|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.218.199.14
In Reply to: RE: A "simple" objective test is in fact not so simple. posted by beppe61 on July 23, 2014 at 07:39:56
Its a pity to say, but I all evidence suggests you are wrong.
Follow Ups:
Hi and let me ask you one thing straight
Do you think that the human ear is more sensitive than a high quality mic ?
I do not think so
Of course we must understand how to use the mic and all the other things needed
I had my ears tested ... i cannot go over 16kHz
Do you think that maybe at subliminal level i can hear ?
Sorry but i do not think so ... above 16k i am deaf
To say that instruments have so much potential that we have to study how to make profit of itThe real big first issue is that measurements are always carried out in standard conditions with purely resistive load, single tones ... conditions very far from reality
I still think that correctly engineered tracks and high quality mics connected to analyzers could tell us a lot of things at least about the accuracy of a sound reproduction chain
You may say accurate does not imply musical ... i am not so sure.
When i see some video on youtube of people doing eq by ear i smile
I do not remember where i read this ... but a famous speakers designer used to "voice" his speakers only with instruments
And the result has been always very good
Found ! From Stereophile magazine ..." DAL firmly believes that a full set of credible measurements, made by qualified engineering staff using state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, can reliably predict the potential of a loudspeaker to accurately reproduce the complex sounds of music." —Dunlavy Audio Labs
let's say that i am a Dunlavyst ...
Ok ... better to take away "simple" from objective test
All instruments must be top quality as protocols and staff
So it is not a simple task.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 07/26/14
Hey Beppe,
It's not a matter of one being more sensitive than the other. It's more about the capabilities of each. Our hearing system can do things which microphones can't, and microphones can measure things which we can't quantify by listening. The result is that we need to use both.
With regard to you hearing up to 16 KHz, that's quite good. Actually, even if you could hear "well" to 20 KHz, on a musical scale, that's only two whole steps higher (16K is approx. a musical note "B", 20K is approx. a "D#"). Keeping in mind that we're not talking about fundamental notes of any instrument, or even low order overtones, but rather extreme upper overtones, which are at significantly lower levels and typically buried in the ambient noise, I wouldn't worry about it. :)
However, it's well-known that, physiologically, we don't hear only with our ears. Our entire body responds to sound waves, notably our skull and sinus cavities. I have not studied this aspect of hearing to any serious extent, so I will only offer that bit of information as a point where you might start exloring. Given your obvious interest in what we hear, you seem to be a good candidate for learning about psychoacoustics - the science of how, what and why we hear what we hear. It's fascinating stuff!
This brings me to a comment you made:
"The real big first issue is that measurements are always carried out in standard conditions with purely resistive load, single tones ... conditions very far from reality"
There's a lot of territory to cover in that statement. So, I'll just say that that may be true in some cases, but there is also a large body of work where that isn't true. You just have to look in the right places. ASA is a good place to start. Many many studies have been done over the decades which don't fall into the category of that general comment.
It's essential to understand WHY tests are designed the way they are. Well-designed tests are intended to have at least half of a chance to isolate and measure something which is being explored. This requires a controlled environment. Sometimes, these test are flawed or poorly designed. Still, one cannot hope to gain an understanding of a particular aspect of sound or hearing without a controlled test, and isolating an event and then analyzing the results. Without this approach, we would be clueless, and wouldn't have the Fletcher-Munson contours of equal loudness, nor the head-related-transfer-function (HRTF), nor the time/level understanding of source directionality, all of which are fundamental to our understanding of why we hear what we hear.
:)
Hi and thanks again for the very interesting reply
I can understand that the hearing experience is complex.
But my words have no value.
Instead the words of a famouse designer have.
I notice that you have avoided to give an opinion on Mr. Dunlavy's thinking
He is actually stating that a complete evaluation of a speaker on an instrumental basis is possible.
I also think it is possible.
Not easy but doable. And once you get the right speaker the rest follows.
Just select a good source and decent electronics.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Hey Beppe,There wasn't any intention to avoid that - I just didn't comment on it. Must've gotten tired of typing. lol. I happen to have a good deal of respect for the late Mr. Dunlavy.
"" DAL firmly believes that a full set of credible measurements, made by qualified engineering staff using state-of-the-art equipment and facilities, can reliably predict the potential of a loudspeaker to accurately reproduce the complex sounds of music." —Dunlavy Audio Labs "
I agree. But note the use of words like "credible", "qualified", "predict", etc. This is important. He's being quite clear. And, he's not saying NOT to listen to the resulting product design as the ultimate test. Recently, another top designer (in the amplifier and circuitry world) said to me something like "we measure the wrong things" in a brief discussion of why measurements often don't correlate with how a product sounds. My observation is that measurements are essential, and that when a product measures well but sounds like crap, we should find a way to figure out why and devise a test for that. Back in the 1970s, that's exactly what happened with TIM and crossover notch distortion and slew rate and driver compression and "horn sound" and ... :)
A long time ago, I had the opportunity to learn from another now-famous loudspeaker designer, John Meyer (www.meyersound.com). He would run all kinds of tests and measurements, but the ultimate test would always be to listen.
:)
Edits: 07/27/14 07/27/14
Hi and thanks for the explanation
You say that you have been told " "we measure the wrong things"
It is difficult for me to accept this but i have heard similar opinions me too and from famous designers, especially for electronics i wound say.
I am very confused.
For instance one of the big debates is around op-amps.
Many consider them unsuitable for music.
And still some very high end preamps using op-amp do exist.
Two i know of being the MBL 6010d and the Tom Evans The Vibe, and both are op-amps based and measure excellently, and sound also sublime.
I sincerely hope that the confusion is real and not intentional.
And then there are those infamous blind sessions ... where very cheap amps sound on par with much more expansive units, driving same speakers.
I stop. And i thank you very much again for the very interesting advice.
Kind regards,
bg
"He would run all kinds of tests and measurements, but the ultimate test would always be to listen."
Absolutely, gotta close the loop. I've been enjoying your comments, I think trying to clear up some of the foggy thinking that quite a few AA'ers seem to have concerning measurements vs hearing is a good thing.
"when a product measures well but sounds like crap, we should find a way to figure out why and devise a test for that"
That says it all!
It's as though some folks feel that there is some sort of contest between their perceptions and measurements and they want to win. I want a draw! I want the measurements to perfectly predict how much I'll enjoy and approve of the device's performance.
But I'm not holding my breath... shoot I don't even approve of some live performances, especially amplified ones.
Technically I like the work being done focusing on the time domain and local reflections. That's a viewpoint that has been somewhat buried by other issues but now it's time seems to have arrived. Please pardon the pun...
Rick
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: