What to trust ear or measurement?

[Blumlein 88]

Well this is the first posting where you mention the snare at all.

Being a drummer myself I agree that the snare drum does not sound very crisp and dynamic, but this is true for the overwhelming number of recordings. A notable exception is the remake of Jon Lords Concerto for Group and Orchestra from 2012, or the old classic Tricycle by Flim & the BBs. And of course a drum sounds quite different to the drummer playing it than to the audience, so you cannot expect that a recorded drum sounds like you experience it when you play it.

Yeah I don't know who is responsible for the Flim & the BBs drum sound, but they are good. I could pull out my copy and see who worked on it. I'm pretty sure it was heavily processed, but by someone who knew what they were trying to accomplish.

OK, just looked. Can't believe I forgot, but that is a Tom Jung recording. He usually does pretty good work. It was mixed to two track right in the studio and completely digital from that point on with very minimal processing.

 

[Sal1950]

This track?

I just gave that track a listen on Amazon HD stream. I find the recording lacking inner detail, most likely due (IMO) to a lack of high end energy. My only other complaint is during the chorus there seems to be some overloading distortion occuring? All in all a decently listenable track, not a Grammy winner but not too bad for the time.

 

[Haze]

I just found this thread. Ultimately I don't think there is an absolute and unarguable answer to the subjectivist vs objectivist debate. At least on the consume end. When it comes to the customer the ultimate decider is personal taste and personal taste isn't always logical. Some people like tube amps over solid state amps. Some people like vinyl over digital formats. Some people just like distortion and a bit of analogue noise! You can say they are wrong but it's not going to make them like cleaner signal any better.

Measurements like Amirs are still very valuable though. They indicate if a product is competently engineered, doesn't have horrible bugs and it helps dispel audiophile voodoo like expensive cables and usb filters. Which do nothing but cost you money.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I just found this thread. Ultimately I don't think there is an absolute and unarguable answer to the subjectivist vs objectivist debate. At least on the consume end. When it comes to the customer the ultimate decider is personal taste and personal taste isn't always logical. Some people like tube amps over solid state amps. Some people like vinyl over digital formats. Some people just like distortion and a bit of analogue noise! You can say they are wrong but it's not going to make them like cleaner signal any better.

Measurements like Amirs are still very valuable though. They indicate if a product is competently engineered, doesn't have horrible bugs and it helps dispel audiophile voodoo like expensive cables and usb filters. Which do nothing but cost you money.

True the placebo effect is strong, so anybody may hear a difference where there is none.
Tho only thing I would note from your comment is that IME people who believe this sort of thing are the most likely to also believe in the benefit os expensive cables and usb filters too.

 

[Haze]

True the placebo effect is strong, so anybody may hear a difference where there is none.
Tho only thing I would note from your comment is that IME people who believe this sort of thing are the most likely to also believe in the benefit os expensive cables and usb filters too.

Well I can give you one example outside of the audiophile world. The Sega Mega Drive/Genesis. The Model one had the YM2612 FM synthesizer while the model 2 and 3 had the superior YM3438. The YM2612 was leaky, had ladder effect distortion and really slow decay. All fixed in the YM3438. People still say the Model 1 was the superior sounding Mega Drive and the YM2612 is still the chip people try to replicate in emulation. Like I say personal taste does not always follow the measurements.

 

[Taketheflame]

I answered "if it has acceptable measurements", as that is the closest answer for me here - but truthfully, I wish there was an answer option along the lines of "the measurements matter, but I do ultimately care about liking how it sounds".

I think even for folks who lean a bit subjectivist such as myself, measurements should still always be taken into consideration when deciding what gear to buy, because they absolutely give one a good idea of whether or not the design/engineering is any good.

For example, there's no reason (IMO) that a DAC shouldn't measure reasonably well at this point, and I don't like the idea of paying a lot of money for one that doesn't. I also won't consider buying analog equipment that has relatively high levels of wow & flutter - which is one reason I tend to stick with vintage turntables over new, as getting the same performance as even many "mid-fi" turntables of the past can get prohibitively spendy from brand new tables (for me at least).

Just my $0.02 on the matter.

 

[Gregm]

True the placebo effect is strong, so anybody may hear a difference where there is none.

Agreed.
By the same token, might one not hear a difference where there is one?

I answered "if it has acceptable measurements", as that is the closest answer for me here - but truthfully, I wish there was an answer option along the lines of "the measurements matter, but I do ultimately care about liking how it sounds".

I think even for folks who lean a bit subjectivist such as myself, measurements should still always be taken into consideration when deciding what gear to buy, because they absolutely give one a good idea of whether or not the design/engineering is any good.

For example, there's no reason (IMO) that a DAC shouldn't measure reasonably well at this point, and I don't like the idea of paying a lot of money for one that doesn't. I also won't consider buying analog equipment that has relatively high levels of wow & flutter - which is one reason I tend to stick with vintage turntables over new, as getting the same performance as even many "mid-fi" turntables of the past can get prohibitively spendy from brand new tables (for me at least). Just my $0.02 on the matter.

Interesting point about vintage TTs. My experience has been that inexpensive contemporary TTs (Project, Low end clearaudio, etc) perform reasonably well compared to their vintage brethren -- at least they do not suffer from W&F, etc. OTOH, I agree that hi-end contemporary TTs command implausibly astronomical prices.
Going for a superbly engineered vintage TT is a no-brainer IMO

 

[Frank Dernie]

Agreed.
By the same token, might one not hear a difference where there is one?

Of course, but IME the threshold of audibility is nowhere near what seems to be accepted.
Yes, human hearing encompased 120dB, depending on the individual, but, depending on how long you were exposed to 120dB it would be seconds, minutes, hours or never before you could hear 0dB, and any single sound event does not encompass the whole lot, though maybe a film about motor racing could if there were romantic bits sitting in the countryside with birdsong in the background interspersed with noisy racing segments but again, only if this was recorded without touching the level control, which it wouldn't be otherwise the film would be unplayable on 99.9% of cinemas and TVs.

I recommend testing yourself to get an idea of what the numbers really mean.
Set your normal listening level then turn it down by 60dB and check what you hear.
A more rigorous check was posted here in the past with iirc 2 white or pink noise tracks, one at -20dB (the average level of a good recording) followed by another at a lower level so people could get a feel for what was audible.
I have a dedicated room big speakers and 1000 watt amps so no problem for me with dynamic range but still, a sound 60dB lower than my normal listening level is either extremely faint or inaudible, depending on frequency, so convincing me I would be able to hear a distortion artefact at -60dB whilst the music was playing is not going to happen. It is completely ridiculous to me.
So for me, I am sure that if the distortion level is better than 0.1% (-60dB) there is no way I would be able to hear it, so I know that if I think I hear a difference in something with better than 0.1% distortion I have imagined it.
Other people may be more discerning, but I would doubt by much, and these differences are anyway negligibly small in terms of musical enjoyment.

 

[HiFiDiscoveryTrip]

Of course, but IME the threshold of audibility is nowhere near what seems to be accepted.
Yes, human hearing encompased 120dB, depending on the individual, but, depending on how long you were exposed to 120dB it would be seconds, minutes, hours or never before you could hear 0dB, and any single sound event does not encompass the whole lot, though maybe a film about motor racing could if there were romantic bits sitting in the countryside with birdsong in the background interspersed with noisy racing segments but again, only if this was recorded without touching the level control, which it wouldn't be otherwise the film would be unplayable on 99.9% of cinemas and TVs.

I recommend testing yourself to get an idea of what the numbers really mean.
Set your normal listening level then turn it down by 60dB and check what you hear.
A more rigorous check was posted here in the past with iirc 2 white or pink noise tracks, one at -20dB (the average level of a good recording) followed by another at a lower level so people could get a feel for what was audible.
I have a dedicated room big speakers and 1000 watt amps so no problem for me with dynamic range but still, a sound 60dB lower than my normal listening level is either extremely faint or inaudible, depending on frequency, so convincing me I would be able to hear a distortion artefact at -60dB whilst the music was playing is not going to happen. It is completely ridiculous to me.
So for me, I am sure that if the distortion level is better than 0.1% (-60dB) there is no way I would be able to hear it, so I know that if I think I hear a difference in something with better than 0.1% distortion I have imagined it.
Other people may be more discerning, but I would doubt by much, and these differences are anyway negligibly small in terms of musical enjoyment.

This is just one way of looking at the facts.

I recently added an Okto DAC8 stereo to my system. This replaces a Bluesound Node 2i.
This one has an S/N ratio of 88 dB. So still a lot lower than 60 dB.
So you could argue that there is no audible difference between these two devices.

You could also claim that this is a placebo effect, but I can testify that the difference is very clear to hear.
What the exact reason for this is I do not know, but the difference is there.

If you put 25 ml of arcene in an Olympic-sized pool of 2.500 m³, you could argue that the amount is extremely small and therefore negligible. However, this is the maximum allowable amount prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

Could it be that something very small could have an impact on the bigger picture?

 

[BDWoody]

You could also claim that this is a placebo effect, but I can testify that the difference is very clear to hear.
What the exact reason for this is I do not know, but the difference is there.

I'd bet on placebo.

Have you ever gone through the hassle of a well controlled (blind, level matched, etc) listening test? For me, it made me realize I had been fooling myself. I'd encourage one to anyone who hears unlikely differences not easily explained by obvious issues.

 

[ahofer]

This is just one way of looking at the facts.

I recently added an Okto DAC8 stereo to my system. This replaces a Bluesound Node 2i.
This one has an S/N ratio of 88 dB. So still a lot lower than 60 dB.
So you could argue that there is no audible difference between these two devices.

You could also claim that this is a placebo effect, but I can testify that the difference is very clear to hear.
What the exact reason for this is I do not know, but the difference is there.

If you put 25 ml of arcene in an Olympic-sized pool of 2.500 m³, you could argue that the amount is extremely small and therefore negligible. However, this is the maximum allowable amount prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

Could it be that something very small could have an impact on the bigger picture?

Much like the EPA, we can rely on a large body of research to determine what is significant or potentially detrimental. We don’t have to wave our hands at everything small, unmeasurable, or noticeable to us in entirely uncontrolled circumstances and pretend that it supercedes years of research.

If this is an *audible difference*, there’s a way to show it and contribute to that body of knowledge. But please wash off the placebos before entering the pool!

 

[KSTR]

So for me, I am sure that if the distortion level is better than 0.1% (-60dB) there is no way I would be able to hear it, so I know that if I think I hear a difference in something with better than 0.1% distortion I have imagined it.

It depends on that 0.1% spec. If it is the full scale figure (@ xy watts) and we have a case of crossover distortion then the actual distortion at signals 40dB lower could be as much as 40dB higher, 10% (I've seen this in cheap class-D amp chips).
A measurement spec like "< 1%" at all levels down to -10dB in the noise would be a more representative parameter for 100% clean sound.

 

[Frank Dernie]

It depends on that 0.1% spec. If it is the full scale figure (@ xy watts) and we have a case of crossover distortion then the actual distortion at signals 40dB lower could be as much as 40dB higher, 10% (I've seen this in cheap class-D amp chips).
A measurement spec like "< 1%" at all levels down to -10dB in the noise would be a more representative parameter for 100% clean sound.

I obviously wasn't clear enough.
I look at the whole distortion/power graph. If it is less than 0.1% at any power I know I won't hear it. I can't hear that level even in a quiet room, so hearing it while music is playing won't happen.
If something I can barely hear in a quiet room suddenly becomes audible in the presence of music everything I know about noise and vibration measurement atrer 50 years would be wrong.

 

[Frank Dernie]

This one has an S/N ratio of 88 dB. So still a lot lower than 60 dB.
So you could argue that there is no audible difference between these two devices.

You could also claim that this is a placebo effect, but I can testify that the difference is very clear to hear.

Try for yourself. Play music at your normal level then turn it down 88dB. If you can clearly hear the sound at a level, and think you would still be able to hear it at the same time music was playing then there is a good chance you can hear the difference. If not there is a good chance it is placebo, which is real enough, ie you really will hear a difference even when there isn't one.

 

[Taketheflame]

Interesting point about vintage TTs. My experience has been that inexpensive contemporary TTs (Project, Low end clearaudio, etc) perform reasonably well compared to their vintage brethren -- at least they do not suffer from W&F, etc. OTOH, I agree that hi-end contemporary TTs command implausibly astronomical prices.
Going for a superbly engineered vintage TT is a no-brainer IMO

Well to be fair, I agree that Pro-Ject and such do offer reasonably good performance at the lower price points (I used to have a Pro-Ject Debut Carbon, but it had the infamous hum issues), and I'm mainly referring to more reputable/sought after vintage models in good working order. When in good order, they are a much better bang for the buck than premium new tables IMO (and superficially speaking, I love the styling of nicer 1970s turntables).

Of course, not all vintage tables are necessarily better, and one requiring work will not be performing at it's best. So I don't always recommend vintage to everyone interested in a TT.

 

[peanuts]

there is a problem with measurement of amps in here though. they only pose inductive loads, not capacitive? (or whatever its called in english)
a speaker doesnt work like the analyzer.

 

[egellings]

Maybe it's possible to model a speaker's load impedance and then implement it in an R, L & C approximation and then use that as a load for the amplifier under test. One problem with trying to use a speaker load model is that it will vary all over the place depending on the speaker type. Electrostatics present quite a different load from a ribbon type or cone-dome type speaker. The model won't work for all types of speaker. There'd need to be some sort of a standard model for a load. Maybe test the amp using 2 or 3 different standardized models that cover a range of speaker types.

 

[KSTR]

I obviously wasn't clear enough.
I look at the whole distortion/power graph. [...]

Fair enough, I just wanted to avoid people looking on that typical full power/voltage spec as given in most manufacturer's data sheets and concluding "0.1% is good enough".

 

[KSTR]

Maybe test the amp using 2 or 3 different standardized models that cover a range of speaker types.

It's easier use active 4-quadrant test load at some fixed points over frequency, no need to tailor specific frequency dependent loads. So, say at a load angle of 0deg (resistive), +-60deg (significantly capacitive/inductive), +-120deg (a bit more stressing than purely capacitive/inductive load). 180deg is too brutal (the higher the voltage the more current is sunk in to the amp rather than flowing out of the amp).

 

[egellings]

A polar coordinate approach could work well.