But they will obsess about what interlink to test next, or how their latest audiophile network switch lifted the next veil… well, some of them at least…
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,091
- Likes
- 5,794
There are IMHO a lot of "lifestyle" buyers, who are not really audiophiles, they just like to have luxurious stuff.
Thus, they don't see a reason to improve anything acoustically.
Thus, they don't see a reason to improve anything acoustically.
Gee, everything old is new again!Erin just put up I think one of his best ever videos, though as of yet it’s only in his Patreon section I believe. Therefore, I won’t spill too many beans.
But essentially he used the - admittedly, he says Clickbait title - “ synergy is real”
His video is about how amplifiers can sound different, depending on the amplifier and speaker load. It was occasioned by his both measuring and doing blind tests of a recent Prima Luna two amplifier versus a Macintosh 275 amp, and he was very surprised at both the obviously Audible difference as well as the measured difference, which he shows in the graphs. He then goes on to explain the interactions of output impedance in amplifiers with regard to loudspeakers, using various loudspeaker loads to show the variations and frequency response if you’re using an amplifier with high output impudence like the Prima Luna, and he shows some great graphs with tons of different loudspeakers and how their impedance loads would interact.
I mentioning this for anybody who would be interested to check out. Link to his post about it:
Post from Erin's Audio Corner
Amps sound different. There. I said it. (link to video on patreon below) https://www.patreon.com/posts/amplifier-and-135183029?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_...youtube.com
I hope he makes the video public because it’s so well done and informative.
E Brad Meyer writing about load conditions under which two amps will "sound different":
"The Amp/Speakers Interface: Are Your Loudspeakers Turning Your Amp Into A Tone Control?", Meyers, E. Brad, Stereo Review, June 1991, pg 53-56.
Last edited:
You madman!
With that in mind, vast numbers of audiophiles should just
Do I think they will? Nah.
I see acoustic measurement as the very opposite of a ‘rabbit hole’ a graphical representation of the sound you are hearing and ( with REW) exactly how to improve it.
Keith
Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. Acoustic measurements are a graphical representation of the sound being picked up by the microphone. What we actually hear has a lot of filtering and interpretation applied by the brain. Measurements are of course helpful and the best we have but it is not a given that a "smoother graph" will always translate into better / preferred sound. Any "correction" has a "cost" so learning what to correct and how and what to leave alone is the hard part and like anything else "corrections" can become a "rabbit hole" or a powerful and helpful tool or more likely a bit of both.
No a correction in the minimal phase region of the FR is a perfect inversion.
Keith
Keith
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,754
- Likes
- 18,989
Agreed that is obviously one of the liabilities.
Yes, I absolutely. That is a very reasonable way to go about things.
The point I was making simply had to do with what it takes for an audiophile to be happy with their system.
Some people here see getting into measurements as a sort of offramp from the merry-go-round. But it’s not necessarily.
It’s always going to come down to the individual.
There are audiophiles who just buy some here they love, spend their time setting up their speaker and listening position, and they can be happy as clams. Then there are those that will obsess more and go down the tweakier route.
The same dynamic plays out for people who get into measurements, and measuring their system. Some can use it briefly to dial in their system to their satisfaction, and they are essentially done. Others go down the rabbit hole and constantly measure, see that bulge or dip in the bass response in their room and think “ I have to straighten that out” and often they go buying multiple subwoofers, room, measurement gear, room correction… and then sometimes they can obsess over this constantly chasing that evermore perfect response. I’ve seen that over and over (especially over the years on the AVSForum).
So this is why I was responding to your advice for “ everyone” to acoustically measure their system. Plenty of people just don’t need that. They can get really good sound (not perfect but really good) using fairly basic set of methods that audiophiles have been using for years to achieve sound they are happy with. It certainly worked for me for many years. When I got around to evening out my bass response with subwoofers and DSP I frankly didn’t experience any higher Sonic Nirvana that I’d experienced countless times before in my room .
But of course measuring is a wonderful tool to have for those who are in to that, and it makes sense to educate people “ this is a very handy tool, which can give you these advantages in dialling in your system.”
(if I were talking to a newbie who wanted to get into audio seriously, I would tell them to bring their questions to ASR, look to channels like Erin’s Audio Corner etc. in order to get accurate information about audio gear).
I agree that one of the best uses of DSP is to knock down a peak with a minimum phase correction in a minimum phase region of the FR but I cringe at the word "perfect" when used in connection with any in room measurements. All in room measurements are corrupted by reflections to a greater (LF measurements) or lesser (HF gated measurements) degree but none are accurate enough to make small corrections. I don't think we really disagree on much as I think measurements and corrections are very useful but I do think they can easily be "overdone" and become a rabbit hole.
Ameliorating ‘boomy’ bass with EQ is almost certainly the largest improvement you can make to the sound of your system, if your system produces troublesome bass of course.
Keith
Keith
- Joined
- May 26, 2021
- Messages
- 671
- Likes
- 997
Of course you can fix that with multiple subs to break up standing waves in the room but DSP is cheaper. The thing is, if standing waves are causing a lack of bass rather than boomy, DSP won't help since the additional amplifier power needed for correction is being canceled by the standing wave.
Generally, if you have boomy bass, most certainly you’ll have other bass frequencies that are very much lacking. And quite often, the boom is there because bass is turned to eleven in an effort to fill those holes. Sadly, DSP cannot do that effectively, either.
There is that undefined word "best" again....
Yup, that's how fancy watches are sold, and luxury cars, and lots of luxury items for the well-heeled. The difference is that the well-heeled know it. Rolex advertises its accuracy standard, but in Rolex's case, and in the context of obsolete mechanical watch technology, it's a justified claim with testing to back it up. Most of the marketing for expensive watches, however, focuses on how wearing a watch like that makes one feel and what historical story (real or imagined) goes with it. The buyers are not persuaded to believe that their five-figure luxury watch will outperform or even match the timekeeping accuracy of a G-Shock, but it surely will look better to anyone who is not a Marine wannabe. (Boy, am I getting myself in trouble with that one, lol).
But that's not how high-end audio is sold, and not the self-talk I hear from many of the people that buy it. What I hear there is that (insert high-end product name here) removes veils and reveals the music, and is thus the one thing that makes it possible to be true to the music.
They always use the one word that is the opposite of what they really provide: truth.
They don't say, "Our stuff really looks great to keep from cheapening the appearance of your high-end system." Or, "our equipment is sure to please even the most discerning interior designer." Companies like Bang & Olufsen used (at least) to be honest about that, stating that competent performance didn't require Tokyo-by-night techie-deco. These days, it's nearly always bogus pseudoscience that "explains" why what they are selling for ten or a thousand times what functional competence costs will make the system sound noticeably (often, dramatically) better.
Rick "perfectly happy to trade equipment out because the brand is cool, the story is cool, or the equipment looks cool, but not because there's any chance it would actually sound better" Denney
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,091
- Likes
- 5,794
I call the outcome of such beliefs "church tax"
But seriously: Let them, not my money.
My compassion is limited, since there are enough sources (ASR and some others) where interested laymen can learn.
Too lazy? OK... Volenti non fit iniuria.
- Joined
- May 26, 2021
- Messages
- 671
- Likes
- 997
I'm not taking umbridge with the arguments here; I am just stating this in advance of a simple truth:
Nearly all audio dealerships in the last 60 years have relied on audition; quite literally have stayed in business based on perceived sound quality rather than how the equipment measured, even when the customer came in based on specs he had seen in print. Auditions are also what drives the audio shows like AXPONA (the largest home audio show in the US) or the Munich show (which is the largest audio show worldwide).
Nearly all audio dealerships in the last 60 years have relied on audition; quite literally have stayed in business based on perceived sound quality rather than how the equipment measured, even when the customer came in based on specs he had seen in print. Auditions are also what drives the audio shows like AXPONA (the largest home audio show in the US) or the Munich show (which is the largest audio show worldwide).
Asking someone to describe their ranking system is legit, though no one is obliged to respond.
But time and again I've seen online commenters (not you, goryu) get quite irate when a word like 'best' is used.
These characters sputter something like: "Well..that's just, like...your opinion, maaan!", as if that's not comedy, as if it's a sick burn. It's not.
Unless you are dealing with a complete solipsist, everyone knows that their 'best' is an opinion, not a truth universally acknowledged.
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,091
- Likes
- 5,794
IDK if it is still the case, but in the "brick-and-mortar-shops" era, a person capable of measuring anything was nowhere in sight.
They were existent, someone had to repair it, but had usually no contact to vict... erm, customers.
A single exception was (in the wild mid 90s in Poland) a one-man shop run by an electronics engineer, who could not live from his state wage.
He had to stock "snake oil" too, because money, but still told people what is more likely to work. I can recall myself asking whether the expensive cables improve anything (since I couldn't really hear it) - answer: "only if you really believe it" - sapienti sat.
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,754
- Likes
- 18,989
Erin’s video on amplifier/speaker/impedance is up on YouTube now for those interested.
He provides some really good charts for making the point.
He provides some really good charts for making the point.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
