It's useful as a way of quickly identifying the utterly incompetent.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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
Do you love your wife/husband/partner or your children? Can it be measured? Do you enjoy listening to music?
BinkieHuckerback
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
- Messages
- 792
- Likes
- 1,268
'Yes' as opposed to 'no' - that's a measurement. An MRI scan might be able to show the reaction in the brain to the presence of one's spouse, or when listening to rock music
Hmmm. Not sure I'm getting your point.
I do love music, and I am often moved at a deeply emotional level by the performance of music, even when listening to a reproduction. I am also a musician, amateur, which means I play music for the love of doing so. Furthermore, I make music because of the music, not just because I know how. I don't play in groups that program music that doesn't inspire me consistently enough, and I have sought out groups that do. That is another advantage to being an amateur.
When an audio system interferes with the music enough to distract me, I'm bothered and motivated to change something. That threshold is subject to training, and our standards get tougher as we experience better stuff.
So, to take your post--if every time you gazed upon your loved one, a sheet of glass with vaseline smeared all over it drops down and obscures the view, you might find that it hides some faults and creates a dreamy look that you like. But it also separates you from reality--physically and visually. (Vaseline smeared on filter glass is a traditional trick used by photographers of old as a "beauty filter".) You might like the effect for a while, but whatever emotional reaction you have to it is counterfeit.
As for me, I'll take the clear view, because love needs more truth than is allowed to pass through a beauty filter. I can listen to historical recordings--one example from just this last week is Ralph Vaughan Williams conducting his own Symphony in F Minor (the 4th) in 1937--and listen past the limited frequency response, high noise level, monaural recording, and compression. Sure, I could run that through a digital processor and do stuff with it, but in the end I'm happy with it just as it is. But when I listen to a modern recording, I have a different mindset and don't have the commitment to avoid being distracted by those limitations. Does that improve the emotional response? Only to the extent that I'm able to focus on the music and not on the reproduction.
So, as far as I'm concerned as a music lover, good reproduction is marked by being inconspicuous. The standard for that for me, given the standards I apply based on my experience, is attainable by vinyl LP's, historical recordings, and distortion and noise that is fully masked by the music. Most electronics these days attain that standard easily. Speakers that do that well in any particular room take more effort. Vinyl LPs are close enough to that threshold that quality really matters there. Amps are next, but for me it takes a pretty incompetent amp to get in my way. Digital electronics are high above my standard, and to the point where they are above anybody's possible standard. Nothing further to be gained there, except for the sheer expression of engineering excellence. Stuff (cabling, power conditioners, etc.) that requires arguments by people who claim high-end hearing ability will be of no consequence to me. It's likely that they are of no consequence to anybody, which is why it takes careful testing to demonstrate consequence to keep us from fooling ourselves.
As to the oft-quoted "fatigue", I find that stuff that makes me need to turn it down after a while is demonstrating distortion in middle frequencies where it is most apparent, or it is emphasizing higher frequencies excessively with respect to what's on the recording. Since so little music happens above 12KHz to 15KHz, but a lot of noise does, I don't worry much if my system rolls off there. Not that I can hear stuff that high well anyway. Boomy bass bugs me more, but that's usually a room issue (at least in the deep bass).
Rick "give me transparency, and let the recording speak for itself" Denney
Agree. It is a pons asinorum. But not a parameter to evaluate high quality.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 23,328
- Likes
- 43,559
A lot of what makes for fatiguing sound is brightness which occurs in the 5-8 khz range. Still enough signal and a place where distortion we can hear tends to pile up. Above that if you have hearing still good an excess normally gives one a sense of air and space. As people's hearing deteriorates I think they loose that cushion of air and brightness becomes more noticeable. Plus such people are beginning to suffer "recruitment" which is when you have an elevated threshold plus reduced tolerance to loud sounds (due to less good filtering by your ear). Those two together mean excess brightness is doubly bothersome.
Raindog123
Major Contributor
This perpetual confusion and borderline heresy needs to stop. 
While asking “Are there things that can’t be measured?” – to which the answer is generally “no”, in actuality again-and-again we tend to drift to a rather different question: “Are our measurements always relevant to what we are trying to measure? Are they sufficient?” To which the answer is “Often. But not always.”
One cannot measure one thing – eg, the aircraft speed – and expect to get an answer to how high this aircraft can fly…
There is a basic engineering methodology established over centuries: First you define your goals (aka (1) “requirements”). And define them well – agreeing on terminology, expectations, what if’s... Second, you identify (2) “metrics” – a set of properties, preferably quantitative, that comprehensively describe the system requirements… Only then you go and (3) “measure” things – to see if/how the requirements/goals are met. (And often “spirally” refine your goals and/or metrics as you go – as you usually learn something new during measurements.)
So, my point. If our “final goal” is to find a box with the highest SINAD, then measuring SINAD is the ultimate task (and the SINAD can definitely be measured). However, if our goal is “the quest for best sound”, we all – objectivists and subjectivists – might want to get together and (1) try to agree on and capture what this “best sound” [goal/requirement set] really means, and what are (2) the [most important/prioritized] metrics to capture it. And some of these metrics might be “physical quantities” – measurable by voltmeters and spectrum analyzers, while some others might be subjective, perceptive – yet still controlled (eg, with the help of blind-test or PESQ/PEAQ [perceptual evaluation of speech/audio quality] techniques). Then we can turn to (3) either the existing body of measurements (thanks to Amir and a few others) or construct and conduct additional tests.
And everyone will be forever happy...
While asking “Are there things that can’t be measured?” – to which the answer is generally “no”, in actuality again-and-again we tend to drift to a rather different question: “Are our measurements always relevant to what we are trying to measure? Are they sufficient?” To which the answer is “Often. But not always.”
One cannot measure one thing – eg, the aircraft speed – and expect to get an answer to how high this aircraft can fly…
There is a basic engineering methodology established over centuries: First you define your goals (aka (1) “requirements”). And define them well – agreeing on terminology, expectations, what if’s... Second, you identify (2) “metrics” – a set of properties, preferably quantitative, that comprehensively describe the system requirements… Only then you go and (3) “measure” things – to see if/how the requirements/goals are met. (And often “spirally” refine your goals and/or metrics as you go – as you usually learn something new during measurements.)
So, my point. If our “final goal” is to find a box with the highest SINAD, then measuring SINAD is the ultimate task (and the SINAD can definitely be measured). However, if our goal is “the quest for best sound”, we all – objectivists and subjectivists – might want to get together and (1) try to agree on and capture what this “best sound” [goal/requirement set] really means, and what are (2) the [most important/prioritized] metrics to capture it. And some of these metrics might be “physical quantities” – measurable by voltmeters and spectrum analyzers, while some others might be subjective, perceptive – yet still controlled (eg, with the help of blind-test or PESQ/PEAQ [perceptual evaluation of speech/audio quality] techniques). Then we can turn to (3) either the existing body of measurements (thanks to Amir and a few others) or construct and conduct additional tests.
And everyone will be forever happy...
Last edited:
Well, yeah, I can measure my wife. I find her great but when she starts talking the SINAD drops.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 13,854
- Likes
- 30,962
Perhaps it is in one of their box sets, or then again maybe it's not.
John Sebastian wrote Nashville Cats -- but I am not sure that it is terribly Schroedingerian.
In fact, it is quite deterministic.
Jet Black
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2021
- Messages
- 74
- Likes
- 20
I think the problem lies on that there are forms of signal our mind and hearing perceives that is not on the waveform thus makes this discussion confusing, such as the material of the diaphragms of the headphones or iems that you are using to perceive the sound or music, the technical abilities of the dacs or the crossover mixer used on a multi driver design. So many things to factor. Not to mention the mediums that dampens the sound waves. Ex. Given : filters. All those are not measured. Thus the difference..
Raindog123
Major Contributor
They recorded a version of Three Cool Cats.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 13,854
- Likes
- 30,962
Was my Schroedingeresque turn of phrase too abstruse?
That said -- I didn't know that. I was and am a fan of the moptops, but not a completist.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 13,854
- Likes
- 30,962
positively demonic, this post.
I do appreciate this site...
What amuses me is the fact that so many of us have really expensive kit such as Genelec speakers, Purifi amps, Denon AVR A110 etc, when measurements show that a Denon AVR 3700 and Elac DBR-62 are perfectly sufficient in most circumstances. We audiophools do like to justify to ourselves why we spend so much, whether it’s on the basis of “foot - tapping soundstages” or “it measures slightly better so it must sound better”!
Not really: resonance more than probably due to a bad front port, distortion (especially H3) is high, there's a sizable directivity error at 4 kHz, IMD is unknown but probably bad since it's a 2-way, vertical dispersion is typical of a non-coaxial design, etc.... All of these can be audible; how much is the question.
Good doesn't invalidate better, in this case. Especially when stuff other than performance such as reliability/warranty, solidity, country of manufacture is still to left to consider.
