Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[NorthStar]

As a case in point you can have two amps on the bench with identical frequency response and one will sound bright while the other does not. The problem is not a frequency response error, its caused by distortion- and oddly and also counter-intuitively by the one with the much lower distortion figure. It is because the ear translates distortion into tonality, and the amp with the lower distortion imparts the coloration because it has more higher-ordered harmonic distortion than the one that has higher distortion overall. Until the industry starts paying attention to how we perceive sound we will continue with these silly discussions. Although I am by no means the first to say things like this the industry seems to have a lot of inertia about measurement and is still stuck in the 1950s. I say that in the face of computer aids to measurement as they continue to ignore human physiology. If the spec is not meaningful to the human ear it is the Emperor's New Clothes.

I guarantee that if we did not have ears we would not play around with high end audio gear. In the world of audio the ear is the beggar king. The ear is the most important aspect of any audiophile's stereo. We can't do anything to change them except damage them- they are the result of millions of years of development. How about we make specs that pay attention to how they work rather than coming up with specs that don't mean anything to the ear? Logical huh, but we humans are short in that department...

And that's why @ Harman Kardon, some bright people are performing listening tests from many well trained pair of ears.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I am not sure people "...dismiss the science so they can continue to position their personal choices as superior...." Perhaps they simply prefer their personal choices not caring if it is superior to something else. They may just like what they like. I think it is wrong to presume to know why others do things.

In this hobby? It happens all the time. People harshly criticize formats and gear that is objectively superior while praising that which is demonstrably midfi by comparison. They even make up their own language to make the case (Example: Outside of this hobby, there is not really a thing call "micro dynamics," there is only dynamics, and a huge part of what makes dynamics superior is the lowest possible noise floor. Do I really need to dig up posts praising the superior micro dynamics of vinyl and tubes to show you that the noisier format/component is positioned as better than the quieter one?

And I am not sure that many members of this forum dismiss science.

I'm pretty sure. The example above is just one of many. Read Amir's last couple of marathon threads. They rage against science and find every reason not to believe it, even when the testing has gone on for decades, through hundreds of subjects, with the same results repeated over and over again.

There is still this contention that there is a big divide between the objectivists and subjectivists, but I get the sense from reading these posts that most of us fall somewhere in the middle with a healthy respect for both measurements and what they can tell us and for listening tests and what they can tell us.

Few will openly confess to a contempt for the science that disagrees with their biases, but many demonstrate their contempt repeatedly.

Regarding the adjective, "natural": I would argue that if a reproduction of an unamplified musical event sounds natural, then it is indeed, accurate. Every unamplified musical event that I have heard sounded natural. If you mean accurate in the sense of a component or system precisely reproducing what is on the tape, or in the grooves or encoded in the file, then the reproduction may or may not then sound natural. It might depend on the recording and mastering accuracy.

"Natural" in this context is a vague, undefined term. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, therefore it means nothing. Accurate, as you've said, is a measurement of a system's ability to reproduce the recording to the highest possible fidelity. It is not vague. And yes, some recordings sound unnatural. If your system is "fixing" them, it's screwing up the good recordings. That is not debatable. System coloration, unless you're talking about some kind of EQ or processing that can be bi-passed, colors everything that goes through the system. If it makes a recording that is too bright sound better, it will make a balanced recording sound dull. Like it. Enjoy. But don't tell me it's more "natural." I'm not buying that bridge. The only thing that is "natural" to a recording reproduction system is the faithful reproduction of recordings.

Tim

 

[steve williams]

Tim
in the context of David's definition for him " natural" is no coloration. Does that simplify things for you.

 

[ddk]

That is certainly an interesting point as we do have the same electronics.

The point for me Keith and as David makes, is that there are room for both camps

I am not sure if David has measured his room but I would make a prediction based on the size of the room in relation to the size of the speakers as well as the irregular shape of the room that it doesn't measure all that flat (but I am guessing). Sadly if this is the case Keith you might pass up a chance to hear what I now state to be my new reference. The sound that comes from David's system is pure unadulterated enjoyable music which allowed me to sit for 4 days in front of his speakers listening.

Keith are you suggesting that you only buy equipment based on measurements rather than listening as well and as a corollary if something doesn't measure right but sounds great does this mean you won't buy it or are you suggesting that if it sounds good it must measure good.

I have no idea how David's room measures but I can tell you that it was the finest sound that I have ever heard. Period. End of story

No measurements taken this time, I didn't need them to know what's wrong with the room I can hear it. I masked most of the glaring problems with the setup and balanced some other ones with the acoustic walls I built. Measurements will show tother problem areas in the room, no doubt but our ears (mine, yours and others who visited) are pretty content things as they are in spite of poor measurements. Fact is that I can spend a lot more time and money sorting out the room and it won't translate into much sonically above where I am now, building a new listening room with the adequate theater like dimensions for the speakers is another story.

david

 

[ddk]

Can a room/system sound great when only using one's ears and listening experience?

Its the only experience that really counts Johnny!

david

 

[andromedaaudio]

I suppose your system as good as it is can even improve then , a lot of things can be corrected in the X over of a system , it wont change the character its just fine tuning it, no money involved either , if its not to your liking it can be quickly reversed.

No measurements taken this time, I didn't need them to know what's wrong with the room I can hear it. I masked most of the glaring problems with the setup and balanced some other ones with the acoustic walls I built. Measurements will show tother problem areas in the room, no doubt but our ears (mine, yours and others who visited) are pretty content things as they are in spite of poor measurements. Fact is that I can spend a lot more time and money sorting out the room and it won't translate into much sonically above where I am now, building a new listening room with the adequate theater like dimensions for the speakers is another story.

david

 

[ddk]

"Natural" in this context is a vague, undefined term. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, therefore it means nothing. Accurate, as you've said, is a measurement of a system's ability to reproduce the recording to the highest possible fidelity. It is not vague. And yes, some recordings sound unnatural. If your system is "fixing" them, it's screwing up the good recordings. That is not debatable. System coloration, unless you're talking about some kind of EQ or processing that can be bi-passed, colors everything that goes through the system. If it makes a recording that is too bright sound better, it will make a balanced recording sound dull. Like it. Enjoy. But don't tell me it's more "natural." I'm not buying that bridge. The only thing that is "natural" to a recording reproduction system is the faithful reproduction of recordings.

Tim

No one's trying to sell you any bridges, its there for you to cross it if you wish. "Natural" is only vague because you haven't discovered it, its neither colored, accurate, right or wrong or it can also be all of it. Natural is in the experience.

david

 

[steve williams]

It is an experience Tim and quite honestly the only way I think any one will truly understand what David means is to hear it. Short of that it's all conjecture.

 

[ddk]

I suppose your system as good as it is can even improve then , a lot of things can be corrected in the X over of a system , it wont change the character its just fine tuning it, no money involved either , if its not to your liking it can be quickly reversed.

The system's not the problem, it is what it is. The room is what's in question and anything more requires major surgery and its not reversible and even if I did I can't expand its dimensions where meaningful changes would come.

david

 

[ddk]

Really you don't look at specifications or understand them?
Shunyata provide measurements!
I would like to see those!
Keith.

Of course I look at specs, that's not what you were talking about.

david

 

[andromedaaudio]

Okay i see , the best room i have ever heard was a trapezium shaped room , with the speakers/system placed on the short side ....

shapes-clipart-trapezium-ns-bw by andromeda61, on Flickr

The system's not the problem, it is what it is. The room is what's in question and anything more requires major surgery and its not reversible and even if I did I can't expand its dimensions where meaningful changes would come.

david

 

[853guy]

"Natural" in this context is a vague, undefined term. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, therefore it means nothing. Accurate, as you've said, is a measurement of a system's ability to reproduce the recording to the highest possible fidelity. It is not vague. And yes, some recordings sound unnatural. If your system is "fixing" them, it's screwing up the good recordings. That is not debatable. System coloration, unless you're talking about some kind of EQ or processing that can be bi-passed, colors everything that goes through the system. If it makes a recording that is too bright sound better, it will make a balanced recording sound dull. Like it. Enjoy. But don't tell me it's more "natural." I'm not buying that bridge. The only thing that is "natural" to a recording reproduction system is the faithful reproduction of recordings.

Tim

OK, I'll have a go.

Colour me curious, Tim, the “measurement of a system's ability to reproduce the recording to the highest possible fidelity”, is what, exactly? THD? IMD? Output impedence vs Frequency response? Total bandwidth? Unweighted signal/noise? One of these? All of these?

As I’m sure you know, all the above are the product of feeding a component with steady-state signals that have no relationship to the incredibly complex combination of time/amplitude/pitch which are the defining and always changing characteristics of what we call music.

“Faithfully reproducing” steady state signals of a single component and measuring the results is one thing, “faithfully reproducing” music from a combination of transducer (decoder)/amplifier/transducer is another altogether.

If music could be reduced down to a set of measurable and quantifiable variables in which the input could be directly compared to the output - without the complex mechanosensationary process of human hearing and its effects on our physiological state - then perhaps I could agree that “natural” means what you say it means, a reproduction system faithfully reproducing the recordings its fed.

But I can’t shake the notion that the experience we know as music, and its effects on our emotional, mental and in some cases, physical state is able to be accurately portrayed solely by the measurements of the individual components of the reproduction chain. There’s too much at stake, as many of those who’ve experienced text-book components discover too late when the sound is as accurate as all get out, and the music emerges dead.

Am I making an unhelpful distinction between sound and music? Yes, I think I am. And I’m doing that because I’ve not yet ever seen a manufacturer whose THD/IMD/signal to noise measurements were made with music - they would look terrible. And I’m making that disctinction because what we feed our listening systems with is not what produced those measurements in the first place. So we can talk all about accurate reproduction all we want, but its bearing on how music is played back - the intention of a human being to use sound and silence over time to make art - is not measurable in the same way, and nor can it be.

Enjoyment? Engagement? Emotional and intellectual stimulation? All measurable via our neurophysiological, cardiovascular, respitory and endocrinological systems, and very easily manipulated by our sleep, diet, exercise, caffine consumption and the experience of listening to music, whether live or via electronic playback.

Again, you can talk about accurate and faithful reproduction all you want, as long as you keep the discussion within the domain of steady state signals and not music. One is science, the other art. How a system does the former often has little bearing on how it does the latter.

 

[NorthStar]

No measurements taken this time, I didn't need them to know what's wrong with the room I can hear it. I masked most of the glaring problems with the setup and balanced some other ones with the acoustic walls I built. Measurements will show tother problem areas in the room, no doubt but our ears (mine, yours and others who visited) are pretty content things as they are in spite of poor measurements. Fact is that I can spend a lot more time and money sorting out the room and it won't translate into much sonically above where I am now, building a new listening room with the adequate theater like dimensions for the speakers is another story.

david

...The room; it always come down to the room. :b

 

[ddk]

Okay i see , the best room i have ever heard was a trapezium shaped room , with the speakers/system placed on the short side ....

shapes-clipart-trapezium-ns-bw by andromeda61, on Flickr

That's actually quite interesting, some halls and theaters are almost trapezoidal. Where we live now isn't our final destination, I'll build something when I know we're there, for now I'll improve what I can...

...The room; it always come down to the room. :b

Basically yes and no digital EQ will ever replace good acoustics. But everything else that goes into the room including the set up counts too..


david

 

[steve williams]

M

That's actually quite interesting, some halls and theaters are almost trapezoidal. Where we live now isn't our final destination, I'll build something when I know we're there, for now I'll improve what I can...



Basically yes and no digital EQ will ever replace good acoustics. But everything else that goes into the room including the set up counts too..


david

Trapezoid with the speakers on the short wall creates an amphitheater effect.

 

[steve williams]

OK, I'll have a go.

Colour me curious, Tim, the “measurement of a system's ability to reproduce the recording to the highest possible fidelity”, is what, exactly? THD? IMD? Output impedence vs Frequency response? Total bandwidth? Unweighted signal/noise? One of these? All of these?

As I’m sure you know, all the above are the product of feeding a component with steady-state signals that have no relationship to the incredibly complex combination of time/amplitude/pitch which are the defining and always changing characteristics of what we call music.

“Faithfully reproducing” steady state signals of a single component and measuring the results is one thing, “faithfully reproducing” music from a combination of transducer (decoder)/amplifier/transducer is another altogether.

If music could be reduced down to a set of measurable and quantifiable variables in which the input could be directly compared to the output - without the complex mechanosensationary process of human hearing and its effects on our physiological state - then perhaps I could agree that “natural” means what you say it means, a reproduction system faithfully reproducing the recordings its fed.

But I can’t shake the notion that the experience we know as music, and its effects on our emotional, mental and in some cases, physical state is able to be accurately portrayed solely by the measurements of the individual components of the reproduction chain. There’s too much at stake, as many of those who’ve experienced text-book components discover too late when the sound is as accurate as all get out, and the music emerges dead.

Am I making an unhelpful distinction between sound and music? Yes, I think I am. And I’m doing that because I’ve not yet ever seen a manufacturer whose THD/IMD/signal to noise measurements were made with music - they would look terrible. And I’m making that disctinction because what we feed our listening systems with is not what produced those measurements in the first place. So we can talk all about accurate reproduction all we want, but its bearing on how music is played back - the intention of a human being to use sound and silence over time to make art - is not measurable in the same way, and nor can it be.

Enjoyment? Engagement? Emotional and intellectual stimulation? All measurable via our neurophysiological, cardiovascular, respitory and endocrinological systems, and very easily manipulated by our sleep, diet, exercise, caffine consumption and the experience of listening to music, whether live or via electronic playback.

Again, you can talk about accurate and faithful reproduction all you want, as long as you keep the discussion within the domain of steady state signals and not music. One is science, the other art. How a system does the former often has little bearing on how it does the latter.

I have to say that in the over 5 years we have been here that post IMO is probably one of the wisest ones I've read. I laud you sir

 

[Al M.]

I have to say that in the over 5 years we have been here that post IMO is probably one of the wisest ones I've read. I laud you sir

Agreed!

 

[esldude]

I have to say that in the over 5 years we have been here that post IMO is probably one of the wisest ones I've read. I laud you sir

Curious, the post to me reads like hundreds I have read. And amounts to little more than believing in the magic of hearing with full faith no regimented test signals can do justice to it. Not wise at all IMO.

 

[esldude]

Calling BS on this one. The ear can here very suble amounts of higher-ordered harmonic distortion that is very difficult to measure. The reason for this is that the ear uses those harmonics to gauge how loud a sound is. This fact is one that is ignored by the audio industry. We can't and don't measure harmonic distortion to the degree needed; if we did you could look at an amplifier spec sheet and know immediately how it sounds. Since that isn't the case, logic dictates that there must be a problem with the measurement. It has been this way for 60 years. That's why we continue to have these inane discussions which will continue as long as the industry ignores human hearing/perceptual rules.

So actually you agree. Difficult to measure or not being measured is not saying something can't be measured.

 

[esldude]

Hello Groucho. Another example of what microstrip mentioned is the Carver Challenge from many years ago. Bob Carver had a challenge to mimic the sound exactly from one amp to another. After nulling them out and making sure that the sound signatures measured exactly the same, he had what was two amplifiers that sounded the same. This, of course, turned out NOT to be the case but it fooled some rather good ears at the time right off the bat.

There has also been a speaker manufacturer (the name alludes me at the moment) that had two sets of speakers. Both measured the same but both did not sound the same. Measurements IMO can only reveal so much about what we hear.

Tom

So where do you get this idea that Bob Carver fooled some good ears? When able to audition any way they wished they conceded the sound was the same. So fooling listeners, good ears by your description seems exactly what Carver said he could do. His measured nulls would indicate it wasn't some flim-flammary con either. He actually made his little amp react in the same way as the target C-J to a very high degree. How does it turn out NOT to be the case?