What to trust ear or measurement?

[amirm]

Are you sure? I have the impression that for some consumers, owning the equipment is most of the fun.

It is another hobby to be sure.

 

[amirm]

Amir: "The product is also not entertainment. The content is entertainment."



Agreed. Amir's comment there struck me as a bit self-referential. If he's speaking for himself, sure. But clearly many audiophiles find the equipment itself to be part of the entertainment (conceptually, aesthetically, engineering-wise, sonically...)

I said that in the context of what Steve was saying. Pretty sure he meant enjoying music as "entertainment."

 

[Ron Texas]

Well, yes but isn't it largely harmless? So long as the household remains solvent what does it matter if the gear performs way better than required?

I failed the 128 kbps MP3, 320 kbps MP3, lossless test, btw.

It depends on your definition of solvent. Besides, on a given budget one can spend more on speakers and get a better end result.

 

[Koeitje]

The way we perceive premium / luxury products really fascinates me, even if it doesn't necessarily make these products better (or even as good as) more pedestrian offerings, and yet I'm drawn to them all the same!

Mercedes Benz employs people including Claudia Schempp and Sabine Engelhardt to define the scent of automotive luxury:
https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/vehicle-development/love-goes-through-nose/
https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/vehicle-development/a-fragrance-for-the-new-s-class/

And with this making-of video by Hermes and Leica Camera, a canvas-covered cardboard presentation box becomes a lust-worthy thing in it's own right:

Note the careful use of lighting and sound to emphasize texture which make this viewer want to touch the items in question, perhaps smell the leather and canvas too.

The only human sense not being addressed is taste, but I've held the baseplate of Leica cameras between my teeth so many times that in a way, that too has been covered.

Leica optics are very very good though. You pay extra for Leica but you also get the performance (though their sensors could be better), but in the audiophile world you can easily pay extra for worse performance.

 

[MattHooper]

I said that in the context of what Steve was saying. Pretty sure he meant enjoying music as "entertainment."

It strikes me that you want to make a division that isn't so easy to make.

It seems clear to me that all of us consider audio gear as part of the entertainment, whether one is in the "accuracy" or the "pleasant colorations" camp. There are people here who value accuracy who post just as often and fervently about gear as anyone in the coloration camp.

And we all will think about the equipment when listening to music in different ways at different times.

The "coloration" camp may pick speakers that are colored, but many are still doing so believing that those colorations connect them more directly with the music, to enjoy it more. (Again, talking about perceptions). It doesn't mean they are necessarily constantly "listening for and to the colorations of the gear" - they can get lost in the music like anyone else and not "hear" the coloration. And then other times for other reasons think "man, this speaker is great, listen to how it reproduces those vocals, drums, horns" etc!

Audiophiles who choose their gear based on accuracy don't seem in principle different on this count. If one tunes their ear to innacuracies then this audiophile enjoys music through an accurate system more than an inaccurate one (because he'll be conscious of the deviations), just as the coloration-seeking audiophile enjoys music more through the colored system.

And if someone has a big-assed Revel Salon system (or JBLs or whatever), they clearly care about how music SOUNDS through those speakers vs colored speakers. I mean, that's one reason you have Revel Salons speakers, not BOSE. The Revels will produce music with a sonic impression of clarity, smoothness, impact etc well beyond any number of other poorly designed speakers, and to be cognizant of "MAN this sounds great" isn't isolated from the speaker design; you are recognizing the sound produced by your system just like the "coloration-seeking" audiophile is doing sometimes.

So I don't think there is this easy division which does, I admit, to me smack a tiny bit of elitism that says "you coloration guys are about concentrating on the gear, not the music, but since I'm about accuracy it's not about the gear, the music is The Thing."

 

[egellings]

I think that measurements need to be good to insure good sound quality. What I am not sure of is how good the measurements need to be such that an improvement in them would not be audible by & large.

 

[amirm]

It strikes me that you want to make a division that isn't so easy to make.

I suggest reading Steve's comment again: "Measurements can be useful for engineers, no doubt. But is there any correlation between ever improving measurements and better sound? I think not! Audio products are made first for listening, not measuring, right! They're not scientific test instruments, they're entertainment, or at least I hope so! "

Bolding mine. It is clear that by entertainment he means listening to music. Not watching the gear. Praising its looks, etc.

My simple counter is that such entertainment comes from the content, not the gear. Go ahead and turn on your system but don't play any music. Are you entertained? I suspect not.

It seems clear to me that all of us consider audio gear as part of the entertainment, whether one is in the "accuracy" or the "pleasant colorations" camp. There are people here who value accuracy who post just as often and fervently about gear as anyone in the coloration camp.

Once again, this is not given. Not remotely so. Play a tube product and everyone thinks they sound "warm." Play it blind and compare it to a solid state product and the person would have next to no prayer of telling them apart let alone having a preference for coloration. I say this as someone who has performed such controlled tests numerous times. To the extent someone like Steve never performs such tests, then what he says is just expression of imagination, not any sign of true coloration.

Besides, it is usually objectivists that give an "out" to subjectivists that they must be liking colorations, not the subjectivists themselves. My point is to not do that based on no evidence. Supposition is wrong whether we do it, or the other camp. There is no evidence that coloration exists in the amps that Steve tests for example yet he has differing opinion about them all.

 

[thefsb]

Imagine the mastering engineer playing through his final file one last time ... sitting back, nodding to himself, and hitting "send". That is the file I want to listen to, exactly, with nothing added, nothing altered, and nothing taken away. That's a purely technical issue, not aesthetic. The aesthetics are in the mastered file. I might like them or not, but always the credit or blame lies with the file, not my gear.

So you nominate a certain reference point in the production chain as the reference for fidelity. And you argue that from that point on our responsibility as adherents to the way of audio science is simple: fidelity to the waveform in that audio file.

I don't think that gets us out of the aesthetic weeds. I'll elaborate your thought experiment.

The mastering engineer works in collaboration with the client who tries to explain what is desired. The engineer helps the client understand the variety of ways that consumers listen or that the music is used and together they decide on compromises. What could potentially have been one thing if it were optimized for listening only on high-performance systems ends being something else because of the chosen compromises. The engineer presents the results to the client on the main monitors, then on the small ones, then on the Sonus box, on a soundbar and on air pods. The client is satisfied.

Now, what's our responsibility? Faithful reproduction of the waveform is not what the client or engineer expects. They did not choose to optimize for the most linear, quiet, uncolored listening and instead modified the waveform expecting compression, coloration, noise and perhaps even non-linearity in reproduction. It seems acceptable to me, for example, to want to listen to the music that could have been. Just one possibility among many. In other words, I think your choice of reference for fidelity is a bit arbitrary.

Now let's say that you or I want to listen to the Marriage of Figaro. It cannot possibly sound like it does at the opera at home. No hifi can do that. So what should we do instead? Now let's say that you want to listen to the same recording of the Marriage of Figaro also in the kitchen and maybe even in the car. In each environment we have a number of constraints to deal with and we have no alternative but to compromise. There are many possible compromises under the constrants. I contend that, since entertainment is the ultimate goal, preference is a valid factor in determining compromises.

The only way I know to achieve what I want is the suite of measurements we have developed. The question of audibility is a good one. I would argue that science per se says go for the max. It's cost-conscious applied engineering that says no, stop when it's good enough. I get satisfaction in getting the best margins available, purely in principle, partly for peace of mind, and partly to reward the efforts of designers I value.

If that's all we know then maybe we should learn some more. For example, when we listen in the car to a recording of Marriage of Figaro that fully exploits the dynamic range of 16 bits we can learn from the mastering engineer that compression/limiting can help.

I don't think what I am arguing threatens the framework you find satisfying and that rewards designers of competent equipment. Involving preference doesn't mean that the device that doesn't degrade a signal isn't the most useful in its class of device.

The alternative is like walking up the steps of the Louvre in Paris and having an attendant hand you a pair of rose-tinted glasses, and being told that because some of the paintings look a bit stark, it's better to view the whole collection through the filter.

No, that's not the alternative. Reductio ad absurdum isn't convincing.

 

[thefsb]

If accuracy is irrelevant, why stop at mild distortion? Why not make a "DAC" that always plays your favourite music regardless of what is input?

It depends on your definition of solvent. Besides, on a given budget one can spend more on speakers and get a better end result.

Ofc. There's a good deal of ground between harmless silliness and reasoned allocation of budgets to achieve identified goals.

 

[thefsb]

Ah, but what if the master was made intentionally to sound "good" on "bad" kit?

In fairness, if that's the case, the track itself is probably rubbish in and of itself, regardless of how it was mastered or is played back.

I do't think that's in fairness. Afaict there's lots of good music with what I consider bad recordings. I want to listen to the music and would prefer not to be distracted by the recording. Just for example, how often do I want to press the imaginary MONO button because I'm distracted by the mix? Hard to be sure but probably more than half the time. But I'll gladly defend the music against accusations of being rubbish.

 

[PRL]

Besides, it is usually objectivists that give an "out" to subjectivists that they must be liking colorations, not the subjectivists themselves. My point is to not do that based on no evidence. Supposition is wrong whether we do it, or the other camp. There is no evidence that coloration exists in the amps that Steve tests for example yet he has differing opinion about them all.

I think this is a good point. Sometimes discrete arguments do become amalgamated and comments made often become more general and not necessarily aimed at specific points made made in a thread of conversation.

I have met many an audiophile who has raved about 300b amplifiers and how they portray intimacy and musicality. Here I would say is a classic example of hifi that is coloured. This review is quite relevant, I feel: https://www.stereophile.com/content/cayin-300b-integrated-amplifier

 

[Jimbob54]

I do't think that's in fairness. Afaict there's lots of good music with what I consider bad recordings. I want to listen to the music and would prefer not to be distracted by the recording. Just for example, how often do I want to press the imaginary MONO button because I'm distracted by the mix? Hard to be sure but probably more than half the time. But I'll gladly defend the music against accusations of being rubbish.

Fair enough. I was strolling pretty far off topic anyway.

 

[Chrispy]

All this based on something from the doofus Guttenberg? Seriously?

 

[Inner Space]

So you nominate a certain reference point in the production chain as the reference for fidelity. And you argue that from that point on our responsibility as adherents to the way of audio science is simple: fidelity to the waveform in that audio file.

I don't think that doesn't get us out of the aesthetic weeds. I'll elaborate your thought experiment.

The mastering engineer works in collaboration with the client who tries to explain what is desired. The engineer helps the client understand the variety of ways that consumers listen or that the music is used and together they decide on compromises. What could potentially have been one thing if it were optimized for listening only on high-performance systems ends being something else because of the chosen compromises. The engineer presents the results to the client on the main monitors, then on the small ones, then on the Sonus box, on a soundbar and on air pods. The client is satisfied.

Now, what's our responsibility? Faithful reproduction of the waveform is not what the client or engineer expects. They did not choose to optimize for the most linear, quiet, uncolored listening and instead modified the waveform expecting compression, coloration, noise and perhaps even non-linearity in reproduction. It seems acceptable to me, for example, to want to listen to the music that could have been. Just one possibility among many. In other words, I think your choice of reference for fidelity is a bit arbitrary.

Now let's say that you or I want to listen to the Marriage of Figaro. It cannot possibly sound like it does at the opera at home. No hifi can do that. So what should we do instead? Now let's say that you want to listen to the same recording of the Marriage of Figaro also in the kitchen and maybe even in the car. In each environment we have a number of constraints to deal with and we have no alternative but to compromise. There are many possible compromises under the constrants. I contend that, since entertainment is the ultimate goal, preference is a valid factor in determining compromises.



If that's all we know then maybe we should learn some more. For example, when we listen in the car to a recording of Marriage of Figaro that fully exploits the dynamic range of 16 bits we can learn from the mastering engineer that compression/limiting can help.

I don't think what I am arguing threatens the framework you find satisfying and that rewards designers of competent equipment. Involving preference doesn't mean that the device that doesn't degrade a signal isn't the most useful in its class of device.



No, that's not the alternative. Reductio ad absurdum isn't convincing.

That's the only reference point I've got. If there was only one mastering engineer in the world, I might become familiar with his choices and might be able permanently to "bend" my home sound to accommodate. But there are hundreds of mastering engineers, some of them technically adequate time-servers, some really good, a handful of superstars, all with different choices and methods. Which is why the Louvre reductio isn't ad absurdum at all - a subjective filter that suits some masters and not others doesn't really get me anywhere. Sure, absence of a subjective filter doesn't sound great 100% of the time either, but "preference" isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. If a subjective-filter user doesn't like the sound of a particular record, he fusses about what to tweak next. If a no-filter user doesn't like the sound, he blames the mastering engineer - which is the more existentially truthful response, surely. Remember, science says that if a single recording sounds great on an accurate system, then the principle is proved, and that mastering per se can indeed suit many disparate use cases. I get that some would screw up that playback to get euphonic results on other recordings, but my "preference" is to expect the mastering engineer to do his job right.

 

[MattHooper]

I suggest reading Steve's comment again: "Measurements can be useful for engineers, no doubt. But is there any correlation between ever improving measurements and better sound? I think not! Audio products are made first for listening, not measuring, right! They're not scientific test instruments, they're entertainment, or at least I hope so! "

Bolding mine. It is clear that by entertainment he means listening to music. Not watching the gear. Praising its looks, etc.

My simple counter is that such entertainment comes from the content, not the gear. Go ahead and turn on your system but don't play any music. Are you entertained? I suspect not.

Well, I admit I'm still confused then.

I mean, it's clear Steve wasn't just talking about mere aesthetics, but about sound produced by the gear. We both agree on that (which is why I emphasized sonic characteristics - coloration vs accuracy).

So to the extent you think Steve referenced listening to music in terms of "entertainment" then it seems you would be agreeing with him. (Hence, has me scratching my head why you commented in a way that suggests otherwise).

But to the extent Steve was instead, or also, referencing being entertained by the "sound" of a system as well, then it seems my analysis is correct: the coloration-lover and accuracy lover are both "entertained" by the sound as well, in the sense of being able to enjoy the sound their equipment produces (not just "the music" because otherwise music can be listened to on anything from iphone speakers to laptops).

Once again, this is not given. Not remotely so. Play a tube product and everyone thinks they sound "warm." Play it blind and compare it to a solid state product and the person would have next to no prayer of telling them apart let alone having a preference for coloration.

Yes, I'm accutely aware of that. Which is exactly why I wrote this:

Me: "The "coloration" camp may pick speakers that are colored, but many are still doing so believing that those colorations connect them more directly with the music, to enjoy it more. (Again, talking about perceptions)."

A person may perceive (in the sense of interpret their experience) a coloration. Could be sighted bias. In any case, the philosophical difference would remain that one person is fine with the idea of gear being colored, the other is not.

But it makes the most sense when contrasting coloration-lovers vs accuracy lovers to think in terms of audible differences. After all, why do you care about accuracy if we aren't talking about audible differences from colored gear?

Vinyl is audibly colored much of the time, we can talk about people who seek that coloration. Steve loves Zu speakers, which are audibly colored in a way he finds "entertaining" or musically enhancing, where you would disagree and prefer the sound of the more neutral speaker, I presume.

And in this context, I think my analysis is apt: there doesn't seem a big divide between the coloration/accuracy listeners in terms of one being "entertained by the music not the gear."

There is no evidence that coloration exists in the amps that Steve tests for example yet he has differing opinion about them all.

Why are you constraining this to amps? Steve clearly wasn't constraining his comment to amplifiers. He referenced "Audio Products" which would include products that surely do sound different - e.g. speakers. (And, aside from amps that we'd expect to sound the same, do you actually reject that there may be some amplifiers Steve may use or review, that might actually cause audible deviations from neutral - e.g. certain tube amp/speaker pairings?)

I think you are conflating two issues: the subject of whether Steve hears the differences he claims to hear, especially the more dubious claims.
And the general issue Steve was raising, about the nature of the hi-fi hobby, and what view one has about being an audiophile and hi fi gear.
It's a relevant matter for conversation and you can for sake of argument simply shelve the problem of "placebo-based" false beliefs, and talk about one's attitude towards truly audible differences in gear, in which Steve would still be making the same observation or claim - for instance his love of a Zu speaker and your preference for a Revel speaker. His point remains. On his view, the gear is part of the entertainment. And I think he does have a point.

 

[CDMC]

If you are trying to sell a product then it's only logical to use recordings which are easy to reproduce, impressive and likeable. Barbie, Krell, Pigeon and Bubbles come to mind.

Once at a show they were playing The Moldau from Smetana's Má Vlast (Dorati, Royal Concertgebouw). This is quite a long piece and after a few minutes people started leaving the room. Then a guy stands up and asks: "Don't you have anything with bass?"

I had a salesman ask me years ago why I chose the music I was using to demo a pair of speakers. I told him it was because it was what I listened to. I don't buy speakers to listen to hear celtic tribes play the nose flute recorded in 24 bit 192khz, I buy them to listen to the music I like.

 

[tuga]

But isn't that just what the work done by Toole, Harmon et all actually does quantify? Their research has allowed them to predict the types of speaker designs most people will rate as most pleasing. (Not to mention any number of human-sciences research human tastes).

Toole and Olive's research does seem to indicate that most people would prefer speaker with a flat response. But the sample was small and some of the speakers were not adequately positioned as required by their topology (the MLs), and I'm not sure that they were listened to in stereo.

 

[CDMC]

The mastering engineer works in collaboration with the client who tries to explain what is desired. The engineer helps the client understand the variety of ways that consumers listen or that the music is used and together they decide on compromises. What could potentially have been one thing if it were optimized for listening only on high-performance systems ends being something else because of the chosen compromises. The engineer presents the results to the client on the main monitors, then on the small ones, then on the Sonus box, on a soundbar and on air pods. The client is satisfied.

There is a big hole in your argument for two primary reasons. 1) There is a group of mastering engineers who don't know what they are doing. 2) Often times the mastering engineers are overidden by the producer or another higher up, who wants it boomier, louder, brighter and cares nothing about how good is sounds. Go spend some time on the mixing forums and you see time and time again engineers complaining how they do a great mix and then are forced to trash it because some person further up the food chain thinks heavy compression, overly bright high end and boomy bass sounds better.

Then you get the other side of it, a band like Tool. Their albums have a gritty compressed sound that is done entirely intentionally as part of the sound.

 

[JeffS7444]

Leica optics are very very good though. You pay extra for Leica but you also get the performance

You say that based on..?

 

[Dichotome]

Nelson Pass, Bruno Putzey and John Westlake are all exceptionally knowledgeable audio engineers. All of them have at one time or another stated that whilst measurements are important, they can’t by themselves be used to design a “good” sounding product. If that doesn’t at least give you pause for thought then maybe its time for a little introspection.

(JW even went so far as to design a DAC for Project that has a toggle switch whereby in one position it measures really well and in the other it measures worse but in JW’s view it sounds better. Reportedly, the great majority of users prefer the second setting.).

Don‘t blame me, I’m only the messenger.