|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.203.68
In Reply to: Re: Irrelevant and a crock posted by theaudiohobby on March 7, 2007 at 06:27:38:
If they did, then the virtually universal practice of voicing components by ear would be rendered unnecessary. Why would any human intervention be necessary if the metrics were conclusive? You might try actually talking to a designer to understand the question. As I have done.Specs don't tell us the whole picture. Never have. Maybe some day in the future they will.
Follow Ups:
Your deleted message contains several of your latest and most humorous fixations.
Still dancing around the question, eh?> If they did, then the virtually universal practice of voicing components by ear would be rendered unnecessary.
There is still a small matter called preference and that varies from individual to individual, voicing by ear does not mean that the parameters are unmeasurable, in fact folks have been known to voice by ear, then measure the final prototypes, those measurements then form the basis of the actual product.
> Why would any human intervention be necessary if the metrics were conclusive?
As stated many times in the past, metrics measure performance, not user perception or preference.
> Specs don't tell us the whole picture
Specs were never intended to give the full picture, in this instance I asked for measurements not specifications, big difference.
I take it that you obliquely accept that those parameters are measurable, am I right?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"then measure the final prototypes, those measurements then form the basis of the actual product."Only in the end as some form of quality control. The final arbiter is the ear of the designer or at least those that care about sound quality. How good that designer is at actually listening is a whole other issue and part of why many designs are "voiced" so strangely.
"As stated many times in the past, metrics measure performance, not user perception or preference"
But the performance of a piece of audio gear is intimately tied to listener perception. The two cannot be separated as you would have us do. Therefore, the metrics must relate to the listener experience and not the listener must conform to the metrics. This give relevancy to the metrics otherwise they are nothing more than a form of mental masturbation.
I use metrics all the time in my work as a chemist. However, those squiggles in a mass spectrum are representative of a reality and give direct correlation to the molecules being measured. If they didn't then they would have no relvancey and therefore no value in my work. Audio metrics are the same, they need to be correlated with the real world end point, ie. user experience.
Again, show me a measurement that can demonstrate loss of resolution (whatever that vague term actually means). Dynamics are in some ways measureable (but perhaps not relevant because the real music conditions differ).
There is still a small matter called preference and that varies from individual to individual...Why any engineer would choose lower (perceived) resolution or less than neutral response?
"I take it that you obliquely accept that those parameters are measurable, am I right?" (damn HTML tags not working again)
I will restate my opinion. The numbers alone do not provide any useful information. We have yet to measure RFI noise rejection. That increases noise and thus reduces dynamic range. If you were to compare two amplifiers with necessarily different spectral harmonic distortion plots, which one would you choose simply by looking at the spikes? Such information is more of a curiosity rather than providing any conclusive evidence.
Don't you know that by now? I merely state the obvious.
"Why any engineer would choose lower (perceived) resolution or less than neutral response?"Because the engineer is looking at the whole package, not just a single variable.
"I will restate my opinion. The numbers alone do not provide any useful information. "
I do not recall anyone (of note) claiming so, or do you evidence to the contrary?
> We have yet to measure RFI noise rejection
For amplifiers maybe because it is not particularly relevant, but RFI noise rejection is measureable and quoted on some products where it is a relevant metric.
"That increases noise and thus reduces dynamic range"
????, how could know you possibly know that without measurements or controlled tests. Increased noise and reduced dynamic ranges can occur as a result many other factors, to establish that it is caused by increased RFI requires measurements and controlled tests.
" If you were to compare two amplifiers with necessarily different spectral harmonic distortion plots, which one would you choose simply by looking at the spikes? Such information is more of a curiosity rather than providing any conclusive evidence."
For those that lack knowledge of how to correlate measurements to listening impressions you will be correct. However this scenario is not unique to audio but applicable to every area where measurements are used, and in a lot of cases it is simply down to a lack of knowledge on the side of the observer.
There is no explaining to do, those variables are measureable, however correlating them to listening observations requires some requisite knowledge.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
By all means, choose your gear solely on numbers. Good luck!
"By all means, choose your gear solely on numbers. Good luck!"Where did I ever say that, for one the measurements are not always available nor comprehensive enough to be able to make that a viable option. At any rate, you never did answer the question, did you?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
At any rate, you never did answer the question, did you?You first. That is what began this exchange.
An impasse....willing to wager that you have absolutely zilch to put on the table, if you said this five posts earlier we could have saved ourselves a lot of pointless posts.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
that's exactly what I was thinking about you. What a coincidence! I ask you a question and you have evaded answering it for the following seven posts.Your lack of an answer is an answer. Same one I arrived at as well. :)
I suppose you forget the point at which you joined the conversation, i.e. I said the variables adjustment by Behringer DSP8096 are independently measurable, how else could they write a suite of program to modify them if they were not?Don't bother answering..
I directly quoted the comment to which I responded. Let me help you out....the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE.
> I directly quoted the comment to which I responded. Let me help you out.
...the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE.I wonder how Behringer managed to write a suite of programs to modify dynamics, imaging and provide dynamic noise-gating if they are not measureable.
What is your next crock?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You're talking about post processing effects and I'm referring to original audio signal integrity. The imaging to which I refer relates to less compromised signal quality, not a "setting" with a slider.
Earlier you said this"> I directly quoted the comment to which I responded. Let me help you out.
...the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE."now you said
"You're talking about post processing effects and I'm referring to original audio signal integrity"
What is the else will the effects of an equalizer? and even your new revised statement is still wrong, since you still have to measure the original "uncompromised" signal before making any adjustments.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
that despite your assertion, the effects of which cannot be fully measured. Signing out. You get it or you don't.
Obviously you do not get it, because it was and still is about audio quality pre and post-processing. I love your phrase "the effects of which cannot be fully measured", yet another crock, I said measureable, let's just say "fully measured" is a waste time and money, "relevant and applicable" is where the action is. AJinFLA's post is more succinct. he said"...because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears."
it sums up your most of your posts nicely. Signing off
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: