Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[Gregadd]

I would actually wager they don't, I don't remember 1/2 the conversations I have until I go back and reread them.


I've seen a lot of neat things that have developed in acoustics. But that isn't really the issue at hand.

There's never been a time where well thought out acoustical treatment didn't improve reproduction. There are lots of good reasons why things have left the audio scene, and people trying to revive them is novel. Ignoring one of the few things in reproduction with almost no downsides, hordes of data to support it and identifiable benefits because you consider it to be a fad seems silly. I'll present a hypothetical: Let's assume it is a fad instead of a trend, and next week everyone rips all their treatments off their walls. Even with that in mind I wouldn't regret for a moment taking the time to treat my room, nor should you. Something being a fad should have no impact on its efficacy. Not doing something beneficial on the basis of it being a fad is being stubborn for no good reason. Even more so for someone like yourself who's seen fads come and go.

Trust me they remember.

You are quite right the laws of physics never change. However mans understanding, ability to measure, ranking of thier importance, and ability to make products to deal with them is in a constant state of flux. I do enjoy poking fun at those who have so little faith in thier sensory perceptions. It is not unfair for them to poke back at me. Just because I do not agree with you, place the same level of importance on things as you do does not make me "silly" or "ignorant" or vice versa. You don't know everything about me, nor do I have an inclination to write my autobiography on this forum. Where were you when I was hanging blankets on my bedroom walls or sticking rolls of Corning fiberglass in the corners of that room, because I could not afford to buy room treatment or know where to find it? You might imagine it did not work very well. It was fun, however. Not that it is any of your business, but if I could afford to do something like Mike Lavigne I might consider it. My first priority remains stereo equipment. Go ahead, call me all the names you like. I love my stereo and the sounds it makes. I have never tried to hinder anyone's attempt to give advice on audio. You do not need my permission to post here anyway. I do reserve the right to present opposing points of view.

Finally I am 57yrs. young on Monday. My brain and body are not what they use to be. Aging is a humbling experience. When I was younger my brain was like a sponge. Now it somtimes acts like a sieve. I now hire people to do things I always did for myself. I think room acoustics is on that list.

You have the last word if you so choose.

 

[Orb]

Reading the last few pages, the thread seems to be going sideways guys and focusing on people rather than topics. Let's get it back on the track and not risk having it be closed.

Some folks may also want to take a break and go listen to some relaxing music . Don't stress over the words here please.

I do wonder if the debate breaks down on both sides possibly due to what I would term the "technicality" of measurements.
By this I mean most (not necessarily all) of those who state audiophiles dislike and fear measurements and those who decide to debate against them about measurements may never ask the question; what is core to measurements?

To me, measurements are just collected data generated from specific test setups-mechanisms-protocols using the correct tools.
Nothing more.
I think in most cases from what I read when measurements are debated it never revolves around this.

This is important IMO as measurements are meaningless unless the correct test is done, again meaningless if the correct tools are not used, and very easy for a measurement (the collected and presented data) to be misinterpreted in how it is used.
This misinterpretation occurs due to not appreciating that it must align with the focus of the test and possibly the purpose of that test and tool.

So we have some who argue for measurements just mentioning FR and distortion (that in many cases is miniscule if excluding analogue) as proof, while we have some who debate on the other side that measurements cannot tell us everything or measure all aspects.
In a way both are true but only partially, but both ignore the fundamental that measurements are just collected data generated from specific test setups-mechanisms-protocols (meaning they have a defined scope) using the correct tools.
It is not that the measurements cannot measure everything or that FR explains all, but comes down to the core of; is the right test for that part of the discussion-debate being considered and used correctly.
In many of the online discussions I would say no, possibly down to misunderstanding/bias/the passion-emotion that this hobby can generate/or even possibly a combination of all of these.

For the person arguing the case that measurements do not show us everything what we hear, this approach for engineers-scientists will probably generate a negative response along the lines audiophiles always use this as a fallback.
When a better debate point for this person would be around the point that while we can measure nearly most things we still need the correct and very specific test process and tool to do so, and this has yet to be proved to be done to match what we hear from music (this can also be a critical point) reproduced by audio products.
For the person arguing the case measurements are proof, then they need to be able to put forward how and why that measurement-test process answers the case, however there is NOT one measurements (test procedure) that does this meaning they must use multiple measurements and tests and also consider factors that they may not had originally.
In the case of the FR as proof (which has been used in this thread) I would refer them to Jeff Fritz other interesting article:
Frequency Response Isn’t the Only Thing
http://www.ultraaudio.com/opinion/20100501.htm

What complicates such debates beyond what I have mentioned above, is that to me there are multiple facets on why an audio hobbyist may fear measurements.
The primary one IMO is not fear but indifference, and reading this thread those debating against measurements mostly fall into two categories; indifference or as I outlined above feel measurements do not tell us everything (and as I mention above that ideally this requires a paradigm shift towards what measurements are as I defined).

Where fear does come into this, or possibly more likely denial is to be confronted that our hearing/perception skills and faculty are compromised and not as good as we like to believe.
Another denial is being shown/told that what we purchased and importantly like and hold in esteem is actually average or even worse than other like products (we all strive to be equal or better than our peers).
This is made more painful as we feel the need to also justify our purchases that then risks bias judgement and reinforcement that we do not want to confront.
However and this is also important and should be stressed, all that I have outlined in the above paragraph applies to humans in both their daily activities-decisions and consumers in general beyond that of audio hobbyists.
So "audiophiles" should not necessarily feel they are being accused, what is being shown is human nature and factors we need to overcome, that said if it seems the audiophiles are solely being singled out then the debate for them should be towards highlighting that it is more universal-applicable and that it is important we resolve this fear-denial-bias-reinforcement-etc in our daily lives.
Including when we post on forums as that is a beautiful way to see it in operation

A trickier facet and one that helps to blur the boundaries relating to the measurement debate is accuracy,high fidelity and again indifference or misunderstanding between accuracy-preference-high fidelity.
Probably it makes more sense that such a facet be discussed in its own thread as the risk IMO by trying to discuss all these factors in one thread is that the boundaries of each is lost that generates greater misunderstanding and the cycle of argument.
Another article to highlight this:
There’s No Right Way to Enjoyment, but High Fidelity is Different
http://ultraaudio.com/opinion/20080301.htm

Soo much more could be said on this subject, its a good one for debate thats for sure.

Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Reading the last few pages, the thread seems to be going sideways guys and focusing on people rather than topics. Let's get it back on the track ...

I second your your advice.

I do not fear measurements, but I fear the bad use and misrepresentation that people do based in them, due mostly for the absence of guidance of the proponents of measurements or oversimplification. I give an example : there were several references to the classical speaker measurement of frequency response on axis in anechoic conditions that is usually published in reviews, as it is very easy to measure. But unless we are also given the off axis horizontal and vertical responses up to 45 degrees we can not know how the speaker will interact in a real room.

Another example - the impedance measurement plot. If it is not joined by the phase component it is useless. But as very few people know what is complex arithmetic's it is usually ignored.

Supporters of measurements should clearly specify in what measurements they believe and how they interpret them. Then we would know what are their proposals.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think you hit it here, Orb:

Another denial is being shown/told that what we purchased and importantly like and hold in esteem is actually average or even worse than other like products (we all strive to be equal or better than our peers).
This is made more painful as we feel the need to also justify our purchases that then risks bias judgement and reinforcement that we do not want to confront

It really doesn't matter if the measurements in question are just the manufacturer's specs on distortion and frequency response, or comprehensive testing with both instruments and ears, up to and including carefully designed and conducted AB/X testing (a well accepted testing methodology everywhere but high-end audio where it is dismissed for its failure to support our pre-conceived notions). If the results are inconsistent with individuals' beliefs in the superiority of types of equipment they own or aspire to, huge leaps of faith will be taken to deny those measurements.

And if the shoe were on the other foot, and what I heard as more natural, more life-like, could be objectively shown to be inferior at reproducing the only point of reference a reproduction system has, the recording, I would probably deny it too. I'd probably find some way to believe that a system of machines were somehow transcending their purpose.

P

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Supporters of measurements should clearly specify in what measurements they believe and how they interpret them. Then we would know what are their proposals.

With regards loudspeakers, here is the primer we use:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

I will go out on a limb and say that, if an audiophile wants to dive into the measurements that will have the greatest impact on the subjective listening impressions when buying a component, they should start with loudspeakers. The variance among loudspeakers is great, and anyone can throw some drivers in a box and call themselves a loudspeaker designer. The same isn't quite true with electronics. So in a way I'd say speaker measurements give you the most bang for your buck.

 

[Gregadd]

Jeff I had already found that and read it. I use it is a reference. I think we should remember that "a picture is worth a thousand words." So think of the the measurements as the words and the listening as the picture. Of course graphs and charts can double as pictures. Measurements really are not at odds with our sensory perceptions and can actually confirm them. For some reason we always think we have to choose sides and dig our heels in. This usually derives from our attempt to utilize a methodology and experiencing a negative result. For example we purchased a pair of expensive cables based on a magazine review and they did not yield the expected results. Or we followed the measurements and experienced a negative result. We tend to be hostile to any suggestion that we continue down the path that led us astray. Often we even question the motives of those who led us down that path.

 

[microstrip]

With regards loudspeakers, here is the primer we use:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

Soundstage did an excellent job in the past publishing tests with quality measurements. But unhappily, most of their recent reviews do not show measurements.

I was very disappointed that the Lamm ML3 test did not carry any measurements - since it is considered one the best, it should also be one of the most controversial existing amplifiers.

 

[Steve williams]

The ML3/LL1 combo is reviewed in Nov TAS by Peter Breuninger

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Soundstage did an excellent job in the past publishing tests with quality measurements. But unhappily, most of their recent reviews do not show measurements.

I was very disappointed that the Lamm ML3 test did not carry any measurements - since it is considered one the best, it should also be one of the most controversial existing amplifiers.

A fair criticism, and one we want to address. The issue is usually the shipping costs with regards speakers, and border issues going from the States to Canada. Not to mention our costs. Not belly-aching, but . . .

Anyway, we will attempt to do more.

 

[kareface]

Trust me they remember.

You are quite right the laws of physics never change. However mans understanding, ability to measure, ranking of thier importance, and ability to make products to deal with them is in a constant state of flux. I do enjoy poking fun at those who have so little faith in thier sensory perceptions. It is not unfair for them to poke back at me. Just because I do not agree with you, place the same level of importance on things as you do does not make me "silly" or "ignorant" or vice versa. You don't know everything about me, nor do I have an inclination to write my autobiography on this forum. Where were you when I was hanging blankets on my bedroom walls or sticking rolls of Corning fiberglass in the corners of that room, because I could not afford to buy room treatment or know where to find it? You might imagine it did not work very well. It was fun, however. Not that it is any of your business, but if I could afford to do something like Mike Lavigne I might consider it. My first priority remains stereo equipment. Go ahead, call me all the names you like. I love my stereo and the sounds it makes. I have never tried to hinder anyone's attempt to give advice on audio. You do not need my permission to post here anyway. I do reserve the right to present opposing points of view.

Finally I am 57yrs. young on Monday. My brain and body are not what they use to be. Aging is a humbling experience. When I was younger my brain was like a sponge. Now it somtimes acts like a sieve. I now hire people to do things I always did for myself. I think room acoustics is on that list.

You have the last word if you so choose.

If you read the context carefully, it's not you I called silly. It's the reasons you mentioned in one of your prior posts I'm referring to. Not doing something beneficial because it might be a fad is a bad reason not to do anything. I never called you ignorant, I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, I never suggested I needed anyone's permission to post my opinion. I don't know what conversation you've been having but it seems widely different than the one I've been having.

 

[Ethan Winer]

So we have some who argue for measurements just mentioning FR and distortion (that in many cases is miniscule if excluding analogue) as proof, while we have some who debate on the other side that measurements cannot tell us everything or measure all aspects.

Just to be clear, when discussing frequency response we must also include off-axis response. As in:

In the case of the FR as proof (which has been used in this thread) I would refer them to Jeff Fritz other interesting article:
Frequency Response Isn’t the Only Thing
http://www.ultraaudio.com/opinion/20100501.htm

Of course frequency response isn't the only thing, but it's the main one. In that article he writes:

while a speaker’s FR plot can tell you a lot about what you’re hearing, it can’t tell you the whole story. There is a long list of other sound characteristics that, in my experience, have no correlation with in-room frequency response: resolution, transparency, soundstaging, imaging, etc. Although a set of anechoic measurements can get to the bottom of some technical elements, such as distortion, I’m not aware of any that can tell you exactly how a soundstage will develop in your room.

Resolution is distortion and frequency response, transparency is distortion and frequency response, and sound staging and imaging are in part on- versus off-axis frequency response. The other part is comb filtering, which of course is also frequency response. So there's no need to invent or rely on additional terms that can only clutter understanding.

there are multiple facets on why an audio hobbyist may fear measurements. The primary one IMO is not fear but indifference

If that were true, the anti-measurement camp would ignore these threads rather than argue vehemently as they do.

Where fear does come into this, or possibly more likely denial is to be confronted that our hearing/perception skills and faculty are compromised and not as good as we like to believe. Another denial is being shown/told that what we purchased and importantly like and hold in esteem is actually average or even worse than other like products (we all strive to be equal or better than our peers).

Bingo.

So "audiophiles" should not necessarily feel they are being accused, what is being shown is human nature and factors we need to overcome

Yes! I'm always glad to learn something new, even if it destroys a previously held opinion. I don't know why so others are so resistant to accepting new information. Especially information about how the ear and mind work, and why what we think we hear is not always valid.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

If you read the context carefully, it's not you I called silly. It's the reasons you mentioned in one of your prior posts I'm referring to. Not doing something beneficial because it might be a fad is a bad reason not to do anything. I never called you ignorant, I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, I never suggested I needed anyone's permission to post my opinion. I don't know what conversation you've been having but it seems widely different than the one I've been having.

If we are going to be accurate, I never said room treatment was bad. I said its current emphasis is overrated. Fad is your word. It is that overemphasis that will wane. I got into to this because someone said it accounts for 96% of what we hear. To me that is overemphasis.

 

[Orb]

Heya Ethan,
Regarding frequency response, sure but bear in mind on its own it is pretty meaningless, it depends upon the test focus and other test protocols-procedures.
Hehe yeah I did consider commenting about dispersion when I spoke about FR, I personally felt though off-axis response falls under the same basic FR measurement just at different angles.

Does the simple FR tell you about cabinet resonance or driver breakup-issues in detail, or potential decay time variance over the FR?
That is just a quick example and I agree that speakers are the best aspect to initially focus on as Jeff mentions in a post, but here I am pointing out a simple FR graph is not the only parameter although it is important.

Relating about the other aspect where you feel it is distortion, I must say I cannot agree with the assertion it is all just distortion.
It would help on that debate if you could provide two different speaker measurements including how distortion affected what the reviewers reported, I appreciate this is not an easy task as its a right pain to find two speakers that have the ideal review comments on "resolution, transparency, soundstaging, imaging, etc" and also have the test-measurements your proposing that ties into the subject review on those aspects.

One reason why I am more suspect of distortion being the only reason is when you look at preamps (ignoring power amps as that really complicates the issue) and say compare a cheap implemented global negative feedback SS to a highly spec-implemented tube zero feedback design and both have very low distortion and flat FR.
From my experience there is a fundamental difference between such products along the lines mentioned by Jeff.
Unfortunately I can provide two examples that are different in sound quality perception but the reviews themselves will need to be purchased.
However this ties in with my very own anecdotal experience of long term listening to negative feedback/zero feedback/tube with very low distortion and noise.
The two products that can be compared are Arc Ref 5 and Nad C165BEE.
Anyone who looks at the measurements in detail are better to see the actual data as the measurement chart makes the difference look larger than it really is when it comes to audibility.
Again you need to register and will be sent a userid and password.
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download2010/reports/jan10/audio_research_ref5.html
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download2009/reports/sep09/nad_c165bee.html
Of note I am talking of the +12db gain that is the default on the AR.

AR Ref 5
Gain PASS
Gain achieved (re. 1000Hz into 60kohm) =
12.23dB (Left Channel)
12.33dB (Right Channel)

Sensitivity for 1V output PASS
UUT Input Sensitivity (re. 1000Hz into 60kohm) =
244mV (For 999mV output, Left Channel)
242mV (For 999mV output, Right Channel

THD achieved into 60kohm (2nd-4th harmonics) re. 1000Hz =
0.00248% @ 997.7mV (Left Channel)
0.00092% @ 998.2mV (Right Channel)

THD achieved into 60kohm (2nd-4th harmonics) re. 1000mV =
0.00122% @ 20Hz
0.00268% @ 20000Hz

Response achieved (re. 1000.0mV into 60kohm) =
-0.00dB @ 20Hz
-0.01dB @ 24000Hz

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted, 3rd-Octave mode) into 60kohm =
95.1dB (Left Channel)
97.0dB (Right Channel)

Residual Noise (unweighted, 3rd-Octave mode) into 60kohm =
-100.84dBV (Left Channel)
-100.79dBV (Right Channel)


NAD C165BEE
Gain PASS
Gain achieved (re. 1000Hz into 60kohm) =
10.17dB (Left Channel)
10.16dB (Right Channel)

Sensitivity for 1V output PASS
UUT Input Sensitivity (re. 1000Hz into 60kohm) =
310mV (For 1000mV output, Left Channel)
310mV (For 999mV output, Right Channel)

THD achieved into 60kohm (2nd-4th harmonics) re. 1000Hz =
0.00037% @ 1000.4mV (Left Channel)
0.00036% @ 999.5mV (Right Channel)

THD achieved into 60kohm (2nd-4th harmonics) re. 1000mV =
0.00020% @ 20Hz
0.00065% @ 20000Hz

Response achieved (re. 1000.0mV into 60kohm) =
-0.11dB @ 20Hz
-0.03dB @ 24000Hz

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted, 3rd-Octave mode) into 60kohm =
101.6dB (Left Channel)
101.8dB (Right Channel)

Residual Noise (unweighted, 3rd-Octave mode) into 60kohm =
-100.79dBV (Left Channel)
-100.51dBV (Right Channel)

So distortion does not answer everything, I appreciate that the gain and sensitivity-impedance are subtly different but currently its a far stretch IMO to say all those parameters outlined by Jeff can come down to gain,etc when we are talking radically different preamp designs and feedback in one that is a cheap implementation (I feel negative feedback can work but like everything else cost affects implementation and then characteristics-behaviour, the best negative feedback products are not cheap though and something I think Bruno Putzeys himself mentioned in the past).

Cheers
Orb

 

[kareface]

If we are going to be accurate, I never said room treatment was bad. I said its current emphasis is overrated. Fad is your word. It is that overemphasis that will wane. I got into to this because someone said it accounts for 96% of what we hear. To me that is overemphasis.

It clearly wasn't:

Take my word for it, room treatment is just the latest end all be all fad in audio

It really depends on the environment. Some will have dramatically greater impact on reproduction. I would agree that in normal listening rooms the impact won't be that high, but most people who work in the field agree that it's greater than 50% in home listening spaces. A properly treated room vs. its untreated counterpart is vastly different, even if you aren't listening to anything. Just compare any host of 'before and after treatment' recordings, you can identify the difference with even simple test tones

 

[microstrip]

If we are going to be accurate, I never said room treatment was bad. I said its current emphasis is overrated. Fad is your word. It is that overemphasis that will wane. I got into to this because someone said it accounts for 96% of what we hear. To me that is overemphasis.

Just want to add one short comment. Some years ago when I moved into a new house, my new large office-listening room was for some time the storage place for several tens of boxes, spread all over the room. As soon as I moved I immediately connected a stereo system and started enjoying music in this chaotic environment. After some weeks all the boxes disappeared and the sound of the almost empty room was really miserable. At that time I bought a large lot of RPG diffractals, abbfusors and bass absorbers coming from the studio of a closing shop and corrected the room, making essentially RT60 measurements and using old established rules. It was not nice too see but the music was great.
However, with time, several large bookshelves filled with books and LPs came into the room, followed by new carpets, some sofas and standing lamps. Also, paintings and pictures were hang on the walls. Almost each time I added something I would remove some audio treatment and finally I only have some diffractals and abbfusors hidden by a light curtain in the wall behind the Soundlabs .
My humble opinion is that in reasonably furnished rooms, if you listen at reasonable domestic levels and choose adequate speakers correctly positioned , your "audio treatment" will be sofas, bookshelves and paintings with proper framing. I have heard great sound from this type of rooms, where you also feel confortable.
But if you have a "minimalist" approach, with just a few thin chairs, one low table, one pair of speakers, a TV and a few decorative objects you will need help from a professional to get good sound, hiding all the treatments. And the few of us who want to put a full symphonic orchestra or the Pink Floyd band in the room, listening at life levels, will also need rooms with audio treatment.

 

[Gregadd]

This is my position:
Originally Posted by audioguy
In my estimation and personal esperience, the speakers and room/speaker interaction represent 95%+++++++++ of what we hear. If someone is still so seeped in changing components looking for the source and hence the solution to the problem. then they deserve to have the problem !!!

There is WAY too much scientific and accurate and demonstrable information available for anyone to ignore that clearly demonstrates that the room MUST be dealt with first. But then again, this is "high end" audio !!
By Gregadd
I don't agree with the 95% thing. I suppose we can measure the room without any equipment and music playing. Ultimately we have have to launch a good signal to see what the room is doing to that signal if anything. Unfortunately there is plenty of systems that are not launching a good signal.

For the whole discussion see:http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...rade-Path-Mixing-and-Maxing-Components./page3
That position seems to be simple. For some reason it gets everyone excited. They start calling me names. I say for it the last time. Do whatever you want to your room. Place whatever importance you want on it. Leave me alone.

Reginald G. Addison,Esq.
Moderator
Allnic
Martin Logan
Moscode
When writing as a moderator I will state it expressly.
Otherwise it is my personal opinion.

 

[Randall Smith]

I think we need a moderator?

 

[kareface]

I wasn't responding to that comment, I was responding to one of your many replies (that was likely generated by replies to your original comment) that contained a slightly less restrained position. I don't care what an individual does, only what gets widely propagated. There is too much misinformation among audiophiles.

My position is simple, even if you don't agree with what measurements represent, let's at least come to the consensus that products that produce no measurable change have no impact on the reproduction. I don't even care if people don't want to treat their rooms, let's just collectively stop supporting the snake oil salesmen.

 

[terryj]

Yes! I'm always glad to learn something new, even if it destroys a previously held opinion.--Ethan

It may be only me, but I love new data especially when it destroys a previously held opinion!

To learn something new is gold, to learn something AND have it remove a previously held position that is false is something else entirely, it is magical, it can be life changing.

For sure, we are only talking audio here...hardly important really...but as a principle in life the above takes some beating. Because, if what we hold as true is actually wrong, well depending on which aspect of life we are talking about it can and does have pretty major impacts.

To clear that fog away and see what is in front of us with a new and clear perspective...gee does life hold any greater pleasure than that?? THOSE are the magic, profound and life changing events we get.

So I simply cannot understand anyone's reluctance to examine their prejudices, in any sphere of life. I mean, by simply examining your assumptions does not necessarily mean they will be overturned, it does not mean you need to become a leaf in the winds of opinion. If your assumptions/beliefs are strong and robust enough, then the more examination they will withstand.

By altering them as the evidence demands, they will become MORE robust and useful in life.

But you gotta be willing to examine them surely?

Instead we see the opposite from people, the weaker and more fragile their opinions in life, the more strongly they defend them.

Back to the mundane field of audio, we can recognise the same features. Those displaying them (and we all do) will never see them when they do it, but it will be very clear to the disinterested reader...hmm disinterested may be misunderstood by some. I use that term as used by john ralston saul..unconscious civilisation I think it was. Meaning not having a vested interest in the argument.

Man, I love learning, and the best way to do that is always be willing to look at how my own assumptions or prejudices may be colouring my view on any given topic. They are the barrier to understanding new concepts.

 

[kareface]

What's with everyone's inbox being full on this forum. Do people have that many messages or is the allotted space just super small? Greg, delete a few messages when you get a chance.