-
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"
- Thread starter ShiZo
- Start date
A completely reasonable request for you, Valerian.
Of course you do.
Which is, of course, the same thing, segmented into time windows.
Perhaps you are saying you need to measure system distortion? Yes, that will show up in a system frequency response, but will be hard to identify. That's why stuff like the "buzz tone" posted in the matlab scripts thread exists, to expose nonlinearities. Then it will be easy to identify, as frequencies not even present in the original.
If you can run a signal through the system, capture it at 16 bit resolution in the far end, and analyze it by plotting spectrum, you can do this. It's not actually hard. While it's a bit odd to do a spectrogram, if you can do that like you show, using a classic buzz tone will make distortion obvious immediately.
While defective hardware does exist, and rather more than there should be, most decent (which is to say not budget quality) hardware is pretty good about this nowadays simply because it's cheaper to not have to replace items that failed, frankly.
As to "low end class D", well, yeah, there are some problems there. That's for another day, but again, you can measure that very easily.
spl IS LEVEL or sometimes depending on measurement method, intensity.
LOUDNESS IS NOT SPL
SPL IS NOT LOUDNESS
Loudness is a perceptual quantity. SPL is a physical quantity.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
An amp could increase sibilance if it has a boosted frequency response in the treble region or audibly increased distortion in the treble region. These are about the only ways this could happen. All part of standard measurements.
Possible to encounter with lower performing class D amps, when driven near maximum power, but I'd be surprised if there was an actual difference you could hear in casual listening, just watching the news.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
Did you really, seriously post a picture of a measurement of sibilance and then conclude your post by asserting we can't measure it?The modern AVR that we are using are in fact a sound processing unit.
When Dirac Live is engaged, some strange side effects similar to the one's observed by a sound engineer could occur.
Here is an example of sibilance on an audio track and its correction:
We can see a little before and after 3khz a complex filter is applied.
Let us go back to an AVR:
1) My old Yamaha had a processing that was already attenuating the high frequencies by lack of performance.
Adding a manual PEQ filter I was able to fix the sibilance from one of my speakers.
2) New Onkyo RZ30.
As soon as it was powered on, I immediately eared the awful sound in the high frequencies.
I tried many adjustments but nothing is really completely removing the sibilance.
Switching Dirac Live on did not solved the issue and the manual EQ is not active with Dirac.
Anyway the manual EQ is not a PEQ.
May be I can force Dirac Live to apply a filter against the sibilance, but I am not sure that it is possible.
So clearly the propensity of an amplifier to enhance an already existing sibilance (or even to create it as a side effect of its DSP treatement) is not detected by the current measurements applied during the standard audio product tests . We can ear it, but not measure it, for now.
I'll take it in good faith and just point out that the image you posted shows exactly the same kind of information that Amir collects when testing amps. If your amp is causing sibilance and you measured the output, it would show up in a relatively similar way.
That is typically true, and I agree with what you are saying. But we both know, here, if someone posts I “got my new ________ speakers, and my impressions [compared to what I used to have]” it’s going to be a mixed bag on what the responses they are faced with. Unless they put about 10 disclaimers about their impressions the responses can be anywhere from:
An informal nice discussion discussion along the lines of a movie, up to:
“We are not interested in subjective impressions here because they are meaningless” and/or
Sighted listening is completely worthless and/or
“DBT” (seen more with an impression about a device).
The responses will also depend greatly on whether the speakers have been tested, if so the preference score; and/or reviewed here and “rating”. If you include “based up ASR/Erin’s recommendation” up front it’s confirmation bias responses.
The point, and only point, I was trying to make is in the Munich Audio Show thread, it seemed to be more of a “safe place” for people to discuss impressions in a friendly social manner.
I enjoyed hearing what people thought (other than the Speaker X Brand fan/shill). I liked seeing members trying to help out other members, half away around the world with getting questions answers.
I would like to people be able to discuss their “impressions” of speakers, setting them up, problems, if any, etc.
Last edited:
No one is saying that. People keep wanting to make it about 1 person, hearing/eating one item, and not being able to measure what they hear, taste, and (now) their degree of preference. They can actually scale, and have, for degree of preference in loudspeakers and food items (which caused the “New Coke” blunder).
I get that people not familiar with controlled studies or properly set up market research might not understand what the analogy to one person isn’t appropriate because it wouldn’t be a proper controlled study with an appropriate confidence level.
On a hamburger, which is more complex than loudspeakers, the test would be:
McDonald’s, Wendy’s, In and Out, Whataburger, (whoever else) and control for preference. There can be statistical ties, in can very by region, and a lot of other things. More salt, more fat will typically get you a higher rated burger (if those are unknown to the taster).
Or, they can test, and do extensively (on 8 and 9 figure budget movies) what the likelihood the public will like it and pay to see it, by gender, age segment, region. Every once in awhile they reshoot scenes, change an ending, rescore, because there is just too much money at stake. That testing isn’t going to tell anyone if they will like the movie, or the emotions they will experience during the movie (although they test for that).
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
I think discussing impressions of speakers is totally valid, and crapping on them because they are sighted or don't come with measurements is mildly counterproductive.
I don't personally weight it that any more heavily than "I (dis)liked the movie" but that can be enough to spark interest and follow up, look for measurements, etc.
However, pushing back on subjective listening impressions is warranted when it actually amounts to a quantitative or objective assertion. If you say something like "such and such speaker had a lot more clarity and soundstage than this or that speaker" but you listened to different music on them at different times in different rooms, that should be challenged.
The exact wording matters and people here can (and not wrongly) get very particular. "To me it sounded like the JBL had way more bass distortion than the B&W but I wasn't able to demo my own music, YMMV" is NOT the same as "The JBL has more bass distortion than the B&W." The line between fact and opinion may get very thin but it always matters.
I think it's also a bit of a gray area. Some differences are not subtle and don't need measurements to confirm. I don't need graphs to know an avantone cube doesn't have as much bass as a JBL M2, ears are enough. Even eyes are enough. I don't need lap times to predict Ferrari vs. Geo Tracker either.
Being asked for measurements in these instances of very obvious differences is annoying and almost feels like being asked for proof the earth is round. But keep in mind people report "very obvious differences" in ethernet cables too... people don't know your listening history or relationship with snake oil, and issue blanket challenges.
On the other hand, If I want to say the M2 has a "smoother midrange" than a KEF Blade, I should come with receipts. There's no obvious reason to think that's true (or not true) if the listening wasn't done under controlled conditions, and even then you'd want measurements to characterize exactly what I mean by "smoother midrange".
Last edited:
I’m your stalker, I follow you around in as many threads as possible just to see the moniker you will close with.
I’m going to develop a rating system and algorithm that will predict the overall rating each one would get- a five point scale,* 5 being the best score.
That one was a 5.
*I chose a five point scale because it will boost your ratings, even if you had a dud.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
I did get new speakers back in December and posted my subjective impressions (yes, with disclaimer!) a couple of months back here
Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15
@Xathrepsy please don't take it out on Jim. Clearly you walked into a snake pit without warning, Please be apprised that this forum is not a "snake pit". We are not poisonous animals, and we don't attack those who approach us. This is a site on the use of science and logic to examine and enjoy...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Despite 5K views there was not any pushback. Not that I would have been bothered if there was, I'm too old not to be confident in my decisions. Even when they're wrong
Waxx
Major Contributor
I think objective data is important, and we can measure all physical data from the speaker. But personal preference is not objective, and also plays a role. Considering that is not denying the objective data, it's an other factor that is present in the appreciation of sound. There should be (and there is) place for that, as long as you label it as a opinion, not an objective fact. I think most here agree with that.
And my personal taste is not the clean neutral in most cases (because it's case depending with me). But as i studied it as scientific as i can (i'm not mr know it all), i can put that in numbers and specs, and that makes the search for the right setup a lot easier. And i also use that to advice others, paid or not.
And my personal taste is not the clean neutral in most cases (because it's case depending with me). But as i studied it as scientific as i can (i'm not mr know it all), i can put that in numbers and specs, and that makes the search for the right setup a lot easier. And i also use that to advice others, paid or not.
I agree 100% with all of that. I chose speakers in my example for a reason (as opposed to cables, DACs, AMPs).
But there are many posts in the Munich Hi-fi thread that would fail the “particularly test”you mentioned above.
To be clear, as I mentioned, I liked reading the impressions in the Munich thread. I think they should be there.
I also like reading people’s impressions of their speaker purchases, getting them set up in their home, what they put on to listen to right off the bat. Problems with placement, set up, I find informative as well.
4.5*
*5 judge panel
high (Canadian Judge) and low (Russian) scores thrown out
Last edited:
Well your initial post affirmed my thoughts. Asking thoughts about them, if there are other things you should be considering. You didn’t ask IIRC if anyone heard them, if so how did they sound.I did get new speakers back in December and posted my subjective impressions (yes, with disclaimer!) a couple of months back here
Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15
@Xathrepsy please don't take it out on Jim. Clearly you walked into a snake pit without warning, Please be apprised that this forum is not a "snake pit". We are not poisonous animals, and we don't attack those who approach us. This is a site on the use of science and logic to examine and enjoy...
Despite 5K views there was not any pushback. Not that I would have been bothered if there was, I'm too old not to be confident in my decisions. Even when they're wrong
Great couple of initial responses, knowledgeable, suggestion to see if better measurements from designer.
Then a squabble (which you wisely ignored) about what the forum is about, not about, that subjective thoughts are meaningless on this forum. A response that by giving his opinion and it being called meaningless he “must be an idiot.” Lessons on cognitive bias, measurements, take comments with grain of salt, we are about science and measurements here, no different than NASA forums.
.
You announced you bought them.
Snake pit accusations. Response. Someone removed ? Someone doesn’t like their Focals.
Your review, with disclaimer at the top. Great review of and your impressions. Good discussion on your factors/priorities. Process to get them.
I would suspect, since forum drama is entertainment to many (regardless of the subject of the forum) of 80% of the views were before your review/impressions?
Last edited:
That bit I don't know. I only noticed the number of views when going to get the link.
It's quite possible only a handful of people read the subjective review.
My only problem with subjective reviews is when unsupported technical claims or statements are made, such as 'There was a reduction in noise' or 'The improvement in sound quality is due to reduced jitter.'
Otherwise it's just someone relating a personal experience, and no-one has to read it.
I doubt it, nice photos, and very informative to anyone trying to pursue a similar path, professionally built DIY system.
I enjoyed the read immensely.
Thank you!
There are friendly ways to do this. Someone tells me that they saw Speaker X at a show, and that it was excellent. My response might be, "Cool! I wonder how it would hold up in controlled preference testing?"
Or, "I heard that MegaBlast amp at AXPONA and it was awesome!" My response, "Yeah, it will be fun to see how it performs on the test bench."
Or, "Did you hear that MegaBlast amp at the show? What did you think?" My response, "It sounded great, but they all do. I'm curious to see how it performs when we can see some real testing." Or, "It sounded great until they really cranked it up, and then it sounded crispy-fried. I suspect it was clipping. I'm curious to see how much power it can really produce when it's tested on the bench."
Rick "experiences are real but may be poorly understood" Denney
Heh. I've been using an internym on online forums since the days of newsgroups. I even remember the extended debate about what to call it on alt.folklore.urban, where Madeleine Page (RIP) and I were advocating for "internym" but others incorrectly preferred "epenthetic," which means something different altogether. But I really learned to appreciate internyms from Sheldon Brown's (RIP) example on rec.bicycles.tech and the Hardcore Bicycle Science mail list back in the day.
I suspect my average score, with a sample size of probably 30 or 40 thousand posts on various fora, would be 2.5 on a 5-point scale.
Rick "internym goes here" Denney
Similar threads
