Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Audionaut]

What’s up with the extra commentary?

Do you think that only you are allowed to write comments?

 

[Muddywaters]

Do you think that only you are allowed to write comments?

Not at all; keep it to the topic maybe? I fail to see a connection to the thread of comments on "intellectual greats" and "world affairs".

 

[j_j]

Not at all; keep it to the topic maybe? I fail to see a connection to the thread of comments on "intellectual greats" and "world affairs".

The point being, I think, that there are much bigger problems than rich people paying too much for amplifiers in our world today?

 

[Muddywaters]

The point being, I think, that there are much bigger problems than rich people paying too much for amplifiers in our world today?

Sorry, my imagination can’t make the leap between your comment and my comment, nor the original.There have been, are and will be bigger issues in the world then any hifi audio reproduction equipment regardless of price, no?

 

[Henry53]

Of course. Audio equipment is supposed to do nothing to the sound except amplify it (or in the case of a DAC, convert it perfectly from the digital). The tests tell us how well it can do that.

But can a number actually tell you how something sounds? Take for instance a person with tinnitus in an anechoic chamber, if you measure the noise level the value is zero, but that is not what the person hears! You see the perception of sound is personal. You simply do not hear what I hear.

 

[Henry53]

So, you buy, and recommend that others buy equipment that exhibits measured defects because you think it sounds better?

Rick "tired of this anecdotal anti-factual logic" Denney

No I buy equipment that sounds nice to me, that is different for each person.

 

[Henry53]

Yea, pretty much. Electronics are mostly solved problems and should deliver completely transparent to the source sound
unless you buy tube products which mostly add tonal changes of their own and even some solid state stuff is designed that way.
To be sure you get something capable of TOTL sound, the measurements from trusted sources like here will tell you that.

Speakers are still a dice roll, some are excellent in providing accurate reproduction, while others have had big tone controls added
to the way they sound either out of ignorance of the designer, or of purposeful tuning in hopes of attracting some listeners who love
that kind of sound. Again measurements from a trusted source will get you in the ballpark of something really good. But even the
best of the ones out there all sound sightly different so being able to hear them first might be a good idea when possible.

But the human brain doesn't hear numbers? Each brain actually processes what it hears individually, so you cannot predict with a number what another person finds pleasureable.

 

[ahofer]

But the human brain doesn't hear numbers? Each brain actually processes what it hears individually, so you cannot predict with a number what another person finds pleasureable.

But we can isolate whether it is actually the sound waves they find pleasurable or something else. All too often it is the latter.

 

[MatrixS2000]

But can a number actually tell you how something sounds?

No but it can tell you if the output is different from the input.

 

[dkinric]

Exactly! There are so many individual factors to enjoying music - room, mood, etc - that what some other dude on the internet telling you what he heard means almost nothing for you. That's why we like to start with measurements - so we are all on the same page about what is coming out of the speakers - a common starting point, a reference value. And what better place to start than an accurate signal that reflects the artist's intent? This is why one does measurements - you don't listen to numbers, but the numbers describe the sound - with more accuracy than human ears.

And, statistically, yes, you can accurately predict what kind of music reproduction most people find preferable. See Floyd Toole's experiments at Harman, it's been studied.

What happens between your speakers, through your room, through to your ears (and mental biasis') - is your experience alone and we look for effective ways to change the sound to our personal preferences from there.

 

[antcollinet]

But can a number actually tell you how something sounds? Take for instance a person with tinnitus in an anechoic chamber, if you measure the noise level the value is zero, but that is not what the person hears! You see the perception of sound is personal. You simply do not hear what I hear.

The number can tell us that it doesn't influence the sound audibly at all.

Two devices that don't influence the sound at all will send the same soundwaves to your ears. They will both sound the same to you - even if your perception of the sound is different from mine. Excepting perceptive biases. But they have nothing to do with the sound from the device.

 

[Bob from Florida]

But the human brain doesn't hear numbers? Each brain actually processes what it hears individually, so you cannot predict with a number what another person finds pleasureable.

The way I use ASR test results is as follows. Numbers have value up to the point of audibility. You can take the data and whittle down choices - take the really bad products out of contention. Then look at the remainder and select something to evaluate at home based on desirable features and cost. Desirable features include: functions, aesthetics, reliability, and support after the sale. For me, it is really that "simple". Oh, one other thing - the initial couple of pages in the review threads have the most value. Past that point, the pointless banter starts and can be safely ignored.

 

[ahofer]

You can take the data and whittle down choices - take the really bad products out of contention.

I generally agree, although I'd take it a step further. I do not enjoy salespeople or auditioning equipment, so triage the field further and only go listen to *speakers* and only those that measure well (including my own preference for wider dispersion).

Electronics can safely be purchased on measurements and features. If they sound bad when they arrive, something is broken.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I generally agree, although I'd take it a step further. I do not enjoy salespeople or auditioning equipment, so triage the field further and only go listen to *speakers* and only those that measure well (including my own preference for wider dispersion).

Electronics can safely be purchased on measurements and features. If they sound bad when they arrive, something is broken.

I see your point and I classify that as individual choices. One thing I left out - which becomes important in the case of "broken" purchases - use vendors with generous return policies.

 

[Keith_W]

But the human brain doesn't hear numbers? Each brain actually processes what it hears individually, so you cannot predict with a number what another person finds pleasureable.

We can predict what most people will find pleasurable, but not all people. For example, most people like puppies, and if I were to start killing puppies to make puppy burgers, I can predict that most people would find that offensive. But not all people would.

In the same way, we know from studies that most people prefer a speaker that measures flat under anechoic conditions. It has been proven by studies at Harman. But not all people would. In fact, we also know that the further a speaker deviates from the target, the more objectionable it will sound. So YES we ABSOLUTELY can predict what another person finds pleasurable from numbers with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

In the specific case you cite where a person suffers from hearing loss, we can test your hearing, compare your hearing ability against the general population, and design a hearing aid that specifically boosts frequency bands that restore normal hearing. Actually, it is not as simple as that, most hearing aids aim to restore speech hearing rather than full frequency hearing, since that is most important. We know from numbers and tests that this is how the hearing aid should be designed. So once again, YES we can predict what you need from looking at numbers.

 

[Henry53]

No but it can tell you if the output is different from the input.

Great, to what end?

 

[dkinric]

Great, to what end?

Correct it. That is distortion that is not part of the recording. Or don't, but at least you are making an informed choice and go in knowing it is different than they heard in the mixing room. Maybe you don't care, and that's fine too. But I do for my experience.

 

[rdenney]

But can a number actually tell you how something sounds? Take for instance a person with tinnitus in an anechoic chamber, if you measure the noise level the value is zero, but that is not what the person hears! You see the perception of sound is personal. You simply do not hear what I hear.

Look, as a victim of tinnitus I can say this with confidence: Whatever hearing limitations any one person has is a filter that persists continuously for that person at some level, day and night. Thus, everything I hear goes through that filter, including live music.

Thus, if I want my home system to be accurate, it has to sound like live music, so that the filter applied by my hearing afflictions applies to it the same way it applies to live sound. That preserves the illusion for me (and for anyone else listing to my system). This notion that my sound system needs to correct for a hearing deficiency assumes that I actually can know from experience what reality used to sound like and can make that comparison. I can't--hearing deficiencies don't turn on and off, they gradually develop over years and our brains apply corrections so that everything still sounds real to us. Trying to counteract those deficiencies results in an unreal sound.

Yes, tinnitus seems to come and go, but really I think it surges and diminishes. For me, the tinnitus becomes worse when what I'm listening to is very strong in high frequencies--the frequencies expressed by the ringing in my ears. So, the strategy of hot-rodding high-frequency response to overcome the hearing loss that has probably triggered tinnitus triggers it even worse.

In the end, I still want the system to be accurate--to take what's on the recording and project it as sound in my room with the same waveform characteristics as on the recording to the extent possible. And that we can measure.

Rick "can ignore tinnitus and hearing loss unless the system tries to compensate for it" Denney

 

[MatrixS2000]

Great, to what end?

If the output does not match the input, the device is colouring the sound. The whole point of hi-fi is to reproduce the recorded sound. Now does that mean you cannot salt and pepper to your individual liking - of course not. Do what you prefer. Starting with electronics that are accurate allows you to back out those preferences and land at an accurate starting point again.

Ever noticed how people are always looking for the “best” sounding DAC? Well there is no such thing because “best" is different for everyone. There is only accurate and less accurate. If you start with a less accurate DAC producing coloured sound, you can never get to accurate. Then once your preferences change, your only option is to buy new hardware.

 

[ahofer]

Great, to what end?

So that the alterations we make to the signal for personal pleasure are deliberate, predictable, and removable, rather than fixed and unpredictable.

I promise you, if there is some harmonic distortion or frequency alteration that gives you greater pleasure than measured accuracy, it will be much cheaper and accurate to use EQ or plug-in effects to achieve it.