Those of you who believe measurements aren't the whole story, do you have a hypothesis why that is?

[Jimbob54]

I am very late to this party and will, like many others speak to the fact that science can’t explain or change preference idea. But I will add an additional data point to this.

Bella Hadid who is absolutely beautiful, is considered by science to be the most beautiful woman in the world . While certainly beautiful, there are probably 100+ woman I would put ahead of her in that category, because my personal preference differs from the findings of science. Audio is the same. We know the science, the science should help guide our decisions, but if you like something, don’t toss it out because science says you are wrong. Bella Hadid (benchmark amp) doesn’t have to be your #1 just because science/measurements say so.

Uh huh

 

[ahofer]

I can’t bring myself to read all the intervening posts, but I think it’s useful to distinguish between

1)getting a pleasing representation of the performance to the digital medium (the recording);
2) getting a 100% accurate and/or intentionally EQ’d signal from the digital medium to the loudspeaker terminal with sufficient power; and
3) getting a pleasing signal from that point to the listener’s ears.

1 and 3 are inherently subjective at the ears, and it is possible there is some aspect of the recording and the reflections in the room that we aren’t measuring fully yet that would explain people’s preferences. 2 is a solved problem, and measurements are more than adequate to explain any artifacts, inaccuracy, or UNintentional EQ that arise anywhere in that part of the reproduction chain.

People who think there are mysteries in #2 are, IMO, imagining it to please themselves or justify making money. We should be focused on #1 a lot more, but #3, despite the useful predictive power that the BBC and Toole & Olive have teased out, will always remain a little more mysterious.

 

[rdenney]

Uh huh

But I can’t say I didn’t enjoy reviewing the evidence.

Rick “found the measurement to be indicative” Denney

 

[steve59]

what measurement explains depth, height and width of a soundstage? what measurement will accurately tell me how well bass below 200 hz will integrate in my room. Which measurement shows why the salon 2 costs more than 4x the f208? I've heard this line too many times in the past to fall for it again. Lets talk about the first telephone or more recently negative feedback receivers of the 70's or the perfect sound forever cd of the 80's. Science is as much a marketing tool as anything.

 

[aslan7]

This argument between science and subjectivity is a waste of good ink. In the realm of sensory perception subjectivity rules and not everyone hears, feels, or sees the same thing. Scientific measurements are the most objective but still very abstract because of the individual variance between the real and the ideal. Complicating this is that when we listen to music we are listening to reproductions of reproductions. People quite reasonably gravitate to the sound that they like, not necessarily the scientifically most accurate one. An experienced audiophile friend recently returned a very high quality tube amp on the grounds that “it didn’t possess the sweet, distorted sound that a tube component ought to have.” I had to laugh.

In my photography days I favored a Fujifilm variety that gave things a bluish green cast. I didn’t think that it was accurate but liked the distortion. Others liked Kodak film that was very brownish. Is it even possible to perfectly recreate “reality”? Probably not.

 

[mdunjic]

Interesting set of YouTube videos (~15 min long, each on avg) trying to explain various psychoacoustic effects and phenomena

(1/5)

(2/5)

(3/5)

(4/5)

(5/5)

Check them out!

 

[mdunjic]

I was never able to accept that many audiophiles believe there's something just mystical about human hearing that simply can't be captured by science. And frankly I don't really think they believe that. But at the same time I don't think I ever heard or read a hypothesis about it, no matter how far-fetched. OK, maybe there is the "typical measurements rely on steady state signals and average certain kinds of distortions" but that's pretty much dismantled. I really don't believe there's a black and white divide between engineering types and the ones that simply trust their hearing without any interest for scientific explanation, that's just an exaggeration of the Internet era, it does a perfect job of making all shades of gray appear black or white as we all know. I'm really hoping for an interesting discussion.

I just posted series of very interesting videos about psychoacoustic (see the link below) … although there is no explicit measurement to be done to ‘measure’ how would amplifier or device handle each of these, all are just a result of how frequencies combine and as such, imo, if a Amir’s measurement confirms that the particular audio device handles superbly required bandwidth, THD/IMD, jitter, voltage/current amplification, etc, there is no doubt in my mind that that same device would indeed be able to create any psychoacoustic illusions in our brains superbly too … as long as room acoustics are cooperating, and as long as the device chain is feeding capable loudspeakers of course.

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...e-a-hypothesis-why-that-is.25416/post-1027012

 

[mdunjic]

This whole discussion reminds me of futile arguments like “prove me that God doesn’t exist” … imo, if someone strongly believes in some psychological or paranormal phenomena (for whatever reason), I have no scientific answer for them unfortunately … however, as an engineer myself, I trust well established and accepted methods of objective measurements of hifi equipment, to be my best bet in narrowing down what I want to listen to (preferably in my own room) before I commit buying it.

With equipment chain that measures great, and with any good speakers positioned properly for my own room, I am able to create magic I need to enjoy the music. So far worked for me every single time.

 

[Thomas savage]

Just look into how audio codecs are developed, there's someone here who has fabulous taste in cardigans and well developed biceps , especially for a older gentleman who could explain more ..


What's his name @amirm , not you of course lol

 

[aslan7]

This whole discussion reminds me of futile arguments like “prove me that God doesn’t exist” … imo, if someone strongly believes in some psychological or paranormal phenomena (for whatever reason), I have no scientific answer for them unfortunately … however, as an engineer myself, I trust well established and accepted methods of objective measurements of hifi equipment, to be my best bet in narrowing down what I want to listen to (preferably in my own room) before I commit buying it.

With equipment chain that measures great, and with any good speakers positioned properly for my own room, I am able to create magic I need to enjoy the music. So far worked for me every single time.

But you do have empirical, scientific evidence from everyday experience to disprove superstition. For examples, people don't rise from the dead, it is impossible to raise others from the dead, you can't walk on water, there is no such thing as a mystical virgin birth, etc. People believe such things (and this line of thinking also pertains to audio equipment) because they want to and gain some sort of satisfaction from them. In audio some equipment is often esoteric, exotic, rare, very cool with all sorts of bells and whistles, and thus has extra appeal that has absolutely nothing to do with sound reproduction.

 

[mdunjic]

But you do have empirical, scientific evidence from everyday experience to disprove superstition. For examples, people don't rise from the dead, it is impossible to raise others from the dead, you can't walk on water, there is no such thing as a mystical virgin birth, etc. People believe such things (and this line of thinking also pertains to audio equipment) because they want to and gain some sort of satisfaction from them. In audio some equipment is often esoteric, exotic, rare, very cool with all sorts of bells and whistles, and thus has extra appeal that has absolutely nothing to do with sound reproduction.

I do accept such scientific/ empirical evidence … including also industry accepted / best practices for objective audio equipment measurements, as set of fundamental facts, on top of which I personally make my buying decisions … not everyone does though … perception, status, belief system, etc, undeniably play a big role in the way many people operate.

 

[Frgirard]

Are subjectivists blind?

What!? Reference the post at the bottom. Do they not realize that instruments can 'see' far more than the human eye? Spectrometers Telescopes Microscopes Imaging technology IR imaging Someone may like a painting of a subject more than a photo of it, but the photo is still more accurate, higher...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Are you a Subjectivist or an Objectivist?

A poll so you can tell us what you think. :) There is a thread dedicated to whether measurements tell us everything here. We probably shouldn't argue at length about subjectivism vs objectivism here and just state our opinions because there's a dedicated thread for debate. Keep in mind the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

This is the mess. Why open subjects on the same subject? None of us will leave a lasting historical mark in the history of hi-fi.

 

[Sugarbubble]

Measurements are at best 30% predictors. People rely on their eyes to hear. That is a fact proven in peer reviewed study. Expectation bias rules all. If you blind test two speakers, and like one above the other consistently, but it is ugly and the other is beautiful, you will consistently choose the pretty one in sighted tests.

 

[steve59]

Look at the in room measurements of the Magico A5 speakers in stereophile. While they have a remarkable midrange the bass from 200 hz has a huge bump and the tweeter starts rolling off at 5khz down more than 15 db by 20 khz! despite that they have won more awards than any other speaker for 2021. The listening section of the review did note the excess bass but also stated it wasn't detrimental to the sound?

I've also read reviews that suggest on axis peaks will fill in off axis dips in room to balance an otherwise rough response, then to get them home and find that isn't always the case even tho' pro's much smarter than me say so.

I don't believe measurements tell the whole story because 1. I don't understand the process. 2. My room and components effect the speakers in ways the measurements can't predict. 3. My kef R105/3 from 1989 had probably the flattest response with the kube from 27 to 20 khz and they sounded anything but what I believe the engineers were striving for when they made recordings.

 

[mdunjic]

Look at the in room measurements of the Magico A5 speakers in stereophile. While they have a remarkable midrange the bass from 200 hz has a huge bump and the tweeter starts rolling off at 5khz down more than 15 db by 20 khz! despite that they have won more awards than any other speaker for 2021. The listening section of the review did note the excess bass but also stated it wasn't detrimental to the sound?

I've also read reviews that suggest on axis peaks will fill in off axis dips in room to balance an otherwise rough response, then to get them home and find that isn't always the case even tho' pro's much smarter than me say so.

I don't believe measurements tell the whole story because 1. I don't understand the process. 2. My room and components effect the speakers in ways the measurements can't predict. 3. My kef R105/3 from 1989 had probably the flattest response with the kube from 27 to 20 khz and they sounded anything but what I believe the engineers were striving for when they made recordings.

I do believe in objective measurements of electronic components (DACs, preamps, power amps) as an excellent reference data set, for predicting how it will most likely behave as part of the whole end to end electronics chain.

Not sure I understand full value of anechoic chamber speaker measurements though, to me as consumer … as my own room acoustics will ultimately play a much bigger (i.e. major) role and most likely invalidate many of originally obtained numbers, therefore always requiring proper speaker positioning and patient experimentation, for optimal sound delivery and avoidance of unwanted acoustical interferences

 

[mdunjic]

Interesting read

https://www.dadaelectronics.eu/uploads/downloads/05_Other-Quad-Documents/Evolutionary-Audio-J-L-Hood-WW-1989-current-dumping-explained-by-P-Baxandall.pdf

 

[escksu]

Whats the point of digging up such old threads??

 

[mdunjic]

By reading this thread, the strong impression that I am getting is that many, claiming that measurements are almost meaningless in pinpointing to which device / speaker will sound good or bad, simply do that because they may be lacking proper understanding of basics of math and science behind audio reproduction

Timbre, body, coloration, etc are nothing but the sum of frequencies and energy behind each frequency component in that sum … if electronics have wide enough bandwidth not to suppress individual frequency component energies, i.e. to properly amplify them, with inaudible distortion (and especially without generating additional unwanted frequencies which were not present in the original input signal), there is absolutely no rational reason to claim that the device will ‘sound’ bad … in fact ‘less it sounds’, the better

Anechoic speaker measurements are somewhat more debatable because they do not represent real life environment in which the speaker will be used. However they represent the set of documented facts how that speaker behaves in ideal conditions … indicating how bracing is done, whether cabinet resonates by itself, how sound pressure is distributed in environment without bouncing, i.e. whether best practices and basics of sound reproduction have been covered, etc … and especially what’s sensitivity of the speaker so that target consumer has an idea about required power of the amplifier … of course, speakers are the most tricky components in the chain, because they interact with the room and their ability to reproduce and disperse sound in that room highly depends on the way they are positioned relative to walls, absorption panels, etc.

Too many bounces, echo, boomy undefined bass due to too many standing waves? You have crappy sound.

Properly positioned speakers relative to the room geometry are the key for musical enjoyment, assuming all your electronics upstream are well measured

Enjoy the music

 

[steve59]

Is there recognition on this forum that not all speakers present the same load to amps? that not all amps are linear below 4 ohms and will have audible results? That isn't as much fun as making us sound like we've (audiophiles) gone off our meds and smoke snake oil to make our music sound better.

If you have 100 products that are the same and you want something different I won't throw rocks at you.

 

[mdunjic]

Is there recognition on this forum that not all speakers present the same load to amps? that not all amps are linear below 4 ohms and will have audible results? That isn't as much fun as making us sound like we've (audiophiles) gone off our meds and smoke snake oil to make our music sound better.

If you have 100 products that are the same and you want something different I won't throw rocks at you.

That’s exactly what I said in my last post … well built, designed and measured amplifier should not really care about speaker load and impedance … it will simply produce advertised / clean output into whatever load speaker presents to it … those amplifiers not well built / designed and not measuring well are then victims of their own design flaws … shouldn’t blame speakers