"Things that cannot be measured"

[ahofer]

The golden ticket is to identify the measurement(s) that explain why people prefer the sound of particular amplifiers. Of course, if we dismiss preferences as perceptual bias then there is no need to.

First we have to figure out in which domain we are measuring through controlled testing. Thus far, that controlled testing suggests we aren’t in the domain of sound pressure differences detectable by the human ear alone. Nobody is dismissing preferences, rather the “we can hear more than is measured” crowd is dismissing methodological scientific experimentation.

 

[ahofer]

Lots of silence after the podcast and the video with Jonathan Novick which only tells us what we should all know.
That of course we can far from measure everything we hear, we can sometimes be lucky and measure the cause of what we hear, but that is only a fraction of everything that goes on, But we can measure "a lot of inconsequential things" far more accurately and with much lower levels than human can hear. Fine.
The company he mentions is not Danish, but Swedish
Audiograph.se

The primary silence here is the evidence you keep claiming exists but never put forward.

 

[oursmagenta]

The primary silence here is the evidence you keep claiming exists but never put forward.

To me it's even worse, @kristiansen do no see that the video kinda say exactly that “we can't hear more than is measured” since "there always is a measurement attached to what we can hear", you just need to find it ...

 

[kristiansen]

To me it's even worse, @kristiansen do no see that the video kinda say exactly that “we can't hear more than is measured” since "there always is a measurement attached to what we can hear", you just need to find it ...

This is also what I write, I agree that you can make lots of different measurements based on where you know there may be problems ,with greater precision than we can hear, Jonathan mentions Crossover distortion, he also mentions ripple, both can theoretically be predicted, measured with a simple oscilloscope, I call it precision, everything that has to do with precision can be measured and theoretically explained and predicted and many of the things affect the performance negatively, but it is impossible to say how all these variables / errors together (Which can never become zero) will affect the sound of a violin, only ear And brain can do that.

And how the individual problems can affect the sound can only be predicted based on listening experience.
New problems also require you listen, then you may be able to find a connection between perceived sound and measurement.
The more experience you gather the closer you get to being able to predict the sound of an electrical circuit, but you never quite get to the finish line.

Today, you do not need to build the circuit or make a measuring setup, electronic simulation programs can with great accuracy predict what will happen in an electrical circuit and cable.
But again, the reproduction of the violin can not be predicted, the rhythm of a piece of music soundstage / imaging the feeling of fidelity, etc., only the ear and brain can do this.

HiFi consists of precision that can be measured and theoretically explained and sound/tone timbre only the ear and brain can measure with certainty. It's probably also pretty close to what Jonathan says.

 

[solderdude]

but it is impossible to say how all these variables / errors together (Which can never become zero) will affect the sound of a violin, only ear And brain can do that.

Incorrect..... audibility levels do exist and they are well above audible thresholds. It was also evident that the 120Hz modulation was measurable and not 'unmeasurable yet'.
Every recording is but a mere 'reflection' of the original violin sound. Not all changes affect the sound negatively. But these changes are all measurable. There is no mystery there or 'yet unknown measurement method'.

And how the individual problems can affect the sound can only be predicted based on listening experience.

Again, for this there are audibility studies and these have been done. However, they must be blind studies to avoid bias.

New problems also require you listen, then you may be able to find a connection between perceived sound and measurement.

Yes, but they require listening and not 'peeking' (knowing what is playing, not knowing what to listen for)

The more experience you gather the closer you get to being able to predict the sound of an electrical circuit, but you never quite get to the finish line.

The more you know what is potentially audible and above all how this manifests itself (experience) you can get to the finish line. Problems occur when you think there is no finish line and you keep moving that line with incorrect testing methods that will never lead to anything but illusions.

But again, the reproduction of the violin can not be predicted, the rhythm of a piece of music soundstage / imaging the feeling of fidelity, etc., only the ear and brain can do this.

Yes, changes in the recorded waveform can be predicted to be below audible thresholds.
Other than some (intentionally) wonky delay line rhythm of music cannot possibly be affected. Why insist that it can. When it is affected you can be sure your brain is the culprit.

sound/tone timbre only the ear and brain can measure with certainty

Nope, a very big one. Tone/timbre is amplitude/frequency dependent. Very measurable beyond any human hearing.
Can you point me to any researcj showing tone/timbre is NOT frequency/amplitude related and somehow not measurable but detectable ?

 

[Frgirard]

This is also what I write, I agree that you can make lots of different measurements based on where you know there may be problems ,with greater precision than we can hear, Jonathan mentions Crossover distortion, he also mentions ripple, both can theoretically be predicted, measured with a simple oscilloscope, I call it precision, everything that has to do with precision can be measured and theoretically explained and predicted and many of the things affect the performance negatively, but it is impossible to say how all these variables / errors together (Which can never become zero) will affect the sound of a violin, only ear And brain can do that.

And how the individual problems can affect the sound can only be predicted based on listening experience.
New problems also require you listen, then you may be able to find a connection between perceived sound and measurement.
The more experience you gather the closer you get to being able to predict the sound of an electrical circuit, but you never quite get to the finish line.

Today, you do not need to build the circuit or make a measuring setup, electronic simulation programs can with great accuracy predict what will happen in an electrical circuit and cable.
But again, the reproduction of the violin can not be predicted, the rhythm of a piece of music soundstage / imaging the feeling of fidelity, etc., only the ear and brain can do this.

HiFi consists of precision that can be measured and theoretically explained and sound/tone timbre only the ear and brain can measure with certainty. It's probably also pretty close to what Jonathan says.

It's existe numerous plug in can reproduce all the instruments with their tone caracteristics.
A sound, all the parameters define him are physical datas measurable: tone, fondamental and harmonics.
We never hear the fondamental but the harmonics.
We can measure the both

 

[solderdude]

Calling someone's writing stupid is a bridge too far for me, mistaken/misguided could be better wording.
One thing is fairly obvious and that is he dismisses blind (not knowing what is playing) tests as being valid. That has been his experience and so it is true to him. It's fine if someone wants to believe their senses but when asked to bring forward some evidence the only thing he can put forward is that he, this and that person(s) etc. clearly heard it and no extensive measurements nor correctly performed listening tests were performed to verify it because of the belief that it cannot be measured or found in measurements.

The only point Kristiansen makes which makes sense is that in the end people buy (and or keep) something that sounds good to them and don't rely on measurements/specs for a ton of reasons. That's how it works for the vast majority of audio purchases. Or the buyers let others decide (people telling them what is great and how wonderful it sounds)

In the end, some folks buy based on specs only, some on ears only. Chances are those that select audio gear based on what they hear may be more satisfied then when these folks would buy on specs/measurements they don't know how to interpret.

Other folks buy on specs and feel confident it must sound good and therefore are satisfied.

2 methods for reaching the same goals. Personal satisfying listening experience.

 

[AdamG]

Personal insults will not be tolerated. Insulting posts will be deleted and the Poster will receive a Warning and possible further repercussions.

 

[BluesDaddy]

The only point Kristiansen makes which makes sense is that in the end people buy (and or keep) something that sounds good to them and don't rely on measurements/specs for a ton of reasons. That's how it works for the vast majority of audio purchases. Or the buyers let others decide (people telling them what is great and how wonderful it sounds)

In the end, some folks buy based on specs only, some on ears only. Chances are those that select audio gear based on what they hear may be more satisfied then when these folks would buy on specs/measurements they don't know how to interpret.

Other folks buy on specs and feel confident it must sound good and therefore are satisfied.

2 methods for reaching the same goals. Personal satisfying listening experience.

I would suggest many (most?) actually buy based on specs AND listening. Or better expressed in this internet age, they filter their options based on specs (and price) and then either listen themselves, or seek out the opinions of others who have listened to the specific piece of equipment. Honestly, I ONLY do this for speakers and phono cartridges (and, in the past, headphones). Amps, preamps, blu-ray, CD players, etc., I buy based only on specs and features. I've never been disappointed after listening to any of these in the latter, only in reliability or features not meeting expectations.

 

[ahofer]

HiFi consists of precision that can be measured and theoretically explained and sound/tone timbre only the ear and brain can measure with certainty.

Good distillation of what you are completely wrong about.

 

[Audiotestsystem]

Good distillation of what you are completely wrong about.

Completely agree.
And can sound timbre change not be seen on a measurement, the difference happens only in one's own imagination

 

[Doodski]

HiFi consists of precision that can be measured and theoretically explained and sound/tone timbre only the ear and brain can measure with certainty.

We can have recordings on vinyl but we can't measure them? Of course we can measure HiFi audio.

 

[solderdude]

I would suggest many (most?) actually buy based on specs AND listening

Most ASR members would do that.
The vast majority of folks just buys on looks, recommendations by (online) magazines and YT channels. They have no idea nor are interested in specs.
They just want something that is popular and they can afford.
After they bought it like it or don't.

 

[kristiansen]

In the "fight" against what I say, which is really just an attempt to explain what's going on, I think one forgets what the video and podcast from Jonathan Novick are about and what it proves.
He says:
"However, I was keenly aware that measurements do not describe the sounds we hear. Just over 10 years ago, I built a test box to prove this with listening tests side by side with measurements and went on the road with a presentation. Most of my audiences were AES members but I also went to several Hi-Fi shows"

It is about THD in different versions which are added to the signal. he has to add many percent before people react regardless of type and it is not a change of sound, like that a violin suddenly sounds more right, no it just sounds more and more uncomfortable and bad and people react by raising their hand up at last.

t is i.a. The reason why in 2021 we have many who like vinyl and tube equipment, it can something with fidelity in the sound. Despite their large measurable error, but what is it, and can we measure it, the answer must be both yes and no.

 

[Jimbob54]

In the "fight" against what I say, which is really just an attempt to explain what's going on, I think one forgets what the video and podcast from Jonathan Novick are about and what it proves.
He says:
'However, I was keenly aware that measurements do not describe the sounds we hear. Just over 10 years ago, I built a test box to prove this with listening tests side by side with measurements and went on the road with a presentation. Most of my audiences were AES members but I also went to several Hi-Fi shows'

It is about THD in different versions which are added to the signal. he has to add many percent before people react regardless of type and it is not a change of sound, like that a violin suddenly sounds more right, no it just sounds more and more uncomfortable and bad and people react by raising their hand up at last.

t is i.a. The reason why in 2021 we have many who like vinyl and tube equipment, it can something with fidelity in the sound. Despite their large measurable error, but what is it, and can we measure it, the answer must be both yes and no.

"Its not a change of sound....." . It is. And it is very measurable. The answer is yes and yes.

 

[solderdude]

It is about THD in different versions which are added to the signal. he has to add many percent before people react regardless of type and it is not a change of sound, like that a violin suddenly sounds more right, no it just sounds more and more uncomfortable and bad and people react by raising their hand up at last.

That's because the violin doesn't sound more 'right'.
You must see the video in the light of creating awareness of different types of distortion (not just HD) and that with different types of distortion different audibility levels exist (logically).
What he shows is that for some types of distortion you need to go beyond 10% and others may be just 0.1% before they become audible in a specific way.

He also wants to create awareness that looking for 0.0001% or 0.01% of a specific type of distortion is pointless as you would need to go up to >10% for that specific type to be audible. But for other types of distortion 1% of that type is VERY poor sounding yet the other type can reach 10% and you don't even hear it.

It looks like you feel what he says confirms your line of thoughts. It doesn't. In fact it is the total opposite of what you claim. He shows everything can be shown with measurements as long as you measure the right things. This means NOT the specs manufacturers use as these are marketing material rather then useful info. He also shows that correct interpretation of measurements is important.

He did not mention silver cables measure or sound better than copper and you need brand X type resistors or a special 'mix' of parts only known to gurus to create some thing that sounds 'better' but cannot be proven by measurements. This is what you claim.

 

[rdenney]

If he built a device that changes the sound, then the effect of that device is not only measurable, it's designable. Sheesh.

And if people prefer a distorted sound to make instruments sound real, then I would submit their experience with the sound of those instruments is dominated by having heard them through those distortions in the past.

Personally, a lot of second-harmonic bugs me, even though it's supposed to make violins and female vocals sound better. It bugs me because it makes brass instruments NOT sound like themselves. Tubas sound like euphoniums, and French horns sound like trombones.

But then, I know what those instruments sound like in person.

Rick "who likes the sound of the room, but not the sound of distortion" Denney

 

[BluesDaddy]

Most ASR members would do that.
The vast majority of folks just buys on looks, recommendations by (online) magazines and YT channels. They have no idea nor are interested in specs.
They just want something that is popular and they can afford.
After they bought it like it or don't.

Somehow I've gotten old...

 

[ahofer]

If he built a device that changes the sound, then the effect of that device is not only measurable, it's designable. Sheesh.

 

[solderdude]

On top of that the distortion box he used for demonstration offered distortion in spades and while dialing in huge amounts of distortion no sane amp would ever reach no listener nor the guy himself ever commented there was a sweet spot where the sound suddenly became much better before becoming worse.

Nor did the box have a setting that made the sound 'better' without any changes to measurements to things as tone/timbre, timing , Rhythm, the degree of fidelity, Experienced resolution , Soundstage, imaging. That would have come in handy.

I am sure though if he had some switches on there connected to nothing with text on it what it is supposed to do and flipped that switch with a camera pointed on it and the remarks what to 'look for' in the sound it would work. No actual changes occur but the audience will be astounded.

I know it works as I built a (rather poor design) SS amplifier into a chassis of tube amplifier (it was totally shot) and connected the heaters. Those hearing that amp all told me (were just a handful of folks over the years) it sounded like a typical tube amp.