|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
In Reply to: Re : I believe it's quite apparent that today's accepted audio measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear. posted by KlausR. on March 30, 2007 at 00:47:49:
Hello Klaus.I'm sorry but I have to disagree 100% with you're opinion: "Sorry, but that's rubbish." to my statement that's today's measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear. Fact is if I'm stating what they said correctly and Pat D, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. but even Real JJ & Pat D admitted that any RATIONAL objectivist would agree with the statement that's today's measurements do NOT correlate with what we hear. As you said Klaus first we have to define what this is all about. But you made a great blunder after that. You seem to feel that best sound and most accurate reproduction are two different things and they aren't! "IF" replicating live unamplified music is the primary goal (and it should be. Because if you can replicate that correctly than you can replicate anything else correctly.) then what sounds best IS the most accurate replication of the music.
Where the real problem lies is in defining what is and what isn't accurate. You choose to use a microphone's signal output of an unamplified live acoustic event as your reference standard. Then you compare that signal against the output of an amplifier. The amplifier that replicates that signal the closest is the most accurate in your opinion. This is how you define accuracy. I on the other hand choose to use the human ear/brain's deteremination as a refernce standard. Then I compare that determination against the output of an amplifier. The amplifier that replicates the closest to that determination is the most accurate in my opinion. This is how I define accuracy. The problem as I see it is you want to accept an electronic device's output (a microphone's signal) which cannot determine live music from recorded music as a reference standard. Whereas I want to accept the human ear/brain which can determine instantly live music from recorded music as a reference standard. Sorry Klaus but I believe the human ear/brain is significantly more accurate and reliable in this case.
As you freely admitted Klaus no measurement will tell you which component sounds better. But it's my opinion that the component that "sounds" better IS the most accurate, provided we're using live unamplified music as the reference standard! Measurements will tell ONLY you which component tracks the output of a microphone more accurately. It will NOT tell you which component sounds the closest to the original unamplified live acoustic event itself. The moment electronic touch live music they begin to strip away some of the traits that makes live music sound like live music. Proof of that is quite easy to find. All one needs to do is record a live musical event. Now play that recording through same speakers and record that event. Continue doing that i.e., live musical event equals #1. The recording of that equals #2. The recording of #2 equals #3 and continue till you have #10. Now compare #10 with #1. Yet you want to trust the output of theseelectronics over what the human ear/brain determines sounds the most like #1? Not me!
I agree it's true that Hifi is about accuracy of reproduction and it's here where opinions diverge. The reason the opinions diverge is easy to explain. Some like yourself prefer to take a microphone which cannot tell live music from recorded music, and use it's output as your reference standard to test an amplifiers accuracy of the replication the original acoustic event. Others like myself use the human ear/brain which NEVER mistakes live music for recorded music, and use it's determination as a reference standard to test an amplifiers accuracy of replication the original acoustic event.
Klaus anytime you wish to setup up a test anywhere near Orlando Fla. We can attempt to record a solo instrument in an anechoic environment and play this recording at home over one speaker I believe I'll be able to differentiate the recording from live each and everytime! You of course are free to disagree...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Follow Ups:
Oh, don't they?Then please tell me why measurement of amplitude vs frequency does not correlate with what human hearing is responding to, i.e. sound pressure level?
I agree that measurements like voice coil temperature (which is done in active speakers for triggering the protection circuits) do not correlate with what we hear. Measuring a speaker's weight or height won't tell you a lot about its sound. Measuring sound pressure level, however, DOES correlate with what we hear. And speaker measurements are just that, sound pressure level mesurements.
Re: Is it live or is it recorded?You know that it's not live because of ambient cues. You know it's a recording because you KNOW that it's not Clapton sitting in your living room playing his guitar.
You seem to be defining accuracy as accuracy to the original event. Agreed. BUT, between you and that event is the whole recording chain where loads of errors are made. Your system now has to compensate for all those errors, which of course it can't because you don't know which errors have been made on a specific recording. Any audiophile serious about this issue, i.e. accuracy to the original event, would have to have at least an equalizer. Do you have one? I have one but I'm not using it. And even if you get timbre right you won't get the spatial aspect right. So it will never sound like live. It will possibly sound like live when you start recording everything in anechoic rooms, so the only ambient cues involved are those generated by your listening room. It also could sound like live if your listening room itself is anechoic.
I'm living in Holland and am not planning to come to the States any time soon. Anyway, you test has a flaw in that you kow that you are playing a recording. Do that test blind, meaning that you invite the person who has been recorded and put him and your system behind a curtain. Then listen.
The only measurement that I can imagine that would correlate perfectly with the subjective experience of hearing music (or anything else) is fMRI. From moment to moment, our brains process sound differently based on all sorts of different acoustic and non-acoustic factors. Yeah, I know this isn't what you meant, but it's true and important nonetheless.There is absolutely no doubt that the experience of hearing music involves the brain at least as much as it does the ear. And that, at least, is something that must be taken into account that cannot be measured with a microphone.
Yeah, I know, you can't :-)I think that MRI goes a bit too far, MRI won't tell you if what you hear is accurate to the source. That's what Hifi is about, the sound arriving at your ears, before further processing, must (ideally) be an identical copy of the original event.
If you get MRI from different individuals these MRI will probably look different, depending on many factors related to the respective individual, such as taste. If I hate Bach, that music will generate a response very different to the one from a Bach lover. So which response is correct? Both, but that doesn't get us very far.
MRI is certainly an important measurement when investigating how we perceive things, but for determining how faithful a set of speakers reproduces, I don't think that it's of much use.
or at least not much. Certainly we're in agreement that the goal of a sound system should be to accurately reproduce what's on the software, even if it sounds bad. But I guess I am taking issue with the argument that the most basic acoustic measurements--accurate frequency and phase response, etc.--can fully characterize a listening experience. I'm not yet convinced, as you are, that those basic measurements tell the whole story. But even if they do, there's a whole other side to what we hear. You can get the sound waves perfect and it'll still sound different from day to day, depending on what you had for breakfast that morning, your degree of conscious focus on the music (more not necessarily being better)--or whatever.
KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him.When you use the word "hear" you usually mean perceive. As Lynn points out, measuring audio equipment does not tell us what people will perceive, since perception is subject to other factors besides the actual sound waves.
There are two things here. First, can the particular phenomenon be heard at all (detected)? Second, what do you prefer. If one cannot heard the difference between two components, then it makes no sense to say one sounds better than the other. However, it does make sense to prefer one component over another.
As I have pointed out before, one can measure various thing to a level well below what anyone seems to be able to hear. Harmonic distortion is one of them. The conventional THD result does not provide weighting for the various distortion components. but their are different weighting systems as can be found on Earl Geddes site (even the masters thesis by Cheever proposes one). But good solid state amps have distortion components well below that of typical tube amps at any frequency in the audible range. But with many tube amps, the distortion is low enough, too. So, like it or not, there is a correlation: with many amps, the distortion is inaudible. There might be an audible difference due to something else, however.
Again, you probably cannot get a close replica of a live concert performance in your home except maybe with headphones (ever hear a good Kunstkopf recording over good open ear headphones?. However, you may be able to get something that sounds very much like the live performance. Reports are that jj developed such a system while he was at AT & T, but unfortunately we were unable to get down to hear it. It doesn't depend on special speakers and amplifiers, either.
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
TG54 commenting on KlausR's post:
"The amplifier that replicates that signal the closest is the most accurate in your opinion. This is how you define accuracy. I on the other hand choose to use the human ear/brain's deteremination as a refernce standard. Then I compare that determination against the output of an amplifier. The amplifier that replicates the closest to that determination is the most accurate in my opinion. This is how I define accuracy."The problem is that a technical measurement of the amplifier's output makes sense, but you cannot directly compare the output of an amplifier to either a live performance or to the "the human ear/brain's deteremination [sic]." The amplifier doesn't make any music except as part of a system, so you have the speakers and other components of the system in addition. So your definition has application to the system, not the amplifier alone.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Thanks for the flowers, Pat:-) However, I have acquired knowledge only to a degree that allows me to be no longer impressed by all that high-end hype. So I'm far from being an expert. I have been talking to experts in these matters in the past and I've learned quite some things. One of those experts is now reviewing for German mag AUDIO, so things are getting less worse.
Pat D,I'm quite saddened to see you back tracking yet once again from something you previously said. This is one of the reason's I call you an audio politician as that's what politicians are always doing too. Back on March 9th you responded to my statement that Klaus is now objecting to. I stated: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
You Pat responded with: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." The complete post can be seen below. So first you agreed that most rationalists accept that as well. Yet now you claim: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him." Thus we see that first you support Real JJ's acceptance & belief that most rational accept my statement AND you support Klaus's objection to that same statement! Talk about 2-faced and having no real postion on the issue!
Next you almost agree with my postion again, after agreeing with Klaus that I'm wrong. For now you state: "The problem is that a technical measurement of the amplifier's output makes sense, but you cannot directly compare the output of an amplifier to either a live performance or to the "the human ear/brain's deteremination [sic]." The amplifier doesn't make any music except as part of a system, so you have the speakers and other components of the system in addition. So your definition has application to the system, not the amplifier alone."
Pat any moron knows an amplifier is part of a system. So why you feel the need to explain what is the blatantly obvious to myself and everyone else here is beyond me. However I can remove an amp from the system and replace it with another can't I? But as I stated today's accepted measurements will NOT reveal squat diddly about how well that amp, in that system will replicate music, and whether or not it actually sounds like live music. Just because I cannot get a close replica of a live concert performance in my home, doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for an audio system that can get as close to that event as possible does it? Thus what I do is use simpler events like a small jazz group recorded live and then I try to replicate that live event as closely as I possibly can. I'm not talking about some vague subjective opinion. I'm talking about a violin sounding like a violin a guitar sounding like a guitar, a saxophone sounding like a saxophone etc.
Fortunately for everyone here you've now revealed your true colors and beliefs. It's plain to see that you just disagree with anything I write. For now you've both agreed and disagreed with the same statement from me, by first stating that most rationalists will agree with my statement because that's what Real JJ believes and now disagreeing with my statement because Klaus does and he knows more than you do.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I can add "today's measurements to "typical measurements" and "accepted measurements." Ummm . . . well . . . they're not the same things, Tubey. As well, we really don't know what you by any of them--and I suspect you don't, either.It seems that no matter how I answer your questions, you don't like the answer. It doesn't much matter whether I analyze your question for assumptions and possible meanings, provide what I think is a sensible methodology for answering it, or giving some sort of an answer to a vague question to see where you are going with it and what you mean by it. Nothing seems to please you.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,I'll keep this short and simple. As you hold no real postion but instead change your opinion like other people change their underwear, you're correct in believing that no matter how you answer my questions, I don't like your answers. How can I, when you'll probably respond by saying just the opposite next time I post. That's what you did in this thread. So I just cannot believe anything you say and yes, I don't like that, because it's a waste of my time.
Finally for your audio politics of attempting to find mistakes in my usuage of words, instead of actually addressing the topic raised is getting boring. I've noticed you're simply trying to play semantics once again like you usually do! I would have thought you to be intelligent enough (obviously I was mistaken) to realize that today's accepted audio measurements would in fact be the typical ones being used! All one has to do is read the many specifications to see the same specs typically being used over & over again. So the ones being typically used are today's accepted audio measurements. Same thing hold true for preamps, CD players, speakers etc. Now grow up and either offer something of value in these posts of yours Pat or else PLEASE make like nature and hide...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
TG54
"All one has to do is read the many specifications to see the same specs typically being used over & over again. So the ones being typically used are today's accepted audio measurements."I see no reason to suppose your second sentence is true. The logical comprehension and extension of "accepted audio measurements" is simply not the same as the "the same specs typically being used over & over again."
As well, we still haven't much idea what you mean by the various terms used and you for the most part refuse to specify. You did mention THD and I pointed out that it comprises various components which (according to the experts like jj and Earl Geddes) need to be given some sort of psychoacoustic weighting--but that evidently passed over your head.
As for the alleged changing my mind, it was only with regard to the validity YOUR formulations in what I took to be casual conversation. I simply have had more time to think about YOUR formulation (KlausR pointed out that taken technically and literally, you made nonsense assertions--and I agreed with him). But for you, it seems someone doesn't have the right to think about what you say and come to a better conclusion about them. GMAB.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Ah, so you now agree that it is the system that makes the sound, and that therefore it is the system that will sound good or bad, or close to reality or not.TG54
"But as I stated today's accepted measurements will NOT reveal squat diddly about how well that amp, in that system will replicate music, and whether or not it actually sounds like live music."Of course measuring an amp will not tell you how the whole system performs. It's only part of the system, and the resulting sound depends on the rest of the system. Why didn't you say that in the first place? (Probably you want to talk about how good your tube amp is: world-class, I think you termed it!)
You talk about "today's accepted measurements" yet in a link you referred to "the typical measurements used today in audio" as if both were the same. Both are vague generalities and you don't explain what you mean by them. But you want to act as if they had some precise meaning. So, no, you haven't found me doing anything but not controverting some careless wording you used.
You may want to play around with amps, but with accurate electronics, I don't have to worry much about anything but the speakers. If my amp were out of action, I could easily get a Bryston that would sound virtually the same.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: