"Things that cannot be measured"

[Roland]

Ignore the specifics, I was drawing a parallel between the spending justifications of both subjectivists and objectivist, that’s all. Perhaps a call for humour is inappropriate on this forum unless it relentlessly pokes fun at the other side (just like every other online tribal echo chamber)!

 

[David A. Young]

I worked from June 1976 to May 1980 managing the Stereo Department of a local independent sales and service company. We carried Kenwood and Technics turntables. Most systems went out with the Technics SL-23 or one of their direct drives. I lucked into a Panasonic SP-10 on a distributor clear out. Bought an SME 3009 series II arm and an Ortofon M15E Super. It sounded very good. Later upgraded to an Ortofon SL15E MkII moving coil and replaced the mat with an EON Research Tri-Pad. The improvements were audible. I was very happy with the quality of vinyl reproduction from that combination.

In 2017 I did a major exploration into turntable mats and the effects they had on how the records sounded. Had misplaced the SP-10 and the Tri-Pad but remembered it had sounded good. Made a bunch from foam, cork, leather, felt, shelf liner, and neoprene glued to rubber/cork. Also had a bunch of various weight rubber mats on hand. Next came the tri-laminate mats. These used a closed cell foam or neoprene base, various weights of PVC, acrylic, or ground mineral and thermoset binder centers, and cork or rubber/cork tops. Because I have not figured out how to measure the results, all the conclusions were from comparative listening tests. The turntable used was a Rotel RP-850 with an Astatic MF-100 cartridge. Amp was a nothing special Fisher receiver. Speakers were Yamaha NS-690 Mk II's.

The main conclusion is that the majority of the turntable mats in use have an adverse effect on the sonic reproduction of vinyl records. The other observation is that the mat contributes more to the sonic signature than the cartridge or drive system. The worst offender was the raised concentric rings Technics SL-23 model. It turned a recording of Vladimir Ashkenazi playing a Chopin C-Major Etude to mush. Most of the others softened the sound and were thin in the lower midrange. The clear winners were the heavy weight center ones.

So what is going on here? When you play a record there are shock waves generated by the stylus as it winds its way through a canyon with uneven walls. The stylus reads these shock waves as slightly out of phase and cancels some of the information it is reading at the moment. It is most noticeable on solo piano. There is an improvement on bass instruments with extended depth and clarity. Ella Fitzgerald was a good comparison. Her voice sounded fuller after the mat was changed. Back to the mats. The bottom layer absorbs any noise being transmitted through the platter. The top layer dampens the record. The center layer acts as a barrier between the two. The heavier PVC centers sounded better than the light ones or no center at all but the 360-460 gram centers were the best sounding ones of all. I did find there was no audible improvement with a neoprene bottom layer. The rubber/cork top is a bit better for static buidup than cork. On turntables with light platters, using the heavier mats improves the speed regulation by adding an extra flywheel that can weigh double that of the platter. These Better Sounding Turntable Mats are being used on idler drive Duals, plastic based entry level belt drives, AR's, various direct drives and better belt drives, and a Linn Sondek LP-12. They all sound better than they did before the upgrade. There is one on my Oracle Delphi Mk II. Their original mat does sound good and is very close sonically to the BSTM-4. The Tri-Pad did resurface and sounds as good as a 1/4" thick anti-static foam mat but nowhere near the prototype heavy BSTM.

 

[welsh]

Something the subjectivist crowd often brings up. "There are things we cannot measure but the human ear/brain can hear it."

We retort, an analyzer can hear much better than any human can. Which is the truth. But thinking about the question I did being to wonder... Could it be possible for there to be a form of measurement we have not found yet? Is science completely clear on this point? Or is there possibly another measurement out there be to found. Usually in my experience science is evolving.

Of course, I am not saying that the measurements used are not valid, they have helped me personally assemble some amazing sounding systems. I'm not as well versed in the science of audio as others in this forum. But I was wondering if there is a possibility, that there could be other measurements "underdiscovered". Or at this point are we just increasing our abilities to further analyze (as well as improve the actual technology) in the ways we already know how?

You’re right, there’s definitely some magic involved here, magic that we, the consumers, don’t fully understand. But certain high-end companies DO understand it, and will provide it on a sliding scale depending on how much we pay!

 

[welsh]

I worked from June 1976 to May 1980 managing the Stereo Department of a local independent sales and service company. We carried Kenwood and Technics turntables. Most systems went out with the Technics SL-23 or one of their direct drives. I lucked into a Panasonic SP-10 on a distributor clear out. Bought an SME 3009 series II arm and an Ortofon M15E Super. It sounded very good. Later upgraded to an Ortofon SL15E MkII moving coil and replaced the mat with an EON Research Tri-Pad. The improvements were audible. I was very happy with the quality of vinyl reproduction from that combination.

In 2017 I did a major exploration into turntable mats and the effects they had on how the records sounded. Had misplaced the SP-10 and the Tri-Pad but remembered it had sounded good. Made a bunch from foam, cork, leather, felt, shelf liner, and neoprene glued to rubber/cork. Also had a bunch of various weight rubber mats on hand. Next came the tri-laminate mats. These used a closed cell foam or neoprene base, various weights of PVC, acrylic, or ground mineral and thermoset binder centers, and cork or rubber/cork tops. Because I have not figured out how to measure the results, all the conclusions were from comparative listening tests. The turntable used was a Rotel RP-850 with an Astatic MF-100 cartridge. Amp was a nothing special Fisher receiver. Speakers were Yamaha NS-690 Mk II's.

The main conclusion is that the majority of the turntable mats in use have an adverse effect on the sonic reproduction of vinyl records. The other observation is that the mat contributes more to the sonic signature than the cartridge or drive system. The worst offender was the raised concentric rings Technics SL-23 model. It turned a recording of Vladimir Ashkenazi playing a Chopin C-Major Etude to mush. Most of the others softened the sound and were thin in the lower midrange. The clear winners were the heavy weight center ones.

So what is going on here? When you play a record there are shock waves generated by the stylus as it winds its way through a canyon with uneven walls. The stylus reads these shock waves as slightly out of phase and cancels some of the information it is reading at the moment. It is most noticeable on solo piano. There is an improvement on bass instruments with extended depth and clarity. Ella Fitzgerald was a good comparison. Her voice sounded fuller after the mat was changed. Back to the mats. The bottom layer absorbs any noise being transmitted through the platter. The top layer dampens the record. The center layer acts as a barrier between the two. The heavier PVC centers sounded better than the light ones or no center at all but the 360-460 gram centers were the best sounding ones of all. I did find there was no audible improvement with a neoprene bottom layer. The rubber/cork top is a bit better for static buidup than cork. On turntables with light platters, using the heavier mats improves the speed regulation by adding an extra flywheel that can weigh double that of the platter. These Better Sounding Turntable Mats are being used on idler drive Duals, plastic based entry level belt drives, AR's, various direct drives and better belt drives, and a Linn Sondek LP-12. They all sound better than they did before the upgrade. There is one on my Oracle Delphi Mk II. Their original mat does sound good and is very close sonically to the BSTM-4. The Tri-Pad did resurface and sounds as good as a 1/4" thick anti-static foam mat but nowhere near the prototype heavy BSTM.

Why on Earth bother with all this when digital sounds better?

 

[Wes]

How good did digital sound in the 1970s?

 

[Robert394]

Something the subjectivist crowd often brings up. "There are things we cannot measure but the human ear/brain can hear it."

We retort, an analyzer can hear much better than any human can. Which is the truth. But thinking about the question I did being to wonder... Could it be possible for there to be a form of measurement we have not found yet? Is science completely clear on this point? Or is there possibly another measurement out there be to found. Usually in my experience science is evolving.

Of course, I am not saying that the measurements used are not valid, they have helped me personally assemble some amazing sounding systems. I'm not as well versed in the science of audio as others in this forum. But I was wondering if there is a possibility, that there could be other measurements "underdiscovered". Or at this point are we just increasing our abilities to further analyze (as well as improve the actual technology) in the ways we already know how?

Because science cannot prove things (it can only disprove them -- proof exists in math but not science) the truth is we do not know whether there are qualities of sound that cannot be CURRENTLY measured but that are relevant to human perception of sound quality.

My sense is that there are such qualities because simply based on my own empirical experiments I have noticed differences with things like power cords... though perhaps even that is measurable with higher gauge cords and so forth ... but I have no ideological commitment to power cords making a difference, and also believe that basically 100% of your funds should be spent on buying the best speakers possible, and you'll always get a far greater improvement from a better speaker than a better power cable to the point where spending any money on a power cable that could be spent on a speaker instead (if you are upgrading speakers) is silly.

Also, IMO anyone who tells you all things relevant to how sound is interpreted and perceived can be measured is telling you something that is unknowable. Dogma (all things can be measured!) exists in science, on this forum, and in other fields ... though science is supposed to be about the rejection of dogma.

Also, I will mention I personally buy pro audio equipment (Hedd speakers, Adam subwoofer, RME Dac) precisely because I believe they are marketed based on quality measurements (and then people also comment that they "sound great"). I stay away from audiophile or consumer equipment for the substantive components of my system because I believe pro gear is more likely to be accurate and without all the scammy audiophile esoterica, and is also priced better (I don't want to pay 50% more for expensive wood cabinets or some exotic appearance meant to impress visually -- I'd rather spend that on an even better sounding speaker).

 

[Wes]

Describe your empirical experiments with power cords

 

[617]

I fully agree with you, just like as I wrote about the same...

Love is measured by sacrifice in my experience.

 

[pkane]

Because science cannot prove things (it can only disprove them -- proof exists in math but not science) the truth is we do not know whether there are qualities of sound that cannot be measured but that are relevant to human perception of sound quality.

My sense is that there are such qualities because simply based on my own empirical experiments I have noticed differences with power cords... but I have no ideological commitment to power cords making a difference, and also believe that basically 100% of your funds should be spent on buying the best speakers possible, and you'll always get a far greater improvement from a better speaker than a better power cable to the point where spending any money on a power cable that could be spent on a speaker instead (if you are upgrading speakers) is silly.

Also, IMO anyone who tells you all things relevant to how sound is interpreted and perceived can be measured is telling you something that is unknowable. Dogma (all things can be measured!) exists in science, on this forum, and in other fields ... though science is supposed to be about the rejection of dogma.

It should be easy, then, for you to disprove that different power cords sound the same, considering your empirical experience. All that's required is a single controlled experiment. No need for a mathematical proof, just a simple, empirical counter-example.

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

My point of view is that we should separate performance, which can definitely be measured, and likability.
Generally what measures well is also liked by most people but it is not always the case.

I confess, I like the Klipsch sound, at least for pop/rock even though I know well that their frequency response is definitely not linear.
Neumann monitors, which all have excellent measurements, sound boring to me but I love my Tannoys Gold 7 monitors, that have a small zig zag on the mid highs that gives voices a good vibe. Opera is great on them.

 

[Robert394]

Describe your empirical experiments with power cords

I compare them using the a few sound clips at the same volume level, and make a determination as to whether I think there is a difference and if one is better than the other. The only standard it needs to meet is the "am I willing to pay for this" standard. That's it.

It's a personal decision and not something I'd try to persuade others about. I could not care less if power cords make a difference or not from an ideological standpoint.

 

[SIY]

It's a personal decision and not something I'd try to persuade others about. I could not care less if power cords make a difference or not from an actual sound standpoint.

FIFY.

 

[JustJones]

What measures well and what you like are already separate. No one dictates you have to like certain components.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Love is measured by sacrifice in my experience.

Might be a topic for another thread. While I agree mostly with your statement it probably is closer to measuring amplifiers. You really need to measure a number of things to gauge Love.

 

[Frgirard]

You’re right, there’s definitely some magic involved here, magic that we, the consumers, don’t fully understand. But certain high-end companies DO understand it, and will provide it on a sliding scale depending on how much we pay!

For electronics, cables and others gears, the abx test close the question
For loudspeakers and acoustics, a mic is not a brain with objective and subjective perceptions.
Exemple of the Lede/rfz doesn't work for the non environmental professionals.
The psychoacoustic could be help ?
For the EBU the level of reflexions for an accuracy listenin is -10 dB bewteen 1 KHz and 8 Khz.
For several competent professionals, the level must be -20 dB.
The use of 2D or 1D diffusors make the unanimity in studio although responsible an acoustic comb filtering.

are you able to measure a stereo picture ?

I chose my last speaker Neumann KH420 by the read of the measurments.

Listening is a biased testing method by ourselves.
The measurements only give indications more or less correlated with hearing.

 

[kristiansen]

Brain and ear can translate a complex sound image into a description of Tone/timbre, timing , Rhythm, the degree of fidelity, Experienced resolution , Soundstage, imaging etc.
That can lead to further development of the product, it is one part of hi-fi , a part which is difficult to measure , but easily heard.

Another part of hi-fi construction is precision alone, noise frequency response phase, (THD) etc. here is measurement absolutely indispensable and ear and brain superior.

Let me give a few examples , CD came out as the perfect sound, What it was in terms of measurement and theory, I can testify that it was definitely not perfect sound for ear and brain, it was a terrible,, if we did not have ear and brain then CD 100 would still be the perfect sound.
Another example is LCD TVs they looked terrible in the beginning, but technically they were close to perfect, a development started with backlight and the screen itself etc. things that typically can not be measured, but must be seen by humans, and today have even the cheapest TV a good picture.

And I wonder if there are also a few examples with the sense of taste

 

[Wombat]

For electronics, cables and others gears, the abx test close the question
For loudspeakers and acoustics, a mic is not a brain with objective and subjective perceptions.
Exemple of the Lede/rfz doesn't work for the non environmental professionals.
The psychoacoustic could be help ?
For the EBU the level of reflexions for an accuracy listenin is -10 dB bewteen 1 KHz and 8 Khz.
For several competent professionals, the level must be -20 dB.
The use of 2D or 1D diffusors make the unanimity in studio although responsible an acoustic comb filtering.

are you able to measure a stereo picture ?

I chose my last speaker Neumann KH420 by the read of the measurments.

Listening is a biased testing method by ourselves.
The measurements only give indications more or less correlated with hearing.

Measure a stereo picture?

Let me introduce you to Google Search: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...xP3vAhVSyDgGHX4oAaIQ4dUDCA0#spf=1618396476536

 

[solderdude]

Another example is LCD TVs they looked terrible in the beginning, but technically they were close to perfect, a development started with backlight and the screen itself etc. things that typically can not be measured, but must be seen by humans, and today have Even the cheapest TV has a good picture.

Very bad analogy. with Picture quality everything can be measured. It was clear as day from the beginning that the both the color spectrum and dynamic range was not ideal. It was an early development with new techniques.

Brain and ear can translate a complex sound image into a description of Tone/timbre, timing , Rhythm, the degree of fidelity, Experienced resolution , Soundstage, imaging etc.
That can lead to further development of the product, it is one part of hi-fi , a part which is difficult to measure , but easily heard.

Again, when you make such statements you need to differentiate between electrical plane and acoustical plane.

 

[DSJR]

The post above regarding turntable mats rings true with me. Reviewer (once HFN guru) Martin Colloms in at least one of the 'Choice turntable test books did some measurements on low level responses (I think it was) on different mats on different decks. I seem to remember the conclusion was that what was right for one turntable wasn't always right for others BUT, the differences either in noise or response was measurable and repeatable, so no mystery really. My favourite UK made but hardly known turntable brand (Notts Analogue) use some form of graphite based top platter which is amazing at terminating records and without any form of centre weight (doesn't stop some adding one though as is custom now), one can 'pound' the playing record with one's knuckled and barely anything gets through (try doing that on a Linn or Rega).

Why bother talking about vinyl as asked above? I for one have many hundreds of LP's and a couple of hundred 45rpm 12" singles I can't replace although I've just discovered some 12" mixes are on Youtube and sound very nice despite the processing involved. There are so many audiophool audiophiles out there still who dislike digital, chip based op-amps* (yeah really!) and regard vinyl and reel-to-reel analogue as the very top sources.

*Maybe that's a healthy enough market for Schiit to keep making such products with discrete output stages rather than using 'me too' chips although this is changing now.

 

[pkane]

Might be a topic for another thread. While I agree mostly with your statement it probably is closer to measuring amplifiers. You really need to measure a number of things to gauge Love.

Love and Amplifiers - a good title for an ASR-produced B-movie