"Things that cannot be measured"

[Tom67]

One factor missing from the objective approach is that of "perceived" value". There is nothing objective about it. Yet it swirls around in the brains of most consumers when they weigh the value of one product over another. Take Amirm's revue of the Klipsch RPM600M. He considered the specs to be lousy out of the box. But then consider the conclusion here.

Conclusions
"Out of the box, the Klipsch RP-600M throws out the rule book, thinking that if you just sold boosted lows and highs and leaving mids behind is a good idea. It is not. Objective and subjective testing shows this to be a horrible choice ranking the speaker as one of the worst I have tested. Dial in some simple EQ though and the speaker transforms into a beauty. The "horn" is actually not a horn but a waveguide that is doing its job to provide uniform off-axis response allowing one to EQ the mid-range dip".

"Since I have to score the speaker as designed, it gets my worst rating of "stay away." If you have ability to EQ, and you better do if you are hanging around this forum, then you have a good offering."

So, I bought this thing for a small spare bedroom system for about $300. I spent a few minutes doing the suggested equalization on a WIIM amp. So now I agree with Amirm that I have a good sounding set of speakers. Now I could have chosen a set of Revel 126 bookshelf speakers for $4,500 which would probably test better. My guess is that they would also sound like a "beauty". But you can buy 15 sets of the Klipsch for one set of the Revels and provide the gift of music to your friends and family.

So, to respond to the OP, I am suggesting at least two subjective factors that may be of paramount importance and there are no doubt more. 1. There is a question of value inherent in product. 2. Some objective issues can be addressed by simple measures like equalization, speaker placement, room acoustics etc.

Klipsch RP-600M Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Klipsch RP-600M Speaker Review. I purchased them from Amazon a couple of weeks ago. The current cost on Amazon is US $629 including Prime shipping. I however found a refurbished one for $450 I think. It looks brand new in the box though...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[shion_ca]

I feel I've already said this. But if you describe a change as causing instruments on the side of your recording to be perceived as coming from roughly half a foot further horizontally displaced from the speaker position then prior to the change, that is a description of the perceived effect of a bunch of measurable changes. (assuming I can do it blind). It is much more valuable to me to understand the difference in how a change affects how I perceive the sound then to give me the 70 variables and graph plots that changed.

I can have someone blind folded, and have them repeatedly point a laser pointer at where the violin comes from with each system change (or non-change). If this net result is described to me I will better understand the impact of the change made than trying to derive predictively what plots of 70 random variables across frequencies and phase are going to sound like.

Also it allows for discoveries that such as two different sets of measurements can end up having the same net perceived effect. So in the end there can be science around perception and it is a fundamental integrated part of the listening experience. In fact it is in some cases a more useful way to look at sound then other forms of measurement.

I have no idea how they developed Q sound, but I'm guessing they tweaked it based on perception of the sound to give the effect of having folks walk behind your head. then they derived from that equations and a process to encode the sound after having found examples and playing with variables. I doubt they just wrote down a formula and determined by looking at it, that it would give the 3D spatial effect of Q sound.

There is science in understanding how the mind perceives the measured sound. And sometimes starting from that perception is extraordinarily useful. The perception of sound is a science.

 

[ahofer]

There is science in understanding how the mind perceives the measured sound. And sometimes starting from that perception is extraordinarily useful. The perception of sound is a science.

No disagreement, and people like @Floyd Toole (link) and @j_j (link?) (who are often seen around here) have used that science to determine what works for most people (and what doesn't work) in speakers, recording formats, etc. You keep coming back with the response above even though the primary objection you've encountered in this thread is that, in all likelihood, it is not the amplifier that is modifying your 'soundstage', and there are far more useful terms and techniques to describe and identify your experience than those found in most audio reviews. It may not seem like it, but you are being told how to pursue your own listening Nirvana most expeditiously.

 

[Julf]

There is science in understanding how the mind perceives the measured sound. And sometimes starting from that perception is extraordinarily useful. The perception of sound is a science.

Yes, there is science in understanding how the mind perceives the measured sound. That doesn't mean the perception itself is science. The perception is just that - a perception.

 

[shion_ca]

Very well "understanding the perception of sound, is itself a science". And so the descriptive terms of that perception are part of the science. So don't snob and dismiss someone for telling you they want a wider soundstage and asks if a certain piece of equipment or change might help achieve it.

@ahofer This is what I take exception to, the utter dismissal of something which is a reasonable thing to ask for. The change that probably matters most to a buyer of equipment is how they'll perceive the change.

A reasonable answer to someone asking if an amp would make things more lively is that the perception of liveliness is often correlated to the high frequency response of the resulting sound. And this amp is flat through the audible frequency band. So it may be more lively than amps that are rolled off. Its damping factor might better control woofers making the bass they produce less bloated and thus sound more taunt and "quick". Etc. Etc.

 

[Julf]

Very well "understanding the perception of sound, is itself a science". And so the descriptive terms of that perception are part of the science. So don't snob and dismiss someone for telling you they want a wider soundstage and asks if a certain piece of equipment or change might help achieve it.

The science of understanding perception of sound is called psychoacoustics. If you want to invoke that science, I suggest using terminology from that science.

 

[ahofer]

A reasonable answer to someone asking if an amp would make things more lively is that the perception of liveliness is often correlated to the high frequency response of the resulting sound. And this amp is flat through the audible frequency band. So it may be more lively than amps that are rolled off. Its damping factor might better control woofers making the bass they produce less bloated and thus sound more taunt and "quick". Etc. Etc.

That's a factual answer, but it's unlikely the amp makes any difference at all, so not as reasonable as averred.

So don't snob and dismiss someone for telling you they want a wider soundstage and asks if a certain piece of equipment or change might help achieve it.

What if that piece of equipment has literally no hope at all of achieving "it", regardless of how the parties to the conversation might differently define 'it', and the people saying so will are generally lying to consumers to increase their turnover? How must we react then, since that is basically the case?

PS, @BDWoody I'm thinking the bulk of this recent conversation may possibly belong over in the "measurements" catch-all thread, unfortunately. I don't want to bury Dylan's amp in the same old conversation. While @shion_ca has not claimed there are things we can't measure, he seems to think two transparently measuring amplifiers will have different "soundstage", which brings us to the same point.

 

[Siltech]

Having spent some time on this site I've noticed a trend with regards to these types of posts.

I can't really say if there is or isn't a difference with these devices but what is clear is that there are a number of individuals here who assume that the current measurement paradigms/protocols related to electronics capture EVERYTHING relevant to the performance of these devices. This seems to me to be somewhat of a dogmatic (if not outright arrogant) position on the matter. There was a time when the "objectivists" denied the relevance of jitter measurements when it came to digital devices.

I notice that they're now in the habit of altering thresholds, now demanding 0.1 dB of level matching, pretty soon they will insist on adding a decimal place in order to ensure that conducting the experiment is all but impossible.

What I see as most disturbing however is when they claim that they did the listening tests themselves and "heard no difference". I guess they're not acquainted with the concept of "observer bias". Not only do they not hear a difference, their entire worldview is based on them not hearing a difference. Can you imagine if they had to admit hearing a difference. You go on about how the measurements tell you everything so why are you pretending to listen for differences??

My suspicion is that static measurements do not tell the whole story but I am open to being wrong, something more folks on this site should also be open to.

Really? Different DACs and many other different components. Same, I don’t think so. Save $800 difference, but not same bro.

 

[Purité Audio]

Having spent some time on this site I've noticed a trend with regards to these types of posts.

I can't really say if there is or isn't a difference with these devices but what is clear is that there are a number of individuals here who assume that the current measurement paradigms/protocols related to electronics capture EVERYTHING relevant to the performance of these devices. This seems to me to be somewhat of a dogmatic (if not outright arrogant) position on the matter. There was a time when the "objectivists" denied the relevance of jitter measurements when it came to digital devices.

I notice that they're now in the habit of altering thresholds, now demanding 0.1 dB of level matching, pretty soon they will insist on adding a decimal place in order to ensure that conducting the experiment is all but impossible.

What I see as most disturbing however is when they claim that they did the listening tests themselves and "heard no difference". I guess they're not acquainted with the concept of "observer bias". Not only do they not hear a difference, their entire worldview is based on them not hearing a difference. Can you imagine if they had to admit hearing a difference. You go on about how the measurements tell you everything so why are you pretending to listen for differences??

My suspicion is that static measurements do not tell the whole story but I am open to being wrong, something more folks on this site should also be open to.

It’s always been .1dB you should try it, no peeking though.
Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

It’s one of those things you have to do for yourself, there is a ‘how to’ on my site.
Keith

 

[shion_ca]

That's a factual answer, but it's unlikely the amp makes any difference at all, so not as reasonable as averred.

What if that piece of equipment has literally no hope at all of achieving "it", regardless of how the parties to the conversation might differently define 'it', and the people saying so will are generally lying to consumers to increase their turnover? How must we react then, since that is basically the case?

PS, @BDWoody I'm thinking the bulk of this recent conversation may possibly belong over in the "measurements" catch-all thread, unfortunately. I don't want to bury Dylan's amp in the same old conversation. While @shion_ca has not claimed there are things we can't measure, he seems to think two transparently measuring amplifiers will have different "soundstage", which brings us to the same point.

"he seems to think two transparently measuring amplifiers will have different "soundstage". I have not claimed that at all. My summary was clearly stated as....

"A reasonable answer to someone asking if an amp would make things more lively is that the perception of liveliness is often correlated to the high frequency response of the resulting sound. And this amp is flat through the audible frequency band. So it may be more lively than amps that are rolled off. Its damping factor might better control woofers making the bass they produce less bloated and thus sound more taunt and "quick". Etc. Etc."

What you have done is a straw man fallacy.

I did claim that you should not mock people asking about the perceived soundstage in terms of changes to their system as it is something you could set about measuring and quite a real perceived thing. I did not claim that these amps would alter it. I claimed recording techniques might, volume might, phase shift might, time alignment might etc. I was very clear on this.

 

[j_j]

Do you doubt that the simulators have the correct Fourier Analysis?
I should note that the compensation testing method does not use Fourier Analysis. The compensation method uses the simplest mathematical operations: addition, subtraction and multiplication.

I sincerely doubt that you understand the nature and content of short-term spectra. Until you do, discussing your "rotation" becomes an exercise in noise. Of course, since we can also capture everything in the short-term spectra, what can't we measure here? Please explain.

 

[j_j]

Jimbob5, it seems you are far from audio equipment. I am raising the question of how to measure those distortions that have not been measured before and which standard measurement methods are simply unable to measure.

The fact that you do not understand HOW things are measured in a systematic way does not mean that others can not measure them. I think that you need to learn a lot of math, not more obstinance. Your open refusal to examine paths to enlightenment has exhausted my patience, and yes, I do know of what I speak. When several experts tell you you're mistaken, learn from it.

 

[DonH56]

Reminds of various movie stars on their 3rd or 4th marriage. At what point does it become "you"?

 

[SIY]

Reminds of various movie stars on their 3rd or 4th marriage. At what point does it become "you"?

My best friend has been married four times. I tell him, "You don't like being married, you just like weddings."

 

[j_j]

I feel I've already said this. But if you describe a change as causing instruments on the side of your recording to be perceived as coming from roughly half a foot further horizontally displaced from the speaker position then prior to the change, that is a description of the perceived effect of a bunch of measurable changes. (assuming I can do it blind). It is much more valuable to me to understand the difference in how a change affects how I perceive the sound then to give me the 70 variables and graph plots that changed.

Well, the right plots and graphs are exactly how you can show why your perception happens. What's more, there is available software (no,not panpots, they don't work well at all) that will allow you to move things back and forth at your own desire (assuming you have the source signal in a dry environment first), in fact we sell it.

Look up "Hilbert Envelope" for instance.

 

[j_j]

Yes, there is science in understanding how the mind perceives the measured sound. That doesn't mean the perception itself is science. The perception is just that - a perception.

Yes, and perception is 100% personal. While there are many commonalities, there are many many more preferences than one might expect.

 

[j_j]

I have no idea how they developed Q sound, but I'm guessing they tweaked it based on perception of the sound to give the effect of having folks walk behind your head. then they derived from that equations and a process to encode the sound after having found examples and playing with variables. I doubt they just wrote down a formula and determined by looking at it, that it would give the 3D spatial effect of Q sound.

It's HRTF's plus interaural cancellation. Common although not called out in the present day.

 

[AdamG]

Prepare the “Vaporization” method of subtraction

My best friend has been married four times. I tell him, "You don't like being married, you just like weddings."

Maybe It is the Wedding Night he likes too much…

 

[ahofer]

"he seems to think two transparently measuring amplifiers will have different "soundstage". I have not claimed that at all. My summary was clearly stated as....

"A reasonable answer to someone asking if an amp would make things more lively is that the perception of liveliness is often correlated to the high frequency response of the resulting sound. And this amp is flat through the audible frequency band. So it may be more lively than amps that are rolled off. Its damping factor might better control woofers making the bass they produce less bloated and thus sound more taunt and "quick". Etc. Etc."

What you have done is a straw man fallacy.

I did claim that you should not mock people asking about the perceived soundstage in terms of changes to their system as it is something you could set about measuring and quite a real perceived thing. I did not claim that these amps would alter it. I claimed recording techniques might, volume might, phase shift might, time alignment might etc. I was very clear on this.

Ok, fair enough, you went from amps to soundstage and I may have misunderstood and I apologize. I'm pleased not to have to deal with that assertion. But sticking with your "liveliness" example, it is still a very vague and subjective term that is only practically useful when narrowed to an identifiable frequency band or transient distortion. One person's "liveliness" is not another's. Also, the amps you are asking about our absolutely flat in FR, so there is no frequency-based "liveliness" to be had other than, as you suggested, in contrast with a very poorly designed or high output impedance (but I repeat myself) amplifier. So I stand on my point that we are not poo-pooing your ideas about psychoacoustics but asserting that there is a more scientific way to go about achieving your goals. I mentioned Toole and Johnston* in my prior post, they have written a lot of good stuff that can help, both published and on this site. And I mentioned EQ as a much more efficient way to tailor EQ. If distortion needs to be inserted, @pkane is pioneering in this area. Measurements are not subordinated in psychoacoustics, they are definitionally critical, and that's why we are in this thread now.

Oops, I see @j_j Johnston has chimed in already.