General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Return to General Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?

50.156.204.25
Posted on July 21, 2014 at 09:34:32
skinzy
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: East Tennessee
Joined: February 13, 2003
 I think I’m like most folks here who wants to get the biggest bang for the buck regardless of price. Much has been written about what % to spend on each component to achieve a balanced system and the importance of system synergy and room acoustics. I've seen some say power cords are more important than an active components (which I doubt). I think it would be interesting to develop a system performance measurement method that registers absolute marginal changes in performance. Maybe it already exists-its called our ears?

"A pound of perspiration is equal to an ounce of inspiration"

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
I thought that was what our brains already did nt, posted on July 21, 2014 at 09:53:08
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 nt

 

Here's the scoop.., posted on July 21, 2014 at 10:28:52
ppopp
Audiophile

Posts: 2994
Location: OR
Joined: October 10, 2002
 In the final analysis, the one thing which matters more than anything else is whether or not our ears are stimulated by what they are hearing.
The music comes first of course (I can think of plenty of recordings which make my system sound amazing where the music is dull). I'll take great music with mediocre sound quality over great sound quality with mediocre music any day.

There is no better measure than trusting your ears. Measuring equipment isn't receiving the information in exactly the same way any individual's ears are. We don't know enough about how our ears receive sound to make a measuring equipment receive it in the same way (not least because we all hear things differently), and we don't know enough about technology to design measuring equipment to do it even if we did all hear things the same.
So, trust your ears for the best results.
If you put listening to you system before listening to the music, you will never be happy with your system.

If you are an engineer, please ignore this post - chances are you have been programmed to (erroneously) trust specifications over what your ears enjoy.
Engineers: forgive the dig, but I sold audio gear for 20+ years, and I had to drag engineers kicking and screaming into the demo room. Most of them thought it was a place not to be trusted.
Any customer had the choice of trusting any of three things:
1. Specifications (so many reasons why these are an inaccurate guide)
2. The audio sales guy
3. The demo room (ideally their front room).

 

You have your query and answer in one post -"its called our ears"..., posted on July 21, 2014 at 10:47:40
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31875
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 Best to be content with that, otherwise you'd have to hire someone to keep track of all the numbers and data, analyse said data,
and present it in a functional, useful and coherent manner for your appraisal.

You can't do it yourself because if you choose to share it with fellow audiophiles you'll be accused
of being subjective (which for an objective exercise is a big no-no).

Think about how much hiring someone to do that shit would cost.

(Besides, it sounds too much like government work)

Better to spend that money on the audio HOBBY.

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure



 

It's subjective after a certain point ..., posted on July 21, 2014 at 12:32:21
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 I think what most people are after is musical enjoyment more than anything. And the path to that can lead in different directions depending upon:

1. The type of music you primarily listen to & the typical production quality of it?
2. What "sins of omission" will you not miss.
3. What "sims of commission" will you not mind.
4. How often will you listen to music on your stereo in a given week?
5. What is your budget, realistically?
6. What sort of room will you put it in?
7. How flexible will you be in placement of speakers and components?
8. What sort of listening chairs will you have? How will you be listening?

These are all important since there is no "perfect" system - and the best most satisfying results will depend how you make your tradeoffs.





====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 12:58:20
skinzy
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: East Tennessee
Joined: February 13, 2003
 I did this post after spending some time in the cable forum. That place drives me nuts. Dare not make a comment as not to offend anyone? By the way not an engineer but my dad was a EE and daughter is a ME. I do know how they think!

"A pound of perspiration is equal to an ounce of inspiration"

 

Yes, posted on July 21, 2014 at 13:17:22
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 And given you can't listen to a graph or spec sheet (but both might indicate something you might like) you ears are the final judge.

I have found that "most" (say, 80%) gear that measures well, also sounds good when playing music. But you also get the pieces of gear that either measure well and sound bad, or measure poorly and sound great. And I think much of that rolls into "what floats your boat"



====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

All of that and..., posted on July 21, 2014 at 15:14:26
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37609
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 since no component is perfect, it is a matter of optimizing the compromises for your set of priorities - which are likely different than mine. What sonic clues or characteristics are most important to replicating that "live" experience? The wide dynamic swing of horns? The neutrality and wide bandwidth of direct radiators? The coherency of full range electrostats? Guess which is at the top of my list. :)

Another factor that is important - to me at least - is achieving a lack of distractions. The OP mentioned power cords. What I've found is that all manner of power conditioning products can reduce the false brightness caused by EMI/RFI garbage found in and radiated into modern homes. Not because the grid is inherently noisy, but there are all sorts of switching devices we plug into our AC that happily pollute our circuits along with the presence of a range of radio/WiFi/cellular network signals.

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 16:07:29
tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 8198
Joined: July 4, 2002
 Don’t feel bad, it is frustrating but the problem is your talking about engineering, how the products are designed and built and what governs how they all work which is at the opposite end of things from the buying and selling of finished goods.

The issue is that our sensory system is a “system” but since we have experienced nothing else but that system, we are unaware how the senses are tied together.
When presented with examples, many audiophiles coil in anger as it suggests their sense are not perfect or “golden”.

For instance, if you have cable TV, look for “brain games” which tonight deals with some of the auditory weirdness including how what you know effects what your senses present to you.
If you don’t have cable TV, here are a couple examples, the first a well known auditory phenomena where what you see over rides what reaches your ears. Wear headphones and concentrate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UzWeZZ9XeQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

The next one goes a step further, what you hear is not only what you see but also what you know.

Poppy from Dolby labs has a demonstration using song lyrics just a few min into the video but the lead in is interesting too at least for people working in audio like these folks.

With the “knowledge” based hearing demo, this ONLY WORKS ONCE because once you know, you have that knowledge.
Again focus and use headphones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Now keep in mind, the demonstrations often make people angry and yet it is at least partly this gap between how our “system” works and how physics work that is why blind tests (comparing two cases without knowing which was which) often gives bewildering results.

Blind testing in audio means only using your ears, an audiology or hearing test only involves only using your ears, any really nearly every kind of testing involves you not knowing what the answer is.

The sales and appreciation of hifi gear by non-engineering people involves knowing the answer is before the question is asked which makes things pretty squishy as the first presenter mentioned.
This is a fascinating area if your keen to look into it.

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 16:45:12
middleground
 Ears don't take notes or do math, so...

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 17:11:08
skinzy
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: East Tennessee
Joined: February 13, 2003
 Thanks I will check this out. Have always been a fan of “perception” and its limits/anomalies as it relates to the visual world. Never thought about how it would apply to audiology. How we know what we know is always interesting!

"A pound of perspiration is equal to an ounce of inspiration"

 

It's a fuzzy world, posted on July 21, 2014 at 17:37:47
Goober58
 Measurements as well as objective observations are only as relevant as mandated by a subject's personal philosophy. Ie. how we quantify things is purely subjective.

PS - I am an engineer.

 

Listener Surveys........, posted on July 21, 2014 at 17:50:33
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Have 20 to 50 people listen to the system, and have them rate the sound from 1 to 10.... Then add the rating scores.....

Then make a change, and hold another survey.... If the scores are higher, then voila!

 

Yeah, but .... , posted on July 21, 2014 at 18:21:11
three_sox
 ... If you have two systems set up in identical rooms, save the audio equipment. Then have 99 people listen to both systems and vote on which they prefer.

You listen and much prefer system 'A'.

You then read the results of the vote.

99 people voted for system "B" and only you voted for system "A".

The question is;

Were you wrong?

I say no, but who knows, eh?

:)

 

Do measurements sound better?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 18:57:53
Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 16242
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 I recently changed amps and had to recalibrate my subs for a different gain factor. I did so by ear and it sounded good with a solid, tuneful bass.

While watching a movie with the processor in the mix, but the subs connected to the preamp secondary outputs as the mains amp, it didn't rumble, I thought it was going to take down the room.

For grins, I got out my sound meter and Stereophile test tones and worked the bass down to be in line with the main speaker levels. I was nearly twice as loud as I should have been. It also sounded a bit too polite for rock and roll. And the explosions on TV didn't wake my up any more.




-Rod

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 19:16:27
Rod M
Web Geek

Posts: 16242
Location: So. California
Joined: March 1, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 >>> That place drives me nuts.

And I thought that folks had to be nuts to be Inmates.

But I hear you. I'm a science major and computer guy. Cables are cables. I was dumbfounded when I put some skinny little Audience speaker cables in my system after using good 12 gauge stranded wire forever. My buddy whose Sony receiver is better than anything friend, agreed. It was just obvious. I'm not sure it could be measured and it could easily have been explained by lousy insulation and corrosion of the copper wire on the old wire.

I use mostly Canare cables and some Bob Crump ICs and power cables. A Tice power cable gives my preamp a more lush sound. Some components seem to react more than others to changes. Perhaps, those are poorly designed or just finicky. Cables can be tone controls as well, albeit expensive ones.

I do like well made cables though.

-Rod

 

Wouldn't that reveal the most average system?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 19:24:43
Goober58
 And surely one could chose a listening panel as well as test systems to guarantee just about any outcome.


 

It's a trend to embrace the mediocre and shun the unique and exceptional., posted on July 21, 2014 at 19:29:09
Goober58
 It's part of the plan to create the perfect serfdom.

No system shall be produced unless it meets with approval of at least 80% of the population.

People seem to want it.

 

RE: Wouldn't that reveal the most average system?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 19:39:26
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Maybe the survey can be modified.... The listener, prior to listening to the system, is to spend roughly an hour listening to some live acoustic jazz at the local club... .... .........

 

RE: Wouldn't that reveal the most average system?, posted on July 21, 2014 at 20:17:07
Goober58
 The listener, prior to listening to the system, is to spend roughly an hour listening to some live acoustic jazz at the local club...

Well that might be useful if one characterizes the best system as the one that sounds like live acoustical jazz at the local club whose listening space is similar to the test space.

 

Live music has so many meanings & contexts ... , posted on July 22, 2014 at 01:05:06
three_sox
 ... The two biggest types of live music are probably amplified & unamplified.

However both amplified and unamplified music fall in to a myriad of sub categories of venues.

Such as;

Large Entertainment Centers.

Concert Halls - modern and old

Town Halls

Theatres

Outdoor stadiums

Outdoor amphitheaters

Outdoor paddocks & parks & shopping malls & car parks.

Clubs & bars - from 30 seat to 500 seat - low ceilings, high ceilings.

Then you have many of the indoor venues have different floor coverings, wall and ceiling materials.

My point is, the same band playing the same music is going to sound different in each venue. Plus, the same band will sound different in the same venue depending upon where the listener sits or stands.

Throw into the mix the enormous difference in ambient noise in each venue makes the nonsense about the goal of a home system is to sound like live music to be almost meaningless.

I like live music and I know how good & bad it can sound. But I have never tried to make my system sound like a particular live venue other than the venue it is in, my home!

Ok, I step down from my soap box.

:o)






 

A very simple. effective, objective and reliable method could stop the game , posted on July 22, 2014 at 04:23:28
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
 Hi, i am sure that with a rightly designed series of test signals and the right analyzer (not the human ear) it could be done easily and effectively
The principle is to compare what you send in with what you get out of the system ...
If you send for instance a single tone and you get many other tones at the speakers this is not good ...
I do not think that this is what the audiophile business wants
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: A very simple. effective, objective and reliable method could stop the game , posted on July 22, 2014 at 05:01:58
middleground
 Touché!

Although the tests could be quite a bit more involved for precious little more technological effort.

The people who started and promoted "subjective audio" and the "we all hear differently" and the "any little change anywhere causes significant aural improvements" mantra are not about to give up on their good thing.

 

Hear, hear!!, posted on July 22, 2014 at 06:03:53
rlw
Audiophile

Posts: 3347
Location: Near West Palm Bch, FL
Joined: August 29, 2006
 Pun intended! But I concur wholeheartedly with your assessment. IMHO, there is far too much voodoo science being promulgated by the audio charlatans...
-RW-

 

RE: A very simple. effective, objective and reliable method could stop the game , posted on July 22, 2014 at 10:24:53
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37609
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Hi, i am sure that with a rightly designed series of test signals and the right analyzer (not the human ear) it could be done easily and effectively

Given the fact that many have tried and failed over the past century, I think that's simply wishful thinking. I find wisdom in the words of H.H. Scott engineer Daniel von Recklinghausen:

"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing."



 

Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 22, 2014 at 11:26:08
Goober58
 Heck people can measure their systems performance in room, buy active eqs, etc but they don't do it.

Why? Because, for many listeners, having the best measured performance is not the same thing as having the best sound.

 

LOL - it's not the industry's fault you or others don't use measurement when making buying decisions, posted on July 22, 2014 at 11:32:05
Goober58
 I don't know what you guys think. Heck make the measurements on your own and forget the BS performance specs the manufacturers are gonna tell you.

And yea it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that how a systems sounds is greatly effected by the room it is being played in and the material it is being asked to play.

What's BS is the lazy whining "objectivists" who seem to think the industry can do the work for them. LOL - there is no easy way. You want measurement then the only truly relevant way for you to get them is in your own home.

 

If that were to happen..., posted on July 22, 2014 at 12:04:54
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
 ...think of all the time the naysayers would have on their hands to stir up mischief in other hobbies.

 

Impossible..., posted on July 22, 2014 at 12:23:49
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
 ...an improvement to you may not sound like an improvement to me.

We tend to listen for and focus on different aspects of the music's sound.

As to measurements, JA in Stereophile has been doing them for years and trying to correlate them to the observational listening with some success, but even that isn't perfect.

The ear is still the most sensitive listening device - every high end equipment designer I know of fine tunes their final products by listening.

 

We need an electronic ear...., posted on July 22, 2014 at 13:00:54
StephenJK
 and will likely also need some type of AI customized to that function. With recent developments in quantum computing I'm sure we'll have something soon.

Then, not only will we be able to properly quantify all of the relevant data, we'll be able use the AI to help us design and build a perfect stereo system. There won't be any more guesswork involved.

Once we have that done, the only variable will be cosmetic issues so that the speakers and electronics will match your decor.

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 22, 2014 at 13:55:52
Bob Neill
Dealer

Posts: 2953
Location: New England
Joined: October 1, 1999
 A problem here is that some "improvements" matter more to us than others. A bit more clarity and coherence can affect us more than additional range, for example. I say this having spent a week or so listening to nothing but a pair of Tocaro 40's, which have less range (highs and lows) than their big brothers, the 42's. I am very happy and can't hear what's missing...probably because what's present is more important than what's missing...? I'm sure when I switch back, I'll hear the "improvements," but I am curious how much they'll matter and what, if anything, will be lost.

 

how we quantify things is purely subjective, posted on July 22, 2014 at 13:57:49
Bob Neill
Dealer

Posts: 2953
Location: New England
Joined: October 1, 1999
 Indeed.

 

What "sins of omission" will you not miss., posted on July 22, 2014 at 13:59:12
Bob Neill
Dealer

Posts: 2953
Location: New England
Joined: October 1, 1999
 Indeed.

 

A "simple" objective test is in fact not so simple., posted on July 22, 2014 at 14:43:00
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 I second Estat's comments...its been tried many times and if you knew your audio history you would realize it is not a trivial undertaking.

 

RE: Impossible..., posted on July 22, 2014 at 14:47:27
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 I think it can be done where most people would agree on an improvement based on the right data collection and analysis but of course it wouldn't appeal to all. Still, one could push things in the right direction with clever use of measurements.

 

RE: Impossible..., posted on July 22, 2014 at 15:39:19
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
 >I think it would be interesting to develop a system performance measurement method that registers absolute marginal changes in performance.>

...what would you measure for incremental performance improvement?

The only thing that makes sense to me would be an electrode cap measuring the brain pleasure center for improvements.

 

RE: Hear, hear!!, posted on July 22, 2014 at 17:50:57
middleground
 To use Bob Dylan's immortal words: "And everybody's shouting, "Which Side Are You On?"".

 

I share your feelings, posted on July 23, 2014 at 01:24:43
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 From what i read and know about myself, people do select both recorded music and equipment to play that music that emphasizes sonic characteristics they favor, to the semi- or complete exclusion of others.

The interesting thing is that we base our selection of music and equipment on very little information in relationship to the populations of both recorded music and playback equipment.

This means that if we increase our sample sizes for both populations, or if we are hit by a random occurrence, we may open up ourselves to changing our preferences for both, a musical revolution!

I think we under-estimate the impact of this randomness in favor of thinking we are behaving in some kind of scientific way. However, acting on the basis of a random experience is just as scientific as acting on the basis of a methodical plan.

But sometimes we do fool ourselves...which is what makes this business really interesting and sometimes painful.

 

RE: A "simple" objective test is in fact not so simple., posted on July 23, 2014 at 07:39:56
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi i think that tools to do this already exist.
Maybe it is not that simple but i am pretty sure it could be done.
And it is done by most of the manufactures
They have labs full of instruments ... i do not think they keep them for show.
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 23, 2014 at 07:44:16
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi if your point is that tastes are different i agree
But if accurate reproduction is the goal i am sure it can be checked with instruments and other tools like specifically designed signal tracks
I like accuracy in sound.
It is very difficult for me to accept the idea that something accurate is not good sounding.

Kind regards,
bg

 

" If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad", posted on July 23, 2014 at 07:51:00
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Do you have any specific example for this ?
I agree that the system should be tested as a whole in the actual listening environment
the problem is that sometimes very scientifici designers become unscientific
I have seen a video of a very good engineer equalizing a recording by ear ... this is just ridiculous ... what is the sense of eq a sound ?
It is like photoshopping musics ... is not accurate.
It is not realistic.
I am obsessed with distortion.
For me a low distortion system cannot sound bad. It is impossible.
Distortion must be measured on all the chain of course and it can be done quite easily.
Measurement on only one piece of the chain can tell something but the final test must be in the listening room.





Kind regards,
bg

 

By the way this is fine if it does not become an obsession, posted on July 23, 2014 at 08:05:35
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
I think that at a certain level of price all the equipment are at least good
An example ... i and a friend compared in his quite good system his CJ PV10 and my old Bryston.
In the end i could have lived very well with both in his good system
The sounds were slightly different but substantially pretty decent in both cases.
Personally i think that distortion is the evil.
I have declared war to distortion and i am converting myself to HE speakers in order to keep the distortion as low as possible.
Than a decent source with a decent integrated should make the rest.
In the meantime i play with toys.

Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 23, 2014 at 08:34:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Accuracy requires a reference and a metric that measures differences. The problem is doubly difficult, because unless one was present at the original recording one must guess at the reference and because no reproduction can generate identical acoustic waveforms in the recording venue and the listening room. Accordingly, what matters is subjective perception of sonic accuracy and this works differently with different listeners because of artifacts in their hearing and training in their mind.

At least with classical music, jazz and most other acoustic music, my experience has been that most recordings are enjoyable once a system has been properly selected and voiced to fit a listening room. The music sounds similar to what one hears "live" which is also "good sounding". This might not be the case with other musical genres. I do have a few recordings that sound quite horrible, but it seems likely that this was intentional on the part of the producer and performers.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Fair enough but it's up to you to do that, posted on July 23, 2014 at 08:44:01
Goober58
 What's accurate? I'm kind of beating a dead horse here.

Look you define what measurements need to be taken in order to determine a systems accuracy then you take them. Pure and simple - there is no conspiracy/rip theory in play here.

Manufacturers supplied specification are usually taken under ideal or test conditions. This may or may not reflect the performance in real world conditions.

Most of us just listen and chose based on what we like to hear. Those who want accurate need to buy/rent some test equipment or an active eq. Without doing that you're just blowing hot air.

If that's what you want to do do it.

 

Sure! (longish), posted on July 23, 2014 at 10:15:27
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37609
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Amplification:

Beginning in the 70s, designers of solid state gear went amok with their new "fix-it-all" tool called negative feedback. If a little was good, more was always better. That lowered output impedance (good), lowered measured harmonic distortion (at least with sine waves), but created problems. The top end of the Crown D-150 amp I had as a teenager sounded like sandpaper on top and was closed in.

Hard sounding amps today are pretty rare, but many engineers still lean to heavily IMHO to using high levels of NFB as a crutch. The result is overly cool and thin sound. Perfect example is now defunct Halcro. You felt as though you were listening to the symphony in the tundra. Mind you, I use live unamplified music as my objective. Does that sound like a piano? A cello? A guitar. I don't like overly "warm" or thick sound either. But many current amps that "measure well" don't sound good to me. While I haven't heard every one, I don't like switching amps either. They may be neutral in tonal balance, have great THD specs, but sound lifeless to me and lack the body of the real thing.

Measures good, sounds bad.

Speakers:

All speakers are flawed in some way(s), so value judgements come into play here. On the other hand, I prefer those whose sins are that of omission - my stats can't do 20hz nor can they play 120 db. But that is not something that you always notice. Especially since I never really want to listen that loudly anyway. I'll mention one case of a JBL speaker I heard a couple of years ago. It was a vintage bookshelf monitor that exhibited very neutral and entended response. Upon first listen, it was fine. It wasn't long before I noticed its weird soundstaging. Perhaps it was intended for nearfield listening only, but at a "normal" distance what you heard was the sonic equivalent of a funhouse mirror. The woofer had a consistently wide polar response across its range as did the superlative dome tweeter. Wide soundstage at the top and bottom. The midrange, however, was run at too high a crossover frequency to the tweeter such that it beamed horribly at the transition. Pinched with an instant transition to the wide dispersion of the tweeter. I found listening to it always distracting and synthetic.

Measures good (in some ways), bad in others that always stuck out (to me at least) like a sore thumb. Which is why I'm a full range electrostat fancier. I value coherency and uniform directivity for a speaker's entire response - while somewhat limited in range and ultimate output it may be.

 

RE: Sure! (longish), posted on July 24, 2014 at 08:56:50
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and i agree i have to modify my opinion
First it is very difficult for me to admit the measurements are useless
Why designers spend big money to buy instruments then
I can agree that some measurements cannot related with sound quality but i am sure that the most gifted audio designers have developed proprietary test protocols that are not what we see in the magazines for instance
This is part of their knowledge and so they do not disclose this happily and this is perfectly understandable
Speaking of the Crown i suppose it had impeccable distortion figures in the high freqs ... so this means to me that this specific measurements do not correlate with sound quality.

For speakers i am more convinced that distortion measurements really tell many things but i also see that they are quite uncommon
Moreover if you take a low distortion high eff and easy to drive speakers also amps sound better

One day instruments will tell us the whole story
I am sure of this


Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 24, 2014 at 09:34:34
Inmate51
 "Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?"

Who would decide what is an improvement, and who would decide who those people are?

Once we have chosen and succumbed to The Ultimate Ruler Of The Audio World, it will work for a while, until the inevitable unrest and uprising.

:)

 

Done on a monthly basis, it might actually work, posted on July 24, 2014 at 09:57:22
genungo
 As audiophiles, we must constantly correlate measurements taken with our current moods and disorders. A monthly checkup should be required.

 

RE: Fair enough but it's up to you to do that, posted on July 24, 2014 at 10:59:11
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Well accurate is a system that gives out amplified a signal similar to the input (sorry for the bad English)
If you take a picture of an old person an accurate picture could be not nice, but it is accurate
If you photoshop it it could be nicer but less accurate, less true to the original
The same applies to sounds for me
I prefer accuracy even if the original is not that nice
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 24, 2014 at 11:05:19
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
What you say is not in contrast with what i think
Of course listening room is a decisive element, at least for speakers of course
For this i think that measurements should be taken on the whole system in the actual listening environment
But my accent still is on measurements not evaluations by ear
As i said the evidence is in the labs ... they are full of expensive instruments
I suppose they are useful for design and i believe they can be equally useful for testing
Sound in the end is physics
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 24, 2014 at 11:58:11
Inmate51
 Well accurate is a system that gives out amplified a signal similar to the input (sorry for the bad English)
If you take a picture of an old person an accurate picture could be not nice, but it is accurate
If you photoshop it it could be nicer but less accurate, less true to the original
The same applies to sounds for me
I prefer accuracy even if the original is not that nice
Kind regards,
bg


RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 24, 2014 at 11:05:19
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 3054
Joined: January 29, 2004

What you say is not in contrast with what i think
Of course listening room is a decisive element, at least for speakers of course
For this i think that measurements should be taken on the whole system in the actual listening environment
But my accent still is on measurements not evaluations by ear
As i said the evidence is in the labs ... they are full of expensive instruments
I suppose they are useful for design and i believe they can be equally useful for testing
Sound in the end is physics
Kind regards,
bg

**************

Beppster,

You are a perfect candidate for "Music, Physics and Engineering", and "Master Handbook of Acoustics".

Buy both, and read them.

:)

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 24, 2014 at 12:45:00
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Actually, I quite agree with you with respect to setting up speakers in a real room (at least a small one that isn't so great.) As I've previously posted, I found it just about impossible to set up my Focal near field monitors and sub woofer by ear. There were just too many adjustments that interacted with speaker position, etc... What I ended up doing was to purchase a calibrated microphone and RTA software and measure the bass response at my listening position. After some fine tuning of speaker position and sub woofer adjustments and after dialing in some parametric equalization I was able to get flat response from 30 Hz up to 20 kHz. However, at this point the system still sounded too bright and many recordings were unpleasant or worse. I finally voiced the high frequencies by ear, so that some previous reference recordings sounded natural and the vast majority of my collection sounded neither too bright or too dull. This ended up with a measured response that began to taper off at 2 KHz and was down -3.5 dB at 10 kHz, where it was shelved. (This was about half-way down in the tweeter control for the Focal Twin-6's.).

I am suspicious of both measurements and listening tests, even those that I make myself. I consider it insurance to have a system that measures good and also sounds great. I would be suspicious of a system that sounded great that didn't measure well, because it would only be a matter of time before coming up against recordings where the fault showed up in listening.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Wouldn’t it be great to measure overall system improvement?, posted on July 24, 2014 at 14:41:50
skinzy
Audiophile

Posts: 62
Location: East Tennessee
Joined: February 13, 2003
 Was at a friends house last night who has and plays piano. He did a beautiful Bill Evans piece from Waltz from Debby. The whole time he was playing I was thinking to myself that my system doesn’t even come close. Oh well maybe its my cables?

"A pound of perspiration is equal to an ounce of inspiration"

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 24, 2014 at 23:24:21
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and i would like to have the time
I am distracted by my job ...
But i tell you one story
I was asking if square wave test could be useful to evaluate a driver/speaker behaviour
The answers went from absolutely not to i do not know
Then i mentioned a famous speakers designer who promotes his projects also on the basis of a nice response to square waves and i aked if this designer was wrong.
No more answers. No one. In a technical forum.
This tells me that there is a lot to be learned still.
But also there are people they give opinions without a real understanding of the phenomena
I much prefer a sincere answer like i do not know.
When i read of a speakers designer who evaluate drivers by listening i am not against his procedure, but still i cannot get out of my head the idea that another scientific, objective, reproducible and instrumental method must exist.
As an aside i think that square wave is a very useful tool, even if square waves do not exist in nature.


Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Fair enough but it's up to you to do that, posted on July 25, 2014 at 10:22:13
Goober58
 Accurate to me is the stereo that best portrays it's inputs as the music intended to be heard by those who created the album.

If the most accurate system best remains true to the music then it is the best.

Unfortunately given the ill-defined nature of the inputs it's somewhat unreasonable to assume the most technically accurate system will remain true to the music.

Your picture/camera analogy doesn't really hold as whatever format the images are preserved as is well defined. Something not true with audio recordings.

Don't get me wrong audio accuracy is important but what measurements and how they are quantified is dependent on the playback environment and the source material.

 

RE: Fair enough but it's up to you to do that, posted on July 26, 2014 at 02:04:05
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
Hi and of course i do not have the truth
And i tend to repeat myself. But i think that math calculations, instruments and measurements have a fundamental role in equipment design.
So i would expect that should have the same role in equipment evaluations.
And i see that even not completely scientific designers feel the urge to show the quality of their equipment with some sort of "instrumental" evidence.
But i could be wrong.
One thing is sure ... there is still a lot of confusion.
If not all amps should sound at least very good for instance.
In the end i think that speakers are the crucial element of an audio chain.
I would start from the bottom and then after buying a reasonably good source (digital is tricky) i would move upwards and try some amps.
But i feel speakers are really what fixes the limits obtainable by a set up.
Personally instead i cannot get preamps out of my mind.
I am a line stages addicted.
Good power amps are easier to spot. And also speakers.
Kind regards,
bg

 

RE: Wouldn't stop anything. Matter of fact people can do what you suggest but don't., posted on July 26, 2014 at 07:48:35
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "once a system has been properly selected and voiced to fit a listening room."

That's an excellent viewpoint Tony. The speakers that I have were bought knowing three things...
-That I liked the "house sound" of the brand.
-Exactly where they were going to live in the house.
-Experience with essentially an earlier instance of the units in that location.

Naturally speakers and the listening room form a system but unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough to analyze it. How I came to discover where they worked well here is a testimony to good luck trumping knowledge. When we moved in I just stuck them more or less out of the way and hooked them up the next day for music to unpack by. Still using those exact locations a quarter century later, but with newer speakers.

Rick










 

RE: A "simple" objective test is in fact not so simple., posted on July 26, 2014 at 08:04:11
morricab
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 9178
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Its a pity to say, but I all evidence suggests you are wrong.

 

RE: A "simple" objective test is in fact not so simple., posted on July 26, 2014 at 09:19:19
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
 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 it

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

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

 

Ear vs. Microphone, posted on July 26, 2014 at 14:02:05
Inmate51
 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.

:)

 

RE: Ear vs. Microphone, posted on July 27, 2014 at 02:38:58
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
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

 

RE: Ear vs. Microphone, posted on July 27, 2014 at 06:04:01
Inmate51
 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.

:)

 

RE: Ear vs. Microphone, posted on July 27, 2014 at 08:33:22
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "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

 

Agree!, posted on July 27, 2014 at 17:51:48
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 No matter where you "shop" and what you "shop" for ... the various components' weaknesses are traded off vs one another.

The most satisfying systems are weak in areas that subjectively don't matter as much to the end user - and all the things that make it feel good and realistic are intact and done perfectly.

When all is reduced to the simplest thing, it is that.
====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

" the ultimate test would always be to listen ", posted on July 27, 2014 at 22:23:34
beppe61
Audiophile

Posts: 4705
Joined: January 29, 2004
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

 

Page processed in 0.058 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]