Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[MattHooper]

Is it even realistic to assume someone could learn to interpret speaker measurements to such a degree that they could reliably identify the speaker's sound signature?

It’s certainly not realistic to assume every audiophile will be able to learn to interpret speaker measurements to the point of perfectly predicting how loudspeaker will sound.

This is an entirely different thing from being
“ educated on what type of measurements to look for when buying a loudspeaker.”

It’s pretty easy to quickly learn what the (as many refer to it as, not always accurately) “Harman Curve” looks like. And then if you want speakers that sound like that, you can look for loudspeaker measurements that hue as closely as possible to those parameters.
You don’t even need to have ever personally correlated what speaker measurements sound like in order to use the measurements for that purpose.

It’s another thing entirely and far more complex for somebody to learn how to predict what ANY and every loudspeaker will sound like only from a suite of measurements. THAT takes plenty of personal experience hearing all sorts of different loudspeaker designs, understanding all sorts of different measurements, and correlating the measurements to your perception.

And not a lot of people are up to that.

Even people very educated about measurements and very experienced, listening to loudspeakers and correlating the measurements, can fail to completely predict what they will hear just from the measurements - whether it’s loudspeaker designers or whoever. It’s very common to hear “here’s an issue in the measurements, but it turned out when listening to music it wasn’t as noticeable as the measurements seem to suggest.” Or “ despite the fact that I’m aware of certain issues in the measurements, surprisingly, in listening tests I enjoyed the loudspeaker more than the measurements would suggest to me.”

 

[Groove01]

I think @Newman was getting at something else.

Take the Mars Rovers, for example. Everything necessary to put them on Mars involved measurements (and astrophysics). Before they were sent to the Red Planet, no one could "audition" them (so to speak).
The work on this mission was done at a distance, and if there were people on that mission who had not been willing to learn the science necessary, the mission would have failed. Everything depended on doing the job "by the numbers" ... and doing it correctly.

It has nothing to do with thinking like the team that was successful. Maybe that was necessary, and maybe it wasn't. The important thing is coming up with the same result.

Success gives testimony to whatever science is necessary to achieve it ... in the space program, in medical surgery, in designing an integrated chip .... or in audio. I think that was Newman's point.

Yes, however they didn’t do this work based on numbers and measurement alone. They conducted as close as possible physical simulations to confirm how it actually performed in real world circumstances and in the physical environment - before they deployed it to Mars.

Measurements absolutely will help define how a speaker should sound, or maybe better said, the “capability” of the speaker under x,y,z circumstances. Test driving the speaker simply confirms how that actually translates to your environment.

 

[boxerfan88]

Even people very educated about measurements and very experienced, listening to loudspeakers and correlating the measurements, can fail to completely predict what they will hear just from the measurements - whether it’s loudspeaker designers or whoever. It’s very common to hear “here’s an issue in the measurements, but it turned out when listening to music it wasn’t as noticeable as the measurements seem to suggest.” Or “ despite the fact that I’m aware of certain issues in the measurements, surprisingly, in listening tests I enjoyed the loudspeaker more than the measurements would suggest to me.”

Agreed. To me listening to speakers is very important (if demo is available). Measurements isn’t everything.

 

[Newman]

Do we know about a person who can predict what a pair of speakers would sound like in a room with x dimensions, y furniture and z construction from speaker measurement report?

Okay....I think it is time for you to purchase and read Toole's book. Otherwise you are going to waste our time reproducing it one paragraph at a time in answer to your 'death by questions' learning method.

Could that person reliably pick the right sound sample when asked to pick the one that matches the measurements of the speakers and the details of the specified room, from few alternatives from similar rooms and speakers?

I know you think that question is clever....but it isn't. It is important to realise how much of a role the room and its details do and don't play in our experience of the sound, and in what specific regards, ie read the book.

PS the answer to your question is no, definitely not, because audio memory isn't good enough to do that, but it isn't a clever question because it isn't something the audiophile needs to know or be able to do.

I think @Newman was getting at something else.

Thanks for having a go Jim, but it ultimately doesn't matter, because it wasn't my hypothetical.

The fact that Matt is all too willing to treat it as my hypothetical and twist that into an opportunity to judge me as a person with bin-worthy thoughts, says a lot more about him than about me.

Good measurements are a great place to start, but they cannot always tell you how a piece of gear or a set of speakers will perform in your own space.

"...a piece of gear..."? Please don't tell me you are claiming this for amps, DACs, etc.

As for speakers: firstly, once you (hopefully, eventually) understand that the direct/first arrival sound (found in the anechoic frequency measurement) dominates our perception of the sound waves themselves from speakers, then their performance 'in your space' is much more of a known than you are assuming. Secondly, once you understand that the room effect 'in your space' is so perceptually negative in the bass range that you really are well advised to correct for it with equalisation and / or room treatment, then you start to realise that the speaker's bass performance 'in your space' without any adjustments custom to your room is not such a critical factor after all.

There are times when I bought sight unseen based on decent to great specs and it just did not work well within my system and in my listening space.

"Specs"? Specs can be highly misleading. They have to be the right suite of measurements, and judged 'great' by someone who is skilled in so doing.

Is it even realistic to assume someone could learn to interpret speaker measurements to such a degree that they could reliably identify the speaker's sound signature?

Absolutely. In fact, I think it is the good reviewer's responsibility. They should read the research, read the lessons from the research including which measurements and their interpretation, build their personal skill set, then discuss their interpretation in the review. And, if they have learned from the research, they are also going to understand that their personal sighted listening review of said speaker is a lot less transferable to the listener than their interpretation of the (right) measurements.

The individual audiophile could do the same if interested, but if he or she is not interested at that level, then just look to reviews that are. Let the (good) reviewers do all the heavy lifting.

cheers

 

[john2017]

"Specs"? Specs can be highly misleading. They have to be the right suite of measurements, and judged 'great' by someone who is skilled in so doing.

I am not interested in handing over my personal listening experience over to someone else. I am interested in gear that tests well, performs as it should and above all, meets and surpasses what I expect when I get my ears on it. If it sounds great in an anechoic chamber and like crap in my listening room, then why would I buy it.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for having a go Jim, but it ultimately doesn't matter, because it wasn't my hypothetical.

The fact that Matt is all too willing to treat it as my hypothetical and twist that

Jim was talking about Mars Rovers.

You made specific claims about audio, and so I interpreted your post with respect to audio.

It’s right here and if the interpretation of what you were getting at is incorrect, you could correct it.

But most likely you won’t, because you usually prefer to simply leave the implication in the air “ it was wrong” without bothering to show how.

Absolutely. In fact, I think it is the good reviewer's responsibility.

Can you support that claim, please?

I’ve yet to see somebody claim that they can perfectly predict the sound of every loudspeaker strictly from the measurements.

Every person experienced with loudspeakers and measurements I’ve ever seen talk about this, has refrained from making the claim they know precisely how every loudspeaker will sound always from the measurements. It is typical for them to point out that there can always be some surprises when listening (and yes that can be in blind listening too of course).

So if you could present evidence for your claim of people who can do this, and how it has been established that would be informative.

(and please notice that this is entirely different from referencing blind listening tests establishing preferences, or simply pointing out that one can predict a speaker that measures like Revel Salon to be highly rated and blind testing. That doesn’t get us anywhere close to what we are talking about here.)

 

[Dumu]

Absolutely. In fact, I think it is the good reviewer's responsibility. They should read the research, read the lessons from the research including which measurements and their interpretation, build their personal skill set, then discuss their interpretation in the review.

I think you are vastly underrating the room's effect to the sound, or you assume that most listeners have dedicated listening rooms with optimal placement and room treatment. The moment you start to throw in things like coffee tables, highly reflective or absortive surfaces etc. to the mix, the effect will no longer be limited to bass frequencies. The reviewer cannot tell how the measurements translates to your room (assuming it is not close to optimal), and most reviewers clearly state so, so in my opinion the only real option is to test the speakers in your room. If you have to buy the speakers blind, then of course it is safer to start from well measuring speaker, but then you accept that you might need full range room correction.

And what about when we start to talk about things like "desktop monitors". What is the frequency response the manufacturer should be aiming at? If you put a flat measuring speaker on a desktop, the response is most likely just horrible. You can of course fix it with EQ or by lifting them high enough etc, but would you be better of with a non-flat response that is tailored to produce more even response on most tables? I bet there aren't very many people around that can straight out tell what would be a good FR and dispersion pattern for a speaker designed to be placed on a desktop. Trying a pair on your desk is way better approach, and we should not straight out dismiss something as a bad speaker if the FR is not flat, especially if it is not meant to be placed on stands in the usual position. The only way is to listen/measure the end result.

 

[Newman]

I am not interested in handing over my personal listening experience over to someone else. I am interested in gear that tests well, performs as it should and above all, meets and surpasses what I expect when I get my ears on it. If it sounds great in an anechoic chamber and like crap in my listening room, then why would I buy it.

Again with the hypotheticals that just don't happen. Oh, wait, sighted listening? Got it.

 

[Newman]

I think you are vastly underrating the room's effect to the sound, or you assume that most listeners have dedicated listening rooms with optimal placement and room treatment. The moment you start to throw in things like coffee tables, highly reflective or absortive surfaces etc. to the mix, the effect will no longer be limited to bass frequencies. The reviewer cannot tell how the measurements translates to your room (assuming it is not close to optimal), and most reviewers clearly state so, so in my opinion the only real option is to test the speakers in your room. If you have to buy the speakers blind, then of course it is safer to start from well measuring speaker, but then you accept that you might need full range room correction.

And what about when we start to talk about things like "desktop monitors". What is the frequency response the manufacturer should be aiming at? If you put a flat measuring speaker on a desktop, the response is most likely just horrible. You can of course fix it with EQ or by lifting them high enough etc, but would you be better of with a non-flat response that is tailored to produce more even response on most tables? I bet there aren't very many people around that can straight out tell what would be a good FR and dispersion pattern for a speaker designed to be placed on a desktop. Trying a pair on your desk is way better approach, and we should not straight out dismiss something as a bad speaker if the FR is not flat, especially if it is not meant to be placed on stands in the usual position. The only way is to listen/measure the end result.

Do you understand the term, "science denial"? I see that you deleted from your quote of my post the suggestion that you purchase a certain book that would give you an excellent overview of the science. Not to mention the answers to your questions, and the refutation of most of your assertions.

 

[MattHooper]

Do you understand the term, "science denial"? I see that you deleted from your quote of my post the suggestion that you purchase a certain book that would give you an excellent overview of the science. Not to mention the answers to your questions, and the refutation of most of your assertions.

He originally asked:

“Is it even realistic to assume someone could learn to interpret speaker measurements to such a degree that they could reliably identify the speaker's sound signature?”

Which has to do from the discussion as to what degree one can exactly predict the sound of loudspeaker from the measurements, and therefore what role listening to loudspeakers yourself can play as a deciding factor.

You suggested that is absolutely possible to predict the sound of a loudspeaker from a set of measurements. And even suggested that if people understood measurements, they wouldn’t have to listen to loudspeakers, but instead just buy them on specs.

Still waiting for the evidence that anyone can perfectly predict how any loudspeaker will sound strictly from the measurements.

And if it’s not your claim, that’s such a thing as possible, perhaps you can clarify what your actual claim is with regard to how far measurements can go in telling somebody what a loudspeaker will sound like.

 

[NTK]

Still waiting for the evidence that anyone can perfectly predict how any loudspeaker will sound strictly from the measurements.

And if it’s not your claim, that’s such a thing as possible, perhaps you can clarify what your actual claim is with regard to how far measurements can go in telling somebody what a loudspeaker will sound like.

That was not the claim. Lousy room will give you lousy sound, period. The claim is good (i.e. neutral) loudspeakers will still sound better than lousy loudspeakers regardless of the room. As Dr Toole said, we have a great ability to "listen through rooms", and "the most neutral loudspeakers are identifiable in very different rooms". See:

Post in thread 'An Enticing Marketing Story, Theory Without Measurement?'

Sep 12, 2019

Then we are back to only using room treatment, and treating rooms heavily - hardly a reality for a domestic room. EVERY real room has a sound. Thus we come back to multiple subs...

I was focusing on the bass. Above the transition frequency humans exhibit great ability to "listen through" rooms. It happens in real life, including live unamplified performances. A voice or a music instrument is clearly identifiable, in great detail, in different rooms. The same has been shown to apply to loudspeakers. Yes, rooms add some sound, but the most neutral loudspeakers are identifiable in...

• Floyd Toole

• 

 

[Dumu]

Do you understand the term, "science denial"? I see that you deleted from your quote of my post the suggestion that you purchase a certain book that would give you an excellent overview of the science. Not to mention the answers to your questions, and the refutation of most of your assertions.

I actually do own Mr. Toole's book (3rd and 4th edition). I just didn't think your mockery deserved any attention. I'm am in no way science denialist, and I really appreciate the information measurements provide to us. That means that I also recognize our limitations, such as that it is incredibly hard for humans to translate measurement data to actual sound we hear. Maybe someone can learn to do that after thousands of measurements in one single room, but that requires so much time and effort that it is beyond any regular person and thus very limited use in comparison to listening&measuring the speakers in their own room.

Obvious flaws like resonances and distortion are of course something you do not want to ever have, but variations in frequency response can in my opinion be sometimes preferred and might be beneficial to your room. Should manufacturers aim for nothing else than flat anechoic FR? In my opinion they can if they see a benefit for most people (a good example is the low freq shelfing to compensate placement near rear wall).

 

[MattHooper]

That was not the claim.

Actually, it was the claim. As I mentioned to my earlier posts, what you are talking about is a different subject.

This began on the subject of how much can one predict the sound of ANY loudspeaker from the measurements, with people chiming in as to the usefulness of listening as a deciding factor.

So for instance Newman had claimed that measurements are everything you need to know about the performance of a loudspeaker, such that, if educated about measurements , one wouldn’t even be required to listen to a speaker at all before buying if you have the measurements, and that the only reason this wasn’t obvious was because of all the misinformation and all the people
“ resisting the truth” about measurements,

This is something Newman has yet to back up.

Dumu had weighed in:

“It takes huge amounts of time and practice to learn to interpret measurements so you can predict what the measured speaker would actually sound.”

And asked:

“Is it even realistic to assume someone could learn to interpret speaker measurements to such a degree that they could reliably identify the speaker's sound signature?”

To which Newman replied “Absolutely”

And so simply talking about neutral loudspeakers sounding better, or referencing preference tests simply doesn’t answer this question.

So we’re still waiting for Newman to provide evidence for his claim.

 

[meesbaker]

I see people sometimes saying that dips and bumps in the frequency response can be good for the in room response, how and why is that?
Explain to a beginner

 

[Newman]

I see people sometimes saying that dips and bumps in the frequency response can be good for the in room response, how and why is that?
Explain to a beginner

With hypotheticals, or without?

 

[meesbaker]

Whatever you think !!!

 

[Newman]

Well, since you definitely haven't seen me saying that, I am not the one to dream up a reply. My question was really a challenge to anyone who replies, to keep it real. See post #15548 for why that challenge is timely!

 

[meesbaker]

Well, since you definitely haven't seen me saying that, I am not the one to dream up a reply. My question was really a challenge to anyone who replies, to keep it real. See post #15548 for why that challenge is timely!

Ive seen statements along the lines of that in many threads in this forum and I have no idea what your deal is right now and thats ok someone will explain me the idea behind that sentiment.

 

[Newman]

Ive seen statements along the lines of that in many threads in this forum and I have no idea what your deal is right now and thats ok someone will explain me the idea behind that sentiment.

I'm just trying to cut off the fantasy answers before they hit the screens. Doing everyone a favour!

 

[john2017]

I'm just trying to cut off the fantasy answers before they hit the screens. Doing everyone a favour!

So you are the keeper of the gate, as it were? Here to save the world from anyone with an opinion not matching your own? Thanks for that!