Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Mneff]

Good point but one is objective and the other subjective. I guess the ultimate goal is to re produce what a live unamplified musical performance sounds like if you were sitting in the best seat in the house. But you would have to remember what you heard and then compare it to a recording of that same performance. As far as preferring more or less bass etc., if you are sitting in the best seat, are you wishing/wanting more or less of any thing? That performance at that time and in that place is what it is.

 

[Jim Taylor]

That performance at that time and in that place is what it is.

That's why I use the phrase, "closer approximation".

 

[TTT15]

That is incorrect. There is both "better in Hi-Fi" on one hand and personal preferences on the other hand.

Better in Hi-Fi is the accumulated result of decades of scientists creating more accurate microphones, more accurate recording equipment, more accurate electronic circuits and more accurate loudspeakers. Because of their hard work, we can (if we wish) enjoy a closer approximation of the original event ... enjoying the original time and again, as it were.

But no one is saying that you (or I, or anyone else) has to PREFER accuracy. I happen to prefer it, but many people don't. Some people like constrained bass, and some prefer reduced treble. Some like distortion, and some like compressed dynamic range. There's nothing wrong with that.

So Hi-Fi (high fidelity, or accuracy) and preference are two totally different things. They may be closely interconnected, and on the other hand may not be interconnected at all. My personal opinion is that much of the antagonism we see in audio derives from conflating these two different (and non-related) aspects.

Agree with the sentiment although not with the semantics about the meaning of the word better in this context. Indeed someone might be able to say something is more accurate regarding a particular measurement but I took it to mean it wasn’t possible to say which was better for an individual as better for an individual meant personal preference. Specifically the discussion was about headphones where I much prefer one well measuring headphone over the well measuring headphone he preferred and suggested I try. I certainly would not say my headphones are better as you are weighing up a number of factors but I would say it was the best I’ve tried for me given my personal preferences. In reality as a consumer you are weighing up a number of different factors and no one single measurement can capture all those factors so ultimately it is just personal preference with certain specific measurements given info about one specific factor which a particular person may or may not consider important.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Agree with the sentiment although not with the semantics about the meaning of the word better in this context. Indeed someone might be able to say something is more accurate regarding a particular measurement but I took it to mean it wasn’t possible to say which was better for an individual as better for an individual meant personal preference.

If the subject is Hifi, which it seems to be ("There is both "better in Hi-Fi" on one hand and personal preferences on the other hand.") then there certainly is a "better." Hifi means high fidelity which means high similarity to the source recording, ie. the goal is accurate reproduction.

That doesn't mean you'll like accurate equipment best, of course, but it means that accurate equipment is better at doing the hifi job than is equipment that demonstrates less accuracy. (I'd also argue, though, that even people who like colored sound are better served by more accurate hifi equipment, since it's a nice, even terrain for dsp/eq/coloration.)

 

[TTT15]

Im not disagreeing at all. Just saying that for me the word better refers to all factors such as accuracy of the sound wave reproduction, frequency curve preference, comfort, service, build quality, useability , features, aesthetics etc. In reality we have a number of different specific measurements which capture different specific factors but none of which captures the most important element which is what is best for a specific anatomy and taste of an individual. We don’t even have one single measure of how accurately the original sound wave is reproduced which is impossible anyway given Shannon Whittaker.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Thanks. That was helpful. Not. Mr. Hyper technical. If it’s not at a kindergarten level, forget it. A lot of people on this site seem to be EEs or at least have an engineering background. I don’t so maybe I shouldn’t be on it.

1. Don't be rude and attack people you know nothing about.

2. I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to @DanielT who was commenting on a quite challenging domain (the differences between digital IIR and FIR filters) and I suggested it was helpful to step back a stage (and back in time before digital filters) and consider the two classic filter types - linear and minimum phase.

Every piece of music you have ever listened to has been through a filter and this has affected the sound of that music. The natural roll-off of speakers and headphones or amplifiers is a "filter"; the necessary blocking of DC requires a filter; tone controls and other EQ are filters. These filters don't just change the frequency response, they change the phase. How that phase changes depends on the filter type.

 

[Purité Audio]

Good point but one is objective and the other subjective. I guess the ultimate goal is to re produce what a live unamplified musical performance sounds like if you were sitting in the best seat in the house. But you would have to remember what you heard and then compare it to a recording of that same performance. As far as preferring more or less bass etc., if you are sitting in the best seat, are you wishing/wanting more or less of any thing? That performance at that time and in that place is what it is.

We can only aspire to accurately reproduce the file/cd/source.
Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

Im not disagreeing at all. Just saying that for me the word better refers to all factors such as accuracy of the sound wave reproduction, frequency curve preference, comfort, service, build quality, useability , features, aesthetics etc. In reality we have a number of different specific measurements which capture different specific factors but none of which captures the most important element which is what is best for a specific anatomy and taste of an individual. We don’t even have one single measure of how accurately the original sound wave is reproduced which is impossible anyway given Shannon Whittaker.

Blameless, audibly transparent electronics a fine measuring pair of speakers and correct any gross room additions, that is as good as it gets.
Keith

 

[TTT15]

I suspect we are only debating semantics but then words do matter. First definition of better I come up with is more desirable which for me covers numerous factors one of which among others may well be more accurate reproduction for some people but then as we have various measurements how do we even define that. You may say some dimension is better but inevitable that there are some trade offs so difficult to say better over all so you end up with subjective preference.

 

[Purité Audio]

Electronics and loudspeakers are completely defined by their measurements.
Keith

 

[Deleted member 89782]

Electronics and loudspeakers are completely defined by their measurements.
Keith

Tell that to the guys on pinkfishmedia,
They would wrap the loudspeaker cables around their necks,, if somebody told them that this would render a more live-like performance.

 

[Purité Audio]

They have believed and invested both financially and emotionally, difficult to then admit that you have been taken for a fool.
Keith

 

[TTT15]

Completely agree that difficult for many people to be open to other points of view when they are emotionally and financially invested. But then if HiFi is completely defined by their measurements can we see by extension which is the best for each component? . How should we weight the different measurements and are they any other factors we should consider or are most of the world fools or are all the people who are not just not interested in HiFi or measurements also fools. Given how few women I see in the HiFi world we seem to be being judgemental about a lot of people

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Im not disagreeing at all. Just saying that for me the word better refers to all factors such as accuracy of the sound wave reproduction, frequency curve preference, comfort, service, build quality, useability , features, aesthetics etc. In reality we have a number of different specific measurements which capture different specific factors but none of which captures the most important element which is what is best for a specific anatomy and taste of an individual. We don’t even have one single measure of how accurately the original sound wave is reproduced which is impossible anyway given Shannon Whittaker.

"Better speakers" or "better headphones"? Eh, up to you. But "better hifi" = higher fidelity = more faithful reproduction of the source recordings.

But then if HiFi is completely defined by their measurements can we see by extension which is the best for each component?

No, because at this point, preferences and needs come into play. If you have five amps in your price range that are all transparent, for example, you can choose which one suits you best based on looks, features, price, customer service, whatever.

 

[Purité Audio]

If a component isn’t adding audible distortion then it is audibly transparent, that’s it.
Speakers are more problematic, even fine measuring designs sound slightly different , use measurements to weed out poor designs then listen to ‘possibles’ ideally at home.
Women aren’t judgemental!
Keith

 

[sergeauckland]

Sound reproduction cannot be identical to the source. Firstly, even with unamplified acoustic instruments, sound has to be captured by one or more microphones. ALL microphones are imperfect, given that the vibrating air molecules have to move a microphone diaphragm vastly heavier than themselves. Then there are the magnetic or electrostatic losses in the conversion from mechanical to electrical energy. So, any recording except perhaps a purely electronic Direct Injected one will start with unrecoverable losses from the start. After that, the electronics will introduce some noise and distortion, but at least those are now negligeable. Then at the other end, there are again losses at the loudspeakers, similar to those at the microphones. Then there's the room, laying its own sonic signature over any reproduction.

So, in conclusion, having a recording that is indistinguishable from the original is impossible. As Keith said above, the best we can hope for is to reproduce the waveform on the CD or whatever as transparently as possible, and hope that results in a pleasing facsimile.

S.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I suspect we are only debating semantics but then words do matter. First definition of better I come up with is more desirable which for me covers numerous factors one of which among others may well be more accurate reproduction for some people but then as we have various measurements how do we even define that. You may say some dimension is better but inevitable that there are some trade offs so difficult to say better over all so you end up with subjective preference.

The whole point of my post was to differentiate between "better" (scientifically measurable in reference to a standard) and "more desirable" (emotionally attractive but not intrinsically measurable).
I'll repeat: DO NOT conflate the two. The temptation to do so is admittedly great, but it leads to no good. Scientific measurements are reproducible over time and distance, whereas emotional evaluations are not.

Reproducibility - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An article on the results of conflating the two ... even to an ever so slight degree.

Reproducibility of Scientific Results (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[TTT15]

The word better is a subjective term. For sure something may measure better against one of a number of specific measures. We don’t have have published peer reviewed science on HiFi. It is just a consumer product.

 

[Mart68]

The word better is a subjective term

Not necessarily.

 

[TTT15]

Sorry agreed. Not well phrased. I mean I’m not sure you can say better overall. I think you may well be able to say better with respect to one of many specific measures which is just one factor that some consumers may consider in their overall consumer purchasing decision.