Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t

Put another way, "How do you measure a violin?"

Let's make is simpler: "How do you measure a violin playing a single note?"

I remember an old Karl Haas program on Guaneris versus Strads. I listened to it on a pocket radio, which reproduced the bandwidth maybe from about 700Hz-3kHz, yet I could clearly hear the difference.

But I sure wouldn't want to try to *measure* the difference.

Measurements are useful for finding components that will work well together. They are useful to designers, because they *sometimes* tell you where you can improve something. But let's not forget the early solid-state gear that measured so wonderfully and sounded so lousy.

WW

There is NO substitute for the live performance.

RE: Trick Question., posted on October 24, 2009 at 19:49:47

gymwear5@hotmail.com
Manufacturer

Posts: 1218
Joined: April 10, 2002

Audible sound is just pressure variations over time. Current state of the are measurement equipment is not able to measure the pressure variations without altering the pressure variations. I know this to be a fact as I am an acoustician that works for the world finest acoustic measurement manufacturer, Bruel and Kjaer. Our finest microphones are amazingly capable, but cannot completely assess the sound level. Frequency response is tainted by the size of the microphone. We have just introduces a microphone that comes pretty close. We call it a multifield microphone and it is a 1/4 inch condenser microphone the only effects the sound field at the highest frequencies, yet has a noise floor as low as 20dB or so. But still the high frequency resonance of the diaphragm causes a phase shift in the electrical output relative to the pressure input. Of course once amplified or sampled at sufficiently high rates the phase errors in the signal could accurately be corrected for.

I have no doubt that the state of the art of measurement electronics would otherwise be sufficient to accurately be stored at data. But you used the term "Measured". This implies some kind of processing, which requires some form of detection which places limits on the results. For instance, the choice of Fourier, Wavelet or even RMS processing of the signal adapts the "measurement" to a process different than occurs in the human ear.

RE: Trick Question., posted on October 28, 2009 at 01:23:29

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

Cool post. I don't think there has to be any rules about taking all measurments in parallel, at least for analysis of recorded sounds, as long as the potential variables have been properly managed. Of course the problem of accurately capturing an accurate sound sure begs the question of whether everything can be measured in parallel to a level beyond the capabilities of human hearing.

First pass determined it is dead, second pass it was a cat, third pass we found out it's owners name is Erwin S.

RE: Trick Question., posted on October 25, 2009 at 21:08:33

Jon Risch
Bored Member

Posts: 6117
Joined: April 4, 2000
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999

Aside from the almost universal problem of science with the measurement contaminating the observed event, there are other aspects to it.

See:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/56751.html

Jon Risch

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/56751.

if it can be heard it can be measured, posted on October 24, 2009 at 12:16:24
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 4001 Joined: January 8, 2002	any change to the signal that changes the sound of a system is measurable. The problem isn't measuring it is corolating measurements and perceptions.

Of course it can be measured; we just have not figured out how to do so yet., posted on November 3, 2009 at 20:02:40
Norm Audiophile Posts: 14914 Joined: September 6, 2000	Someday we might be able to do so, but not in my lifetime. But I really don't care.

So......, posted on October 24, 2009 at 19:03:57
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 22046 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	It is generally accepted that Ella Fitzgerald had a nicer-sounding voice than a karaoke bar singer....... And that Benny Goodman had a nicer sounding clarinet than the clarinetist on the local high school band....... How would such quality be quantified or measured?

RE: So......, posted on October 25, 2009 at 10:34:46

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002

"It is generally accepted that Ella Fitzgerald had a nicer-sounding voice than a karaoke bar singer....... And that Benny Goodman had a nicer sounding clarinet than the clarinetist on the local high school band....... How would such quality be quantified or measured?"

The "difference in the signal" would be quite easy to measure as it would be huge. But audio signals in and of themselves have no opinions on "quality." Qualitative opinions are found in the humans that hold those opinions not in the signals that run through our stereo systems.

If it can be "heard" it can be measured. The "difference" between Ella and any other singer can be heard and can be measured.

The quanification of "aesthetic values" is not at issue here.

RE: So......, posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:53:59
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 22046 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	"The 'difference' between Ella and any other singer can be heard and can be measured." How could it be measured? I'm skeptical. Does anyone even know what would need to be measured to determine if it's a good singing voice?

RE: So......, posted on October 26, 2009 at 19:33:38

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002

>"The 'difference' between Ella and any other singer can be heard and can be measured."

How could it be measured? I'm skeptical.>

I would think it would be obvious that if one were to take the wave form from a recording of Ella Fitzgerald and measure it against any other recorded voice the differences would be obvious and substantial. Surely you don't expect such wave forms to be identical in every measurable parameter do you?

>Does anyone even know what would need to be measured to determine if it's a good singing voice?>

"Good" is a qualitative evaluation.

RE: So......, posted on October 28, 2009 at 00:26:30

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"I would think it would be obvious that if one were to take the wave form from a recording of Ella Fitzgerald and measure it against any other recorded voice the differences would be obvious and substantial."

So what exactly would you look for in the measurements, which would distinguish not only Ella's voice, but a desirable vocal in future evaluation?

RE: So......, posted on October 28, 2009 at 04:10:04
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 4001 Joined: January 8, 2002	"So what exactly would you look for in the measurements, which would distinguish not only Ella's voice, but a desirable vocal in future evaluation?" I have no idea. Only so much of a vocal is tonality. most of it is inflection. I'm not claiming one can measure art, only sound.

Nitty Gritty, posted on October 25, 2009 at 21:06:48

Jon Risch
Bored Member

Posts: 6117
Joined: April 4, 2000
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999

I think what Todd is referring to is WHAT should be measured and HOW shall we interpret it.

Sure, we can measure everything that the eardrum gets exposed to down to the levels it is capable of resolving. We can measure up to and beyond what it is capable of discerning on the loud end of things, but note that it takes an exceptional and extraordinary measurement system that can do both extremes at the same time with the same single measurement.

But once we get past this point, now what?

What are the constituents of a wide and deep soundstage, or one that has been foreshortened and collapsed?? Is it frequency response flatness?
THD? S/N? Probably none of these. So what do we measure?

That is the problem in a nutshell, what to measure, and how to correlate it with what we hear.

It is VERY likely that a single microphone measurement of a sound playback system would be incapable of being able to determine the quality and character of that system's soundstage. No matter what measurements you took, the single mic would be unable to determine such a playback aspect, due to it's limitations of spatial diversity. You would probably need at least two, more likely, more than two microphones to do such a measurement. That's assuming that we already knew what algorithms to run on the recorded results. So how many mics DOES it take to accurately assess and measure the quality of a playback systems soundstage?

You see where this is going? In some cases, we don't even know what we don't know! In that instance, being able to measure or even record down to, and up past the resolution of the human eardrum isn't enough, we actually need to have further information we don't currently have.

Jon Risch

RE: Nitty Gritty, posted on November 3, 2009 at 10:13:28

Curly Woods
Audiophile

Posts: 118
Location: Texas
Joined: January 31, 2006

Yes every time the "non-listeners" start in about everything relates to FR, I turn my head and walk away. How do you measure sound stage depth and height, how do you measure transparency, how do you measure "liquidity"?
These are the same people that say that there are no differences in capacitor, resistor or cabling too. I have sold high end audio for over 20+ years and never had a problem with customers ability to hear differences. I guess scientific theory causes constipation of ones ears somehow. I will never understand why those that know so much, can be so blind to auditory truths. In their world the two do not exist. Just baffles me to no end.

Yep. everything you said. nt, posted on October 25, 2009 at 22:06:36
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 4001 Joined: January 8, 2002	nt

Define "nice"?, posted on October 25, 2009 at 05:21:42
clifff Audiophile Posts: 1675 Location: English Riviera Joined: May 22, 2003	The scientific method is not based on what is generally accepted.

Gads....................., posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:48:43
Todd Krieger Audiophile Posts: 22046 Location: SW United States Joined: November 2, 2000	"The scientific method is not based on what is generally accepted." Gads, imagine if that rule were followed in music evaluation...... We'd have to accept the notion that the Vienna Philharmonic is not necessarily better than a typical high school orchestra............ And any citation of such is kooky at the level of citing one audio cable sounding better than another.........

Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt), posted on October 23, 2009 at 07:12:01

Stephæn
Bored Member

Posts: 2137
Joined: September 23, 1999
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999

I said empty.

æ

If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

RE: Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt), posted on November 1, 2009 at 00:31:04
benie Audiophile Posts: 1050 Location: B.C. Canada Joined: October 24, 2004	I agree, much of this cannot be measured but it's there. But some systems have a harder time showing some of this and there are some you just can't hear it.

RE: Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt, posted on October 24, 2009 at 19:32:13
gymwear5@hotmail.com Manufacturer Posts: 1218 Joined: April 10, 2002	Absolutely all of those aspects are NOT part of the audible sound. They are only part of the imagined reproduction you create in your mind due the stimulus of the audible sound, along with your past experience, current mental state, the physical condition of your hearing at the moment, and any number of lesser influences.

RE: Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt, posted on November 3, 2009 at 10:21:52

Curly Woods
Audiophile

Posts: 118
Location: Texas
Joined: January 31, 2006

You are not serious are you? I mean this is 2009 and we are all aware of things like sound staging, transparency, etc. I guess you have taken the road that if I can't measure it, it does not exist road.

I truly feel sorry for you and your listening experiences. Still listening to that lamp cord and Radio Shack interconnected system. WOW that has to imaging like a champ! I have sold audio for over 20+ years and never had any issue with customers not being able to discern the subtle aspects of great sound. I guess we are in collusion on some telepathic wavelength so to not speak and let the cat out of the bag. Give me a break. Maybe you should start listening a little more intently, before making such outlandish claims that people can not hear nuances in recorded music, as they are not part of the recordings. If your system is that poor, I can see where one might make such a statement. Unbelievable in this day and age.

RE: Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt, posted on October 25, 2009 at 07:21:49

Stephæn
Bored Member

Posts: 2137
Joined: September 23, 1999
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999

>> Absolutely all of those aspects are NOT part of the audible sound. They are only part of the imagined reproduction you create in your mind due the stimulus of the audible sound, along with your past experience, current mental state, the physical condition of your hearing at the moment, and any number of lesser influences.

Absolutely, eh?

Not sure why I'm taking the time to responded to such open-mindedness
from the self-ordained "Messenger of Logic" (as you referred to yourself
on another board, just yesterday). Since you may forgive me for believing
that dialogue with you appears to be dead in the water from the word go,
I—in the interest of fairness—will give you the opportunity to prove me
wrong about that.

Let's say I do an A/B of two power cords in a five minute span and I hear
significant differences in sense of venue, image placement and density,
soundstage depth, tonal saturation and textural palpability.

Are you saying that the stimulus of the audible sound, along with my past
experience, mental state, the physical condition of my hearing, and any
number of lesser influences will all have also changed significantly over
that five minute span?

æ

If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

RE: Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt, posted on November 3, 2009 at 15:00:33

Curly Woods
Audiophile

Posts: 118
Location: Texas
Joined: January 31, 2006

You are obviously biased towards the one cable over the other is the typical response from the objectionists. It was the color or the pattern in the outer jacket, it is the connector, it is your mood, it is the fact that your wife is allowing you to spend money, the list goes on and on. Why can't it be that you actually heard something! Good grief, I trust my ears if I can remove the suspected improvement and return to the original and confirm what I thought that I heard after repeated trials to prove it to myself. What would those that did not trust their own ears do if they did not have them. Watch test equipment?

RE: Sense of venue. Image placement and density. Soundstage depth. Tonal saturation. Textural palpability. (mt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:54:05

Stephæn
Bored Member

Posts: 2137
Joined: September 23, 1999
Contributor
Since: March 1, 1999

>>What would those that did not trust their own ears do if they did not have them. Watch test equipment?

They would do what they always do: Argue with those who do trust
their own ears. After all, people's expectations to hear no differences
can't help but play a role in what they fail to hear ;-)

æ

If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

I think most of the tools are there..., posted on October 23, 2009 at 01:48:53

morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005

just that its not completely clear which COMBINATIONs of results are relevant to what the listener actually hears. Read the papers that Earl Geddes published and the metric they developed, which is the best recent attempt at a in vivo/in vitro correlation for audio.

In the pharma industry I am constantly working towards finding analytical metrics that correlate well with biological function when that person takes a particular drug in a clinical trial, for example. If and when this is established it is possible to determine efficacy thresholds, tox thresolds, rates etc. This should be the same goal for audio measurements that there is a strong in vivo/in vitro correlation.

So humans are just another block, posted on October 28, 2009 at 01:12:17
Ugly Audiophile Posts: 1420 Location: Des Moines, WA Joined: August 22, 2006	in the signal flow diagram? Find our transfer functions and all will be known? I like the idea and it feels right but the devil is in the details and alot of them seem to be missing.

RE: So humans are just another block, posted on October 28, 2009 at 14:54:16
morricab Dealer Posts: 4456 Location: switzerland Joined: April 1, 2005	sort of but not entirely. WE are the end point in fact of the diagram if you will. See my other examples for what I consider to be somewhat technical explanations of a couple of different phenomena.

RE: I think most of the tools are there..., posted on October 23, 2009 at 06:44:50

rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005

Hear hear!

I think they are too. Both for primary and secondary effects. But you have put your fingerbone on the issue: correlation. For some things, like jitter, it's looking like the allowable amount is mighty close to zero so it's tough to control your tests well enough to not pollute the result. We desperately need to establish a uniform method of measuring it's magnitude and nature to allow sensitivity thresholds to be established and provide a couple of reliable vectors that we can work on.

But, to know how to properly measure it we need to know what aspects are important to hearing it. It's a catch-22.

Rick

RE: I think most of the tools are there..., posted on October 28, 2009 at 14:56:13
morricab Dealer Posts: 4456 Location: switzerland Joined: April 1, 2005	Read my two experiences with amplifiers and turntables in a couple of other posts. I am always trying to find real world explanations to what I can clearly hear. This is why, despite its flaws, I like the Cheever thesis and also the work by Earl Geddes and their metrics.

RE: Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t, posted on October 22, 2009 at 22:44:55

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

Late 1970s Japan-made solid-state receiver. Say Sony, Pioneer, or Kenwood. 150 watts per channel. 5 Hz to 50 kHz frequency response. Less than 0.01 percent total harmonic distortion at rated power.

Great specs, sounds like crap................

Audio engineer Daniel H. Cheever is one of the recent researchers in regard to deriving specifications that better correlate to real-world sonic performance.

http://www.next-tube.com/articles.php?article=articles/Cheev

RE: Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t, posted on October 30, 2009 at 01:52:22
Ugly Audiophile Posts: 1420 Location: Des Moines, WA Joined: August 22, 2006	So you are saying no? Just that commonly accepted measurement practice may be flawed? Judging by what little info most spec sheets offer, and in light of recent advancements (of the type in your link) regarding understanding of human perception I'd have a tough time disagreeing with that.

RE: Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t, posted on October 22, 2009 at 19:23:46
Robert Hamel Audiophile Posts: 1782 Location: New York Joined: October 24, 2002	I think it's more of a case of what measurements correlate to the "term" used to describe what we hear. Good examples to me are resolution and dynamics. What measurements define a system that has "good" resolution and dynamics. Can you look at a measurement set and have it predict what differences we will hear between two systems??

RE: Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t, posted on October 28, 2009 at 00:30:59

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

"Can you look at a measurement set and have it predict what differences we will hear between two systems?? "

That's a great question but I'm unable to answer since I've never even seen a complete set of characterization data for a set of gear much less all of the gear. My suspicions are that some of us would start getting very good at doing it if we could. Kind of like when picking out analog film, stuff like grain and contrast still matter in analog. I'm starting to think that we are all just being lazy OR the manufacturers are trying to hide something from us.

Correlation - exactly, posted on October 22, 2009 at 19:37:22
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 9838 Location: Central boonies Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	I once asked a question of Andy19191919191 that sailed right over his head: Which would you rather have - 1% pure second harmonic distortion or 0.1% seventh harmonic distortion? Looking at a chart of numbers and magnitudes tells you precious little about real world performance. rw

RE: Correlation - exactly, posted on October 23, 2009 at 14:53:46

tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002

"Looking at a chart of numbers and magnitudes tells you precious little about real world performance."

Absolutely true, good post!

"Which would you rather have - 1% pure second harmonic distortion or 0.1% seventh harmonic distortion? "

An engineering purest would say none of either but in reality the 1% second would be inaudible while the .1% 7th might well standout like a sore thumb.

There is the auditory masking effect to deal with here, falling at around 10dB per octave (mid band) from the fundamental is a level below which a second higher /quieter tone is masked (made inaudible) by the lower louder one.

Here, in your example not only is the second H below that level but the 7th would be above it.

As it is many other places in audio, it is a question of at what point can you hear something and what does a given measured issue "sound like".

Another example, posted on October 26, 2009 at 07:38:21

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

Another aspect of audio performance that is important to me is coherence. How do you measure that? What do you measure? Why is it important? Because I listen to a lot of acoustical music, I have found that I am sensitive to the inherently different radiation patterns of complex multi-way speakers. To an extent, there will always be The Bass, The Midrange and The Treble and however many more slices of the range you choose.

So, we have polar response graphs and waterfall plots which can provide some answers. What are the audible thresholds? While one speaker may be more directional than another, is that less audible if that speaker is more consistent in its radiation pattern from top to bottom? Your designs appear to be unique in sound reinforcement in that while you use multiple drivers, their output radiates from a single waveguide. It would seem to me that provides a more coherent output. I will gladly sacrifice bandwidth in order to achieve coherency because it is that characteristic that I find critically important for fooling my senses with reproduced music.

rw

RE: Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t, posted on October 22, 2009 at 13:32:51

tomservo
Manufacturer

Posts: 2517
Joined: July 4, 2002

Sure, but none of it would make much sense if your engineering vocabulary came from reading hifi magazines (writers usually having near zero background in anything technical and zero background researching or developing anything).
The market on the other hand is conditioned to "learn" from magazines, the agent used to market the same things to them.

The gap has always existed between measuring specific aspects of performance and tying that to "what it sounds like", not to mention there are nearly an endless number of things one can measure, what matters what doesn't and at what threshold.

RE: Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t, posted on October 28, 2009 at 00:34:54
Ugly Audiophile Posts: 1420 Location: Des Moines, WA Joined: August 22, 2006	It sounds like you are saying what I would expect to hear. Question Tom. Can you look at full characterization data for speakers and know what they will sound like without ever having to listen for that audible aspect the data didn't make obviously apparent to you?

Unless you can build a "feel-o-meter"..., posted on October 22, 2009 at 12:53:52

Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004

Anything that involves feeling.

Maybe the music feels engaging.
Maybe the music feels like live music.
Maybe the music just feels good.
Hair raising. Spine tingling. Toe tapping.

You can't measure feelings.

However, if you meet certain objective design goals and consistently (or at least frequently)get MORE people to FEEL good when you play music on that system, then you have created (albeit a loose one) a corollary between measureable objectives and what makes a listener feel good.

Why these things have to be mutually exclusive is beyond me.

We know that trapping early reflections, having a reasonably flat response, a room that is neither too dead or too live, and speaker placement that takes advantage of a speakers inherent dispersion are expamples of things that can make a listener have a MORE pleasant experience. Some of these things can readily be done with trial and error while others are best left to simple instruments. Playing with placement is a fine example of an excellent iterative exercise. If any objectivist would like to show me the INSTRUCTIONS for how to OBJECTIVELY set up a pair of speakers for "optimum" (preferred) imaging I'd LOVE to see it. Trapping early relfections - wow most philes do the line of sight method and put some absorbant materials or acoustic foam products on the walls at the center of the reflection point. Works pretty well in 9/10 cases too! But what about frequency response and time alignment of drivers? Duh - that's easy - leave it to simple measurements. Then pick a SUBJECTIVE attenuation slope for the high end that is pleasing to YOU. Some speakers have multi-level selector switches for tweeters for a reason, and on-off switches for ambience tweeters as well. This is where people get confused. You don't need to throw away objective measurements when flat sounds bad. Maybe you like your speakers toe'd in and the resulting high end (on axis) is too sharp and a shelving filter or L-pad is needed on the tweeter as a result. Or maybe a nice downward tilt in the response. Maybe your hearing curve calls for a sharper high end with no rolloff, or perhaps your hearing is still very good and flat sounds shrill as hell and you NEED to listen off-axis (no toe-in) and perhaps even some high end EQ or padding. How many times have we heard "WHAT? You want to attenuate the highs on speaker X?!?" SO WHAT? Maybe for HIM he needs to. Why can't HE decide what sounds SHRILL to HIM? It's his perceptual experience... why can't HE DECIDE WITHOUT RIDICULE?!?

The only thing that irks me is that subjectivists often seem to fear the search for corollary between these feelings and the science that is potentially behind them. They want audio system building to be an artsy iterative crap shoot.

And it doesn't have to be. But it CAN BE if you want it to be.

And that is why the debate is pretty much a big waste of bandwidth! ;)

Cheers,
Presto

RE: Unless you can build a "feel-o-meter"..., posted on October 28, 2009 at 00:57:15

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

"And it doesn't have to be."

Really? Unless we all go out and gather our own data which we can correlate to ourselves then what is there to work with while "designing" a system to sound accurate? The ten or so lines of manufacturers "specs" for most pieces of gear I may be interested in purchasing? I see what you mean abut optimising but what abut knowing what to expect even before the purchase is made?

I don't have a problem with artsy but I'm a pretty down to earth type of a guy. It often seems as if a disproportionate time gets spent trying to create great abstract works while the basics get ignorred. I think in alot of cases manufacturers are trying to walk around but never learned to crawl right.

Hmm...., posted on October 22, 2009 at 13:36:02

kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003

>subjectivists often seem to fear the search for corollary between these feelings and the science that is potentially behind them. They want audio system building to be an artsy iterative crap shoot.<

Personally, I came to PHP a few years ago to reconcile those very two things. I wanted to know the science behind sonic differences in components that, as per measurements and the "limits of human hearing", should not sound different. It didn't take too awfully long for me to realize that not only were answers not forthcoming, the questions themselves were ridiculed.

I guess what irks me most about the anti-subjectivists (can't call them objectivists anymore) is that they probably possess the knowledge to explain my questions but their silly dogmatic beliefs won't allow them to do any testing. "Everything sounds the same" is so far wrong, it's funny.

>And that is why the debate is pretty much a big waste of bandwidth! ;)<

Spot on! :)

Gestalt, resolution, organization, structure, propulsion and drive. nt, posted on October 22, 2009 at 11:00:59
Don Till Audiophile Posts: 675 Location: Tempe Joined: February 16, 2009

Reply to Don Till, geoffkait, and mkuller here., posted on October 22, 2009 at 14:53:47

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

Guys, these are some great examples of many of the typical types of terms I've often seen here on AA and leave me scratching my head in wonderment. I'm just going to have to apologise for my ignorance now as I have absolutely no clue what most of these terms you've brought up even mean in the context of sound. In many cases such as "PRaT" for example it isn't for a lack of trying either.

Where can I learn about what the standard is for evaluating whether the symptoms of these effects you've listed are present or missing in a given sound I'm attempting to evaluate? There must be some method of learning to associate the sound I've heard with the terms folks like yourself are using in conversations with others who understand what you mean. Ideally there would be a way to hear these things for myself since I'm finding reading the descriptions of many of these terms doesn't work for me. I tried reading Stereophiles list which contains at least some of them and just can't seem to get it.

In order for me to get why these things are unmeasurable I must first understand what they are.

RE: Reply to Don Till, geoffkait, and mkuller here., posted on October 28, 2009 at 14:39:05

morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005

An example is perhaps best to explain: I have two amps currently from the same manufacturer, one is a SET with zero feedback and the other is Class AB, pushpull with about 7db of negative feedback. Both are very transparent, good tonality with very nice soundstage and imaging properties. However, the SET is better at the "gestalt" or whole picture as well as feeling for the music. The other amp has a "punchy" sound that arguably resolves individual images better. However, as one of my informal listening panel said, "with the pushpull amp he tended to focus on one or another instrument/singer in the mix somewhat ignoring the whole" while the SET amp he listened in the entirety more easily hearing the connection between performers. One focuses more on the trees and the other on the forest but the trees are clearly discernable.

I have exactly the same feeling when listening to both amps so i understand his comments very well and I will speculate that the PP amp is likely doing something to make subtle cues that all the sound to "gel" together. Also, the negative feedback is likely adding a slight "edge" to the sound that makes images more "crisp" but is likely responsible for this masking due to an artificial harmonic based "noise" floor that the SET lacks meaning hearing deeper into the sound is possible.

Generally speaking....., posted on October 25, 2009 at 14:27:56

Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009

these things relate to the experience of music. PRaT is actually the easiest one, simply look up the definition of music. Note how often we, at least this is true in my experiences, hear audio systems capable presenting great visuals or illusions and maybe even revealling more info than we've ever heard before. But such systems often fail to satisfactorily reproduce some basic elements of music - just try Bob Seger or Santana on these kinds of systems to understand what I mean. Of course if you've owned these kinds of systems it's doubtful you have much interest in this music anyways so you'll miss my point - of course these are obvious examples but most recordings suffer in similar fashion on such systems.

Structure and organization are apparent when one can evaluate an artists enthusiasm, commitment and dedication, or the lack of these thing from recording to recording. Relationships between the players becomes more apparent. This is beyond a PRaT worthy system in so far as it not only conveys the beauty of most music it also does so with such resolution that not only can one hear previously unheard details these details can and often do reveal artistic purpose and intent far beyond just being a new sound. Listening to systems that a good like this I often find myself appreciating the effort and the work a performer - ie. music, some of it at least, becomes much more purposeful.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 28, 2009 at 00:14:58

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

The main problem I seem to have is these words, which you three have used, which are supposed to represent technical concepts seem to vary in meaning too much to be of any real use to me. For example if a cut quartz crystal is guaranteed by the manufacturer to have speed accuracy of 50ppm under a given set of conditions does it also have PRaT? Where is the line?

Perhaps these things you've mentioned really are measurable when you can actually get a lock on a single definition of what they are.

"PRaT is actually the easiest one"

And I get all full of confidence after reading up and think I know what time it is until someone throws me a curveball. The thing that really put me over the edge recently on the term PRaT is when someone told me my turntable is lacking it. Honestly besides the background noise I'd called the thing good enough. I honestly can't put my finger on what this fellow must have meant. Of course when pressed there was a big long explanation that I really really tried to understand. All I took away was something about the timing (my words) was not right for this guy. The ironic thing is that this person related this example to a table known for it's speed errors as having much more PRaT. I just get more cnfused when I read stuff like this.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 29, 2009 at 18:14:55

Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009

I think that person who made that comment was a bit arrogant. I'm not sure if I've used the term "PRaT" when describing something I've heard, if I have I stand corrected - though I might have referred to some elements within it.

Going back on my thinking about this stuff at one time I had noted that some systems had me focused more on the visuals of the reproduction and less on the propulsion and drive of the music. Somewhat facetiously but not completely I could define stereos into two groups, those that had me rubbing my chin or those that had me tapping my feet. Ultimately I concluded the chin rubbing systems just weren't delivering music as it should be - ie. they lacked propulsion and drive.

To be honest I went many years without having heard what today I consider a good system, or maybe I did hear one and didn't recognize it as so.

I can't be positive that I've never used the term but I agree it's not a good word. However it's elements are very important and IMO it's good stuff to try to talk about it whenever it comes.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 30, 2009 at 02:57:13

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

"I think that person who made that comment was a bit arrogant."

Haha, maybe. You wouldn'tbe the first person to suggest it but I've gained a bit of respect for this guy as being much more right brained than myself and am trying to keep an open mind about what he's saying.

"To be honest I went many years without having heard what today I consider a good system, or maybe I did hear one and didn't recognize it as so."

I am currently working to eliminate this possiblity by adding examples of alternate turntable designs to my collection as a means of making comparisons. I have a pretty good direct drive table done and working. I have purchased an old Rek O Kut L-37 I plan to refurb, replinth and add a nice arm to. All that remains is grabbing a decent belt drive. Ideally I'd have identical arm/cart setup for each or a way of transferrring them among the tables so I could do digital rips for comparing.

My gut feeling tells me that when optimised the technology employed should be invisible and these tables should all sound identical. We'll see. The measured specs of even the most expensive examples of each technology type suggests otherwise.

I admit having a geeks attraction for the DD tables but in the end I'll likely go with what turns my crank the best. Wh knows maybe I just keep them all.

On turntables...., posted on October 30, 2009 at 05:55:40

Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009

Good luck! I bought my first Rega P3 back in the late 80s. I did upgraded from it in the mid 90s to a Sota Sapphire. But I never enjoyed vinyl on that Sota no matter what I did. I bought it from an authorized dealer, he set it up, and I referenced it to other Sota's owned by other audiophiles. I just didn't like it no matter what I did with it. I went back to the P3 and started enjoying vinyl again. In the early 2000s I bought a vintage LP12 from an authorized dealer which I liked in some ways better than the Rega but I'm not sure if I would have warmed up to it in the long run, instead of "optimizing" the Linn I bought a Roksan Xerxes X demo unit and have been very happy ever since I put a decent cartridge on it. Without the "better" cartridge I'm not so sure the P3 would be pleasing me just as much - my assumption is that the "better" cartridge wouldn't work as well on the Rega. Something I haven't verified.

My experiences here is that TTs, even more costly ones, say armless ones costing $1000 to $4000 each all sound very different. The difference being much greater than what I hear between similarly priced CDPs. In fact the "sound" of CDPS, IMO, comes somewhere in between the "sound" of TTs. This is why it kind of freaks me out when I hear these analog v. digital debates. My opinion is that I prefer the sound of CDPs to the sound most TTs, but some TTs sound better than CDPs.

One dealer I know claims he can get any TT to sound like any other TT. And in some ways I don't doubt his claim.

The TTs you are using to come to this sameness will determine how successful you will be in your efforts to achieve it. Some TTs will get you there, but others won't. Whether you prefer the results, ie. the resulting sameness, is going to be a matter of subjective impression.

RE: On turntables...., posted on October 30, 2009 at 11:24:33
Ugly Audiophile Posts: 1420 Location: Des Moines, WA Joined: August 22, 2006	"Good luck!" Haha. It is a pickle. Luckily it's fun playing the game. I'm sure I'll die of old age before I'm completely satisfied but I guarantee I keep finding tweaks which make me happier than I was before. As long as that keeps happening with fair frequency so far I haven't gotten too frustrated or bored to keep trying.

In a hifi rag I once read...., posted on October 30, 2009 at 13:32:17
Don Till Audiophile Posts: 675 Location: Tempe Joined: February 16, 2009	a comment something like this - "The Sota Sapphire is better than the Linn LP12 in everyway except maybe if someone is primarily interested in listening to music!" Now I'm not a big LP12 fan but I do think it's at least a decent TT - something I can't say for the Sota Sapphire. And for whatever it's worth I completely agree with comments quoted above.

RE: In a hifi rag I once read...., posted on November 3, 2009 at 09:45:48

morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005

Is it possible that SOTA spent too much time and money on resonance control, vacuum holddown and such but forgot to put the same care into the motor they were using?? The motor has to be superb to make a truly great TT, IMO. I have heard many ambitious designs undone by a crap motor or improper motor regulation.

Great motors cost a lot. I heard last weeked the brilliant Lumen White Mystère turntable (80,000 swiss francs!!!) which is direct drive, air bearing design. The motor, I was told by the designer, costs him more than 8000 swiss francs! That's right the motor costs 1/10th of the RETAIL price of the TT. Who else is investing that much in the motor? Not many. The LP12 now costs more than 10K fully loaded, how much do you think that AC synchronous motor costs Linn?? Not 1000 bucks, probably not even 100. And Rega? In their top model they have a trick motor/power supply but it still is not a very expensive item compared to the price of the whole deck.

Voyd used to use three excellent Pabst motors (the same motor was used direct drive in the Goldmund studio...another very good TT). I had an old beat up one for a while and it is still the most dynamic sounding TT I have ever heard. The only problem was that the sound was a bit "dirty", which I suspect was due to the somewhat decrepit nature of my example. Sound exploded off the vinyl, speed was spot on so it was not due to running too fast, it was due to running correctly all-the-time, regardless of groove modulation and without significant cogging (it was powered by a multiphase external power supply.) I would buy one again if I could find it in minty condition.

RE: In a hifi rag I once read...., posted on October 31, 2009 at 08:51:58

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
Since: February 24, 2009

My Sota Sapphire (with vacuum hold down) sounded excellent for some time, but then gradually degraded. It wasn't clear at first if there was a problem and later what the problem was. Eventually, there was obvious pitch instability and rumble. The bearing had failed, worn, or been damaged. The problem was insidious, what I called the "razor blade effect". (A new razor blade seems wonderful, but then gradually deteriorates. One hardly notices this on a day-to-day basis, until replacement. Similar also to the method of gradual boiling of a frog...)

There is a relationship between TT faults and digital audio faults, but due to the physics involved the time constants (spectrum) are radically different. Wow, flutter, and digital jitter all add FM modulation to a music signal. TT rumble and DAC reference PS noise add AM modulation to a music signal. The psycho-acoustic implications are different, however, because the noise spectra are processed differently by the ear (masking).

Tony Lauck

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 28, 2009 at 14:51:27

morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005

"All I took away was something about the timing (my words) was not right for this guy. The ironic thing is that this person related this example to a table known for it's speed errors as having much more PRaT."

That's because an AVERAGE speed measurement is not enough to know what is going on from instant to instant. A table can have a very tight tolerance around a set speed but NEVER be exactly the right speed. Another table can have a looser tolerance but it is mostly at the right speed with some periodic (ie. over longer time periods) drifts away from the set point.

It is the difference between accuracy and precision. One is precise but not accurate and the other is more accurate but less precise. For a turntable, accuracy is far more important than precision, which is why a lot of early direct drive turntables did not sound so good. They were forever "hunting" for the right speed with their Quartz PLL systems. This "hunting" results in a perception of a loss of pace or "PRaT". The sound gets somewhat "disjointed" on a low level that is something like an analog version of jitter, which by the way, has a similar effect on PRaT for digital systems.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 30, 2009 at 02:39:56

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

Your explanation about average versus instantaneous speed seems quite reasonable to me. However, I keep talking myself out of this answer as being what this fellow was talking about based on what I know about the two systems involved. Just FYI the comparison is a highly modified Technics SL1200 compared to a Rega P3.

Since I have never heard a P3 I tend to focuas more on what has been pointed out as being the SL1200's weaknesses in this comparison.

"They were forever "hunting" for the right speed with their Quartz PLL systems. This "hunting" results in a perception of a loss of pace or "PRaT".

I agree with the idea that with any motor speed control system there will be hunting. However if the closed loop bandwidth of the control system is higher than the audible band then reproduction errors due to the minute speed corrections of a high torque motor drive system such as in the SL1200's running at speed would mostly be out of the audible band. I suspect Technics not only knows this but has capitalized on it with the 1200. In my case I thought I could detect speed variations on my stock table but others research indicated this is due to errors caused by high impedance power supply ripple and not servo hunting directly. An aftermarket power supply and some filtering has removed any speed errors audible to me. Oddly enough the guy I'm talking about had reviewed an SL1200 with mods similar to mine and so should basically be hearing what I'm hearing.

I really just don't get it. I'm not saying I don't believe this guy just that I can't picture what he's saying. I probably need to spend some time with a P3 to get to the bottom of it. For whatever reasons conversations don't explain much to me while scope plots speak volumes. Unfortunately I don't have access to the applicable scope plots in this case.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 30, 2009 at 06:59:29

morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005

"However if the closed loop bandwidth of the control system is higher than the audible band then reproduction errors due to the minute speed corrections of a high torque motor drive system such as in the SL1200's running at speed would mostly be out of the audible band."

The control system is one thing, the motor something else again. The control system can tell the motor a million times a second, "speed up, slow down etc." but the motor itself can only respond so fast because of the way motors work, ie. they have multiple poles. If the command comes between the poles nothing will happen immediately until the rotor approaches the next stator. Very few motors are without torqure ripple and they tend to be very costly.

A couple of Japanese companies in the 80's, Kenwood and Yamaha at least, built their own slotless, coreless, brushless motors with sine wave commutated power supplies. These motors are VERY smooth and very low in noise and rumble (the Kenwood was -97db!) so that torque delivery is far more constant and THEN applied a proper speed control as well as high mass platters to further smooth the speed delivery. What they learned is that larger speed fluctuations over long periods of time are far less destructive to timing than constant small fluctuations over very short time periods. This is basically what a high mass belt drive table is trying to do but without the belt that can muck up timing as well.

Maybe Technics is using a very good motor and as you say they needed a better controlled power supply. It is quite likely that fluctuations in the power will translate directly to speed variations and with direct drive this would be critical.

"Oddly enough the guy I'm talking about had reviewed an SL1200 with mods similar to mine and so should basically be hearing what I'm hearing.
"

Some people are more sensitive to timing errors than others I would guess. I am quite sensitive to these things, which is partially why I like time/phase coherent speakers so much I think.

My Yamaha GT-2000 turntable is one of these "end of analog" era Japanese TTs. It has a constant torque, ripple free motor and a 6kg platter as well as an advanced PLL speed control. The one extra thing that I have that probably very few other GT-2000 owners have is the optional external power supply. The sound is MUCH better with the external supply attached. The timing and drive is world class with it and merely so-so without it. The power supply weighs nearly 10Kg and my guess is that it is far more stable and delivers a very accurate sine wave, whereas the other one is fluctuating sufficiently to reduce moment by moment speed accuaracy.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 30, 2009 at 10:37:15

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

"If the command comes between the poles nothing will happen immediately until the rotor approaches the next stator."

note that the em field equations suggest the fields extend to infinity units of distance from the field source, but fall off in intensity along the way. This implies that the torque available between poles is merely smaller, not zero, than when the coils and magnets are aligned for max torque. It boils down to a game of how much error occurs due to the worst case torque position combined with the maximum acceleration necessary to maintain speed.

"A couple of Japanese companies in the 80's, Kenwood and Yamaha at least, built their own slotless, coreless, brushless motors with sine wave commutated power supplies."

Hmm, do you have any model numbers I can check out. I have yet to encounter a device known as a slottless, coreless, AC motor. I definitely need to investigate this.

"the Kenwood was -97db!"

That does sound impressive but I wonder what weighting they used.

"Maybe Technics is using a very good motor and as you say they needed a better controlled power supply."

They are fairly beefy little suckers but just your standard brushless DC adapted to being a turntable. I believe the SL1200's are 8 pole but the SP10's use a 10 pole but don't quote me on that. Obviously power supply ripple can't ever be completely eliminated but when you can take down by 50-60dB it makes one feel better about it. I keep telling myself the sonic improvements were real so I can feel better about the money I spent (I actually really did think it was a significant improvement) and the guy I mentioned I was having the PRaT conversation with did admit the power supplies seem to help but not completely fix what he dislikes about the Technics.

"Some people are more sensitive to timing errors than others I would guess."

For sure. Now I just need to figure out how sensitive I am to it.

"My Yamaha GT-2000 turntable ...MUCH better with the external supply attached."

I'm not familiar with this table. I will check it out.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 28, 2009 at 05:58:02

geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

But the words aren't technical concepts, they're subjective concepts... That's the whole point. That's why measurement of a technical parameter, say, signal to noise ratio or THD, might not be effective or meaningful in being able to draw conclusions regarding, say, soundstage height or system transparency. You might have to go out of your way to find a system where these subjective concepts can be illustrated.

RE: Generally speaking....., posted on October 30, 2009 at 02:12:50

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

"But the words aren't technical concepts, they're subjective concepts... That's the whole point."

I think this is what is really frustrating for me. Is it impossible or just too much to ask that we develop a single language which handles both the subjective and objective descriptions well instead of the current situation with a complete set of seperate language that doesn't cross over very well?

The latter situation would be such a shame if true considering how much time gets spent arguing about these things. The idea it is impossible just doesn't sit well with me.

Tower of Babble, posted on October 31, 2009 at 09:09:58

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
Since: February 24, 2009

"Is it impossible or just too much to ask that we develop a single language which handles both the subjective and objective descriptions well instead of the current situation with a complete set of seperate language that doesn't cross over very well?"

It's impossible. For one thing, different people perceive the same sounds differently. One example of this is with pitch perception. Imagine two files, each containing a constant tone. The subject is asked to compare the two files and respond, "same pitch", "A higher pitch", "B higher pitch". One can construct example files where no subject answers "same pitch", some subjects consistently answers "A higher pitch", and other subjects answer "B higher pitch". As I recall the article (in Scientific American, perhaps) these perceptions tend to be clustered in accordance with the subjects' native language. In other words, pitch perception is a learned skill and not just wired into the hardware. Another way of putting it is that the linguistic Tower of Babble carries over into the world of musical perception. [As I recall, pitch perception takes into account both the fundamental frequency and the overtone structure. That was what was manipulated in creating the test files.]

If it's not possible to establish a single consistent subjective description of what we hear, then it won't be possible to tackle the larger scope you are asking for. That's not to say that an effort can't be made and won't produce some results, it's just that it will necessarily be incomplete.

Tony Lauck

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

RE: Tower of Babble, posted on November 1, 2009 at 23:16:20

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

Interesting. I didn't realize that we are so different from one another and especially that these differences are apparently programmable on some level.

It would seem that in the least the experiment suggests that even somewhat seemingly simple sound samples such as a single tone with timbre enhancements can be so complex as to escape accurate comprehension or at least on a conscious level. In this light it is no wonder we would have trouble talking about what I had considered subtle differences while using much more complex waves such as musical passages as the test case.

The other thing that comes to mind is this programability aspect could be valuable in that whatever it is that causes changes in perception via language learning like events could probably be manipulated to achieve desirable effects. For example we may be able to calibrate/brainwash ourselves to a baseline condition in which we are all hearing the same, or at least more similarly.

I can't picture the defense application for this information that generates immediate and massive funding for a project which answers all my questions unfortunately. Surely the military could find a use for that.

RE: Tower of Babble, posted on November 2, 2009 at 06:39:46

Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
Since: February 24, 2009

"I can't picture the defense application for this information that generates immediate and massive funding for a project which answers all my questions unfortunately. Surely the military could find a use for that."

Maybe they already have. The question is, "Which military?" :-)

Some people have the ability to learn a new language fluently as adults, or at least teenagers, and speak it fluently with not the slightest trace of an accent. (I had a high school classmate who, like me, was a mediocre French student. He spent a year in Paris before going to college, and by December he had become completely bilingual and had a perfect French accent.) Perhaps these people can also reprogram the way they hear. It would seem to be a necessary skill to speak fluently.

Tony Lauck

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

Perhaps you might reveal the terms that you use as a basis for, posted on October 23, 2009 at 04:18:45
bjh Audiophile Posts: 11876 Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003	comparison and/or correlation with those unfamiliar to you. I do assume you have some at least minimal sonic description vocabulary and that it can be represented in the written word, i.e. not entirely composed of various guttural utterances that are difficult (if not impossible) to represent in script. Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

RE: Perhaps you might reveal the terms that you use as a basis for, posted on October 27, 2009 at 23:57:16

Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006

"I do assume you have some at least minimal sonic description vocabulary and that it can be represented in the written word, i.e. not entirely composed of various guttural utterances that are difficult (if not impossible) to represent in script."

Words and stuff is not where I do good. I have 5-10 audio related words I'm really comfy with that I try to make work for everything. The only reason I have that many is since they are shared with other disciplines I'm more familiar with.

Grain, glare, wetness, air, soundstage height. nt, posted on October 22, 2009 at 10:44:25
geoffkait Manufacturer Posts: 3514 Location: northern Virginia Joined: August 23, 2000	nt

PRAT, emotional involvement, imaging/soundstage reproduction, dynamic contrasts...(nt), posted on October 22, 2009 at 10:12:42
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 15929 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003 Contributor Since: December 28, 2003	(nt)

RE: PRAT, emotional involvement, imaging/soundstage reproduction, dynamic contrasts...(nt), posted on October 22, 2009 at 18:18:50
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 7558 Joined: June 20, 2000	PRAT is meaningless. Emotional involvement is in you, not the equipment. Imaging has been studied and indeed, Chesky has a some bands on its test disc for that. Dynamics can be measured. "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero

RE: PRAT, emotional involvement, imaging/soundstage reproduction, dynamic contrasts...(nt), posted on October 23, 2009 at 01:21:11

andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008

> PRAT is meaningless.

It may be to you but it is clearly not meaningless to Mike. There is every chance that his beliefs about PRAT, whatever they may be, could play a role in his sound perception.

> Emotional involvement is in you, not the equipment.

I am not sure this makes much sense to me. How do you square this statement with the whole concept of luxury goods? Are you stating that audiophiles that spend vast sums on putting their audiophile shrines on display would be equally emotionally involved if they were using cheap anonymous consumer hardware?

Wrong again with the word "beliefs", posted on October 23, 2009 at 13:00:49

Sordidman
Dealer

Posts: 9245
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001

Which are defined as "faith based."

And of course, - when we're talking about experiential data, - the word belief is not applicable to measurable, quantifiable data and a posteriori evidence.

Scientific inquiry.

Your negative implications hurt your credibility.

Surrendered to self preservation,
From others who care for themselves.
A blindness that touches perfection,
But hurts just like anything else.

"Belief" - that's just his pet term, posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:16:12
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 9838 Location: Central boonies Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	used 118 times so far. Like BassNut's "Golden Ear". It is his attempt to denigrate the concept of observational listening vs. adherence to essentially meaningless numbers. rw

"hurt your credibility" - in this case, it's more like a well-known phenomenon,..., posted on October 23, 2009 at 13:53:31
carcass93 Audiophile Posts: 2634 Location: NJ Joined: September 20, 2006	... when an amputee feels pain where his leg once was, years after the amputation. There's nothing that can hurt, it's just an illusion - but it hurts nonetheless...

Ha, based on the evidence in his posts: you are likely correct -t, posted on October 23, 2009 at 14:50:37
Sordidman Dealer Posts: 9245 Location: San Francisco Joined: May 14, 2001	. Surrendered to self preservation, From others who care for themselves. A blindness that touches perfection, But hurts just like anything else.

RE: PRAT, emotional involvement, imaging/soundstage reproduction, dynamic contrasts...(nt), posted on October 23, 2009 at 01:49:59
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 7558 Joined: June 20, 2000	Of course belief in PRAT affects those who have it. I see no evidence that luxury items have emotions. I do not see that it follows that audiophiles will have the same enthusiasm of cheap equipment, even if it actually sounds the same or very close to the same in normal use. I myself like to have fine equipment. "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero

PRaT meter, posted on October 23, 2009 at 12:51:38

FenderLover
Audiophile

Posts: 3308
Joined: July 31, 2007
Contributor
Since: May 17, 2009

I'm seeing something outta the old Star Trek episodes. (j/k)

:^)

RE: PRaT meter, posted on October 23, 2009 at 14:18:34
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 7558 Joined: June 20, 2000	We just saw the Star Trek episode "Losira," this afternoon, and Dr. McCoy took his Tricorder and put it over a prostrate crewman, whir-whir-whir-whir for a couple of seconds, and exclaimed something like: "My god, Jim, every cell in his body has been disrupted." Truly marvelous device, that Tricorder! "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero

So you say..., posted on October 22, 2009 at 18:27:26

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
Since: December 28, 2003

>PRAT is meaningless.>

To you, perhaps, but it is a descriptive term coined by Martin Colloms to describe a quality he observed in music reproduction - some equipment has it, other don't.

Perhaps you should Google it and him and educate yourself.

>Emotional involvement is in you, not the equipment.>

Some equipment gets you emotionally invloved and other equipment doesn't. Guess you don't know what to measure.

>Imaging has been studied and indeed, Chesky has a some bands on its test disc for that.>

All of the things I mentioned can be observed, but what do you measure here?

>Dynamics can be measured.>

Tell me about it - what do you measure?

Satisfaction. nt, posted on October 22, 2009 at 04:49:01
bjh Audiophile Posts: 11876 Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003	. Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

Satisfaction is not in the equipment, it is in you., posted on October 22, 2009 at 16:42:27
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 7558 Joined: June 20, 2000	There are surveys on level of satisfaction, BTW, and the data apparently means something to advertisers. "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero

I believe this statement is attributed to Cher. nt, posted on October 23, 2009 at 05:09:25
geoffkait Manufacturer Posts: 3514 Location: northern Virginia Joined: August 23, 2000	nt

RE: Satisfaction is not in the equipment, it is in you., posted on October 22, 2009 at 18:29:23
bjh Audiophile Posts: 11876 Location: Toronto, Canada Joined: November 22, 2003	Shut up Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

RE: Satisfaction. nt, posted on October 22, 2009 at 14:13:59
Ugly Audiophile Posts: 1420 Location: Des Moines, WA Joined: August 22, 2006	Probably impossible to measure to be sure but is it audible?

Satisfaction..., posted on October 22, 2009 at 17:51:38
musetap Audiophile Posts: 6371 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	Is Satisfaction itself audible? It is in this video. Are the results of satisfaction audible? Yes, I sometimes even clap my hands after hearing a certain tune. One could even measure those results if that's neccesary. “ Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. ” -Michael McClure

Page processed in 0.220 seconds.

Propeller Head Plaza

Are there aspects of audible sound which cannot be measured with current tech? If so please describe. n/t

71.231.229.130