

 

[Mulder]

In your post, you used this phrase:



In my mind, that constitutes the only standard of "fidelity", as in "Hi-Fi".
I wanted to show that the artist's opinion is conditional and not always important, so it does not necessarily bear upon the idea of "fidelity". I also wanted to show that the original performance does not bear upon the idea of "fidelity". The reason I did this is because some people advance the idea that the only fidelity possible is to be seated in the orchestra or onstage with the band at the time they perform. I wanted to show that this idea is ridiculous; the sound would be horrible and unbalanced compared to what the audience likes.

The point you made about the room is, of course, valid. There is an effort to advance technology that would make it less valid (such as wall cancellation and Ambisonics), but the public has not accepted that technology ..... yet. And in the end, public approval defines everything.

In the review presented by @amirm today, of a pair of speakers, you can see that the company behind the speaker uses the phrase "true to the artist's intent" in its marketing. If you ignore the fact that most artists probably have very little influence over this, it shows exactly what I meant by my expression "identical to what the artist heard in the mixing room". I believe that this and similar expressions are often encountered precisely to describe the property of accuracy.

 

[Chr1]

I would suggest that nowadays, given the accuracy of digital reproduction, anything involving vinyl playback is not particularly high fidelity anyway.
But again, the caveat being that the quality of the master is all important obviously.

 

[solderdude]

I believe that this and similar expressions are often encountered precisely to describe the property of accuracy.

Or ... they use it as it 'rings well' in advertising as most people want to hear that.
The artist, however, usually could not care less about fidelity but more about the creativeness and 'message' they are trying to get across.

 

[Jim Taylor]

^^^^ This! ^^^^

 

[Audionaut]

I'm probably the hundredth person to write this: Measurements are an indispensable tool in the hi-fi sector, as they objectively reveal the technical characteristics of a device. They show whether an amplifier distorts, a DAC works cleanly or a loudspeaker is tuned linearly. But they don't tell the whole story.

An excellently measured device can disappoint in practice if it plays in a poor room or does not match your personal listening preferences. Conversely, a device with sub-optimal measured values can sound great because it harmonizes with the room, the speakers or the individual taste.

Therefore, measurements are neither "everything" nor "nothing" - they are an important basis, but not the sole criterion for good sound. The listening test in your own setup remains decisive.

 

[voodooless]

An excellently measured device can disappoint in practice if it plays in a poor room or does not match your personal listening preferences. Conversely, a device with sub-optimal measured values can sound great because it harmonizes with the room, the speakers or the individual taste.

Expect that devies need to be severely crippled to have audible deviations. There are more effective ways to make speakers work in a room, and making measurements to find out what the problem is, is one of those. A different DAC or amp will not make your speakers work better in your room. I’ll keep repeating
ad nauseam: amps a d DACs are not EQ devices!

 

[Chr1]

Ideally speakers shouldn't be either surely?
(Unless you are all analogue and can't use DSP.)

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yes, but you can also turn it around and say that good HiFi can't fix masters that sound bad. My point that I was trying to make was that a less accurate media, such as for example vinyl or reel to reel, can be preferred to a more accurate media, such as CD, because the mastering in the former case simply makes it sound better. One could then of course say that in HiFi terms the latter, i.e. CD, is by definition better HiFi , but then it also means that the HiFi concept itself does not necessarily say much about audio quality. In a way you could say that sometimes Lower Fidelity sounds better than Higher Fidelity.

In my first post I wrote that HiFi defined as accuracy is a theoretical definition. On reflection, that was probably not very well-formulated. It would have been more correct i think to say that it is a technical definition.

If you have adjusted your system to sound good with a cartridge which rolls off at the top, a lot of "highly regarded" cartridges like Koetsu do, LPs will probably sound better than CD on it, I've been there (R2R should be OK though).
I now use an Ortofon A90 which has a fairly flat FR.

I have been buying LPs since 1965 and have lots as well as 4 different turntables to play them on. I have lots of CDs too, and R2R and DAT recordings I made myself.

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.

 

[voodooless]

Ideally speakers shouldn't be either surely?
(Unless you are all analogue and can't use DSP.)

Well, they aren’t exactly EQ devices, but you can choose them to work well with your room (and your preferences).

 

[Chr1]

Some might say if we're talking about "preferences" (ie subjective taste), then amps, cartridges etc can be too though surely. Also speakers are definitely a bit of a blunt instrument for room correction vs DSP obviously...

 

[JeremyFife]

I'm probably the hundredth person to write this: Measurements are an indispensable tool in the hi-fi sector, as they objectively reveal the technical characteristics of a device. They show whether an amplifier distorts, a DAC works cleanly or a loudspeaker is tuned linearly. But they don't tell the whole story.

An excellently measured device can disappoint in practice if it plays in a poor room or does not match your personal listening preferences. Conversely, a device with sub-optimal measured values can sound great because it harmonizes with the room, the speakers or the individual taste.

Therefore, measurements are neither "everything" nor "nothing" - they are an important basis, but not the sole criterion for good sound. The listening test in your own setup remains decisive.

Perhaps just semantics, but measurements of part of a system can never (by definition) describe the entire system ... that adds nothing to the discussion on measurements.

The scenarios you describe (poor room, room interactions (harmonising) or speakers) can be measured, and often are here. Personal preference, on the other hand, cannot - which is fine.

On your last comment: a listening test is important - but is completely subjective and personal and should not be mixed into a measurement conversation. Measure your whole system, *know* how it performs and be free to like it or not.

 

[voodooless]

Also speakers are definitely a bit of a blunt instrument for room correction vs DSP obviously...

They are not, really. Speakers can do things a DSP cannot, especially if you have multiple.

For instance a DSP cannot fix a room null, where adding a sub, or moving it in the room can. Adding more subs makes it even easier. A DSP also cannot fix the off-axis response. A DSP cannot fix a poor speaker, but it can make an excellent speaker sound even better.

 

[Chr1]

They are not, really. Speakers can do things a DSP cannot, especially if you have multiple.

For instance a DSP cannot fix a room null, where adding a sub, or moving it in the room can. Adding more subs makes it even easier. A DSP also cannot fix the off-axis response. A DSP cannot fix a poor speaker, but it can make an excellent speaker sound even better.

OK. Apologies, I was taking the use of subs as a given!
Absolutely.

However, aren't subs kinda hard to integrate without DSP?

 

[MattHooper]

I don’t care about accuracy per se.

I never put any thought into the idea of
“ reproducing what the artist heard or what they heard in the mixing room.” Never have in my entire music listening life. Never will.

Likewise, I don’t care about accuracy per se when it comes to “ trying to accurately reproduce the signal.” If I’m sat in front of a sound system I may know nothing about the systems accuracy, or whether the signal is being reproduced accurately or not. What I know is whether it sounds good or not and that’s how I am judging it.

In the 70s, when it was more common to care about stereo systems, essentially all my buddies cared about having a good system to play record on, I don’t remember a single person caring about accuracy, much less what they heard in the mixing room. it was all about how good your stereo system sounded with the music you loved. “ come on over and give a listen to my new bitchin’ speakers!” Same for what we cared about for car stereos. Playing Rush’s Tom Sawyer slam you back in the seat with power and surround you like a fever dream? That’s awesome!

So with all the systems, I have listened to or owned, what I care about is just how it sounds, how pleasing I find the experience.
I like a system that can do great spaciousness when required, focussed palpable imaging, beautiful tone and timber with voices and instruments, a sense of palpable density to the sound, and the less mechanical and organic the better.

I’ve said that I don’t care about accuracy per se. For its own sake.

That doesn’t mean I don’t care about accuracy at all. I do care that my system is not too inaccurate. Because accuracy is related to features of good/pleasing sound.
Too much of the wrong colorations can be unpleasant. When I’m listening to a system, I’m usually listening for a sense of balance - I don’t want some big dip in a mid range or peak in the upper maids to be obvious because I find that distracting. I especially don’t want to rob the sound of richness.
So if you’ve got a speaker that is accurate, then you are generally avoiding residences in colorations that sound unnatural or unpleasant.

Likewise, accurate equipment helps with another aspect of what I find to be compelling: it allows for all sorts of distinctions in the sound that I value: Hearing minute timbral differences, and hearing the distinct differences between different recordings. I really like the variation that occurs between recordings, as I find the recording style and nature recordings interesting of themselves.

So accuracy helps me get some of the audible characteristics I crave.

In the end, I want a generally balanced sound, but I’m OK with a little bit of colouration if that moves the sound of the direction I find more pleasant.

So while I do appreciate some aspects of accuracy, accuracy as it’s own goal isn’t something that motivates me. I want as many recordings to sound as pleasing to me as possible.