• 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!

"Things that cannot be measured"

That's a highly dubious claim unsupported by evidence.
You are correct, it’s because he has a blown tweeter he didn’t tell us about. If he fixes it, and it’s still there it’s because of his Dirac settings, which he also didn’t tell us about. He posted the curves in the other thread I linked and he mentioned that his “old Yamaha” wasn’t something, like his new amp.

Then it comes down to source material. I feel pretty confident that if he is running that amp flat, no processing, it’s not “creating” anything except for what it was intended to do.
 
"Can you show me (just 1) amplifier, pre-amplifier or DAC that has a peak between 6kHz and 8kHz reaching over 1dB ?"
@solderdude , I already posted that I do not have the tools for measuring the sibilance.
It is not a FR curve that is needed, but a FFT or a spectrogram.
In an AVR there is a DAC, a DSP and an amplifier.
DAC and DSP are the most subject to sibilance, but also the amplifier can do it if it is not very stable with the speaker load or if it is a low end class D.
jze6.png
 
But there's also the problem that people claim to hear, feel, or otherwise divine these differences but are unable or unwilling to set up a test to show that they can do so predictably and reliably, without even the need to determine which is better or worse. If there is a difference a person claims to detect, their ability to detect it should be demonstrably repeatable, especially if they are prepared to assert their conclusions using the adjectives we routinely see associated with the differences.
I completely agree with pretty much everything you said, but have you ventured over to the the Munich Hi Fi Show thread here. It’s smack full of listening impressions. A serious buyer not at the show asked if they could go to the Speaker booth X (highly regarded brand here based on measurements, etc.) and compare two of the speakers. People at the show gave their thoughts on how things sounded, some unsolicited, some only when asked.

Everything flys out the window measurement and objectivity wise.

Audio magazines have been publishing measurements since the 50s, then quite heavily in 70s all the way up until the 90s, with one still doing them but not ever saying, better start over on this one.

Dispute a general audience here, presumably, being about measurements and objectivity, it shifts to “what did you think” in an instant.

Subjective opinions about cars, audio, boats, music (and its subparts), airplanes, wine, bourbon, cigars, movies, and everything else is never going to go away. There is a market for it and people will continue to patronize those opinions. Too much money to be made on YouTube and other outlets for it not to.
 
The problem is that they claim 'better sound quality' and 'superior ears/gears' and make all sorts of claims of audibility.
Yeah, I get that. I'm pretty used to tuning out people's claims about [insert subject of your choosing] on the internet. Life's a little easier that way.
 
No less than 3 members have pointed out flaws in your proposed potato experiment and attempts to draw analogies to measuring speakers. I can think of more flaws yet, but you have failed to properly respond to the initial ones. Suggest you need to do so or move on.
I missed this and posted a reply to the potato post, I’m going to delete it.
 
I completely agree with pretty much everything you said, but have you ventured over to the the Munich Hi Fi Show thread here. It’s smack full of listening impressions. A serious buyer not at the show asked if they could go to the Speaker booth X (highly regarded brand here based on measurements, etc.) and compare two of the speakers. People at the show gave their thoughts on how things sounded, some unsolicited, some only when asked.

Everything flys out the window measurement and objectivity wise.
Your suggesting the two things are mutually exclusive, they are not.

Someone listens to system 'X' and says 'I did not enjoy it, it sounded rough and bass was boomy.' This is factually correct - for that individual at least. It is his genuine experience. How useful that is to someone else is debatable. They are probably just casually interested in what he thought.

If educated, they will not be using that sole testimony as a reason to buy or not buy.
 
DAC and DSP are the most subject to sibilance, but also the amplifier can do it if it is not very stable with the speaker load or if it is a low end class D.
Yet... you offer no evidence, not in the form of an FFT nor in any other way.
So ... you have zero evidence that a DAC nor amp can do this.
Can you show an FFT of say ... white (or other color noise) that indicates that there is peaking in the 6-8kHz range ?
You say some do but show no evidence.

The picture you showed is about the spectrum of vowels and has zero to do with your claims.

Spectrogram of sibilants. As in the case of the vowels, we see here not only the steady states, but especially the dynamic changes in the sound that result from the continuous movements of the articulators.


What unstable amp and lower end class-D have you seen that 'peaks' in the 6-8kHz range more than 1dB ?
This peaking is usually higher up and load dependent.

Of course, when you use a DSP and raise/alter the 5-10kHz band you will get to hear sibilance/sharpness if the transducer already does this at the correct level.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: j_j
Your suggesting the two things are mutually exclusive, they are not.

Someone listens to system 'X' and says 'I did not enjoy it, it sounded rough and bass was boomy.' This is factually correct - for that individual at least. It is his genuine experience. How useful that is to someone else is debatable. They are probably just casually interested in what he thought.

If educated, they will not be using that sole testimony as a reason to buy or not buy.
Oh for plenty on here they are mutually exclusive.

However, I’m operating under the assumption that someone wouldn’t ask someone else what they thought, about anything, unless it had some value or use.

We are actually pre-wired to seek affirmation, even if we know the affirmation is worthless-it’s herd mentality.
 
Oh for plenty on here they are mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure that's true. Certainly there are many here who would not bother asking someone else for their subjective impression.

Personally I am always interested in other's subjective impression - of loudspeakers at least, since we know they do have different sounds. I wouldn't ask what they thought of a DAC, for example.

How much weight I put on that impression is a different matter (not a great deal, as it happens). But I'm still interested to know what they thought.
However, I’m operating under the assumption that someone wouldn’t ask someone else what they thought, about anything, unless it had some value or use..
In the specific case you cite you'd have to ask that individual. The value may simply be to satisfy some curiosity. Maybe they will use that one testimony as a guide to buy or not. I suspect they would not and will just regard it as another data point amongst many.
We are actually pre-wired to seek affirmation, even if we know the affirmation is worthless-it’s herd mentality.
True. But logic, knowledge and reason can temper that instinct.
 
[to Travis] Your suggesting the two things are mutually exclusive, they are not.

Someone listens to system 'X' and says 'I did not enjoy it, it sounded rough and bass was boomy.' This is factually correct - for that individual at least. It is his genuine experience.
You write this as if taking for granted that your hypothetical individual's comments are about the sound waves themselves. With sighted listening reports, that should never be taken for granted. There is every chance that the reported impressions were not driven by the sound waves themselves.

In which case, it's quite extraordinary that posters here on ASR are willing to ask other members at an audio show to comment on what they heard from various speakers. If they are not serious, then it's quite an imposition to put on people for no real reason. Are they taking the p***, trolling, trying to make people waste their time? No, I'm with Travis: they genuinely think they are going to get a report on attributes of the sound waves that way.

How useful that is to someone else is debatable. They are probably just casually interested in what he thought.

If educated, they will not be using that sole testimony as a reason to buy or not buy.
If educated, they will realise that this 'sole testimony' is very likely dominated by non-sonic factors. So why ask for it?
 
You write this as if taking for granted that your hypothetical individual's comments are about the sound waves themselves.
No, I really don't.
In which case, it's quite extraordinary that posters here on ASR are willing to ask other members at an audio show to comment on what they heard from various speakers. If they are not serious, then it's quite an imposition to put on people for no real reason. Are they taking the p***, trolling, trying to make people waste their time? No, I'm with Travis: they genuinely think they are going to get a report on attributes of the sound waves that way.


If educated, they will realise that this 'sole testimony' is very likely dominated by non-sonic factors. So why ask for it?
Because there's a general level of 'conversation' about hi-fi once you step away from the level at which we're trying to get to the truth via measurement or controlled listening tests.

Some of us, at least, are enthusiasts, and that does involve having 'relaxed discussion' about hi-fi which is not attempting to be anything more than that.

Asking someone what they thought of some demo is no different to asking what they thought of a film they just saw, or a holiday they just took.

It's not intended to be scientific enquiry.

Most people are happy to share their impressions, indeed many do it totally unsolicited. If they can't be bothered then they can just say that, it's not really a big deal.
 
Asking someone what they thought of some demo is no different to asking what they thought of a film they just saw, or a holiday they just took.
If it was a demo of music, yes.

But for audio gear it would be more like asking what they thought of the movie projector. :cool:
 
Generally speaking, this is where most of us go to have the cranky reactions we suppress in other formats/surroundings.

It's all "fine" until someone starts making claims about "Things that cannot be measured", or "Measurements are nothing", and particularly not fine in the service of selling expensive stuff that, at best, is no better than inexpensive, well-engineered gear.

We are all allowed our opinions, but we cannot force others to accept them as fact. I try to draw the line right there. Perhaps not always successfully.
 
I completely agree with pretty much everything you said, but have you ventured over to the the Munich Hi Fi Show thread here. It’s smack full of listening impressions. A serious buyer not at the show asked if they could go to the Speaker booth X (highly regarded brand here based on measurements, etc.) and compare two of the speakers. People at the show gave their thoughts on how things sounded, some unsolicited, some only when asked.

Everything flys out the window measurement and objectivity wise.

Audio magazines have been publishing measurements since the 50s, then quite heavily in 70s all the way up until the 90s, with one still doing them but not ever saying, better start over on this one.

Dispute a general audience here, presumably, being about measurements and objectivity, it shifts to “what did you think” in an instant.

Subjective opinions about cars, audio, boats, music (and its subparts), airplanes, wine, bourbon, cigars, movies, and everything else is never going to go away. There is a market for it and people will continue to patronize those opinions. Too much money to be made on YouTube and other outlets for it not to.
You missed something I wrote yesterday, perhaps in that post. I don't mind purely observational reviews, and even respect them when they come from people whose opinions have stood the test of time with me. I also read newspapers (or, at least, I used to back when there were such) and read both in the news section and on the editorial page. For me, an editorial opinion in a news article is bad form, but it is expected and appropriate on the op-ed page. The columnists writing for the op-ed page seek to persuade, and their use of fact and logic will dictate how well they persuade me. Also, the reliability of their past observations. Reports on the news page should be reporting verified fact. To the extent that reporters editorialize and report unverified hearsay as fact without acknowledging it, my willingness to believe anything they say is undermined. How does that translate? When Amir writes a review, he backs up his impressions (which are editorial) with measurements and data (fact). I trust his facts because he has established a trustworthy reputation. And I separately value his opinions because the stuff he has recommended has performed well for others and is consistent with the measured data.

Similarly, I valued Kal's opinions of the speakers I bought, but to an even greater extent valued the test results from testing done in the Canadian NRC anechoic chamber.

When experienced people report their observations from a show, I don't take that as a recommendation, "you should buy this" or even "this is excellent" even if that's what they write. I take it as "this impressed me because of..." and what follows gives me an idea of whether it will fit my own use cases. That observation still has to be coupled to measurements that verify the specific features of value to me. Going back to my speaker choice: The measurements in the anechoic chamber specifically noted the ability of my speakers to remain clean at very high listening levels (at least for anything I can afford or that would fit in my house), and I do have one use case that demands high listening levels. (I sometimes want to play along with an orchestra recording, and be able to hear the orchestra over the tuba without having to hold back on the tuba. This requires playing the recording at stage sound pressure levels.)

This is especially true for speakers, whose performance is so closely linked to 1.) their interaction with a room over which their makers have no control, and 2.) their tendency to compress or break up when driven to boundary extremes. Also, most speakers, particularly in low frequencies, exhibit distortion that is most assuredly in the audible range, particularly at elevated levels. Distortion levels of 5-10% are not uncommon at all even at normal listening levels, and even with respected speakers. Turns out the transducer that vibrates the air in the room may not be a completely solved problem when constrained in ways speakers are often constrained (i.e., size, appearance, and cost).

But I don't really pay much attention to reviews of electronics, particularly observational reviews, unless there is evidence that the device was overdriven. That's because, for the most part, electronics is a solved problem, and measurements have not yet been shown to be unreliable indicators of that.

Works of art are appropriately reviewed subjectively, because they produce a subjective experience intentionally. I think that includes most of things on your list. There are specific performance metrics for cars, boats, and airplanes, and anyone rating opinions over measurements in those areas is risking their (large amounts of) money unnecessarily. But those things (like speakers) also have to live in a visually aesthetic environment, and so their visual aesthetics count in addition to their practical performance. The other things you mentioned benefit from technical measurement only to determine craft and consistency, not enjoyment. I want my favorite distiller to have a precise measurement regime in their distillery so that I can count on each bottle being as good as the last, for example. But that doesn't answer the question for me if I'll like it in the first place. I know quite a lot about music for someone who did not study it in college, but it has never come to pass that a theoretical discussion of any particular work has altered my aesthetic subjective enjoyment of it one way or the other, at least once I had developed a mature enough aesthetic sense to know my own mind.

The distinction between the art and the engineering is central to the discussion of audio equipment. Musicians an to a lesser extent producers and mixing technicians produce the art, but it's the job of the playback equipment to deliver that art to me unenhanced by whatever opinion of art might be possessed by the equipment's designer.

I'm always trading out the equipment in my systems (except for speakers), because that's part of the hobby. But I don't ever expect to hear a difference with stuff that is working properly.

Rick "probably going to attract disdain from Rick S for wordiness" Denney
 
If it was a demo of music, yes.

But for audio gear it would be more like asking what they thought of the movie projector. :cool:
Yes fair point. It's like asking what the sound was like in the cinema or what the picture quality was like. Which is still an acceptable conversation IMV.

I'm sure that there are some people who think 'Well Dave had a listen and didn't like it so I'll scratch that off my list.' But I think it's a mistake to assume that's everyone.

Take show reports - not the rubbish paid for ones which are just promotion, but 'user' reports. Some are just photos only, others have photos and some subjective comments about the sound of the systems pictured. I much prefer the ones that have the commentary despite understanding it's not a buying guide.

Some years back I did a show report and named my best and worst in show. On another forum someone else posted their report. Their best was my worst and my worst was their best. :)
 
...

We are actually pre-wired to seek affirmation, even if we know the affirmation is worthless-it’s herd mentality.
This is assuredly true, but it's equally true here and elsewhere, so more a constant and less a variable.

But I'd rather be following the data-driven or at least data-informed herd than the feelings-driven herd, even if occasionally I look across the savannah and see something momentarily attractive.

Rick "people be people" Denney
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
If it was a demo of music, yes.

But for audio gear it would be more like asking what they thought of the movie projector. :cool:
If I'm at a show of projection equipment attended by projectionists, then I am interested in what they though about the movie projector.

An audio show is not a concert.

And sometimes people ask each other things because they share an affinity for the topic and want to be friendly, not because they actually think the other person's opinions will be actionable. Data-driven rigor is not an excuse to be a jerk.

Rick "separating art from engineering" Denney
 
It just doesn't
So typically ASR.
Some people prefer McDonald burger, for them it is the best, you cannot prove other wise until you can measure their level of satisfaction which will most likely remains subjective for a forseable future.
 
Back
Top Bottom