Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
- Status
What's wrong with that test is what I already stated - "it's limiting the potential excursions from linearity of this system"
I've been advocating multi-tone test signals with realistic crest factors for a while now as being more like music & more revealing of system issues.
I can cite Scott Wurcer (he of Analog Devices fame) admitting on DIYAudio that "The multitone really separates the sheep from the goats. I'm using 30 1/3 octave tones at about 12db crest factor. Artifacts show up on even the best boards."
And "As BV said a mutitone of sufficient length (and you can create any crest factor you want mathematically) will fully stress the system."
And although this isn't Wurcer speaking, it sums up nicely the thinking of what is wrong with simple test tones
I already posted, in this thread, an anecdote from Jason Stoddard of Schitt fame
Last edited:
Exactly. That is belief. Wishful thinking (fallacy). Circular reasoning. The exact opposite of science and why we don't believe horses can count, people can bend spoons, etc, etc.
Hello David
How??? So you think the person running the test has purposely set the test up to deceive the participants??? What is the point in doing that???
Rob
Hi Rob,
There could be a variety of reasons, from self-promotion to commercial benefit and depending on setup the tests the outcome can be manipulated.
david
John, didn't you say on DIYAudio that (analog) measurements are useless:
When did this change come about?
I know multitone testing is not new & if by "any single or multiple sinewaves through a device" you actually meant to say multitone signal (of many tones with suitable crest factors) then why didn't you just say that?
BTW, what do you consider is a reasonable number of such tones & what crest factor?
Perhaps later. You also wrote that I am serving some cause. Answer that first, and then I will respond to your question.
You have to expand on this AJ and not sure what you mean by uncontrolled and what is acceptable control for you?
I never said that every single test is a sham, I'm sure there are plenty conducted for research purposes only. Specific to Toole/Olive tests the Dr. Toole's AES speech that Amir put up was an unadulterated marketing plug for Harman. Amir's behind the curtain shot of Olive and 3 revealed speakers was completely weighted in favor of their JBL 800 Array. What was the purpose of that blind test, convincing potential buyers or in house research? Let me clarify, I have respect for Dr. Toole and his work and I'm not denigrating him here, just pointing out that no one is above some good old fashioned self promotion.
david
Last edited:
Amir, we certainly have a gross misunderstanding. I don't know if those particular measurements are audible. I enjoyed reading Al's post and learned something from its content. I remember reading something on the topic written by Nelson Pass on his Class A, Single Ended amps. I wrote that Al and Acks' posts were good because they stood in stark contrast to the content of some of the other posts at that time which I found to be very polarizing and argumentative and which I did not think added anything to the quality of the discussion.
I have always believed in measurements being able to explain something about the audibility of audio equipment. I just am not certain that Audio Science can explain EVERYTHING about how something sounds. That is my question and the reason I started this thread. At no time that I remember did I ever write that I do not find some validity to measurements. I have posted measurements of the frequency response of my system in my room. As an analogue guy, I rely on all sorts of measurements for the accuracy of my turntable set up. I relied on measurements to match my amps to my speakers, and then confirmed that by listening. I use a laser measuring device to precisely locate my speakers within 1/16th of an inch in distance, tilt and toe in from the listening seat.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I changed my mind about measurements. It leads me to wonder if you understand what I write in my posts. If not, then I need to be more clear, or you need to read my posts more closely. Please do not credit your contributions to this thread as having anything to do with me changing my mind about measurements. You would be mistaken.
I ask you again, what cause are you attributing to me?
Let me summarize again: Question about audibility of THD was made by AJ. Al quoted some measurement company's web site on that. I am asking if your comment that this information was "great" is consistent with your position in this thread. What did you learn in that post that was great and related to the topic of this thread???
You are not sure or you believe that it can't explain everything? What if it can explain majority of things? Or most? What then?
I didn't think we were including measuring a distance to a speaker in the context of the word "measurement." Or any other instrumentation you use for your analog gear alignment. There is certainly no debate about those topics among camps so let's not confuse the issue in a post where you are trying to clarify your position.
The debate is on value of audio science in its formal listening tests and measurements it uses to determine audibility of distortions and fidelity. It says that if you think your equipment sounds better after warming there better be some measurement that shows it. If you tell me that with no measurement difference you clearly can hear improvements, then you are completely at odds with measurements and audio science regarding it. Unlike what you post above.
Your cause appears to be to cast doubt on validity of measurements to explain equipment fidelity. Don't see how you can do that in one breath and then turn around and give huge thumbs up to a post that copied the statements of a company making measurements and assigning audibility to it.
I like that...the level of precision and dedication. ...Like many other WBF members. ...Me included, up to a certain level...my own measuring level...humble. :b
Show me a single example of Harman promoting the results of their research and this implication will have merit. But you won't find one. Their research is for product development; they have deliberately not published their product's rankings relative to their competitors included in their studies.
Tim
I think you saw the same AES video where Dr. Toole spends the entire time talking about Harman, Harman test procedures and concludes the speech declaring the M2 as the best speaker around. If that's not self promotion then what is? He was also quite obvious when he was knocking the ML speaker in the test.
david
(Edit) To avoid any misinterpretation and for the record, what I wrote above isn't a criticism of anyone and I owned many JBL speakers over the past 20 years.
Last edited:
I trust your listening seat includes a dentist-style headrest to locate your ears to the required accuracy.
I talked to a lizard once, in private. He did not understand what I was saying...but it don't matter...@ the end we both went our ways...for a better world. :b
Somehow I find it hard to reconcile this post & your coyness about "your measurements" with your previous reply along these lines!!
Atmasphere said:
What I don't see in this exchange or later is any mention or awareness of multitone tests & how they almost fulfil this requested measurement by Atmasphere. You certainly don't recognise, in your rely to him, the fact that multitone tests are exercising the non-linearities of the playback electronics!
So, forgive me if I remain unconvinced by your latest claims & coyness about the details. Any small detail you do give are incorrect - crest factor has nothing to do with bandwidth. I sense that you don't really know much about a true multitone test for one who says he used/uses it.
If however you are playing forum debating tactics by being clever with your composing a sentence that is open to interpretation "if I pass any frequency, any amplitude, and any single or multiple sinewaves through a device, and I monitor amplitude, frequency and time on the output plus look at any distortions that arise, what is the missing test here then? Whats exactly not being picked up by such a test with sinewaves" then count me out of your little game - I'm not playing
I also asked you a while ago what null level you think defines "no difference" but you avoided answering. Perhaps you want to tell us now after raising the issue again?
Last edited:
I spent my career in marketing. A speech at an AES meeting is not marketing. An ad that mentions the test results and compares them to the performance of competing products? A mention on their consumer web site? In a brochure? A release to the audio press? A speaking tour to audiences of audio dealers? That's marketing, growing less effective and to a smaller target audience at every step. A presentation to peers at a professional association meeting? No. Not even close. And that's not semantics or a matter of an opinion. No marketing professional would call that marketing.
Tim
Amir,
this seems a bit lopsided
Measurements do show that amp behaviour can change in the first 1-2 hours, if going by just THD then the changes are small but it shows a behaviour change is occurring electronically/thermal operation window.
However it is fair to say then that while these are very small measurements it shows something is happening, therefore it makes sense to investigate further, with different measurements and with scientific listening tests, however as I said earlier and has been ignored by several if one does not have a scientific study (which this does not) then the only option is to fall back to engineering and the top experienced-knowledgeable engineers.
There are objectivists jumping the gun saying it is not actually happening and it is cognitive bias/confounding/etc because there are no scientific studies done, but they ignore the engineering community and measurement behaviour of quite a few amps; their response is THD is miniscule and so the amp behaviour is meaningless while ignoring electronically there is a change and that maybe further engineering investigation is required (that can bring us to notable engineers such as Nelson Pass and others who point out some amplifiers including SS do change between cold start and warmed-up)....
Now when you passed the final (where a lot of the issues were resolved such as db difference otherwise the test would had been voided) hirez vs cd quality ABX what were the measurements in regards to what was different and at what level were these variables?
I bet they were at a meaningless low value
If that is so, well one cannot ignore the measurements and correlation (at some point it should be modelled) with your test, but that is what a lot of that passing the ABX was about; it focused specifically on only one aspect of scientific study and that was a listening test, all the other aspects (measurement-correlation-modelling) are just as critical including the question I just asked.
Anyway looking forward to knowing more about the measurements and values with regards to your hirez vs CD abx pass.
Edit:
OK the above is bold because my point is already being taken out of context and my post completely skewed...
Sorry Groucho but you are taking it in the wrong direction, which is a bit annoying as it is misdirecting from what I was asking and mentioning.
Thanks
Orb
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
