Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Chr1]

Have to say that I think that this thread, like many, would benefit from a distinction when posting : Whether the source is analogue or digital.
Otherwise there's a lot of generalisation and misunderstanding unfortunately. And what's true or relevant to one, may not necessarily be for the other. Two different audio(phile) beasts.
My 2c.

 

[Audionaut]

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.

That could be because English is not my mother tongue and I can't express myself as precisely as I am used to in German. I apologize for that.

I measure quite a lot and I can also interpret measurement results for loudspeakers well, I imagine.
Nevertheless, I think it's important to verify measurements with your own hearing perception and that of other people.

At least in the case of loudspeakers and headphones, because a lot of factors influence the measured results.
DACs and amplifiers are another story in themselves, because I believe that the measurement technology and the wealth of individual measurement parameters are now so advanced that the interpretation of the measurement results also works without counter-listening.

 

[Mulder]

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.

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

Usually ‘voiced’ means ‘poorly designed’.
Keith

Some people want to spend $100,000 to recreate the 'voice' of Edison's original phonograph!

 

[HaveMeterWillTravel]

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!

 

[Newman]

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 fully endorse your in-principle point that poor vs great mastering can sound so different that it becomes the dominant issue affecting preference -- on perfect-quality samples of each medium.

However, records are so inconsistent in their production that it can very easily become the dominant issue when masterings are acceptable. And then we come to the question of used records, which are a big global market, and their condition variances, combined with their per-sample production variances, make the difference between records and digital alternatives a very big deal.

And then we have surround -- effectively unavailable on record -- which, with the usual caveat about putting aside poor mastering, opens up a whole new vista of sound quality and makes format differences a big issue again.

cheers

 

[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.