 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.250.187.180
Hello All,It's been a very long time since I have posted on AA. So after many years here we go again!
I would like to discuss the reason why measurement exists and how & why this technique has been virtually thrown away in the hi-end world.
Perception is not a purely human thing. Dogs see colors, but not like we do. Their perception is different. Dogs would (if they could) say that certain colors do not exist. Does this preclude then that in a dogs world these colors do not exist? In terms of perception they do not exist for a dog. For humans the perception is different. We see more colors.
In sound, the dog might aurally perceive an extreme high-frequency capability (above 18kHz for instance) in one loudspeaker and virtually none in another. To our perception there is no high frequency capability or even a difference at all. Our perception at those frequencies does not exist. However does this preclude that those frequencies are not present? Of course not, we simply cannot perceive them.
Human perception via senses are limited. Both in terms of degree and especially in quantification ability. Because of this academia & sciences developed empirical measurement techniques to quantify aspects of phenomenon normally observed by human perception but were difficult to quantify. As electronics developed, devices came available to measure all aspects of the specific applications being explored. Most of these devices were capable of measuring parameters far beyond the ability of human perception. This is why in the case of the "listening dog" example we can actually measure, using a device like a spectrum analyzer, what the dog is hearing and what we cannot.
The degree to which measurement can perceive differences in audio characteristics has developed to an extreme level. It can discern minute difference in most parameters and at a degree of resolution far beyond human perception.
However, it appears that human arrogance (and I do not think that is too strong of a word) has thrown aside this fact. I believe in the audiophile world many have, as a good friend of mine likes to say, "drank the Kool-aid" being served up buy those who profit from this market.
Let me give you an example. (Yes ... I'm going there). When I attended Rensselaer College and later MIT many a moon ago, we began hearing about the use of OFC copper in audio cables. We were familiar with this cable, since OFC copper cable was developed at MIT for the purpose of reducing oxidation at joints and within cable bundles for the aerospace industry (specifically for cables for the then new Boeing 747). OFC wire was designed to reduce this self-oxidation to improve reliability & safety. Nothing more. However, the application to cables for audio was never part of the original design criteria for OFC wire. Actually oxygen-free copper has been around for a long time, but using it in wire didn't become marketable or necessary until the Boeing specification was proposed.
So, as good little audio research scientists, we began to see if we could quantify the claims being made by several new audiophile cable manufacturers (who shall remain nameless). We already new that "skin effect" issues were of course non-existent at audio frequencies. It has been well documented for about 60 years that skin effect does not occur until you reach a frequency of about 65kHz. It is observable and measurable. So we knew to discount this claim as bogus. When we began taking measurements of all known measurable electrical and acoustical properties when comparing OFC to normal high purity copper we found absolutely no measurable difference. Now understand this is no measurable difference at a degree of resolution far beyond that which is perceivable by human hearing.
However, the OFC copper did not oxidize as quickly. But conversely, the oxidation on the outer surface of the wire also did not impede or effect the test measurements. It did however change things on crimped connections, particularly on micro-resistance values at the transition point of contact from wire to connector.
In our tests we measured parameters like capacitance, inductance, inherent impedances at various audio frequencies and beyond, velocity factors, damping, current handling differentials, to name just a few. We were most interested in the aspects of time differentials in relation to frequency as claimed by these manufacturers. We found that velocity factors were not effected by OFC. We also found that in these "special" cables the velocity factors for the separate windings allegedly carrying different frequencies were the same, therefore no "time correction" was actually occurring as claimed.
What we did find was significant variables in basic parameters like capacitance and inductance, within the various layers of this particular cable. In one case we measured what was in affect a RCL filter being created by the cable. It actually was producing a bandpass filter which was reducing a specific frequency and some harmonics. It was essentially, changing the response of the cable away from being flat. So here I make my point ...
Measurement allows us to learn the truth, in quantifiable terms about what we can and cannot perceive. However, perception and taste can at times be at odds with this. Why? It's a matter of what one wants.
A person may want a sound system that reproduces with the greatest accuracy what is on the source material. Others may prefer to deviate from this to produce an aural aesthetic suited to their taste. A "warm tubey sound" for instance. And you know what ... That's OK.
However, let me give you a lesson in what thinking is going on the industry that builds this stuff. They think most audiophiles are sheep. I left the hi-end audio business for this reason. As a design engineer for a very well known amplifier manufacturer, I got sickened by the "audiophools" comments, and marketing driven design assignments, and the way pricing was being developed. Hearing a discussion about how to increase base margins from 1000% to 2000%, as one example. And this was in the 80's! Now you can buy a $50,000 pair of speaker cable. Ludicrous! Snake oil! There is no manufacturing process, material cost, development cost or anything in engineering that could cause a cable to have to be sold for that price. It is purely profiteering. This is fact.
Now I come to what motivated me to post on AA after all these years. I recently was given a pair of these $50,000 speaker cables by a women who's husband died. A windfall? Ha! Well guess what ... I took a knife to them. They cost me nothing and I wasn't going to pawn them off to some schmuck who worships this stuff. That would be hypocritical of me. But I was curious about what proprietary engineering was justifing these prices, if any. So I cut them open. Removed the beautiful weaving of the outside, pulled back the poly jacket. What I found was shocking. I found a standard Belden branded communications multi-wire underneath. They didn't even get Belden to OEM the cable and not label it. After all, who would cut up a $50,000 cable and find this out? Certainly none of the magazines these days, that's for sure. (I miss Audio Magazine). This Belden wire is a cable that sells for about $2.53 per foot from Mouser. When I priced everything out the cable cost about $270 to make, at retail prices mind you. There was nothing proprietary in this cable and all of the components making it up can be purchased online. They did use an exothermically welded connection on the spades, but other than that nothing out of the ordinary. So how do they justify the price? First by wonderfully talented marketing, maneuvering good mag reviews, techno-babble, and a good dealer network. It is amazing how this alone can change perception while listening.
And BTW, before ripping apart this cable I put a load on it, swept it and measured the frequency and phase response. It was all over the place. The cable certainly would have sounded unique, but it did not pass the signal accurately. In fact, it greatly distorted the signal both in terms of phase and amplitude response and even exhibited IM artifacts as a result, much like vacuum tubes do. It probably sounded very warm as a result. However was it "accurate" or "transparent" or "virtually invisible to the music", as claimed? Not even close. But it probably sounded nice and warm. Did I say that already?
The point being, if you are looking for accurate, most and I mean most Hi-end audio equipment is not actually designed to that end. If you measure things, as I have over the last 30 years, you discover this to be true. But if you don't really care about hearing the music as recorded and want to create an aural aesthetic to your own personal taste, you are in good company. You just need to be willing to pay the price to the snake-oil man just to develop that aesthetic.
In conclusion, if you do the measurements you find two facts.
1. Accuracy is cheaper.
2. Distortion (of facts, physics and sound) is expensive.So what do you think. Is creating your own aural aesthetic justification enough for the prices you are forced to pay? What's your experiences with measurement? Are you of the belief that human hearing is far better than measurement? Do you believe in angels? Is global warming real? Hehe. You know what I mean. Are the manufacturers engineers or master marketeers or modern day magicians? How much Mrytlewood have you bought?
See Ya!
JRL
Edits: 11/03/12Follow Ups:
My take is pretty simple:
1. Measurements are essential to design any gear.
2. Measurements can *sometimes* explain a hard-to-pin-down sonic anomaly, like the interaction of an amplifier with a speaker's impedance curve, or with highly capacitive wire.
3. You can't measure a Stradivarius to the point where you can identify the individual instrument from its measurements, but you can you can do that with your ears in an instant, even if you're hearing it through a telephone.
4. All recordings go through a long chain of gear, and are tracked, mixed, and mastered by engineers with hugely varied experience, habits, and personal taste. This item vastly overshadows what goes on in our repro systems at home.
Measurements are very useful, but have limitations, especially if you are trying to predict how real a recording will sound - the numbers are rarely helpful in this, until they get to extremes, such as extremely high measurable distortion, or extremely little dynamic range (too much compression.) We don't have a "number" standard for that one, but you can sure see it in your DAW of choice. Like the Stradivarius, the absence of a measurement standard does not mean "it" doesn't exist.
When standard measurements do exist, use them to help you. I knew the Manley 120 monoblocks had a pretty high output impedance, which would likely be audible when they were paired with my Spica TC-50s, but I also knew I was chopping everything below 80Hz pretty sharply to pass to a subwoofer, so it should have been tolerable. It was, and is.
Use measurements to inform your choices, and confirm everything with your ears.
My personal measurable pass/fail test is being able to come home from a concert, recital, or opera in a great hall (or a rock band in a good space with good front-of-house engineers), put on a record, and not throw up.
WW
New Orthophonic High Fidelity
Double blind test of violins.
As it turns out Nobody knew what violin was being played.
The point I was trying to make is it is not sufficient to make observations (without measurement) and draw conclusions on affects and develop theories as to causes.Case in point ... One very well known and respected designer in high-end audio used known priciples to come to a conclusion and possible issue in speaker cables. That being, EMI and RFI can be induced or absorbed by any cable of a given length. It is resaonable to assume that these currents flowing on a cable can mix with audio frequencies and produce heterodynes or intermodulation artifacts that fall with the audio spectrum. This is well known and measurable fact. It is basis for radio reception and detection. From this the idea of building very precisely made Zobel networks to help filter or attenuate these RF signals before they enter the loudspeaker, effectively producing high impedence to these frequencies at the load, helped in reducing these IM artifacts. The result in subsequent listening tests confirmed the measurements, with improvement in inner detail and imaging. Further measurement and listening helped fine tune and improve the design over time. This is good engineering. Using proven and measurable phenomenon to come up with an applicable theory, creating a device and measurings its affects, and THEN using subjective observation to prove the measurement.
Conversely, another manufacturer comes to conclusions and develops theory based on subjective listening, and then backward engineers to a solution to a problem that may not exist. Develops the device, does more subjective listening and hears a difference and concludes the device solved a problem. Mind you, the problem may have not existed in the first place, the test were uncontrolled and lacked measurement to quantify the problem or even detect if indeed there was problem. Furthermore the secondary subjective test may have had other variables which skewed the apparent positive results but supported the solving of the alleged problem theorized.
So now we have $50 Myrtlewood blocks between our gear and cables that claim to have break-in times due to things like "standing voltage because good dielectrics make poor conductors" as measured on a multimeter. Also citing phenomenon like triboelectricc charge as another factor. The problem is anyone who knows electronic theory will tell you measuring voltage such as dialectric charge using a multimeter is going to give a false measurment. The multimeter behaves as a high impedence load to such charges and the measured voltages will be much higher, by a magnitude of about 1000 compared to what exist on the low impedence loads in audio gear. So while he measured, he measured incorrectly and is using existing theory to explain a phenomenon that while it exists, problably does not happen for the reasoning he is proposing. And his products are designed using this reasoning.
First off you can take any dialectric and measure a 100 microvolt charge with a multimeter. However if you present a low imnpedence load to this same charge the voltage measured is only a few millivolts. That's a 1000 times smaller potential. Also, an existing dialectric charge on a cable has a specific and fixed time constant of discharge usually in micro-seconds at the capacitances involved. Also triboelectricc charges are created only when a cable is flexed and moving and dissipate using the same time constants. Most times they discharge very rapidly and create crackles and pops. (as a sidenote, there is much data proving that "biasing" has no effect on these discharge time constants, nor does it prevent the charges from occuring)
He claims it take weeks for cables to "relax". How did he come to this conclusion? Subjective observation and erroneous measurement. However, he contuinues with this reasoning, sells some of the most expensive cabling on the market (they do sound good though), and is viewed as an expert. Having done work on cables and the affects he describes as my field of research at MIT I disagree with many of his conclusions.
There are other factors with measurable and well understood affects that cause the described phenomenon of long cable break-in times (which is a real thing BTW as many of you know). But none of it is mentioned in this or several other cable manufacturers papers. They GUESSED wrong and are sticking to their stories. After all they have a rep, and more still sell expensive devices that claim to counteract these issues of break-in. Based on these incorrect theories drawn from subjective observation and backward engineered theoretical concepts.
The point is ... measurement can and should coexist with subjective observations. But one cannot substitute one for the other. And one should never really only on subjective listening when developing products to be sold at very high prices. There should be SOME solid data to support the costs.
Edits: 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12
I analyze this phenonmenon professionally for powders in the pharmaceutical industry and IF there is tribo charging going on the rate of decay will depend on the conductivity of the surface that the charge resides and on the environmental humidity.
Since most dielectrics are extremely good insulators it means that a charge generated there can basically sit there indefinitely. However, if the RH in the room is high you will get dissipation relatively quickly. If the RH is low it can take a LONG time to dissipate that charge effectively. Does this have an effect on cables??? Don't really know.
is yes. Nordost briefly marketed a fluid called Eco one. IIRC> which was an antistatic fluid designed to be applied to cable jackets. You could easily hear the difference, more open and better dynamics.
Stu
You wrote:
"It is basis for radio reception and detection. From this the idea of building very precisely made Zobel networks to help filter or attenuate these RF signals before they enter the loudspeaker, effectively producing high impedence to these frequencies at the load, helped in reducing these IM artifacts."
I have news for you, Zobel networks on a cable do NOT present a high impedance to the load. Your understanding of how Zobel networks work on a speaker cable is way off-base. Based on past claims of your understanding of science and physics, this throws your whole claim to scientific understanding and why you have reasons for disbelieving things out the window. Strike One
You wrote:
"First off you can take any dialectric and measure a 100 microvolt charge with a multimeter. However if you present a low imnpedence load to this same charge the voltage measured is only a few millivolts. That's a 1000 times smaller potential."
Wrong. dialectric is spelled dielectric. A few millivolts is an order of magnitude LARGER than 100 microvolts, put in terms of volts they would be the following:
3 millivolts = 0.003 volts
100 microvolts = 0.0001 volts.
Strike Two.
You wrote:
"Also triboelectricc charges are created only when a cable is flexed and moving and dissipate using the same time constants."
You seem to forget (as do most naysayers), that the cable is not just setting on a test bench, it is hooked up to a SOUND SYSTEM, with speakers filling the air in the room with VIBRATIONS, right next to the sound system cables. Kinda forgot about the real world there.
You wrote:
" (as a sidenote, there is much data proving that "biasing" has no effect on these discharge time constants, nor does it prevent the charges from occuring)"
1st, where is this data? I keep up with all things having to do with audio cabling, as it is a very keen interest on my part. However, I have never seen such data regarding this. Please provide references, citations, etc.
2nd, cable biasing is usually not claimed to reduce triboelectric effect, it is almost always claimed to reduce dielectric polar behavior. The fact that you don't seem to have a clue about this, is another very suspicious thing in someone who claims to be an expert in physics and audio. It looks like you guessed wrong.
Strike three.
With all of this, I find it difficult to take you very seriously when you speak about audio, especially when you are trying to analyze things "scientifically", and you really don't have a clue about the science of high-end audio.
I suggest sticking to writing grant proposals for your lab at school.
Jon Risch
" I suggest sticking to writing grant proposals for your lab at school. "Nice touch Jon! I thought that considering your status on this forum you would be above such pettiness. Hard to resist huh?
Edits: 11/26/12
Your attempt to deflect from the obvious failings of jrlaudio is quite transparent and pathetic.
Let us not lose site of the real facts here.
Jon Risch
This guy's credentials seem pretty good. Out of the many many points he has made, you have discovered a few slip-ups, and have condemned him as a result. How about all the good points Jon? Aren't you going to give him credit?
All politicians make slip-ups, yet I still vote. I'll vote for jrlaudio as the most knowledgeable poster on this forum. Sorry bud.
"I'll vote for jrlaudio as the most knowledgeable poster on this forum."
His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears.
However his grasp of science and engineering is so funky that I'd wager his involvement has always been at least a step removed from the actual work. Perhaps he's been involved at the administrative or financial levels.
That being said, I appreciate his participation and think he brings valuable insights and experiences to the table. Hopefully we all do. While I could go much further than Jon did WRT issues regarding his conclusions, that would not be appropriate for this environment which encourages open discussions and allows, nay encourages kicking things about without requiring any particular level of "proof" or supporting data.
I'm far more interested in lively discussions and feel that it's up to each participant to winnow out the wheat from the chaff for themselves. If they can. While there is the danger of folks being lead astray, so what? It's just a hobby! The upside is being motivated into learning more about things that you may have always regarded as a given and discovering ways, often very inexpensive ones, that you can alter them to significantly enhance your home audio experience. And to hopefully give you some insights into complex systems. In other words, the real world.
If there were lives or serious money at stake my arguments would be quite different, but this is all in fun.
Rick
"His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears. "That's not what he said - he insists upon the importance of audiophiles understanding and quantifying audio performance via measurements.
And BTW to your point - sure they would be better off if they successfully understood the underlying phenomena - but really these are audiophiles not engineers and designers. There's no reason at all for audiophiles to have to tread those waters.
I would submit that understanding measurements and measured performance is not a requirement for an audiophile, and even more so for an audiophile using a rigorous comparison methodology. IMO though such concepts may help an audiophile get good results more quickly but taken too far (an who knows how far that it is) they may also blind that person from the gear that could give them the greatest listening satisfaction.
I think most designers and engineers should rely on measurements much more than an audiophile. That said IMO the best designers and engineers are the ones who finalize their designs based on listening.
Measurements are important rivaling listening on the design side - but no matter how you slice this pie how one qualifies any spec or performance measurement is a subjective opinion. On the audiophile side, measurements fall far below in comparison to ones listening impression.
Edits: 12/05/12 12/05/12 12/05/12
"His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears."
'That's not what he said - he insists upon the importance of audiophiles understanding and quantifying audio performance via measurements.'
----------
Actually the bit I was thinking of was in his "follow up", to wit:
"The point I was trying to make is it is not sufficient to make observations (without measurement) and draw conclusions on affects and develop theories as to causes."
That comment was "music to my ears" because I completely agree. It's one thing to just hack stuff together by trial and error and be happy with the results. Fact is, I've done that very thing myself. It's quite another to believe that having done so with success means that you now know what's going on. You may have some notions but without putting them to the test that's all they remain. And the initial test is correlated measurements or successful structured testing.
I am more than willing to share what I've done and discovered and in that I'm a piker compared with many folks here who have done orders of magnitude more things empirically than I have and are happy to share their experiences. In fact that's the best part of AA, I love hearing about other people's experiences, life's too short to have them all myself.
I just wish that "I don't really know" was an answer held in higher esteem here. Learning to separate assumptions from knowns is a major step on the road to understanding. While assumptions or ignorance are always part of the deal at some level since we can never know everything precisely (Heisenberg was right), at the energy levels we work with in audio we can know enough to safely ignore the rest.
Rick
quote carcass: just another cheap and deaf pseudo-scientist.
I ask you Jon, is that not name-calling?
Major double standard happening here.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam -
The argument of an irrelevant appeal to authority is shown to be fallacious but sometimes persuasive.
It appears you were persuaded by credentials.
Did he (J. Risch) sound threatened? I didn't notice that.
It would be really weird, since that someone is "in the know" only for you, and 1-2 other like-minded (rather, like-mindless) trolls in here. For the rest of us - and it was clearly demonstrated by Jon again - he is firmly "in the NOT know", or, to put it simpler, just another cheap and deaf pseudo-scientist.
“I would like to discuss the reason why measurement exists and how & why this technique has been virtually thrown away in the hi-end world.”
I wouldn’t say it was “thrown away”........ Some measurements are very relevant.
“Perception is not a purely human thing. Dogs see colors, but not like we do. Their perception is different. Dogs would (if they could) say that certain colors do not exist. Does this preclude then that in a dogs world these colors do not exist? In terms of perception they do not exist for a dog. For humans the perception is different. We see more colors.”
If people could not see, they might believe that nothing travels faster than the speed of sound.................
“In sound, the dog might aurally perceive an extreme high-frequency capability (above 18kHz for instance) in one loudspeaker and virtually none in another. To our perception there is no high frequency capability or even a difference at all. Our perception at those frequencies does not exist. However does this preclude that those frequencies are not present? Of course not, we simply cannot perceive them.”
Nobody in the audio realm has ever believed that frequencies above 18 kHz do not exist. There is too much evidence to the contrary.
“Human perception via senses are limited. Both in terms of degree and especially in quantification ability. Because of this academia & sciences developed empirical measurement techniques to quantify aspects of phenomenon normally observed by human perception but were difficult to quantify. As electronics developed, devices came available to measure all aspects of the specific applications being explored.”
*All* aspects? That’s a leap of faith............................
“The degree to which measurement can perceive differences in audio characteristics has developed to an extreme level.”
I guess it depends what one defines as “extreme”..............
“It can discern minute difference in most parameters and at a degree of resolution far beyond human perception.”
Could it discern, for example, a violin solo by Jascha Heifetz from one by Itzhak Perlman?
I think I can do that with at least 90 percent accuracy, but I doubt any machine is capable of doing that.
Same goes for a piano performance by Vladimir Horowitz versus one by Martha Argerich.
“However, it appears that human arrogance (and I do not think that is too strong of a word) has thrown aside this fact.”
It is one thing to point out acts of arrogance, but it is dangerous to presume it where it's not obviously present.............
“I believe in the audiophile world many have, as a good friend of mine likes to say, ‘drank the Kool-aid’ being served up buy those who profit from this market.”
Who exactly serves up this “Kool-Aid?”
“Let me give you an example. (Yes ... I'm going there). When I attended Rensselaer College and later MIT many a moon ago, we began hearing about the use of OFC copper in audio cables. We were familiar with this cable, since OFC copper cable was developed at MIT for the purpose of reducing oxidation at joints and within cable bundles for the aerospace industry (specifically for cables for the then new Boeing 747). OFC wire was designed to reduce this self-oxidation to improve reliability & safety. Nothing more. However, the application to cables for audio was never part of the original design criteria for OFC wire. Actually oxygen-free copper has been around for a long time, but using it in wire didn't become marketable or necessary until the Boeing specification was proposed.”
This is fallacy. I happen to be an aerospace engineer, and am deeply familiar with electronics hardware. OFC means “oxygen free” at the time of manufacture. It does not imply it’s immune to oxidation. Aircraft wiring is not OFC, but silver-plated copper, in order to sustain conductivity. (The silver plating still oxidizes, but unlike OFC, won’t lose conductivity over time.)
“So, as good little audio research scientists, we began to see if we could quantify the claims being made by several new audiophile cable manufacturers (who shall remain nameless). We already new that "skin effect" issues were of course non-existent at audio frequencies. It has been well documented for about 60 years that skin effect does not occur until you reach a frequency of about 65kHz. It is observable and measurable. So we knew to discount this claim as bogus. When we began taking measurements of all known measurable electrical and acoustical properties when comparing OFC to normal high purity copper we found absolutely no measurable difference. Now understand this is no measurable difference at a degree of resolution far beyond that which is perceivable by human hearing.”
Whether skin effect is audible has not been proven unequivocally either way......... The debate kind of faded from existence during the digital age, because audibility of artifacts above 20 kHz became a non-issue, due to the CD being band-limited to 22 kHz.
“However, the OFC copper did not oxidize as quickly.”
But it still oxidizes..............
“But conversely, the oxidation on the outer surface of the wire also did not impede or effect the test measurements.”
Well if it’s aircraft wire, the reason is because it’s silver plated. Silver oxide has good conductivity relative to copper oxidation.
“It did however change things on crimped connections, particularly on micro-resistance values at the transition point of contact from wire to connector.”
That’s because the crimps fractured through the silver plating into the copper, exposing the copper to oxidation.
“In our tests we measured parameters like capacitance, inductance, inherent impedances at various audio frequencies and beyond, velocity factors, damping, current handling differentials, to name just a few. We were most interested in the aspects of time differentials in relation to frequency as claimed by these manufacturers. We found that velocity factors were not effected by OFC.”
I don’t think anybody claimed so. It’s more due to the surrounding insulative/dielectric material.
“We also found that in these ‘special’ cables the velocity factors for the separate windings allegedly carrying different frequencies were the same, therefore no ‘time correction’ was actually occurring as claimed.”
Once again, this is inconclusive.
“What we did find was significant variables in basic parameters like capacitance and inductance, within the various layers of this particular cable. In one case we measured what was in affect a RCL filter being created by the cable. It actually was producing a bandpass filter which was reducing a specific frequency and some harmonics. It was essentially, changing the response of the cable away from being flat. So here I make my point ...”
Nothing ground-breaking here...........
“Measurement allows us to learn the truth, in quantifiable terms about what we can and cannot perceive. However, perception and taste can at times be at odds with this. Why? It's a matter of what one wants.”
I personally think a product that sounds good should also measure well. But whatever someone likes, that’s his business. Even if it does NOT measure well.
“A person may want a sound system that reproduces with the greatest accuracy what is on the source material. Others may prefer to deviate from this to produce an aural aesthetic suited to their taste. A ‘warm tubey sound’ for instance. And you know what ... That's OK.”
At least you acknowledge that.
“However, let me give you a lesson in what thinking is going on the industry that builds this stuff. They think most audiophiles are sheep. I left the hi-end audio business for this reason. As a design engineer for a very well known amplifier manufacturer, I got sickened by the ‘audiophools’ comments,”
I think you’re “sickened” because you WANT to be “sickened”..........
“and marketing driven design assignments, and the way pricing was being developed.”
Should that be your problem?
“Hearing a discussion about how to increase base margins from 1000% to 2000%, as one example.”
That should be cited at face value.
“And this was in the 80's! Now you can buy a $50,000 pair of speaker cable. Ludicrous! Snake oil! There is no manufacturing process, material cost, development cost or anything in engineering that could cause a cable to have to be sold for that price. It is purely profiteering. This is fact.”
I’d be curious what this $50,000 cable is.......... (NBS makes some expensive cable, but I don’t think that expensive.)
“Now I come to what motivated me to post on AA after all these years. I recently was given a pair of these $50,000 speaker cables by a women who's husband died. A windfall? Ha! Well guess what ... I took a knife to them.”
I guess if one is independently wealthy (or purchased the cable at an extreme cut rate), he can do that..............
“They cost me nothing and I wasn't going to pawn them off to some schmuck who worships this stuff.”
How noble of you......... You could have sold it cheap, you know.
“That would be hypocritical of me.”
Not if you sold it cheap...............
“But I was curious about what proprietary engineering was justifing these prices, if any. So I cut them open. Removed the beautiful weaving of the outside, pulled back the poly jacket. What I found was shocking. I found a standard Belden branded communications multi-wire underneath. They didn't even get Belden to OEM the cable and not label it. After all, who would cut up a $50,000 cable and find this out?”
This would be grounds for a lawsuit, wouldn’t you think? (Provided your story was true.)
Do you have pics of this? That would really be revelatory.
“Certainly none of the magazines these days, that's for sure. (I miss Audio Magazine). This Belden wire is a cable that sells for about $2.53 per foot from Mouser.”
What was the Belden part number? Maybe it’s a good alternative to audiophile wire.
“When I priced everything out the cable cost about $270 to make, at retail prices mind you. There was nothing proprietary in this cable and all of the components making it up can be purchased online. They did use an exothermically welded connection on the spades, but other than that nothing out of the ordinary.”
You should have investigated if this measures better than soldered connections...... ;-]
“So how do they justify the price? First by wonderfully talented marketing, maneuvering good mag reviews, techno-babble, and a good dealer network.”
A $50,000 pair of speaker cables wouldn’t have much of a dealer network..............
“It is amazing how this alone can change perception while listening.”
I don’t know..... I’ve heard quite a bit of expensive stuff that didn’t impress me..........
“And BTW, before ripping apart this cable I put a load on it, swept it and measured the frequency and phase response. It was all over the place. The cable certainly would have sounded unique, but it did not pass the signal accurately. In fact, it greatly distorted the signal both in terms of phase and amplitude response and even exhibited IM artifacts as a result, much like vacuum tubes do.”
Most cables, regardless of price, do rather well in IMD testing..............
“It probably sounded very warm as a result. However was it ‘accurate’ or ‘transparent’ or ‘virtually invisible to the music’, as claimed? Not even close. But it probably sounded nice and warm. Did I say that already?”
“Probably?”.... You sure it sounded “warm?” [-;
“The point being, if you are looking for accurate, most and I mean most Hi-end audio equipment is not actually designed to that end.”
I’ve stated numerous times, nobody has agreed to a set of aural parameters that definitively define “accurate”. One man’s “accuracy” could be another man’s “inaccuracy”.
“If you measure things, as I have over the last 30 years, you discover this to be true. But if you don't really care about hearing the music as recorded and want to create an aural aesthetic to your own personal taste, you are in good company. You just need to be willing to pay the price to the snake-oil man just to develop that aesthetic.”
Heck, if you’d only reveal the Belden product, we can do the “snake oil” for cheap..... ;-p
“In conclusion, if you do the measurements you find two facts.
“1. Accuracy is cheaper.”
Once again, nobody knows at true accuracy really is.
“2. Distortion (of facts, physics and sound) is expensive.”
Not if you reveal the parts to make the expensive stuff..............
“So what do you think. Is creating your own aural aesthetic justification enough for the prices you are forced to pay?”
People buy what they buy. It’s not your or my business.
“What's your experiences with measurement?”
I’ve measured things too....... For about 30 years...... Unless it’s basic frequency response, most measurements really don’t tell the whole story.
“Are you of the belief that human hearing is far better than measurement?”
As long as a machine is unable to distinguish Heifatz from Perlman, my answer would be “Yes!”
“Do you believe in angels?”
Anaheim’s baseball team?
“Is global warming real? Hehe.”
Those of liberal political persuasion think it is........... I personally haven’t seen any objective evidence.
“You know what I mean. Are the manufacturers engineers or master marketeers or modern day magicians?”
You give them too much credit.
“How much Mrytlewood have you bought?”
None. But some audiophiles do have a wife to please.
Its very simplistic to pick away at this point by point and take things out of context. I never said machines can interpret music. What I said is an electronic device can resolve electronic values better than human hearing or other senses. We are dealing with electronics and signals, not music emanating from an instrument in an acoustic environemnt, a live sound. And this electronics is not involved in the creative process of creating or interpreting music itself. Electronics is used to record and replay music, within the degree it can do such things. However to subjectivly interpret the workings of electronics in the same way we listen to a violin in a concert hall is not only misplaced, but ineffective. If one was to "tune up" and electronic device by ear and sell it there would be so much variation from piece to piece nobody would buy it. Its function must be precisely measured by others of it kind; electronic devices. Just like only humans can interpret and apprieciate the music created by other humans.Even piano tuners use electronic devices to get a more precise tuning initially, then and only then detune for timbral human preference. The note A is precisely defined as 440hz and only a very rare few can tune to within a cent or so of that without some basis of comparative pitch, that's why tuning forks exist. One can get close, one out of millions can get it right on without a standard comparitive pitch. Now we use electronics to have this standard. Otherwise, instruments would be out of pitch relatively. Now I have worked with symphonic orchestras as well as pop musiciains and all use some device as a standard, either a tuning fork, a piano to tune to or an electronic pitch standard. The human ear is not precise enough for the intial pitch. ALL calibrated electronic devices and tuning forks are exactly on pitch; exactly vibrating or oscillating at 440.000hz. Humans can only distinguish in mid-frequencies (specifically 440hz) about 1/12 semitone change, which is about .037hz This is known as the "Just-Noticeable Difference". (See work by Rossing, Moore, and Wheeler) All electronic measurement devices can detect or produce frequency at resolutions as low as .001hz (or lower depending on clock accuracy). I would be more inclined to beleive a spectrum analysers output results for flat frequency response then depend on mine nor anyone elses ears to tell whether a loudspeaker has a flat response (necessary for accurate reproduction) or whether phase anomalies exist. (Let me say this, if a loudspeaker isn't flat it is adding timbral influence to the music that isn't on the recording. I want to hear the music, not the speaker)
Instruments not tuned a standard pitch reference was Mozart's biggest pet peeve. It is reported he had perfect pitch, and was always frustrated when a tuning fork wasn't used for the orchestra to pitch A to. Or if they didn't tune to the piano in place, which he always complained wasn't tuned to pitch anyway. However the person with perfect pitch is extremely rare statisically. The human senses are not that resolute or precise. A device is always more precise in this respect.
However, a device cannot interpret music or determine if it is performed well, nor can it derive pleasure or emotional response from it. But what electronics can do is measure whether another electronic device is doing its function accurately or properly. It can precisely read what the human senses cannot determine. Can your skin and sense of touch give you an accurate voltage reading? No. Can your ears and minds-eye give you and accurate picture or measurement of amplitude response. No. Can you say with all certainly what the phase response is of a certain frequency within a passage of music played through a speaker. No way. The human ear and other senses cannot do that to that level of precision. They are not evolved for that purpose. They can only interpret, not measure with certainly.
The limited abilities of human senses is well studdied, well documented and well understood. It is not a theory. It is fact. Comparatively speaking in terms of specific criteria, the human ear can only resolve to a certain degree. For instance it is well understood what the Hi-Lo frequency range limits are regarding human perception of frequency. Human hearing amplitude response is different depending on sound pressure level (munson curves). And these both vary greatly from person to person. For instance the average amplitude differnetial a human can detect is well known to be between 1 to 2dB and for some people as much as 5dB. Any modern spectrum analyser can resolve to about .1 dB or even lower in some instruments. And this level of precision has existed for some 30 years now. Human hearing cannot, has not and never will be able to resolve at that level of precision. Can a spectrum analyser tell if Itzak is playing? Of course not. That's not its function; not can it, will it nor has it ever been able to.
Interpreting music and measuring things like voltage, phase and amplitude are two entirely different things. You're comparing apples to rocks. They are two completely different unrelated things.
Edits: 11/24/12
Perfect pitch is present in one in ten thousand, more so in Asian populations.
While A=440 is standard, a piano is not tuned to standard pitch machines. As you go up the scale, the pitch rises, as you go lower the pitch goes flatter. The notes increase their deviation as you go depart from the A=440.
That's why Bach is famous, he created the equal tempered scale, or at least popularized it. The human ear is logarithmic not linear. This applies to octaves and the notes between.
Try taking an electronic tuning machine and use it to tune a piano. I guarantee you that it will be the worse sounding piano ever. That's why piano tuning is still very much an art, rather than a science.
As for A=440: That in itself is an artificial contrivance. Over time A could have been much higher as much as 450+. Mozart did not use A=440 as a standard.
Stu
My wife's Steinway B was tuned to A=442. The technician we used to use was the tuner for the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and he tuned to the orchestra's concert pitch.
As you pointed out, pianos aren't tuned with equal octaves, even if each octave is split equally. The linked article explains why. Our tuner explained to me one day what he was doing and why, and that he was making various sonic tradeoffs, including the brilliance of the instrument.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Interpreting music and measuring things like voltage are two entirely different things. You're comparing apples to rocks. They are two completely different unrelated things."
Seems to me, if we could ignore your snake oil references for the moment, your OP is guilty of exactly that!
I am the OP. We are talking about using test equipment to get electronics to work properly. Some perople seem to think you do this by ear. You cannot know with any certainty if a loudspeaker is operating as designed unless you measure it with electronics.
People who judge stereo by using ears are missing an important thing. Accuracy. If a violin plays one note, it is recorded, then the playback system (as well as recording system) must pass the information as an electronic signal, not as music. Once this is done, the intergrity of that signal must be maintained through the subsequent stages of electronics. For this to happen the equipment must be tested by measuremnet of electronic signals for accuracy. You cannot do this by ear precisely enough. That is the basis of this discussion. If your manufacturers of this gear didn't have test equipment this stuff would sound like gak!
We are talking about electronics and electronic signals, NOT the interpretation, performance or creation of music. Stereo systems are not musical instruments. They do not create music. They are not used to generate music. They are not used by musicians. They are not the source of the music. They are not inherantly musical. They are electronics, that must perform accurately in the electronic realm and deal with signals, not music. And signal accuracy is quantifiable only through measurement and should not be determined by direct human senses & interpretation. This is what audiophiles, many of them, forget. It's a misinterpretation of realities.
Try this. :-) Wedge the speaker end of your speaker wire in your ear, turn the volume to maximum, and tell me what you hear? In addition to probably going deaf and feeling a strange electric shock, I know you will not hear music. But what you will perceive is the electrons charge flowing through a wire and now into your flesh. (Disclaimer: I'm being dramatic here, do not do this.) Now do this with an electric guitar that isn't plugged in. Just put the headstock on your temple. You will hear music. That's because it's an instruemnt. A stereo is not an instrument, its electronics.
Stereos do not make music. They store and recall electronically a close approximation of a performance of music.
On the contrary the output of a stereo is music and the stereos performance should be first and foremost judged on it's ability to recreate music.As far as your accuracy point goes someone like me must concede the issue however if the stereo is good enough to provide musical enjoyment over a wide diversity of music styles and recording qualities some degree of measurable accuracy will be required - no doubt excess colorations alienate recordings but the colorations accepted will be less than excessive and selected to expand ones musical horizon. This IMO is the purpose of owning a nice stereo - to expand our musical horizons via enjoying all kinds of music. A great stereo is required!
On the other hand, some who listen, can and do make objective listening observations based on experience and training. This methodology bypasses the need to attempt to quantify measureable parameters. So it's true that these kinds of systems may measure less good what's important is that they perform well enough to fool the experienced listener into believing what they are hearing is live. And that's a requirement that cannot be substantiated by any measurement or conglomeration of measurements.
Certainly for most of us who chose to judge a stereos performance by ear it seems outrageous that someone could conclude a stereos performance based on measurements.
Edits: 11/24/12 11/24/12
I think you and I are heading towards some mutual agreement in concept.Understand, my criteria is as the person responsible for creating the recordings being listened to. I was a staff engineer for Sheffield Labs (and many other recrdings over the past 30 years). I have a reference that exceeds that of the casual listener or even hardened expert audiophile. I was there. I placed mics. I built the mic preamps. I heard the actual performance. I know the rooms. In some cases, I even designed the rooms and created the acoustical environment for the recording. I know the actual imaging and placement of the instruments; I put them where they appear to be on the recording. All this on a very intimate and subtle level.
I have heard these recordings of these performances played on some very famous systems (some featured in magazines) and thought the recording sounded competely different than what I know they really sound like. (Of course being very careful not to expose what I was really thinking to the owners of these very costly and lovingly created macinations. It's like calling somebodys kid fugly!) And therein lies the problem of accuracy, for me in particular. The sound system is not making the music, the musicians made the music, I recorded it and turned it into electronic signals and these systems failed (miserably in some cases) to accurately recover the signals and covert them back into sound waves.
Herein lies the problem of perception. I say a sound system doesn't make music, it mearly is a another medium by which it travels. And that music should pass through this medium undisturbed. A sound system should be transparent. What goes in, is what should come out between all stages. Otherwise you are listening to the system itself, not the music. A person with no true reference as to what is going in, has no way to tell what is coming out is the same. But, with measurment one can test the electronics for its ability to pass signals undisturbed. This is not magic, its simple common sense. Recorded music is just signals. If a piece of gear can do its respective job (coverting digital to analog signals, routing the signals, amplifiying the signals, or transducing these electrical signals back to sound waves) without modifying the signals (whether test tones or music; a signal is a signal in electronics), what comes out will be the same as what went in, in every detail as recorded. There is no magic, no human context within this process. However, once the music is liberated from being a signal, and is no longer constrained within electronics, the music is preserved if only in reproduction of sound waves. The enjoyment is maximized and the artists endeavors can be properly interpreted and appreciated fully.
On these systems it was no longer the same music, nor the same performance. Why? Because the system doesn't make music, it coverts electronic signals into sound waves. And in these cases did so in poor fashion technically. Ironically, these systems are considered milestones in audiophile circles. To me, they are poorly over-tuned impressions of people listening to GEAR without a reference, not music. When asked about how they tuned the system I was told, "By ear ... How else does one do it? And what's better than your human hearing for decerning nuance in music". Problem is they are not tuning instruments. They are tuning electronics. They are not listening to musicians play, they are listening to an electronic recording of musicians playing. Different animal. Different reality.
In fact they are listening to the gear and its anomalies, contoured to their opinion of how music should sound, almost in contempt of the musicians and engineers who recorded the performances. The music is secondary. Inaccuracy run amok, to cater to the whims of the gearheads, so-to-speak.
Look ... what people, especially many audiophiles, do not want to beleive is their is no magic, no religion, nothing ethereal about sound systems. All that is needed to be known to reach the goals is well understood. The problem lies in the physics of building this electronics in way where it does its job perfectly. We know where to go, we have full understanding of the physics of sound, human hearing, sound waves and how they work, how to covert signals into sound waves. We know the endgame, the coaches know the plays, we just don't have talented enough players. We just don't have the materials to build "The Stuff". Components like capcaitors are not perfect, resistors and semi-conductors have compromises. Loudspeaker drivers have that nasty reality of the physical world known as mass. The stuff doesn't work perfectly. We have full knowledge, there is just no magic cure for inaccuracies in the stuff! However, when we start messing around with the ethereal, beleiving in magic bullets, and ignoring physics in some cases becuase of the lie of "we can't know all that there is to know" in some arrogant attempt to make things "more musical" we run the risk of changing the recording into something it is not. Something else. Not music, electronic noises and distortions mimicing one persons perception of music. Not what was recorded by the makers of the recording of music for sure. That includes the ludicrous attempts at making bad recordings sound better. If it was engineered badly, you can't replace what isn't there with gear ... or Mrytlewood (hehe).
Having a true musical reference can really suck sometimes! :-)
Edits: 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12
Nice response.I'm not going to continue to defend the objective listeners position because I don't agree with it and ultimately my pov is going to be very similar to yours. All I want to say on that is people can define the job of the stereo to be whatever it is they want it to be. I don't think that more than a few audiophiles are capable of building a true and accurate musical reference using that methodology inspite of what they believe. In fact I think the dissatisfaction with their results leads to continued purchasing but that's just what I've observed.
Where you lose me is with a comment like "That includes the ludicrous attempts at making bad recordings sound better. If it was engineered badly, you can't replace what isn't there with gear ... or Mrytlewood (hehe)."
You sound so much like a recording engineer! What's a bad recording? Heck a bad recording sounds like a bad recording but in my book that doesn't mean it sounds bad. And a good recording sounds like a good recording but it doesn't mean it sounds good. Of course our stereos should be good enough to differentiate recording quality but it's the quality of the inaccuracy within the system that threatens to limit our ability to enjoy a diversity of recordings or may enable us to enjoy a wider diversity.
I'm not saying compression, clipping and eq sounds good but given reasonable volume levels lots and lots of popular music can deliver great listening experiences for those who are interested.
Like I said in my response to your Original Post, the most measureably accurate stereo may be the best but given the fuzzy specifications for the universe of recorded works it seems highly unlikely it would be chosen by listening. Of course one could select recordings that tend to substantiate any desired conclusion.
I agree there is no magic - there's only selecting equipment that works well together whose shared strengths and compromises best meet the owners expectations.
Edits: 11/25/12 11/25/12
"
"Is global warming real? Hehe."Those of liberal political persuasion think it is........... I personally haven't seen any objective evidence."
You personally haven't seen any objective evidence? The Fing polar ice caps are melting, the temperatue and level of the ocean is rising, and climate is changing and you claim you haven't seen any objective evidence? There is no question global warming is real and it's got nothing to do with one's political persuation, I suppose some party of idiots might deny the the clear and unquestionable evidence.
And for whatever it's worth I can't even dismiss creationism as who knows what state the earth was created in - far as I know the world could have been formed 200 BC with all history intact. But global warming? Thats a certainty....
What's in question is how much mankind is accelerating this warming and climate change if at all.
Edits: 11/23/12 11/23/12
I am sure there is analysis that could be performed to determine with reasonable accuracy between the two performers.
Did I read this right - over 28,000 posts?!?!?!?! Your reply started off well, but then it got bogged down in semantics.
28,000 + posts? Mercy!
Funny you should mention copper oxide. It is of course, a diode. I'm sure your education at RPI covered this, right?
I'd be surprised of oxidized connections could not be found using sensitive measures.
Can everything that matters be measured? Does everything that can be measured matter?
The next step is to measure people....not things. I'll let it go at that since I simply don't have time for the huge post that thought demands. But it is still about people....and perception.....not measures of equipment.
Too much is never enough
I think JRL realized that someone opened the gates to the Cable Asylum and Isolation Ward - thus making any further interaction in this thread pointless.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...
Feeling the pending doom and gloom of an empty room...
Wherever ye go, there ye are.
I can 'see' your point. The other side has plenty of objections as I glance at the dozens of (not read by me yet) possts added to the op post.
The curious thing with the op post is allowing the expensive cables DO make a change.
Anyway, nice to read. Better than the usual drivel here too.
Now to start in on the responses.
Whoo hoo.
For my own stance: yeah cables and some tweaks can make a difference. My personal gripe is taking ordinary tweaks and making really expensive crap, adding in tons of bogus terminology to sell the overpriced stuff.
My 'posterboy' for 'overpriced' is Bybee. take an ordinary electrical bit, gussy it up and sell it for 4,000% profit to folks who think it is a great deal.
Not for me. (oh yeah, Bybee work, just way way way way overpriced.)Anyway, I hope i am in some middle position between the warring parties.
Yeah measurements are nice, and true they do not explain everything, but then the other side making up rediculous and bogus crapoloa explainations is no damn good either. And does all of use no good.
Geoff is #1 guilty party who hangs here.., along with those infamous Belts.. Peter Belt and May Belt.
Some of the stuff is fun, some is just hilarious. So i can say it is interesting both ways..
The crazies who swear we know all and it acan all be boiled down to measurements, and the ones with quantum whatever up their aholes..
Both funny crazy, and that is where I stand.. somewhere in the middle ground.
Edits: 11/13/12
Given the sponsor list for this website and the responses posted of many members, it's pretty shocking that this thread was allowed to exist in the first place.
Funny, the sponsor list is the first thing I mentioned in this thread yesterday. Now this here has suddenly become my first post.......LOL
LOL!Yeah...sort of explains the current demographic of participants and usual subject matter.
Perhaps we're not yet very well versed in "forked tongue" speak. Maybe if we can improve on that front, our posts will survive censorship...
Edits: 11/13/12
You should realize you are as annoying as Sudz, just in a totally different way.
The key IMO is STOP trying to 'get even' with every repost.
All you are doing is pissing in the wind.
Say what you got to say, and let the damn chips fall. Stop having to tear into every response like it is some sort of pissing contest.
THAT is the problem.
And you are way too thin skinned.
If someone calls you an asshole? so what? skip it, laugh, do not argue with them over and over.. AND you are also NOW carrying a grudge.
That will get you permanently banned.
Have a gripe? get over it, life goes on...
Forget the damn grudge, life is too short.
Edits: 11/14/12
I got it. Thanks for your candid opinion. I hope you feel better having gotten that off your chest.
.
I have this vision of you pushing around a shopping cart with your most important rags and bones in it. Maybe a couple of power cables, some crystals and a few of those dumps perhaps too. ;-)
And bath? what is a bath? I sleep under the local freeway bridge in my little hut made out of my cat treasures. I cackle a lot too.... And i save ALL my dumps... Little treasures I call them. And the cat dumps too. My little cat treasures I call them..
And have saved every cat treasure for nearly 20 years.. Thus my little hut.
I am famous among 'under the bridge' dwellers and being way way crazier than the average.
I am proud of my reputation. It shows my under the bridge peers have respect for me.
You should too. If not, I may move into your neighborhood.
...being outside with no walls as boundaries.
A bit too much ambient noise, though, from the passing vehicles on the bridge, I would think. :)
You can design an amplifier or electronic component to a given specification. To specific design criterion.
You can design a speaker to a given specification. To specific design criterion. Speakers are the most interesting case when it comes to "objective" measurements. We see some measurements in some speaker reviews. Amplitude response and electrical phase (seldom ACOUSTICAL phase, which is amplitude response and acoustical phase, or the two components of 'frequency response'). We may even see impulse or step response.
But do we ever see polar response? Two speakers measured on-axis may have similar on-axis response but radically different off-axis response due to driver interaction and crossover topology.
So you take two speakers that measure "similarly" on-axis which are not the same at all and put them in two different rooms with different floor, wall and ceiling materials, and different distances from walls to speakers, between speakers and to the listener. Add to that different toe-in angles.
You're going to get pretty much an INFINATE combination of different products, unless audio rooms are built to a specification, with materials, distances and equipment all specified (as is done with some theatres built to a specification.)
What does this all mean?
Even if "objective measurements" have a place in making a product meet design criterion and topology, they have far less use for the audiophile purchasing gear. This is because he has all these other variables at play which will affect how "bright" the speaker will sound (tonal balance, etc.) and how the speaker will present the holographic "effect" we call image:
a) room size and height
b) room materials including floor coverings, window coverings, treatments
c) speaker and chair placement
d) speaker distance from back and side walls, from eachother and from the chair
e) speaker toe-in
f) the most important factor of ALL: the individual recording
When you're mucking about with a though f, suddenly these VERY "telltale" objective measurements from specifications and review tests become rough guides at best. I've heard speakers that were nice in one place moved to their new home where the person was suddenly less impressed. Sure. Is there any question as to why?
You can try to write a nice long rant about why subjectivist audiophiles are inept and in denial, and you can go on about the ability of sound waves to be measured in 12 different ways. Measuring ability is not even close to being the final "point" - it's what data we would collect and how we would INTERPRET these data sets.
For one thing, we could go a LOT further to explain why different system/room/placement/toe-in combinations sound and image differently even with the SAME speakers. Polar response of a given set of speakers is constant - each speaker has the same polar response. But how this response interacts with the OTHER speaker AND room boundaries to create a specific image "EFFECT" will vary for pretty much all system/room/placement/toe-in combinations. And this CAN be measured. But do we measure this way? Hardly.
The designer does on-axis measurements. Maybe he considers off-axis response and power response. Maybe he considers the kinds of rooms that his speakers MIGHT go into. Who knows what kind of room he's voicing his speakers in...
In any case, with the wide varieties in speakers (with their unique on and off-axis response and voicing) rooms, treatments, placement and on top of ALL of that, 10 different recording engineers capturing the same acoustic event 10 different ways, each with a unique process and equipment from the mix to the final mastering...
You bet it's subjective.
If you can write a book about ALL of the things we can measure that help mould the final sound we hear sitting in a chair, congratulations. It will 1000 pages of stuff we probably already knew, and none of it will change anything about the way we record and mix and master music, and none of it will have any relevance to an audiophile who knows that the final "proof" is in his subjective and qualitative assessment of his own music on his own system in his own house in his own mood with his own ears and his own biases and preconceptions.
Until you can take the human brain out of the "chain" (it's always the final frontier of sound reproduction) all the measurements in the world will not result in the "single correct system" that is based on "all the right and relevant measurements".
Cheers,
Presto
Accuracy is basically "what goes in, is what comes out". If the signal is changed somewhere along the way by the electronics it is deemed for this discusssion as less accurate.To determine accuracy in a loudspeaker from a measurement point of view, it must be measured under a prescribed "control" condition. This is why anechoic measurement is essential and an accepted pratice when measuring the performance of a loudspeaker. A condition where room effects do not exist is the only way to measure the performance of a tranducer like a loudspeaker. Measuring a loudspeaker in a "normal" room is pointless. It is like pouring 100% pure water in a glass that has some salt in it. Then tasting the water. The water will taste salty. How can you draw conclusions about how pure the water is (or was) in this case? You can't, there is no control. The point of measurement is to see whether a given device is perfoming in way that is consistant with its design or determine its actual accuracy. If other variables not created by the device are perceived in the measurement the data is meaningless. You cannot quantify whether the data is the device or whether the data is "the room" and its interaction (or the salted glass in the water example). You need a standardized control.
Of course, you can design a loudspeaker for a given room (your listening room for instance), but how does one tell how this speaker will perfom in other locations. You can't, you have no control, no true method of comparsion or accurate measurement of the loudspeakers perfomance other than in the room the loudspeaker was designed for. It's proprietary. It may work well in that room, but horribly in another. Is that the loudspeaker being bad? No ... in actuality the performance in this example is the effects of the room and the design criteria. What the loudspeaker is doing is not accurate unto itself, it is only accurate when used in the room it was designed for. Measuring it would be pointless, except in that room.
So when building a loudspeaker for sale its measured accuracy can only be determined when measured in a standardized controlled environment like an anechoic chamber. And how well the signal put into it is reproduced when measured in this control determines its accuracy. How good it sounds in a room is then purely a factor of the room itself. You can always clean the salt out of the glass before you taste it, but if the water isn't pure to begin with ... do you follow?
This is also the problem with subjective listening for review purposes. While something may work well in a given situation (with its multitudes of affecting variables) its give you no real valuable information for your multitudes of variables. There is no control. Its relativistic. Is the subjective perception and artifact of the device in tests, or are they interactions of the variables alone. The device may be 100% accurate, but the test variables do not allow you to perceive this.
Controlled measurement removes the variables. Let's use this example. Let's say you some miracle device that tranfers a signal perfectly. This hypothetical device is 100% accurate. You measure this in a controlled situation. So you know the device itself is perfect. So now you place this device in an uncontrolled situation. The device has not changed. It is still 100%. It's the situation that is different. So you now know the variables is the situation and not the device.
The same can said for loudspeakers. If you measure the performance of a loudspeaker in an anechoic environment, where the variables are non-existant you know the actual performance of the loudspeaker itself. You know its characteristics, good and bad, accurate or inaccurate. Place it in a real room and it doesn't change in any way. What it does is still the same. It's the interactions within the room that has changed, so you know any difference is the room and not the loudspeaker. No loudspeaker will change the rooms charateristics and visa-versa. They both stay the same. Only if you physically modify the room or the loudspeaker do they change. A loudspeaker cannot remove a wall reflection for instance (it may be able to avoid it, but the reflecting surface is still there in the room). But if you know the actual performance of speaker, you can then determine what influence the other variables are having on the performance overall. So you simply wash the glass, you already know the water was 100% pure before you put it in the glass. But you have to know the water is pure first, or at least how pure and in what way. This way you can say with certainly where the salty taste is coming from and make changes to make the water pure again.
Edits: 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12 11/24/12
So what you've said here is that anechoic measurements are the defacto controlled "standard" by which measurements are made. Well, at what voltage? Distance? Signal? Pink or white noise? Sweep? What angles vertically? Horizontally? Or full polar response measurements? At what frequencies are polar plots shown? These tests are not done in the same chamber nor are they done in the same way for each speaker system.
And what use are these if nobody listens in an anechoic chamber?
What about in rooms response then?
More stuff to think about...
You can cite "measured in an anechoic chamber" and this will still tell us really nothing about how that speaker is REALLY going to sound unless there are glaring anomalies in the response for which a prediction could be made.
Cheers,
Presto
The thread was essentially centered around ridiculously priced "tweak" products such as cables.
Edits: 11/13/12
From the OP -Topic - "Measurement and Perception and the Value of Each (Long Post)"
and
"In conclusion, if you do the measurements you find two facts.
1. Accuracy is cheaper.
2. Distortion (of facts, physics and sound) is expensive."In my original response I responded to why this is wrong and why outrageously expensive audio systems can be justified using objective measures.
You simply want to avoid discussing the topic in order to facilitate your "snake oil" offensive which based on the conclusion of the OP quoted above is really just dodging the topic.
Edits: 11/13/12
What is the point of the original post? He makes those claims at the end and they're really rather outlandish.
"1. Accuracy is cheaper."
False premise. First off, define accuracy. Second, the "value" of a component has more than objective quantities, it also has subjective qualities. You may not need a 1/2" thick machined aluminum front plate on a component, but if you do, it costs more than a folded piece of tin. Third, some more expensive components ARE more accurate. If you want to take a cheap low buck CD source and compare it to a DCS stack you're welcome to.
"2. Distortion (of facts, physics and sound) is expensive."
Overgeneralization. A cable that has inductive/capacitive components that do nothing more than to color sound might be distortion. But this statement alludes to the possibility that the more something costs the more distorted it is which cannot be further from the truth. I've heard some very pricey ($25K+) studio monitors and the quick, tuneful, immediate and engaging sound I heard was no accident and it was not what I would call "distorted" at all. That said, once you get into the whole concept of "voicing" a loudspeaker, you've already left science in the rear-view mirror. But there is more to sound that facts and physics and that's what staunch objectivists are missing. Enjoyment is a state of mind. You can take two twins with "perfect" measurements and facial structure (computers have calculated who is the most beautiful woman in the world based on her facial geometry). You can have two different men meet with these women, one who has a wonderful time with her and the other, who lacks self confidence, sweats and stumbles. What happened? Both had the same "perfect" woman. Ah well, perhaps there is more to a man enjoying the company of a woman than her physical specifications. Ridiculous comparison? I think not. Man's enjoyment of music (and art in general) is as much tied up in his own pysche and outlook as it is in the performance itself.
- I admit I dislike "fake physics" in advertising.
- I admit that I would never buy an audio component or device that only has a psychological effect. I can create these affects for free myself.
- I admit that better lighting and room aesthetics improve the listening experience.
- I admit that asymmetry in the room and other obsessive compulsive concerns drive me nuts.
What's the problem here? If you think a product is snake oil don't buy it. But if you plan to "convert" someone who believes they "hear a difference" then by all means go ahead. If this same person also believes that even a purely psychological improvement is worth the price of a tweak, then who is the fool? One who is happy to pay for a placebo? Or one who argues that this is foolish?
If my doctor charged me $10 for a sugar pill and it made my headaches go away, would I be outraged at paying $10 for a half gram of sugar? Or happy that my doctor used the power of my mind to cure me while giving me a "medication" with no detrimental side effects? If he kept giving me sugar pills after my headaches persisted and the cause was a growing brain tumor, yes, I would be rather p1ssed.
So why are you so worried about who buys snake oil anyways? Unless someone comes to me and asks "Do you think this is snake oil?" why would I worry?
Every day in advertising we're being sold a better mousetrap. A better tasting diet soda. A better car. Five-hour-energy drink "PROVEN" to work by a ZILLION doctors (quick read the fine print).
I find this worry to be a waste of resources.
Cheers,
Presto
The whole OP was a Strawman, a troll, obviously. Right out of the pages of Zen and the Art Of Debunkery. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And to make matters funnier the other troll agreed with him.
The subject line actually more than hints at an interesting discussion, and his conclusion, as obtuse as it is, maintains the theme of the topic. Too bad the only fire power anyone could muster to support his comments were the attacks on tweeks and snake oil. Kind of like condemning all of mankind because some wack job shoots up a theater in Colorado.What's kind of sad* is that the "subjectivists" do such a poor job of putting these kinds of faulty thinking attention seekers in their place. As if because their listening experiences differ from what they would expect looking at specs or measurements, somehow the importance of specs and measurements are diminished. Best one could conclude it was their expectations that were out of line. Their subjective or even objectively based listening opinions are NOT less credible if one accepts the importance of measured performance. Their defensiveness reveals an ignorance of their own position......
*Actually more sad because it's easy to dismiss an audiophile with more book smarts than listening experiences, but so very off putting listening to some guy with lots of listening experiences try to monkey some psuedo-scientifical justification for it.
Edits: 11/23/12 11/23/12 11/23/12
.
"While you certainly offered some useful, valid points, your comments effectively place legitimate design concerns in the same category as total snake oil"I don't see how I 'effectively' do that at all. I am saying that legitimate design concerns lead to a design that meets certain criterion. Whether or not these concerns lead to a subjectively better sound is another matter. Some design concerns are real, and must be addressed, while others are closer to a form of snake-oil in and of themselves. Some design speakers thinking that a 1st order electric crossover must be used at all costs, because group delay is "the" most important aspect of home stereo speakers. Some think you need a single driver, because passive or active crossovers are where most of the sonic evils lie... which is strange because a transient accurate loudspeaker has no more phase issue than a full range speaker - both have natural acoustic phase roll at their frequency extrements and are inherently band-pass devices. With phase correction, even those errors can be compensated for mathmatically. Phase correction works. You can pass a square wave through a digital IIR Filter and get a square wave out. Fantastic. Some think digital IIR Filters "SOUND BAD". The only good filter is NO filter they say. Okay. Too bad all digital sources use filters to limit out of band noise, which have an effect on phase and transient response.
But all that aside, at the end of it all, no matter how much engineering went into the components OR the system as a whole, the end goal is to do what? Meet a bunch of objective measurement criterion? Or please the end user? It's the latter. Meeting ALL of preconceived design specifications is mute if the end user does not feel his $30K got him the sound he wanted. If he feels there is not enough bass for his recordings in general, then there is not enough bass. How much baffle step compensation is correct? 3db? 5dB? 6db? Depends on the room. Depends on the LISTENER.
Anyways, my point was that the OP used the word "accuracy" and he (and you) failed to do that. Why? We can try to define accuracy but then the audiophile converts this DEFINITIVE word into yet another subjective audiophilism: "It just doesn't sound accurate to me..."
What he means is that it just does not sound NATURAL to him, because the word ACCURATE can in no way apply to subjective apprasial of a non-engineered interconnected pile of engineered components. But they use words like accurate, probably for no other reason than to get objectivists shorts in a knot.
So can you calculate how much baffle step correction is called for in a given design? Ask Zaph if you can get ahold of him... I believe in some of his designs he basically says "Add BFC to taste and for the given distance from the wall." So how can someone ENGINEER a speaker without saying on the back "This speaker MUST be 3 feet from the wall in order for the baffle step compensation circuit to correctly accentuate the lower frequencies."? What if someone prefers this speaker 2 feet from the wall because they want a bit more boundary-related bass reinforcement? What if they find the bass 'over-bloomed' at 3 feet and prefer four? Are they WRONG? With engineering, if I prefer a tire that causes the car to spin off the track or the odomoeter not to work, I am destroying the original design intent. But what if the final result is just a preference and actual performance data has no real bearing? People who run very high performance cars are very very careful not to put on wheels which may have different diameter or offset than the original factory tires. At the extreme speeds and performance limits at which these vehicles are operated, one does not want to monkey around. That said, many advancements in racing have been made by drivers using their intuition and giving feedback to their mechanics, who called for differently engineered parts. This "feedback loop" can be subjective information from the driver - he speaks of the FEEL of the vehicle... It's up to the mechanics and engineers to adequately interpret this rather subjective description and come up with a new specification - something tangible to build to.
Anyways - back to snake oil.
I've always maintained that someone who pays to have their imagination sold back to them is insane. I pick on Geoff Kait alot because of his teleportation tweaks, for example. I believe that you can't use psychic energy to make stereos sound better. But you CAN use PSYCHOLOGICAL tricks to do it. Geoff Kait is no more guilty of snake oil than a company that sells an amp for $50K when $30K of it is all "jewelry" and fancy bling finishing. Sure you can make an amp chasis out of a single block of aluminum. You can make knobs out of exotic and rare woods too. But the former is much easier to sell as an "engineered improvement" than the wooden knob is, isn't it? Okay, it's neato to have a frame extruded out of a single piece of aluminum. So show me the performance data that proves it superior to a standard chassis design made from multiple pieces. Oh, that's abusurd they will say. They will scoff and say that customers who have spent tens, nay, hundreds of thousands have heard the difference their extruded chassis make and that I am the fool.
Some engineering is required to meet design criterion. Other "engineering" is charlatanism dressed UP as engineering with no other purpose than to increase the price-tag on the end result. Very suspicious are these "new technologies" that don't seem to require additional parts or time-consuming assembly. They're just a neato shape, or a slightly different form - then this is offered as the latest panacea with no proof of additional performance gains.
I've been in the room with the little bowls and all of the head nodding and "Do you hear that? Didja? Didja?" suggestion tricks. I didn't hear a godd@mn thing when they put that little 1/2" wide bowl on it's goofy little stand on the wall. If that makes a difference in the sound then removing the plant from the end table should impart a sonic different 100 times more profound. And that doesn't either. In fact, if the little bowls do this, then people walking around the room during auditions should as well (and moreso) and that doesn't seem to make much of an audible difference EITHER!
Sure, snake oil is "bad" when it uses "fake engineering" to sell. But what if people are WILLING to line up and pay for it? Gamblers go to casinos with the intent of "winning money" despite knowing the FACT that the more they gamble the more they will approach the mathmatically determined odds. You can win a coin toss three times in a row, but do it ten thousand times and you will get 50/50 accuracy unless something is wrong with the coin.
I just don't see how arguing with people who "believe" is of any value. It's like telling the religious that there is no definitive proof of God. They don't care, they have belief and faith - they need nothing more. When someone survives a crash after serious trauma, it's a miracle. If someone dies in a crash "God took them". If this were true, and there was no god, could someone survive a crash or die in one? Can a person survive a crash without a miracle? Can a person die in a crash without being "taken by God"?
Once you boil it down to THAT point in the conversation, it had better be in good spirit and jest followed by wine and cheese, else it's a complete waste of time.
Cheers,
Presto
Edits: 11/11/12
Nice of to address the topic of accuracy. Here's 3, IMO, reasonable methods for equipment buyers wishing to determining system accuracy.
One could conclude whatever component/system that meets some measurement standard is the most accurate. I'm sure there will be plenty of argument over which standard should be applied.
Or one could conclude whatever system (or component within that system) allows the most realistic/live sounding reproduction of recordings to be the most accurate. I'm sure there could be plenty of argument/disagreement over what recordings best reveal a systems performance.
Or one could conclude whatever system/component allows the greatest musical enjoyment over the widest diversity of music and quality of recordings to be the most accurate. Of course the accuracy of the system selected will be as accurate as the diversity of recordings AND one's definition of musical enjoyment allows.
Regardless of which methodology one chose to employ the cost of the system should be first and foremost a function of volume, bass extension and frequency accuracy in the playback environment if sound per dollar is important. Depending on application, even sound per dollar systems can be outrageously expensive based upon these objective measures.
But not everyone cares about sound per dollar and yea sure snake oil products exist and are enjoyed by many but certainly not most audiophiles.
Why do so many seem to think it's so important to argue their way is the only way and everyone else is a fool? What's up with that?
"I've always maintained that someone who pays to have their imagination sold back to them is insane."
This happens every time we go to a theater or concert, or at least we hope it's going to happen. He do have to contribute the price of a ticket and the "willing suspension of disbelief."
"I believe that you can't use psychic energy to make stereos sound better. But you CAN use PSYCHOLOGICAL tricks to do it."
This seems like a distinction without a difference.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If these products are supposed to put the listener in a better frame of mind instead of positively impacting the train of pressure waves reaching the listener's ears - then they should be advertised, sold, and otherwise endorsed as such.
Edits: 11/13/12
You carp about small amounts of phase shifts. Ever look at Stereophile's impulse test results for speakers? The differences you mention are negligible compared to the end result coming out of many speaker systems
When JA and his flock of reviewers can ignore such obvious issues, there is ample reason why he can state that measurements is not an important parameter. For you to quote him after all your posturing, is a laugh.
Stu
I am against people using "fake engineering speak" to describe what something DOES when that something it "does" is a) not able to be substantiated or b) is just complete nonsense.
These types of things should be reported.
But if all they say is "use my cable supports, they make your stereo sound better." well, if the causality of the PERCEPTION of better sound simply lies in suggestion (placebo effect), it's irrelevant because if the user PERCIEVES an improvement, they did get what they paid for.
If a pharmacy charges you $10 for a sugar pill but it's been making your heacaches go away, do you get your money back because it was a sugar pill? Or do you happily pay because your headache went away.
This argument/discussion is a philosophical one because the philosophy transcends the usual 'subjectivist/objectivist' debate. The latter debate is two groups with different agendas who believe they have the SAME agenda making them BOTH wrong. Wrong to be arguing that is.
Each group is, in essence, using equipment to reproduce audio in different ways for different things. For the objectivist, the "assembled final system, in room" is an engineered solution of sorts, and it's performance is what leads to a pleasurable listening experience. The subjectivist uses a more "artisan" approach, and uses "try it and see" methods which may have no more validity or explanation other than "that looks pretty" or "it's expensive - it must work" or "so and so said it made an improvement".
I am not sure I see any reason to argue with someone who openly admits that paying for the placebo effect is fine, as I would not want to waste time with someone like Atkinson if he believes what he is quoted as saying there. Not out of malice or disrespect, just because that person and I share slightly different belief systems.
I've seen subjectivists and objectivists in the same room both agreeing that a system sounded damned good and neither camp took any measurements.
It's actually often the objectivists who make assertions about the value of measurements and they do not always do them themselves. One thing is for certain, I don't think too many subjectivists are secretly doing measurements or reading up on a library of specifications.
Getting a paint to match a paint chip is engineering. Using that paint to create pleasing artwork is not an engineered solution, but relied on engineering to get the "right" color and to provide an artists with repeatable results, like the ability to buy more of the exact same color!
Gotta get some work done now...
Cheers,
PResto
"THEY ARE PRESENTED IN A FALSE MANNER AS LEGITIMATE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUND OF A SOUND REPRODUCTION SYSTEM - FALSE ADVERTISING."
You view the "audio system" as somehow separate from the listener. I do not.
I have no problem suing manufacturers, distributors and vendors for fraud if they make specific claims that, narrowly read, are false. Most marketing literature is carefully written so that vendors won't liable for fraud. However, in the end, it's best to rely on caveat emptor . I'll shed no tears for a foolish rich man who gives his money to a con man. I figure that he probably got his money through some shady means in the first place, given that he's a fool.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
... a rich guy buys some voodoo stands that in addition to doing not what they purport to do at all, hold up the equipment nicely and add to the AESTHETIC of the room? Is not aesthetic of the room important. C'mon guys. Custom room professionally finished with task lighting and nice floor coverings versus a rag-tag partially finished basement area with a cheap throw-rug over the concrete floor, CDs and junk everywhere and warehouse style two-lamp fluorescent fixtures on bare joists hooked up with lamp cord? I've heard systems in rooms like the latter. The former room is just more fun to listen in. Part of the concert experience is the glamor and glitz of the hall, and the velvet seats and sexy lighting.
Enjoying art is not a science experiment or lab. It's a human experience. The aesthetic - the perception. It's all part of it. Poorly engineered audio equipment or a bad room with wicked bass nodes is not going to help. But other seemingly important specifications and design goals may become lost in translation.
I spend a lot of time making speakers adhere to rather strict design goals. Some sound very nice at the end, as a properly engineered speaker should. But if someone does not like that speaker, do I lambast them for having a preference for something other than "X transfer function" or do I realize that people have different references, different hearing curves and simply different preferences?
You can't engineer the human factor out of human beings.
Nor can you have a single formula for "correct" that fits everyone when it comes to an aesthetic experience.
Cheers,
Presto
I lump attempts at mind games, hypnosis, psychiatric therapy, drug use, and surgery to alter the brain, ear, or head transfer function as potential aspects impacting the "sound experience" that exist OUTSIDE the realm of the "audio system".
Edits: 11/13/12
Prophead is the preferred forum for debates between subjectivists and objectivists. I consider myself both. So I guess that makes me crazy. :-)
Frequent posting in Isolation? 34 posts in 4 years is frequent?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Anyways - back to snake oil.I've always maintained that someone who pays to have their imagination sold back to them is insane. I pick on Geoff Kait alot because of his teleportation tweaks, for example. I believe that you can't use psychic energy to make stereos sound better. But you CAN use PSYCHOLOGICAL tricks to do it. Geoff Kait is no more guilty of snake oil than a company that sells an amp for $50K when $30K of it is all "jewelry" and fancy bling finishing."
That's the same ridiculous argument Naysayers have been using for years - that expensive cables, tube amps, tiny bowl resonators, Mpingo Discs, Shakti Stone, Intelligent Chip, are either mass hysteria, hypnosis, ritualism, a psychological trick, placebo effect or expectation bias. A lot of the "imaginative arguments" put forth by Uber Skeptics are eerily similar to knee jerk arguments against UFOs and crop circles. Swamp gas, weather balloons, secret technology, faked photos, Government conspiracy. HA!!
Next stop - Zen and the Art of Debunkery.
Geoff Kait
Edits: 11/12/12 11/12/12
My stereo just sounded worse. The bass became bloated and the soundstage collapsed entirely.
Cut it out GK. I know what you're doing...
Take my picture out of your microwave at once or I'm getting out my voodoo doll collection. In fact, I got my wife to sew a cute little rendition of your favorite amplifier and I am not above using it.
Cheers,
Presto
...and resting in relative peace, too!
Interesting to see that it can awaken from time to time, only to see the same tired arguments play out with no resolution whatsoever. :)
.
... clueless deaf guy, who listens to his crappy stereo, and, frustrated that he can't hear things others talk about, expresses his feelings like this:
The babble about "soundstage" and "imaging" is just a lame attempt at fostering "mystery", "mystique", or some unproven conjecture that the human brain/ear combination can sense things that machinery cannot.
And it's totally understandable - what kind of "soundstage" or "imaging" can Crown amp and pre provide? I'm sure I would go suddenly deaf, too, if I had to listen to that at home.
...although not commonly used for hi-fi applications, can do soundstaging. Just not with speakers rammed up against the wall.
The different staging and imaging we get from different systems is indeed explained by science, the very science that is purported to have nothing to DO with this "illusion". Sure it's an illusion, as is a hologram or the famous "highway mirage" from heat or the effect of sound changing pitch with the doppler effect.
Soundstage is a function of the following system aspects:
a) Polar and power response of speakers
b) Speaker distances (to back wall, side wall, between speakers and to chair)
c) Speaker toe-in angle
d) Ceiling height
e) Absorbtion properties of wall, floor and roof materials
f) Phase response of speakers, crossover topology, driver polarities
g) which affect - impulse response of speakers, group delay, etc.
h) Chair type (high-back or low-back chair)*
*often overlooked, a chair which goes above ear level affects perceived sound stage versus an armchair or recliner where there is nothing above the shoulders. My theory here is the higher chair back results in reflections which can interfere with sound stage and "confuse" the ear, resulting in a more confused image. When sitting in an office chair with an HVAC unit or fan running, extend your hands outward then move them inward so your fingertips touch behind your head and your thumbs just touch the either side of your neck. Observe the pitch changes in the fan noise, then tell me a high-backed chair will not affect perception of sound in a hi-fi room! ;)
All of these factors will mean that pretty much every stereo in existence could "image" slightly differently.
I feel terribly sorry for someone who does not get a perceived depth of soundstage, the wonder of a black background, the illusion of intrument placement, or that "you're there" sensation on orchestral or live recordings. Or to have speakers, regardless of size , vanish and become mere pieces of furniture and sounds eminate from everywhere else. Or to have recordings with phase-related effects result in sounds beyond the boundary of the side-walls or even above or behind you. Yes, some systems (mine for example) will result in not just speakers vanishing but the damned walls disappearing too. Like you and your chair and system are hovering in an empty space over the grand canyon.
WE COULD MEASURE this stuff and perhaps find corollary between measurements and perception, but nobody does. Polar response of an individual speaker is not useful - we need to observe the constructive and destructive interference created by 100's of iterations of placement and room boundaries/conditions to somehow explain the variations in image - even with the same two speakers.
We have the measuring capabilities. But we are not measuring or interpreting the right things to explain things like soundstage perception.
Those who miss the point of soundstage and iterative speaker placement tests are missing the whole point of stereophonics in my mind. Accurate and detailed sound is only half of it. The stereo image (and the more holographic it seems) is even better than the fidelity! (But would not be as good without the fidelity).
Cheers,
Presto
No soundstage... No shimmer. No glimmer. No sparkle. No palpability. No PRAT. No inner detail. No black background...
No nothing.
To heck with you guys. I'm going downstairs to measure my stereo. I have some nice tone CDs that I have not heard in a very long while.
Cheers,
Presto
Amp is 6.5 x 17...cables 8 ft... ok, that's enough.
Although, to be absolutely sure, you would need to measure the depth, too.
A neutral amplifier provides no depth. All depth is a product of the recording. Got it?
N/T
I thought I read in the Isolation Ward that if you breathe deeply while listening, the macrodynamic hugeness gets huger and the grainyness gets sifted out - but most importantly soundstage depth gets deeper. So there, it is proven...
Edits: 11/13/12
God, I am as transparent as my Crown amp!
Yes, but that all depends. See, if your Crown amp is old and hasn't aged properly in a humidity/temperature controlled living room, it could develop a nutty palette albeit with a smooth but oaky finish - presuming you haven't contaminated it with Lemon Pledge while dusting. So Kerr, transparency of a Crown amp is not necessarily guaranteed...
> transparency of a Crown amp is not necessarily guaranteed... <
Not even if I put a bottle of Windex underneath? I put a dictionary under it and got a marked improvement in definition!
drill holes in my eardrums with no anesthesia. :)
Sorry to hear that, but take heart. If you have holes in your eardrums, you can still become Peter Aczel, Jr! :)
Measure all those billions of 1's and 0's and make sure they are all correct. You can do this with a microscope if you like, but it will surely take longer than 79 minutes. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I've looked at pits using a regular microscope that belongs to E. Brad Meyer. This was back in the 1980's so I don't recall the details. It was clear that one could decode the information this way, but it would be more than tedious. (I have done this kind of decoding of 1's and 0's on communications lines while debugging hardware, and it's tedious to do a few dozen bytes.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/overview/sound-editor/glitch-removal/
One had better make sure they have those EAC settings just right... ;)
It would be a b1tch to have to check 1000 or more titles for glitches...
Cheers,
Presto
"It would be a b1tch to have to check 1000 or more titles for glitches..."
Exactly. I rip CDs so they can be sold as downloads. Before I upload them I have to check them to make sure the rip was OK. I use EAC and dBpoweramp to do this and if I get a secure rip then I am good to go. If the rip fails then I demand another copy of the CD from the source. Generally, I can't use Accurate Rip as these CDs aren't in the database, so I am relying on the error detection capability of my optical drive and the software. In this regard I have much more faith in dBpoweramp, because it is easier to set up. But EAC can be OK if one has set it up correctly and has verified this by testing with known bad CDs.
Listening is not an adequate test for quality. It is very easy to miss errors that someone else might hear (or that one might hear oneself on another day). Typical undetected or incorrectly corrected errors will be a tick, often audible but occasionally quite quiet. Interpolated errors (where a bad sample is guessed at by interpolation) can be harder to hear, if not impossible depending on the music. Usually they are hard to hear if one just listens to the error stream (bad music minus known good music), e.g. a one sample tick that is -40 dBfs.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...I check extracted files with a wave editor for "glitches"...
Saves time and heartache! ;)
Cheers,
Presto
I once used a metalurgy lab's scanning electron microscope to examine the pits on a Red Book CD. I was hoping to confirm that there actually are 1s and 0s in the pits. But what I found was there wasn't anything at all in the pits, just a lot of empty space. What a ripoff!!
Thank goodness, right?
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, pass the straitjacket.
Then again, I've spent enough time here over the years to have lowered my expectations accordingly.
I disagree strongly.
Edits: 11/13/12
Thanks for posting this. I agree 100% with just about everything you've posted.
Edits: 11/13/12
The babble about "soundstage" and "imaging" is just a lame attempt at fostering "mystery", "mystique", or some unproven conjecture that the human brain/ear combination can sense things that machinery cannot.
I disagree. Having heard these kind of soundstaging champions I understand how some might be enamored with such performance. IMO these effects aren't real though at times playback creates an analogy with reality that is quite stunning.
Personally I'm not one of them but wtf it's their money and if that's what get's their rocks off leave em be.
You wrote,
"we have had the ability to measure aspects of low pressure sound waves and electrical signals with far greater precision and accuracy than the human ear/brain combination can detect. Those who dismiss this are clearly ignorant of basic facts and history."
Talk's cheap. Provide link to any analysis, study or paper by any credible person, institution or group that proves your claim. The ear/brain precision and accuracy of some guy standing under a bridge doesn't count. Remember, kiddies, you can't dismiss what doesn't exist.
Surely one can measure THD and volume level (as well as frequency response deviations) to well below the threshold of human perception.
Even trained listeners can't hear .000001 percent THD or differences of .1 db.
Are we actually as ignorant as he claims? Do I really need to search for the links?
The poster says "aspects of" and thus only two aspects need to be supplied to support his contention. I have supplied the two.
We already found out a long time ago that Amplifiers with really low THD actually sounded considerably worse than many amps with much higher THD, even orders of magnitude higher. In other words you CAN hear .00001 percent distortion, it's just that it sometimes sounds worse than .005 percent distortion. So, where does that leave measurements? Answer at 11.
Yes, but not all 2nd order harmonic distortion is created equal. I paid a LARGE wad of cash and have rolled many a rare NOS black-gate or pinch-waist tube to get that elusive refined 2nd order harmonic distortion.Run of the mill 2nd order harmonic distortion is rather pedestrian, encroaching on mid-fi territory, really.
Cheers,
Edits: 11/12/12
Now dat is funny! :)
That's right and certain kinds of distortion are actually preferable to many listeners. Long ago THD measurements below a certain threshold were considered moot - but last time I looked it wasn't unusual to see equipment with THD measurements above that threshold of audibility. But it's been awhile and I'm not so sure that it's true these days.I'm not one of those who thinks the "better" the spec the better it's going to sound. If there was an answer to what sounds best all equipment would sound the same.
Far as I know, for many manufacturers, equipment design isn't about achieving the best specs it's about achieving the best sound. And there's nearly infinite opinion on what sounds best.
Edits: 11/10/12
The traditional measurements used to qualify audio signals are extremely simple in their signal processing. They use but a tiny fraction of the computational horsepower that goes on inside one's ears. Consequently, it is not at all difficult to hear subtle effects that don't show up with traditional measurements. There are more sophisticated signals processing techniques that can be used, but they aren't being used for recreational audio. You can find them in the defense and spook industries, among other places.
Real stereo recordings (two microphones) can and do capture vertical information in the timing of impulses and their reflections. Whether the mind can decode this is debatable, but there is no doubt that the information necessary to decode this is present in many recordings. A good listener or recording engineer can hear microphone patterns and reflections off of the stage, ceiling and other walls of the recording venue and this provides a start.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Mr villastrangiato is correct in an analysis of the recording signal. The totality of the information is there but the recording does not have a height delineation ( unless you use two mikes set at different heights).However, he does not take into account some important considerations.
One is that the vast majority of speakers employ multiple drivers and generally the tweeters are located on the top of the column. This mimics the real life presentation in that the hall ambient sounds are usually high frequencies and come reflected off the walls and ceiling. The high frequencies in real life get absorbed by obstructions on the ground and this includes seats and the people in them.
Now even if you run coaxial or single driver full range systems, this phenomena still occurs. The highs arrive at the ear unobstructed giving the height details. That is why speaker height for single driver cone systems is quite critical. That is why on large, say electrostatic panels, the panels go quite high, six feet or more in order to center the image at a more realistic height presentation. Even the shorter panels like the Quads benefit from elevating the panels centered to about ear height.
Mr Villastrangiato sounds as if he has spent far too much time on an oscilloscope and measuring gear and has little experience with real life situations and set ups. Its a pity he harps on small electronic phase differences when a simple glance at Stereophile's impulse test results for speakers shows most having a horrendous response.
The sense of his priorities is severely skewed.
Stu
Edits: 11/12/12
I guess no one got my point about reflections off the stage floor. If you want to think of it, this creates the equivalent of a phantom pair of microphones at a different height. A pulse close to the floor will be doubled with one spacing and a pulse higher up will be doubled with a different spacing. (Looking at one channel. The numbers will be different with the opposite microphone unless the sound was centrally located.) This effect will work over a limited range of height, depending on the size of the venue, position of the microphones, etc. But then, looking at an actual instrumental layout there isn't that much height in the first place when it comes to location of the instruments.
By looking at sound files of recordings of percussive instruments one can sort out these reflections. There will be height information that can be deduced by observing variations in time of first echo. This is one way that humans get positional location. Another way, head related transfer functions, won't work with two microphones in a plane and speakers in a plane. Another way is by brightness, but then one gets into the interaction of instrument radiation patterns and microphone patterns.
There are very strong evolutionary reasons for humans and other animals to have very robust positional location skills, and this undoubtedly means using many different ways to build a model of a sonic landscape. There are probably other ways that have yet to be discovered, but what I mention is well known to sonar engineers and operators, recording engineers, and non dogmatic audiophiles.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect
Edits: 11/13/12
Do you notice the forms at the bottom of each post called "Optional Link URL" and "Optional Link Title"?
Here's how they're used:
Hass points out that localization is depending on the arrival of the first wave. Because real music has transient attacks, the waveforms are NOT symmetrical. Reversed absolute polarity can lead to ear "hearing" what may be construed as a delayed waveform, particularly in considering the time delays inherent in many speaker designs. While this generally screws up the localization effects present in many recordings, it would explain why it is difficulat for some to hear spatial localization. I
Hass and Blauert use a lot of white noise for their testing (not all, however). White noise has NO leading edge, making localization cues very difficult (read Blauert's U. Mich. papera, for example).
Dangerous to generalize without taking into account all aspects of the experiments.
I have long been an advocate of proper time and phase alignment of playback transducers. The Measurements which the strange guy desires are already known, mesured and published, but he seems to ignore some fundamentally basic issues, and that is primarly with transducers designs.
Stu
from Dr. Roger West of Sound Lab. He explained that is why he focuses on single driver full range designs. Further, he explained that he suffered a kind of hearing injury long ago with an unusual result. It's not the usual sort of frequency or level specific sensitivity, but it short circuited the brain's ability to to *ignore* dissimilar sounds coming from multiple directions as in a party environment. He finds it difficult to switch off the other conversations and focus on any one.
That is one reason why he is fanatic about sound coherence. I can attest that his speakers certainly excel in that respect.
Hass was working in the horizontal plane. His research (as described in the reference you provided) did not concern itself with height localization, and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion.
You have tried to use research that showed how one things works to prove that another thing can't work. This is pseudo-science. You are stuck in your own dogma. I have nothing more to say to you, it would be a waste of time.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Now you're going to reinvent what Haas' experiments were about?
LOL!!
I was right b4, you truly are lost in a little bubble world of audio fantasy land. The Isolation Ward is ^ thataway.
In your earlier post, you provided a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect
As my reply indicated, this was what I was working from. If you have a different reference that shows that Haas did more, then please provide it, as it would be interesting, and possibly relevant. In case the reference requires payment to read, then please provide brief quotations that would show the relevance of the reference to this discussion.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 11/13/12
the truly ignorant resort to insults and name calling when they can not answer questions? When asked for documentation they generally use that technique to avoid answering.....
Use headphones to check out what I have written. No sense of height and indeed the spatial presentation is located entirely between the ears, and within your head (there are a few exceptions, generally with phones with drivers located away from the ears). Play the same recording on a simple two way bookshelf, and then turn the speaker upside down: the sense of height is severely diminished (unless the speaker was deliberately designed to be played that way, generally indicating a very "hot" tweeter.
Of course YMMV
Stu
There are funny effects with speakers that involve room interaction, especially tweeters bouncing off room surfaces. However, once these have been cleaned up (through positioning and room treatment) then one can hear effects associated with the surfaces of the recording venue (on a real stereo recording only, of course). If the musical instrumentation is similar to what one is familiar with in live concerts then it becomes possible to understand certain sonic patterns in terms of reflections off of various surfaces. This appears in the time domain as reflections and in the frequency domain as comb filtering. Both of these can provide clues as the microphone patterns, the acoustic venue, etc., and any competent recording engineer would be familiar with these effects and the best ones would be able to place the microphones appropriately to make a nice recording. There is little "height" information directly on most musical instruments at a live concert since the musicians are all on a stage. Sometimes there are risers to elevate those in the back but this amounts to a "tilt" effect and in effect the musicians are still pretty much on a plane. The main acoustic effect in the vertical dimension is bounces off the floor and ceiling. Here the live concert gets a two fold benefit of height information, first from the HRTF in the vertical dimension (asymmetric ear lobes) and second from comb filter effects. There is certainly the possibility for a Pavlovian connection between these two methods of vertical information to be learned, and if so then the comb filtering reflections could get decoded as height rather than just confusing aberrations in frequency response.
Whenever I've listened to headphones, I've been bothered by the "sound in the head" situation, so I don't have much experience using them. In any event, the sound is substantially different from what one would hear in a live environment, so I would have no basis for learned effects (particular sound matched to particular physical location). Perhaps if I were to spend more time listening with phones I might learn to hear more. Of course there are also binaural recordings and these can definitely have height effects, due to HRTF effects.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Oy!
Edits: 11/12/12 11/12/12 11/13/12
You know more than everybody, right?
AS I posted , just examine a few of Stereophile's impulse test results. Then you would realize, what you have written is pure BS.
But I won't bother trying to illustrate what I mean with measurable, accurate, "scientific" measurements, measurements which are replicable and consistent. I guess the only measurements you are interested in are the few you think you understand.
and with that I won't bother trying to engage in a dialogue with you. You've already made up your mind and are not open to questions and alternate explanations. Since you know all why not write a book and publish it?
Stu
Stu
"Real stereo recordings (two microphones) can and do capture vertical information in the timing of impulses and their reflections. Whether the mind can decode this is debatable, but there is no doubt that the information necessary to decode this is present in many recordings. A good listener or recording engineer can hear microphone patterns and reflections off of the stage, ceiling and other walls of the recording venue and this provides a start.
Wow I'm getting all giddy just thinking about it. NOT!
Neither the microphones that started the original recording chain nor the speakers that ended the playback chain have the ability to present sound wave fronts to the human skull that would correspond with vertical displacement of the ghost sound image. You are talking out your backside. Do a little reading and less blathering and you might not serve as a source of misinformation and stupidity on a public forum such as this. The delayed echoes you and other misinformed individuals speak about have no way of being distinguished as being vertically displaced OR horizontally displaced. They are only ambient background echoes that are not correlated in any way to deliver original sound source localization information to the ears and subsequently, the brain. They can only hint at the size of the recorded venue - not the position of the original sounds coming from the original source. You have a great deal to learn for someone attempting to teach others in a public forum on the subject of acoustics.
LOL! Me delayed echos and vertical soundstage claims - surely you jest!
Edits: 11/10/12
A good listener or recording engineer can hear microphone patterns and reflections off of the stage, ceiling and other walls of the recording venue and this provides a start.
That is evidenced most every time I visit Sea Cliff. It's really spooky when the walls disappear and you hear the space of the venue.
Howard Hanson's The Composer and His Music is one example I've heard.
Do you have the record number on the Howard Hanson?
I feel sorry for the dogmatic fools who deny what they can hear. They are stuck in their dogma, which usually assumes that they perceive reality directly through their senses, forgetting that they are dependent on a mental model to interpret their senses. Thus, if they believe something can not be perceived they will be unaware that there may be conflicting sense-impressions that might pass a different mental model. (In this case the ability to hear reflections from the stage, etc...) But their problem is more general. It goes far beyond audio.
"What is dogma? Dogma is a preconceived idea which forbids human beings to outstep the limits of that idea or object. In this situation the human intellect cannot freely function." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Do you have the record number on the Howard Hanson?
Here's info on the CD. The vinyl copy is far harder to find.
Thus, if they believe something can not be perceived they will be unaware that there may be conflicting sense-impressions that might pass a different mental model.
Expectation bias works both ways. :)
The Composer and his orchestra was a series, IIRC. At least two volumes. All my LP's are packed up so I can't access them to double check
For an interesting view of the recording venue, check out the Mercury Civil War sets. They have photos of the Eastman Wind Ensemble (not orchestra) in the hall and you can see the mike set up, IIRC. T.he Civil War sets are the only documentaion of the student players in the Wind Ensemble, BTW, at least from what I could find.
Stu
That doesn't sound correct.
Edits: 11/13/12
"2 channel stereo can only convey left to right and depth - PERIOD."
You can make ex-cathedral statements all you wish, but it won't change the situation. Perhaps you should look into the situation in more detail. There is lots of information in the reverberant field to show early reflections to a microphone array. The microphones may be in a horizontal line, but they receive sound from the instruments that is both direct and reflected. Typically, instruments will be fairly close to the stage floor and more distant than the ceiling, and this situation provides an asymmetry that produces different patterns to the microphones. Therefore, there is information that will disambiguate many spacial situations given suitable processing. It may not be possible to tell if the instruments are close to the stage or closer to the ceiling due to symmetry, but this won't be a problem if one adds a certain amount of common knowledge, something that the mind is capable of doing.
Of course stereo is a flawed process. That is not a justification for throwing it away. However, if you have some way to bring back to life dead musicians so they can be properly recorded with some new technology that will be less "flawed" then I will gladly applaud you.
"As to "computational horsepower going on in one's ears" - also WRONG!"
If you had decent reading skills and treated me with the respect that one should accord other inmates, you would have understood that I meant "between one's ears" when I wrote "inside one's ears." I should have thought that any air-breather would have understood what I meant.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Now you can buy a $50,000 pair of speaker cable... There is no manufacturing process, material cost, development cost or anything in engineering that could cause a cable to have to be sold for that price.
kindly tell me what Belden, Carol or other generic cable company makes this cable for $270 (including rhodium spades). Since it hides nothing of its construction or conductors, surely that would be an easy task.
Having heard that cable in a particularly nice system, I would be very appreciative. :)
Funny: a cable distributor once walked into my old store picked up a cut sample of speaker wire ($25 per ft} and proclaimed that he could make it for far cheaper by simply contracting one of the companies he represented. He came back a month later and meekly ordered a set. When asked what happened to his claim of building it himself, he said he was shocked at how much it would cost to make a one time run (and the length he would have to buy to make it remotely viable)......It ain't always as easy as it seems
Stu
Edits: 11/09/12
.
I consider myself a pure objectivist. If something can be heard it can be measured.That said a stereo that has little or no fidelity that plays to audibility can cost almost nothing. But a stereo that plays at lifelike levels in extremely large listening spaces, is capable of full range performance AND fidelity to a wide diversity of recordings can be astronomically expensive.
IMO, at given price points, the best stereo systems cost less than the most accurate systems at any price point because they sound better - ie. their strengths and weakness's align with the persons preferences who buys them. Of course some listeners may prefer the most accurate (greatest frequency range, loudness and fidelity) at any price point but given the fuzzy nature of recording quality and variability of listening spaces the probability is unlikely.
All that said, given a diverse set of recording qualitys (or an ideal one) systems will tend toward being more accurate than less accurate.
But that's just my opinion.
Edits: 11/04/12 11/05/12
Wow, fun post, hope you stick around. I think you've come up with enough to get most of our old hearts going...
This did mine: "We already new that "skin effect" issues were of course non-existent at audio frequencies."
I love it, after having spent a decade designing stuff that relied on skin effect at audio frequencies I now learn that it doesn't exist. Sure glad I didn't know it back when!
Pray tell just what are you thinking of? If I knew your application and what limits constitute a "non-existent effect" to you maybe we could agree, but there is no "of course" about it!
Rick
The Venn diagram describes a set of possible sonic differences. A is the set of differences that can be discriminated by available measurements. B is the set of differences that can be discriminated by discerning listeners.
You are misusing logic when you conclude that the existence of differences that can be measured but not heard (the non-overlapping portion of the left hand circle) implies that all differences that can be heard can also be measured. B also includes the non-overlapping portion of the right hand circle.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Differences Heard but not due to audio equipment performance variables. Remember the majority of the "reproduction" we observe when listening to our stereo system occurs by processes in our minds - way after the signal was delivered from source through the rest of our systems, and finally to our ears. Those two somewhat correlated pressure variations bare virtually no signal resemblance to the original recorded signal and even less to the pressure variations the actual instrument create in a space as they reach a listeners ears. (unless you only listen to binaural recordings)
Three most important things in Audio reproduction: Keep the noise levels low, the power high and the room diffuse.
All sonic differences can be measured. Where do you come up with that?One the other hand there's plenty of measureable differences that can not be heard.
Edits: 11/06/12
It is possible to measure differences that can not be heard. It is possible to hear differences that can not be measured using available equipment and techniques. Failure to measure differences is not an indication that they are not audible. Failure to hear differences is not an indication that they would not be audible under different circumstances, such as a different listener, trained and focused listening, different musical selections, and different playback equipment.
Having an open mind as to the possibility of hearing these differences is perhaps the biggest factor. If one starts out with a belief that they will be inaudible one is unlikely to take the appropriate steps to hear the differences.
In the history of audio there are many instances where people heard differences that could not be measured and later it was discovered how to make measurements that could show these differences. This is particularly common when new technology is introduced, since the commonly used measurements were developed to capture the limitations of an older technology. A newer technology may add other types of differences that are not captured using older measurement techniques.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
All audible differences can be measured given comprehensive and worthy test equipment properly used and set up
I'm sure you are correct with your history comment but I'm not sure what it has to do with this conversation.
If you or anyone else can isolate an audible difference that cannot be measured with a proper test with worthwhile equipment then I will admit I'm wrong.
But just saying you gotta believe doesn't make it so.
I kinda doubt there is a specific parameter that can be measured to assess soundstage height. Or accuracy of the sound of the venue, e.g., Boston Symphony Hall. Or "air" around the instruments. How about "blattiness" Or "wetness?" Last, but not least, musicality.
Edits: 11/06/12
My point is that if two things "sound" different you can find a difference in some measurement. As far as what measured parameter relates to what perceived sonic characteristic that's a whole other conversation for other people.
The OP was making the case for measurements being better than human hearing."Human perception via senses are limited. Both in terms of degree and especially in quantification ability. Because of this academia & sciences developed empirical measurement techniques to quantify aspects of phenomenon normally observed by human perception but were difficult to quantify. As electronics developed, devices came available to measure all aspects of the specific applications being explored. Most of these devices were capable of measuring parameters far beyond the ability of human perception. This is why in the case of the "listening dog" example we can actually measure, using a device like a spectrum analyzer, what the dog is hearing and what we cannot."
I am making the case for human hearing being better, at least for some aspects of the sound, than meaurements. Let me rephrase my previous post. If one system produces a soundstage height that is taller than a second system, how would you go about measuring the systems to determine what was responsible? Same for musicality - for a system with perceived better musicality than a second system, how would you go about measuring the systems to determine what was responsible?
Edits: 11/06/12
Two different systems, two different soundstage heights - unless all the measurements are identical it has nothing to do with disproving my point.
Systems that sound different will measure different. PERIOD!
"Systems that sound different will measure different. PERIOD!"
It's probably safe to say you haven't played around with Schumann Frequency Generators, Silver Rainbow Foil, Cream Electret, Red X Pen, things of that nature - things that have no direct or even indirect affect on house wiring, cabling, the speakers, electronics or room acoustics. If you see what I mean.
I was positive I head identified the processed CDs in my blind test, couldn't believe how much better they sounded. Unfortunately the disks I selected as being improved were not the ones processed.I also believe orange or green LEDs sound better.
So I have great respect for things that effect our perception of performance or enjoyment of audio - but in no way do I think these things actually cause sonic changes in spite of how they effect our enjoyment.
It's good enough for me if I or someone else believes something makes a sonic difference - whether or not it does or not makes no difference.
Edits: 11/06/12
I guess you are the exception that proves the rule as else I know had the opposite results, including a great number of reviewers, editors of audio magazines, and designers of high end electronics. Besides, the magic chip directly affects the actual performance of the CD and is not one of those things that go bump in the night - things such as Cream Electret, Rainbow Foil, etc. that affect perception.
I stand corrected, if you say the chip actually changes the sound I believe you. Unfortunately none of the treated disks were selected as being improved......
I can pick out a treated disc, i.e., the improved one, every single time. We are talking about the original orange Intelligent Chip, right? I wrote a paper on it once. It was the product of the show at CES 2005.
Edits: 11/07/12 11/07/12
And I picked a disk 3 out of 3 times in 3 blind tests each with 3 disks, 1 treated and 2 not treated. Unfortunately the disk I selected as being improved was never the one processed with the intelligent chip.
I originally thought this proved the IC didn't make any difference but I suppose it might mean the changes made were not considered an improvement.
And yes before I did this "test" I believed the IC made an improvement.
Truth be it told I would have been more happy with the product had I never did the tests in order to verify what I thought I was hearing. I'll know better next time.....
You are the only person who has reported such results out of many hundreds I'm familiar with. That's why I said you are the exception that proves the rule, an outlier. Blind tests are not the end all do all they're sometimes cracked up to be, apparently.
Edits: 11/07/12
If I recall correctly the experiences of others varied all over the place. Some people loved it - I was one of those - until I tested my results.
What's really bizarre the disks that weren't treated but selected as improved still sound as of they were improved to this day. I swear I knew these were the treated disks - but I was wrong.
You lost me. Do you think the unprocessed discs were actually improved during the test? Do you think the processed disc was degraded by the chip? I don't understand what you think happened. How did you determine the discs were absolutely identical prior to the test?
Edits: 11/07/12
I used 3 different CDs, ie. title and artist, for each test all of which I felt I was intimately familiar with.
I only made an effort to guess which disk had been made to sound better.
I believed I could hear improvements in one CD, in each set of 3, and still to this day believe the disks sound better than prior to the test.
Unfortunately the disks I selected as sounding better were not the disks that were treated.
No I don't believe the treated disks were degraded.
What do I think happened? I think I was fooled into believing something sounded different when it did not, that's what I think happened.
Still not clear what your test consisted of. Did it consist of three different CDs only or three sets of identical CDs? Maybe the system was still warming up so the untreated CDs sounded better as the test progressed. Who knows? That's why we can't make generalizations with one test, no matter how it turns out.
There were 9 different CDs, different artists and titles involved. I was very familiar with and had listened to each and every CD many many times. Actually I can make generalizations and form conclusions and share my results based on any experiences.
And scientific credibility? Heck no - but that's not the point. This test was good enough for me and all I needed to know I wasn't going to buy another IC. Like I said early I could have continued buying ICs and been happy with the "results" I was getting based on my feeling that the chip was actually improving the sound.
If you thought the untreated CDs had better sound after the test than before then something's wrong somewhere, if you don't mind my saying so. Personally, I think you made the test way too complicated. The easiest way to test the chip is start with two identical CDs -- you can burn two identical copies or establish that two commercial CDs sound the same. Then treat one disc and compare the treated disc to the untreated disc. If you are unsure which disc sounds better you can A/B as many times as you like. Helpful Hint: the differences are much more obvious when the chip is placed inside the player instead of on top of the player.
Edits: 11/08/12
What a pita! Someone could have done that but not me.
If there's a difference I expect it to be obvious - some subtle change is irrelevant to me.
I did admit if I didn't resort to this simple objective test I could have lived on with the belief that my enjoyment of the CDs was being enhanced by the use of the IC.
But seeing how this wasn't a one time purchase, it was something I would have had to subscribe to in order to treat all my CDs I needed a bit more convincing.
What I find really interesting though is that the disks I thought were treated still sound better than I remember them sounding before I treated the other disks. Interesting to me but not really surprising.
"If there's a difference I expect it to be obvious - some subtle change is irrelevant to me."
If there were only one possible change, then I would agree with you. However, there are many components and many possible changes and they can all add up. It can be that 10 imperceptible changes when combined add up to an obvious and relevant change. As an illustration of what I mean, a level change of 0.15 dB is going to be imperceptible to nearly everyone. However, ten changes could add up to a level change of 1.5 dB which would be obvious.
Excellence can seldom be realized with out rigorous attention to detail. Good enough won't cut it.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I take 3 CDs I've listened to dozens of times each. I treat one of them. If I can pick out the treated disk I buy more chips if not I don't.
Doesn't get any easier than that!
Like just about everything the chips are system dependent. Just look at what's happening with the WA Quantum Chips, or Schumann Frequency Generator, or Mpingo discs, or Rainbow Foil, crystals, or fuses, or even cables, fer cryin out loud. The later generation chips, including the Intelligent Box, circumvent some of the variables associated with the original Orange chip.There are perfectly good reasons why some people do not get results with some tweaks. For the specific case of the Intelligent Chip it's possible, as I pointed out 7 years ago, some players might be "problematic" for purposes of using the chip on top of the player. That's why I suggested using the chip inside the player. Perhaps your player was one of those Problematic Players, who knows. But that's just one more possible reason why you didn't get the results you were hoping for. Or maybe you did get the results you were looking for, difficult to say.
Edits: 11/08/12
"Or maybe you did get the results you were looking for, difficult to say."That's fair.
Edits: 11/08/12
I thought you'd like that one.
"If you thought the untreated CDs had better sound after the test than before then something's wrong somewhere, if you don't mind my saying so.
If you apply loving thoughts while hearing a recording of a musical performance then subsequent replays of that musical performance may evoke favorable associations. (Pavlovian) Moving into woo territory, if you evoke loving thoughts while playing a recording many times then it may make it more likely that others with enjoy the recording. (Sheldrakean) I have highly anecdotal evidence for both of these cases.
Presumably, one might get the inverse results by applying angry thoughts, but that's not something I'd be inclined to try.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Exactly, like the Japanese fellow (Dr. Emoto) who writes affirmative messages in water. when the water freezes the crystals are very beautiful. When he writes angry or unpleasant messages the crystals turn out ugly and ill-formed. He's all over YouTube. Quite reminiscent of the Red X Coordinate Pen, actually.
Edits: 11/08/12 11/08/12
"If you or anyone else can isolate an audible difference that cannot be measured with a proper test with worthwhile equipment then I will admit I'm wrong.
It's necessary to include equipment (hardware and software) and procedures. These include the selection and creation of test signals, algorithms for signal processing the received signals and procedures for statistical analysis of the results. One example concerns digital audio converters and the difficulty in measuring differences between ladder converters and sigma-delta modulator type converters. The following video describes this epiphany.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
What did I miss? Seems to me they were able to explain precisely and via measurements why their devices would sound different than others.
You missed the point. Previous measurements by many people showed that delta sigma DACs performed as well or better than other types such as ladder DACs. That was done by the usual spectral tests with 1 kHz tones, etc... One sees these charts on the spec sheets for just about all DAC chips. Many people, pretty much all non-audiophiles, found that delta-sigma DACs sounded as good or better than ladder DACS. But there were audiophiles who could hear problems that didn't match the measurements. It was necessary to come up with new measurements, which they did. With the new measurements it became clearer what was happening and they modified their designs accordingly. The result was better measured performance with the new measurements and better sound to critical audiophile listeners. So long as they were like most of the other DAC designers and believed that any problems were so small as to be inaudible they could not progress. It took a believe in the unmeasurable differences heard by audiophiles to make two advances: better measurement technology and a better measuring and sounding product.
I believe this talk, by the way, because I'd already figured out what these new measurements needed to be when I was playing around with some software that emulated delta-sigma modulators. What I didn't know was how to fix these problems and I wasn't motivated to spend the huge amount of work needed to do so as this was just a casual interest on my part. I did study the published literature and concluded that any designers that did know what they were doing were keeping their knowledge under wraps.
Audiophiles who believe measurements tell all are less likely to configure a good sounding system. Many brainwash themselves into believing that certain components are perfect and certain conditions are inaudible. In the end, these people inevitably end up with systems that sound inferior to those who work with a more open mind. They may not know it, and their audiophile friends may be tactful and not tell them that their system sucks.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Ok I understand - there are audible differences and they are measurable.
It has nothing to do with believing measurements tell all or are even useful to any particular audiophile.
A responsible equipment designer should understand why his design sounds different than other designers - if he needs to buy new equipment or devise different tests to help in this understanding (or to prove his results) then that's what he should do.
IMO many audiophiles can rely on their listening experiences when assembling a system. There's no need at all to concern themselves with measurements and beyond just a few basic specs it's perfectly fine to concentrate on the listening and to leave the technical stuff to others.
Those who want to measure and prove can do it that way if they want.
It's all good.
The problem here that the designer had (and this is the typical situation for subtle artifacts) is that two designs both measured similarly and sounded similarly to the designers. So far, so good. This makes sense. However, other people heard differences.
Here is where the rubber meets the road: die hard objectivists vs. die hard subjectivists.
In this case, all the "scientific" evidence showed that the two devices were sonically equal. The fact that some audiophools imagined differences was their problem. NOT...
In this case, because of one designer who was not a hard core objectivist, new tests were found that showed differences that could be objectively measured. It was still the case that only some listeners could hear differences, of course. With the better measurements in hand it was then possible to pursue improvements to the design, eventually leading to a new design that measured better and sounded better to those people who heard the earlier difference. Of course, this designer was not a hard core subjectivist, either, otherwise he wouldn't have developed new measurements.
It is possible for hard core subjectivsts to be designers and operate entirely by ear. However, there are few people with the talent and intuition to succeed at this. For the rest of us, a combination of measurement and listening are more effective. Without a lot of talent and dumb luck it can be useful to turn on a flashlight if one is looking for one's car keys in the middle of a dark night. (Lesson I learned at age 13 tweaking the feedback loop of a Dynaco 35 watt amplifier that didn't sound right until out of tolerance parts in the feedback loop had been adjusted.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Obvious since there were audible sonic differences all the "scientific" data could not possibly prove they were sonically the same. Clearly they lacked the proper test methodology.
No doubt if a test is set up properly and an audible difference is actually being heard there will be a scientific measurement that reveals why the difference is audible.
It's insane to conclude that an audible difference doesn't exist because some set of test points doesn't reveal the difference. Clearly one needs to adjust the test or the measured parameters to find what is causing the audible difference.
It's insane to conclude that an audible difference doesn't exist because some set of test points doesn't reveal the difference.
Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis. :)
Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis
Yea sure equipment that measures exactly the same at all test points is going to sound the same - but equipment will not measure the same. And sometimes even same model / same manufacturer varies enough that there will be sonic differences.
...but equipment will not measure the same.
Using exactly what metrics? Most gear measures pretty flat frequency wise. We can certainly forget useless ones like THD.
The NAD preamp used in the garage, for example, measure pretty good but does not perform at the same level of the Audio Research.
What does perform mean? Surely given real world speaker loads it pretty easy to understand why amps sound different.
Even two amps that measure identical into the complex impedence at some power level will begin to measure differently at different power levels - and this isn't only a function of approaching/exceeding power ratings of one or both amps. Linearity is not a given in amplifier design.
What does perform mean?
If you don't understand the listening experience, I won't try to explain it to you.
Surely given real world speaker loads it pretty easy to understand why amps sound different.
We're talking about preamps. I'll ask the question again. What metrics fully cover the performance envelope of preamps?
"We're talking about preamps. I'll ask the question again. What metrics fully cover the performance envelope of preamps?"
How in the F would I know what metrics cover the performance of preamps or amps for that matter?
But in an effort to keep this on topic, among other things, surely the preamps i/o characteristics, power supply design and signal path isolation all can have an effect on how well performs, ie. effects the signal passing through it.
If you don't understand the listening experience, I won't try to explain it to you.
I didn't mean to put you on the spot when I asked you what YOU meant by perform. Given your snotty assed response I might assume how well your preamp integrates with the rest of your gear (ie. how it sounds) is all that matters to you. But I won't make that assumption since you decided not to answer my query there's really no reason to continue on with this conversation.....
How in the F would I know what metrics cover the performance of preamps or amps for that matter?
Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently, you only have blind faith in the notion that all audible differences can be measured.
Do you really not understand what the audio experience provides?
1. Resolution
The ability to discern fine detail with instruments. Hear the rosin of a bowed string. The decay of bell trees and triangles. Articulate the human voice and hear the performer's breath. Be able to pick apart individual voices in a chorus.
2. Dynamic punch
Slam factor. The ability of the system to deliver instantaneous jumps in dynamic range from the softest to loudest passages. Provide a sense of authority that the system never runs out of power and is at ease.
3. Soundstaging
How well a component can define the physical space of the original recording. While multi-miked recordings are of little value here, minimally miked ones can have incredible width and depth. You are aware of the boundaries of the venue.
4. Frequency extension
Regardless of the measured frequency response, some components deliver more extended response at the extremes. They also give you qualitative improvements. Bass can actually present texture, not only a sine wave of low frequency content.
Ask any competent engineer and you'll find out there are no magical graphs or metrics that full quantify the performance of any audio component.
"Thank you for illustrating my point. Apparently, you only have blind faith in the notion that all audible differences can be measured."
Nope measuring the preamp functions I list, plus signal path distortion, will reveal all sonic differences between preamps - audible or not.
There's no blind faith here.
You can, but it's gonna mess you up, jumping from discussing component performance and system integration the way that you are doing here.
"Ask any competent engineer and you'll find out there are no magical graphs or metrics that full quantify the performance of any audio component."
Wishful thinking on your part - if there's any group more skeptical of audiophiles than audiophile wives it is engineers. Don't give me this competent engineer BS - engineers in hoards think audiophiles are full of BS!
And further good equipment designers measure and quantify a components performance based on the characteristics of performance that represents their values.
"
Resolution
Dynamic punch
Soundstaging
Frequency extension
"
What the F - this is all integration stuff - yea your preamp will have an effect but the i/o characteristics between components including the room between your speakers and ears all play a much bigger part?
But if you got enough power, well integrated system (including room) and a dynamic mostly smooth full range frequency response you've got all that.
I know it's tough but our perception of resolution, soundstaging, frequency response and dynamic has as much or more to do with how well integrated a system is, between components (io characteristics) and with our room than it does with the quality of the gear.
Nope measuring the preamp functions I list, plus signal path distortion, will reveal all sonic differences between preamps - audible or not.
Then quantify those criteria for the two preamps I mentioned. Data on both of them is easy to find. Best of luck to you!
Don't give me this competent engineer BS - engineers in hoards think audiophiles are full of BS!
The non-experiential theorists.
...but the i/o characteristics between components including the room between your speakers and ears all play a much bigger part?
As I suspected, you have no understanding of the concepts I delineated.
But if you got enough power, well integrated system (including room) and a dynamic mostly smooth full range frequency response you've got all that.
It is a shame you never got past the mediocre. We both share owning NAD components. I find them good sounding and great value for the money. Their sins are mostly of omission and fare much better than the hard, edgy sound of pro gear. On the other hand, they are not even close to the performance level available in audio. You will never be fooled that you are in a live environment listening to them.
You have no idea.
Then quantify those criteria for the two preamps I mentioned. Data on both of them is easy to find. Best of luck to you!"What difference would such a comparison make? What's more important to me would be how they work in my system! I wouldn't have any problem doing listening comparisons with one of NADs better preamps with one built by Audio Research.
The non-experiential theorists.
Engineers or detectivist audiophiles equal well fit the bill.
As I suspected, you have no understanding of the concepts I delineated."
What concepts? You mean the verbiage you use to describe what you hear when you listen to an audio system and have confused with how one might characterize a preamps performance? Like I said, which apparently you fail to understand, is that your verbiage is a discussion of a systems performance not a characterization of a components performance (outside of that system).
It is a shame you never got past the mediocre. We both share owning NAD components. I find them good sounding and great value for the money. Their sins are mostly of omission and fare much better than the hard, edgy sound of pro gear. On the other hand, they are not even close to the performance level available in audio. You will never be fooled that you are in a live environment listening to them.
You have no idea.
Well everything is relative but my main system moved beyond NAD several decades ago. But if Spendor and Roksan Xerxes and Exposure classic and Living Voice are what you consider mediocre well then so be it. I don't care and my experiences with Audio Research is that it's not the gear for me - you buy that as truth me I haven't left an AR demo without feeling like I've been listening to someone scratching on a chalk board. The harshest most unlistenable equipment I've ever heard. Take that back there was this Counterpoint stuff that was worse. I know I haven't heard it all but if you ask me NAD sounds better for lots less...
And FWIW I won't be fooled into believing I'm listening to live music via any stereo. I have classical musicians in my family and I attend live shows on a regular basis - maybe if I was less experienced it would be easier to fool me.
Edits: 11/08/12 11/08/12
What difference would such a comparison make?You continue to illustrate my point.
I wouldn't have any problem doing listening comparisons with one of NADs better preamps with one built by Audio Research.
But obviously, you have never done so.
What concepts?
That would be the four I listed. Apparently, they are beyond your grasp.
But if Spendor and Roksan Xerxes and Exposure classic and Living Voice are what you consider mediocre well then so be it.
So, exactly what measurements quantify the audible differences between NAD gear from Exposure? You really have no idea, do you? All in faith.
And FWIW I won't be fooled into believing I'm listening to live music via any stereo.
Sorry to hear that.
Edits: 11/08/12
Components will never measure the same. Whatever point it is you are trying to make you are doing a very poor job of it.
That would be the four I listed. Apparently, they are beyond your grasp.
I'm gonna say it again - obviously it you that doesn't get it. The items you listed soundstage, resolution, bass impact, etc that you listed describe a systems performance not a components performance. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT PREAMP PERFORMANCE.
Sure there may be a better soundstage given this preamp or that but thats a function of system integration not necessarily preamp performance. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
"So, exactly what measurements quantify the audible differences between NAD gear from Exposure? You really have no idea, do you? All in faith."
Of course I don't - why in heavens name should I care if I purchase based on listening comparisons not reading specs?
Without a doubt, components will never measure the same, and even well designed and well manufactured components of the same model will measure somewhat differently than each other.
Sorry to hear that.
I'm not and I'm happy you can be fooled by your stereo into believing you are listening to live music.
> Staunch non-experiential objectivists do exactly that on a regular basis. :) <
...only because they're patiently waiting for evidence to show up... presumably put together by someone they trust more than they trust themselves. It's a simple waiting game. They're willing to suffer through mediocre sound and cluelessness for as long as it takes, decades if necessary, until someone cares enough to provide them a reason to listen.
will be waiting for the rest of their lives. :)
"I'm still waiting..."
It's not so simple. Every time one plays the same recording it will sound different. This will be the case even if the sound waves were to be identical, because the listener's mind would not be identical. But the sound waves won't be identical because of random noise, changes in air pressure, humidity, temperature, changes of temperature of the electronics, etc...
There there are cases of people hearing "imaginary" differences. This is common. The classical case is the recording engineer who spends ten minutes tweaking the EQ on a recording and making it perfect only to discover that the "bypass" button had been pushed and all his tweaking resulted in imaginary improvements. (I've been there and done that, BTW.)
There is also the problem that measurements are limited in accuracy by the test equipment used and it will be difficult to get reliable measurements unless the test equipment is 10 times better than the equipment under test. That's the case with junk audio components, but not necessarily with high end equipment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Oh ... you really want to go there!? ... OK!The Eulerian Circles you show, first mathematically described by Joh Venn in 1880, in a paper entitled "On the Diagrammatic and Mechanical Representation of Propositions and Reasonings", actually support my logic.
Take the A circle as Measurment and B as Perception. Where the two circles overlap is where measurement and observation co-exist and relate within their respective context. This is referred to by Venn as the "Intersection". Where they do not intersect is where measurement and perception diverge, each within there own "Relative Compliment".
The non-intersecting area on the left is where measurement extends beyond the scope of perception and is based in empirical data. On the opposite area perception is relagated to non-scientific speculation and assumption since it has no connection to to empircal data found in the set to the far left. This is referred to by Venn as the "Symmetric Difference". In this case there is no Absolute Compliment, although one could argue products marketed for non-existant phenomenon like "skin effect" in audio cables could fall into this set for either Relative Compliment.
Clarence Irving Lewis in 1918, in his book "A Survey of Symbolic Logic" actually used the example of scientific method & perception as separate sets to demonstrate what he called "The Venn Diagram".
I studied Philosophical Design & Logic at MIT and read all the works of Clarence Irving Lewis, John Venn, Leonhard Euler and others.
Well ... you went there... Spock would be proud! :-)
JRL
Edits: 11/03/12 11/03/12
Positivist epistemology is not the only type of epistemology. There is more to this world than can be ascertained by present-day science (as the history of Science itself would indicate). Indeed, it is reasonable to believe that there is more to this world than can ever be known by future science. (The human mind is finite in its capacity for conscious thought and the method of induction from empirical evidence is not a certain process for arriving at truth.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Awesome!
However, that cannot be said about known creations that are distinct manifestations of the human consciousness and condition, such as music. We know how it sounds, and we can quantify it, and we have the knowledge to reproduce it accurately.
Human ignorance or arrogance denies our choices from being aided by this accumulated knowledge and we instead rely on the words (or cons) of others. This is anti-knowledge in the arrogant idea that mans senses can divine all and alone, irregardless of established known fact.
Audio existentialism, hmm? [index finger to side of nose]
Next!!!!
"Audio existentialism, hmm? [index finger to side of nose]"
"That which comes within the orbit of the mind is but a relative truth, not an eternal truth, and so it will come and go. Scriptures and mythologies are like stacks of bricks: they are only arranged in layers, bearing no significance or intrinsic value. How can they describe or explain that ultimate entity which is beyond the scope of the mind? Here both the teacher and the disciple are helpless, because this subject, which is beyond the domain of any academic discourse and discussion, is simply inexplicable and inexpressible. Whatever is said and discussed comes within the scope of the mind and so it is a relative truth – true today, false tomorrow." - P.R. Sarkar (commenting on the Buddhist Sádhaka Krśńácárya)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We don't worry about measurements for video. Why should we worry about measurements for audio? Noone is demanding measurements for color accuracy or contrast or color saturation for TVs. We buy a particular TV based on budget and how it looks compared to others in the price range at Best Buy or Costco. Measurements are for audio magazines that wish to project an image of scientific rigor and objectivity. In terms of what advanced audiophiles really lust for - e.g., soundstage, transparency, presence, wetness, air, microdynamics, etc. - it might be fruitless to try to correlate specific measured parameters to specific sonic attributes.
Of course, you can come up with absurd examples of pricing in any industry, or even exaggerate prices as you have done. When looked at as a whole, prices in the audio industry vary from extremely inexpensive to ridiculously expensive - just as they always have. The items that are priced very low will be perceived as junk. Duh. Nothing new under the sun.
You say, "it might be fruitless to try to correlate specific measured parameters to specific sonic attributes." Well actually all the sonic attributes you mention and many others already have specific measuremnt parameters that are well understood. Or at least the physics contibuting to these are understood. Both in terms of what is required from the system and how the ear/brain mechanisms detects and processes into a sound.
To simply discount known science, and take people marketing highly profitable items at their words has never been wise. This is why I used the term Snake Oil. It alegedly cured all types ailments, even ones we haven't cured today, and it was sold at high profit on the correct presumption that most people didn't understand medical science. And it wasn't even snake oil, it was petroleum. And many people swore to it's healing properties based on their perception.
And at the beginning of hi-end things were expensive, but not to the level we see today. I have not exagerated margins. Several $25,000 DAC's using the same chip set as many MP3 players exist. $15,000 loudspeakers are the average for hi-end these days. Preamps and amplifier in the $10,000 and up range are common. And I know most of them do not cost even a tenth of what they are sold for, including design and development.
The point is, it is not gamble for a manufacture to make a marginal product, price it very, very high to give perceived value, market it well and sell many. Aspecialy when they know the market is full of people who have fallen prey to deceptions that skew their perception. All based on faith.
What I say to people in this hobby (as a person in the know so-to-speak) is know the details, know the facts, learn the science and you will find what you hear changes. You will hear what is a real wide soundstage versus one created by reflections, which are out of phase and indirect. You will find that you will enjoy the recordings more and worry less about getting the "next best newest that promises audio nirvana".
Oh and BTW, the last magazine that used its own labs to test products was Audio and they went away decades ago. The industry nailed that coffin by not advertising in it anymore, once they began talking about the real specs and performance of ultra hi-end products. No magazine now would dare to published anything other than the published spec of the manufacturer. And some accept full copy for the articles from the manufacturers. Ask Harry Pearson; right now with his disgust with what has happened to his mag AS, he is very quick to divulge the dirty little secrets going on today with magazines and hi-end. Both industries are trying to survive the MP3 generation.
Seems to me that HP IS part of the problem. He was reviewing and giving his blessing on extraordinarily expensive items, based simply on the fact that the quest for Absolute Sound knew no monetary boundaries.
Well OK, I can deal with that, BUT he also received review samples for free and while using them often ignored cerain fundamental issues.
Case in point: Infinity IRS V's. I had an opportunity to work with them, To my ears they were a disjointed system where the woofers could not blend in with the mids and highs. Not a word of this issue was published by HP till the IRS were discontinued and he received the new replacement Genesis design. In his initial assessment of the Genesis he refers to the discontinuity between the woofer and upper frequencies which he said plagued the IRS.
Duh, what was it?, something like 5 years that he used the IRS and uttered nary a negative word about their performance. But give up the freebie and get a free replacement and all of a sudden what seemed to be his darling is a flawed design.
I have seen many reviewers and even visited the home of a currently active one. Let me unequivocally state that every reviewer I met have no better ears than anyone else on this forum. The primary difference is that they have the gift of writing, and do it well.
Stu
"You say, "it might be fruitless to try to correlate specific measured parameters to specific sonic attributes." Well actually all the sonic attributes you mention and many others already have specific measuremnt parameters that are well understood. Or at least the physics contibuting to these are understood. Both in terms of what is required from the system and how the ear/brain mechanisms detects and processes into a sound."Well, I'm not talking about the "many others," I'm only talking about the ones I mentioned. The last time I checked there is no soundstage analyzer, no transparency analyzer. There is no "musicality" analyzer. I would go so far as to say science, at least in the scientific organizations like AES and the Acoustic Society of America, to name two, appear to dismiss out of hand what is going on in the high end or very slow coming to terms with many aspects of this hobby - from exotic cables, to controversial tweaks, to wire directionality, to high end fuses, etc.
"To simply discount known science, and take people marketing highly profitable items at their words has never been wise. This is why I used the term Snake Oil. It alegedly cured all types ailments, even ones we haven't cured today, and it was sold at high profit on the correct presumption that most people didn't understand medical science. And it wasn't even snake oil, it was petroleum. And many people swore to it's healing properties based on their perception."
But nobody is dismissing science. The market is what it is. Just like any marketplace. There is a place for Ferrari and big Mercedes in the auto industry and there is a place for expensive speakers and cables and DACs in this industry. The snake oil argument is really just a strawman argument. This is audio, not medicine, so it's not logical to claim that because some medical remedy is ineffective or perhaps even a hoax that what you perceive as overly expensive audio products are over-priced, ineffective or hoaxes.
"And at the beginning of hi-end things were expensive, but not to the level we see today. I have not exagerated margins. Several $25,000 DAC's using the same chip set as many MP3 players exist. $15,000 loudspeakers are the average for hi-end these days. Preamps and amplifier in the $10,000 and up range are common. And I know most of them do not cost even a tenth of what they are sold for, including design and development."
Did you just wake up from a long sleep. If you want to make your point, I suggest you use 100,00 dollar loudspeakers, $10,000 cartridges, $30,000 amplifiers. But to say the prices you quoted are common or average is just not true. Besides, nobody pays retail. Especially in this economy. :-)
"The point is, it is not gamble for a manufacture to make a marginal product, price it very, very high to give perceived value, market it well and sell many. Aspecialy when they know the market is full of people who have fallen prey to deceptions that skew their perception. All based on faith."
Well, I dunno about all that. People are free to buy whatever they want to. If they don't like it they can certainly take it back.
"What I say to people in this hobby (as a person in the know so-to-speak) is know the details, know the facts, learn the science and you will find what you hear changes. You will hear what is a real wide soundstage versus one created by reflections, which are out of phase and indirect. You will find that you will enjoy the recordings more and worry less about getting the "next best newest that promises audio nirvana"."
I suspect it is probably easier than all that. All thst's required is to be able to hear, buy what you like and either return what you don't like or sell it on Audiogon.
"Oh and BTW, the last magazine that used its own labs to test products was Audio and they went away decades ago. The industry nailed that coffin by not advertising in it anymore, once they began talking about the real specs and performance of ultra hi-end products. No magazine now would dare to published anything other than the published spec of the manufacturer. And some accept full copy for the articles from the manufacturers. Ask Harry Pearson; right now with his disgust with what has happened to his mag AS, he is very quick to divulge the dirty little secrets going on today with magazines and hi-end. Both industries are trying to survive the MP3 generation."
Stereophile routinely measures performance of speakers, possibly other magazines do, too. Not sure I agree with your bleak analysis of the situation. People have been talking about the end of high end for at least 25 years. Harry was always free to leave or express himself, what took him so long? Seems like a case of sour grapes.
Edits: 11/03/12
not an attempt to go trolling.
What are the definitions for the limits of human perception?
Exactly what are the frequency response limits? What percent distortion can be perceived? Not the average, but the range from super sensitive to non sensitive.....
Considering that the best "noses" can detect one part per billion as determined by a spectrographic analysis, what kind of parameters are applicable in the aural nature of human perception? You say you measured phase response, what was the range measured and at what frequencies? How much phase shift can a human actually perceive? CAn trainin increase perception?
Everyone has measurements and think that whatever machine they have to measure is the end to all measurements. Weird how Matti Otala comes up with a new distortion measurement besides THD and IM (TIM), when the two were considered all that was necessary way back in the 70"s IIRC. Do engineers have every possible parameter that can affect human hearing defined?
If so, how come they can't reproduce a Stradivarius violin? In fact, how come even Stradivarius couldn't maintain a consistency with all his instruments...... Yamaha has spent millions trying to reproduce the best sound for all the instruments they make but yet the individual makers still command a certain amount of clientele with specific desires. Shouldn't this be a simple engineering issue?
When you state the propagation speed is not an issue, are you defining this only at audio frequencies, or are you ignoring the frequencies above the so called range of human hearing? Are you saying that there are no such thing as subharmonics, which some engineers claim affect the audible range? Can phase shift be related to this effect?
You make some blanket statements, but the sense I get is that you have made many assumptions, ignoring certain other possible parameters.
YMMV obviously,
Stu
I'm glad you ask.I can measure changes in amplitude response down to less than .005dB for signals. For SPL I can measure at a resolution of less than a 10th of a dB SPL. Time can be measured in nanoseconds. Phase within a fews seconds of degrees.
Human hearing, at best can discern SPL changes at an absolute limit of about 1.5dB SPL. Time differences can be heard to just above 10 microseconds. Phase down to about 1 degree. This has been tested extensively and retested and refined dating back to the beginning of the 20th century by people like Munson, Heinrich Wilhelm Dove, Helmut Haas and others. Today in Audiology these limits are well understood, although not in the common knowledge.
Yes, training can aid in increased ability to differentiate sounds and levels. Professional recording engineers have this refined skill. So do some musicians.
I made blanket statement since most of this information is already widely published and accepted in academia. It is however not always in the common knowledge and that fact is what the audio companies prey upon.
Perception of audio can be influenced by words, emotions, diet, drugs, time length and volume of listening sessions, suggestion, etc. It varies by ethnicity, environment, age, & health.
I read here about people burning-in cables, listening for hours and then claim to hear a warming of the sound over time. Most likely it's simple ear fatigue. Using a cable does not change its molecular structure, align molecules, or change in any physical way the wire or insulation. People have been trained to believe this. I can tell you with all certainty this is a false assumption and myth. What people are hearing is change in perception, not the cable. It is much more easy for perception to be changed than the molecules of copper to be transformed by use. The physics do not support it, the measurements and testing dispute it. However, change in aural perception can change to a great degree and in a short time by simply eating garlic, smoking a cigarette, having a slight change in humidity or pressure.
Which do you think is more likely? Something happening that defies physics, or assumptions made because of something as transient as perception? I know it's the latter, in this case. I've done the science.
Burning-in electronics is something different and there are changes that are real in that case.
However, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there are no differences between these varied products. Indeed there is. My point is most are intentionally designed deviations away from accuracy, for the sole purpose of being different. In know this from being a designer/engineer for these companies. These goals are laid out as criteria goals for the design teams, in many cases. "Make it warmer" or "make it brighter". Rarely is it make it accurate.
One example is the best clocks available for audiophile DAC use are in the 10ppm accuracy range. And these sell for tens of thousands of dollars. Where professional clocks are more accurate by a factor of 100, and in some cases are more accurate than the NIST calibrated time measurement devices used to test such specifications. And they cost less than $2000.
Now if you like I can tell you about the acoustic properties of Myrtle wood. :-)
JRL
Edits: 11/03/12 11/03/12 11/03/12
and what we really know about accurate musical playback.
You wrote:
"Human hearing, at best can discern SPL changes at an absolute limit of about 1.5dB SPL. Time differences can be heard to just above 10 microseconds. Phase down to about 1 degree."
Where have you been hiding? Amplitude changes are recognized to be audible at 1 dB, and James Johnston once posted in this very forum, that he thought that under certain conditions, differences of 0.5 dB could be discerned.
Time differences down into the fractional millisecond range can be discerned. Why, with very little trouble, I was able to create a test signal where just about anyone can hear the change in timing of one sample of digital audio at 44.1 kHz. That's 0.02 milliseconds.
Actually, we can hear even smaller amounts of timing differences, but I can't find the reference to the paper right now.
But the bottom line is, all of that is completely beside the point.
No one has yet to truly create a solid correlation between what we hear when one component has a wide and deep soundstage, and another sounds flat, scrunched and two dimensional by comparison.
In other words, there is no soundstage meter, nor any way of determining why one components kicks _ss and another blows at creating a realistic soundstage.
What measurement can tell us this?
THD?
IM?
S/N ratio?
WE JUST DON'T KNOW!
I am NOT saying it can't be measured, or that we will never be able to do so, but that right now, we don't know what parameter or combination of parameters defines soundstage maintenance.
That's not the only thing we can't measure either.
Most of the measurements we have are geared toward steady state signal conditions, while by the very definition of music, the musical signal is constantly changing and consists mostly of transients.
How do we measure the "blackness" of a sound stage background? S/N might seem to be relevant, until we remember, that in order to hear the lack of or capability of hearing no extraneous noise or signal modulation immediately before and after a note or transient, THERE FIRST HAS TO BE A NOTE OR TRANSIENT! Conventional S/N measurements are completely blind to this sort of audible performance, and inherently CAN'T provide any sort of reliable metric regarding such extraneous dynamically varying noise.
At the very least, there is no standardized measurement technique, or test gear or methodology that can be called into play to do these sorts of things. You actually have to LISTEN in order to hear and evaluate these aspects of musical playback.
As far as the rest of the conventional and typical measurements, tell me that THD is relevant in today's world of super-low distortion amps, where the amp with the lowest THD often sounds the worst of the lot, and the amp with 1 and 2% THD sounds musical and sweet and causes no listening fatigue for hours of listening.
Since most folks have moved on past the simple metric of THD, but instead, are looking at the harmonic structure of the distortion, rather than a single number figure of merit, the problem then becomes that of what sort of weighting do you use?
Just about everyone agrees that the higher order harmonics are less desirable, and therefore, they should be weighted to be more of a contribution to the overall figure of merit, but which weighting? Squared?
Cubed? Use the Cheever formula?
Even here where we maybe have half a clue that THD is bogus, and the harmonic structure is much more relevant, we don't know what kind of weighting to apply to the harmonics, in order to determine, which of two different harmonic structures is more desirable.
Once again, if we are honest with ourselves, WE DON'T KNOW!
So while we may (or may not) know what the limits of human hearing are, we certainly don't know all there is to determining what parameters are necessary to create an audibly distortionless playback system.
Time and time again, a system has been assembled, and all the individual components met the criteria of that decade, and it still fell woefully short of realistic playback.
To try and state with absolute certainty, that all we have to do is measure the components, and we know what they will sound like is folly and arrogance beyond belief.
Jon Risch
"How do we measure the "blackness" of a sound stage background? S/N might seem to be relevant, until we remember, that in order to hear the lack of or capability of hearing no extraneous noise or signal modulation immediately before and after a note or transient, THERE FIRST HAS TO BE A NOTE OR TRANSIENT! Conventional S/N measurements are completely blind to this sort of audible performance, and inherently CAN'T provide any sort of reliable metric regarding such extraneous dynamically varying noise."
In light of these comments, you might find the video talk linked below to be interesting. It shows how people heard unmeasurable problems with sigma delta modulators and how better measurements were discovered to show the problems that some people were hearing. The end result was a new modulator that (supposedly) sounds better.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Stu
AND IN CONCLUSION - WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
So let's all go back to the Cable Asylum and Isolation Ward and discuss our impressions in a creative, friendly, and positive way!
Thanks Jon for setting us all on the path to righteousness and salvation!
The Cable Asylum is not the proper venue for objective discussion or measurement analysis.
That is what Prop Head is for.
However, given your posts here, and in other portions of the Asylum, you already have made up your mind, and would only seem willing to argue for the sake of argument. Of course, the urge to "save them from themselves" is also a factor for you and your ilk, but as I said before, no one there needs "saving".
Jon Risch
elsewhere where George Cardas told me that the predilection for precious metal plating on audiophile ends is bad because the metal galls upon insertion, and that since gold in particular is soft, the affected metal eventually flatten out under pressure. Have you experimented with measuring such an effect?
Figures you mention, particularly in volume changes, are indeed well known, but aren't all the numbers you mention an average? If you take a typical bell curve there will be individuals which fall way out of the specific numbers mentioned. Has any one done research to measure the spread?
The 1.5 dB volume change is the step used in CJ preamps ( I own one), but I often crave for a volume change between steps.
After all, we can say the average human male is say 5' 10" tall, but there are dwarfs and midgets and then we have NBA basketball players.... The spread is quite large, and so can the range of human sensitivities. Do we design for the mediocre or average Joe or do we measure to fit the super sensitive?
Not attempting to put you on the spot or anything, but this is an issue which has dogged me for many years, decades actually. One acquaintance can hear the supersonic pitch used in alarm systems in stores and it drives him crazy (what is it? something like 19kHZ, I can't hear it).
I am sensitive to phase shift although speaker phase shifts are far greater than the numbers you quote. Still I can hear phase in a few seconds, when most of my buddies have to do an AB several times before they can perceive what I hear. Its not always a blessing and can be sometimes a curse.
Still when it comes to something subjective as music is, then perhaps you hit the nail on the head. Of what use are measurements?
I like spicy chili pepper hot foods. My friend's wife absolutely hates it: what to me can be exceedingly bland, she finds fiery hot. Who's to say who is right? At this point it is simply human individuality and no one is correct.
In returning to audio, of what use are measurements? In the same vein, one can prefer seating way back in the balcony of a concert hall and some one else may prefer up front center seats. Same identical performance, but vastly different presentations. Again, there is NO right or wrong, it is simply a preference.
Thus any attempt for me to judge all audio by the simplicity of making measurements of the parameters as we understand them, is essentially useless. You would think if perfect phase, frequency response, and time coherence were the end to all, then all speakers after a certain price point should sound alike. They don't, however, just like you can go to an Italian five star restaurant, or French one, or a Japanese one and each may be equally priced but have vastly different tasting food. A hospital can be antiseptically clean, but I enjoy the pigsty which is my home (Or so the women who have entered term it).
Measurements while a guide, does NOT factor in human subjectivity.
Of course YMMV
Stu
Please understand, I am over-simplifying my explanations. I could get very technical but that is not important for the discussion here and would easily bar those less technical from joining in. My hope is those interested enough will do some personal research, away from audiophile blogs, advertising, and magazines. I hope they instead delve into the reams of knowledge contained in papers prepared by academia in this field.While I personally haven't directly measured the affects of plating what I can say is from what I have gleened from others research. The primary reason for their use is the fact that precious metals do not oxidize easily. Oxides increase resistance, and cause intermittent connections. Otherwise, the only difference between precious metals electrically is conductivity. And the differences in conductivity between gold, silver, and nickel are so low as to be non-audible in most applications for connectors. Again, its the lower oxidation potential and improved reliability that brought about precious metals being used on connectors. The alleged audible differences are techno-babble trained into the brains of audiophiles by companies over many many years, successfully trying to increase perceived value and therefore raise prices.
Another more important issue is the fact that plated connectors may in fact be worse than a single metal. For a gold connector to be perfectly consistant and reliable it needs to be solid. The point where the plating meets the underlying metal substrate is a joint of disimilar metals, both of which exhibit different conductivity values. At that junction you in effect have a semiconductor. Also due to the electrostatic differences you have a junction that may be susceptible to electrolysis causing corrosion at the junction, underneath the plating. A solid silver connector, or even solid nickel, is most likely better than a gold plated copper one for these reasons. All this comes from an engineers understanding of metalurgy and electro-chemistry, however I have no first hand test data to support this theory.
The problem I have is I have seen numerous manufacturers make the false and deceptive argument that the cost saving approach of using plated connectors instead of solid is actually attributable to "skin effect". This is a bold faced lie. They claim because of skin effect gold only has to be on the outside of the connector. As I said before skin effect does not occur at or even near audio frequencies. These are physical constants that cannot be disputed. It is a tested, measured and well understood fact. The lowest grade wire does not show skin effects until about 65kHz. And purest wires made of gold or platimum exhibit the same properties in this respect. And since audio is passed equally throughout the entire structure of any wire at the same speed over the entire audio spectrum (as a factor of velocity), the differences between stranded wire and solid of the same gauge in regards to passing signal are identical at audio frequencies. In fact, a solid wire puts slightly more metal in the same volume of space, since a stranded wire has air between all the conductors. Also stranded wire has a minutely higher capacitance, but again to low to have an audible affect. However, the primary advantage of stranded wire is flexibility.
Cardas ... hmm ... Cardas. Mrytlewood blocks. Wood is used in musical instruments because it transfers acoustical energy very well, and it resonates nicely. Why would we then use it to "isolate" gear. I haven't a clue. Cardas does though. And besides, if equipment is so susceptible to micro-phonics as to be audible, there is something seriously wrong with the design. That is a serious design flaw and completely avoidable (with the exception of vacuum tubes proper). But CD players and DAC's. Nope ... sorry. Not real. But it is perceived to be true ... hmm. I'll accept Walkers HDL concept as something real though. A zobel network designed to remove RF from a signal to reduce intermodulation artifacts is certainly something real and quantifiable ... and measurable.
The CJ knob calibrations are of low level electrical signal either dBu or dBv, not dB SPL. These are two totally different things that share a common nomenclature (dB). This ambiguation between the two different descriptives leads to assumptions like you just made. One (dBv) describes a relationship of electronic voltage, the other (dB SPL) describes a quantity of a logarithmic measure of the effective sound pressure of a sound relative to a reference value. For sound in air, relative to 20 micropascals, the quietest sound a human can hear. (Another limit of human perception which measurement can surpass in scope). That knob does not relate to sound pressure levels. If the gain structure follows standards, a 3dB change in signal gain on a that preamp relates to about 6dB change is SPL. (However, the amount is dependent on many variables i.e., power, speaker efficiency, gain structure, etc.) So yes it makes sense you wanted to fall between the detents. Each click was well within the human perception limit.
The reason for measurement is to verify accuracy and quantify design criteria beyond that which our senses can determine. For instance, I can measure the THD of two different amplifiers, one tube based the other solid state. Obviously the Solid State would measure much lower THD. Same goes for IMD. But which one sounds better is a matter of the aesthetic and is not directly quantifiable. While the Solid State would be deemed more technically accurate, the higher THD in the tube amp sounds warmer. Why? Added harmonic content that is not in the recording, but instead is an artifact of distortion that happens to be rich in even harmonics. Harmonies in music are even harmonics and are naturally pleasing to the ear. But those harmonics produced by the tube amplifier are not on the recording. Therefore it can be said tube amplifiers, even ones close to being the theoretical perfect design, are less accurate.
After leaving the audiophile electronics game, I settled into making the recordings we all enjoy. I worked for a time on co-engineering Sheffield Labs recordings, working for Doug Sax. I was at the sessions and I know how those recordings sound. It is rare I hear those recordings sound correct on most hi-end systems. Funny thing is the more esoteric the system, the farther away is the reproduction from the sound of the recordings I know so well. I have the advantage of a true reference. I know the actual recordings, since I either worked on them or actually mixed them. I was the person responsible for deciding just how they were to sound. So my aesthetic is of course skewed towards a preference for accuracy, primarily because I have a legitimate reference. A starting point at the recording itself.
What constitutes a proper sound system is one that meets certain criteria for transparency. These are measurable and quantifiable parameters. Ideally, what comes from the source is reproduced with no artifacts from the system itself. A loudspeaker with a flat amplitude response, proper time alignment, and perfect phase coherency will be more accurate. An amplifier with the lowest practical distortion characteristics at the highest gain will be more accurate. A system with low noise and the highest possible dynamic range will be more accurate.
Now I mention this for two reasons. First, I have found myself in the dubious position of listening to a recording I sweated over for months. Fine tuning gobos and diffusers to capture a specific ambient field in the recording. Changing multitudes of microphones and microphone placements to get the right tone and placement in the image. Plus a multitude of other details. And the system I am listening to, some in the hundreds of thousand of dollar price range, are not even close to being able to resolve any of the details in the recording, or even maintaing tonality. And the proud owner turns to me and says, "So. What do you think?" Do I tell him? Most times I bite my tongue.
One circumstance like this was on a system featured in an article in a major audiophile magazine as one the best systems out there. All the big huge cables sitting on their respective telephone poll insulators, the machined aluminum chassis glistening in the special lighting set-up to show off the system. The reproduction of my recording was so poor I nearly pee'd myself. I'm thinking to myself, is this guys listening to the art, or the gear? Which leads to my second reason ...
Audio manufacturers and the people who worship their teachings will decsribe what they hear as "transparent" or "wholly accurate" or best still "musical". This last term really keys into the thinking, both to the purpose of profiteering companies or the justifications of gearheads. A piece of gear that "sounds musical" implies it is making music itself. A truley accurate piece of audio equipment shouldn't sound like anything. It should be transparent. So what we hear in this description are manufacturers cleverly disquising the less than accurate performance of their gear. The term being used by the audiophile desribes his desire to create a sound rather than to listen to the sound the artist created. The latter being a matter of hobbyist fun and aesthetic, which is fine. The former however is a simple deception for extreme profit which is unethical by nature. In other industries, it would be deemed criminal. Strong words, I admit. But honest ones. If it isn't we'd be paying $500 per gallon for gas. Come to think about it, that's way to low by comparision to audiophile margins. $5000? ... yeah that's about right.
My real peeve here is that claims are made that are outright lies. Problems that do not exist are fabricated, then products are designed and marketed at high prices to solve these non-existant issues. And what happens. People buy them and perceive some change. I know of at least three products that came on the market, as a joke by some of the manufacturers, just to see how far they could push the envelope. I was at the meeting for one of them. It is now an accepted thingee amongst audiophiles as a real essential tool, and it is a gag. A fabrication. What is known in the biz as a "guyver". Several other manufacturers no produce this thingee, some charging 1000 times for what was originally discussed as a wim around this table. I wish I could say, but it would violate my non-disclosure agreement I signed when I was hired. Most of you may have some of them. And many have perceived an "improvement". Proving the point that perception can be transient and open to suggestion. I assure you this thingee does absolutely nothing. And if I measure it, it would show nothing, regardless of the aural perception.
As audiophiles it is very easy for us to get caught up in hype, the gear and the next cool thingee. We sometimes forget about the music and art we are supposed to be listening to. The creative effort of the artists and engineers take a back seat to the sound of the system it's being played on.
OK ... I'm biased ... but honest. :-)
JRL
Edits: 11/03/12 11/03/12 11/03/12 11/03/12 11/03/12 11/03/12 11/03/12
"That knob does not relate to sound pressure levels. If the gain structure follows standards, a 3dB change in signal gain on a that preamp relates to about 6dB change is SPL."
A decibel is a ratio of power, not amplitude. Doubling the power adds 3 dB. Doubling the voltage quadruples the power and adds 6 dB.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Posted by jrlaudio (P) on November 3, 2012 at 06:57:05"A solid silver connector, or even solid nickel, is most likely better than a gold plated copper one for these reasons. All this comes from an engineers understanding of metalurgy and electro-chemistry,"
Later,
"Using a cable does not change its molecular structure, align molecules, or change in any physical way the wire or insulation.... It is much more easy for perception to be changed than the molecules of copper to be transformed by use"
Molecules of copper?
It's only easy if your deaf.
Edits: 11/07/12 11/07/12
you are overgeneralizing. In all my years of audio I can not recall any manufacturer claiming that the plating of a CONNECTOR contributed to the skin effect. All I read used gold primarily as an anticorrosive measure.
Still you claim that the plating has no audible effect . Have you actually tried this? I know you seem to distrust Cardas but the company offers ends available in a choice of silver gold or rhodium plate. Have you tried listening to identical cables made with the different ends? Or more cheaply, Mouser sells Deltron ends available in silver plated center pin or gold plated. While you claim no audible difference, I hear rather distinct differences, even though a file test reveals no significant differences in the base metal or the lower layers of plating.
Now you will claim that testing will reveal no difference. Could it be you need to test for something else? Theoretically, the only factors influencing cables are inductance, resistance, and capacitance. Yet we know that insulation dielectric has an effect or we would never bother with teflon, and not simply for the temperature resistance. What other parameters which exist could possibly have an effect?
In this, I am reminded of the head of the US Patent office , who in the late 1800's proclaimed that everything worth patenting had already been invented.
The most important factor you forget is the source material for music. Evaluating a sine wave is one thing; music is a another animal entirely. The interactions, overtones, all add a level of complexity no instrument I know of can measure.
Because recording quality can vary so much, what recordings do you use for evaluation? I have maintained for a long time now, that a truly neutral system will reveal the microphone set up of the session. That means one has to collect recordings with known recordings set ups ( they do exist, BTW: early Audio Quest recordings have photos of the recording s
set up, RCA early classical are well documented as are Decca, and Mercury). Using these recordings as a base, it is possible to obtain a relatively neutral set up.
That being said not all like to listen to these recordings. You could be a Linda Ronstadt buff as many of my acquaintances were in the 70's. You could set up your system to make her recordings sound fabulous, but not many others will sound the same. However, if you listen to her a lot, who's to say that it is wrong.
You look for accuracy, however your very own experience in making recordings seem to indicate otherwise. You openly admit your sense of aesthetics dominate the mike placement and acoustic control devices. Is that really accurate?
You say that Zobel networks eliminating RF effects are measurable and audible, yet earlier you state that RF frequencies are unimportant being that they lie beyond the range of human hearing. There is an inherent contradiction of your statements here.
And then I would raw your attention to the good old laws of thermodynamics. You know, the one that states energy can not be created or destroyed. What is wrong in transmuting that energy into a form more consonant to one's hearing? Since we can not eliminate it, why not change it to emphasize one's musical tastes?
obviously, YMMV
Stu
You wrote,"Audio manufacturers and the people who worship their teachings will decsribe what they hear as "transparent" or "wholly accurate" or best still "musical". This last term really keys into the thinking, both to the purpose of profiteering companies or the justifications of gearheads. A piece of gear that "sounds musical" implies it is making music itself. A truley accurate piece of audio equipment shouldn't sound like anything. It should be transparent. So what we hear in this description are manufacturers cleverly disquising the less than accurate performance of their gear. The term being used by the audiophile desribes his desire to create a sound rather than to listen to the sound the artist created. The latter being a matter of hobbyist fun and aesthetic, which is fine. The former however is a simple deception for extreme profit which is unethical by nature. In other industries, it would be deemed criminal. Strong words, I admit. But honest ones. If it isn't we'd be paying $500 per gallon for gas. Come to think about it, that's way to low by comparision to audiophile margins. $5000? ... yeah that's about right."
I couldn't help noticing you own a Koetsu Onyx cartridge - a cartridge noted for not only being extremely expensive on the overall scale of things but also for possessing a rather "romantic" sound, as it were. Kind of strange you would go off on such a long rant regarding high end prices and deception and ethics when you yourself bought one of the more famous examples of precisely what you are railing against.
Edits: 11/03/12
Ha ... true. It was a gift, from Oracle. From years back. I've upgraded it to a MkV from a MKIII.
I have yet to find a truely neutral cartridge, and doubt I will. But what I do like about the Koestsu is the tracking, and speed. And the imaging and phase coherancy is spot on. It is a bit warm having some dips in the upper midrange in its amplitude response. It's nowhere near what I'd like to have, but I havent found anything more neutral ... yet.
However, I noticed you didn't mention I use Bryston amps. Not expensive by audiophile standards, but absolutley transparent. What goes in is what comes out, just higher in level. Low THD, Low IMD, high damping factor, wide amplitude and frequency response, high current output down to DC, at almost any load. And a 20 year unconditional warrantee to back it up.
Nor did you mention I use a $1700 Apogee DAC. Unlike most of the audiophile DAC's it actually coverts to analog from whatever the source is. In other words (and I'm simplifying again) it coverts 24/192 directly to analog without any intermediary digital to digital down conversion. Most of the hi-end audio DAC's like the dCS take the 24/192, down-convert it to 16/44.1 then covert it to analog. Also all the clocks are 44.1 using multipliers to achieve higher clock rates. So you start with a clock at 44.1 with 10ppm accuracy, put it through multipliers 3 times to get 172 at an accuracy of 30ppm (maybe, the stability of the multipliers is not published). The Apogee internal clocks operate at all rates without multipliers and do so at a 1ppm accuracy. (Their external Master clock, called the "Big Ben", has an accuracy specified as "unmeasurable" since no test equipment exists yet that can measure to that degree, even at NIST.)
My Apogee cost about $1700 which is the retail price. Oh ... And it does A/D as well. And this is the cheap model. AND ... this is the converter used on about 95% of all the digital recordings made, and most of the digital mastering done. So I have zero jitter, because I use the same clock standard as was used to record the audio, master the audio, and make the CD, at whatever bit depth or sampling rate. And I can archive my LP's to digital using 24/192 because I have A/D.
But yeah ... I have an expensive romantic Koetsu.
JRL
"Most of the hi-end audio DAC's like the dCS take the 24/192, down-convert it to 16/44.1 then covert it to analog"
Huh? They may up convert the signal, e.g. 24/192 to 32/384 and then convert to analog. There are some DACs that down convert, but these are in no sense audiophile, e.g. DACs that use asynchronous resampling and convert 192 kHz to 110 kHz before converting to analog.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
