Ears vs. Measurements

[defride]

How do you define or measure good, better, best? How do you measure taste? What sounds good to you may sound bad to me, or vice versa, so who is right? How DOES it sound? How does it sound in absolute terms? Can one describe sound in absolute terms?


Klaus

Arn't we comparing our perception of a live event to that of a reproduction? Maybe I'm just being naive but it really doesn't seem difficult to compare peoples response in that context.

Put a cello and player between your speakers or whatever takes your fancy. Play with the components and see how close you get. There is most definately an 'absolute sound', the system ain't going to sound 'better' than the live instruments.

Comparing without a reference, that creates a bit of a problem.

 

[Ethan Winer]

This cartoon seems appropriate right about now.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Regarding measurements in speakers :

There are flatmeasuring speakers i like , and there are that i dont think sound very special although measure very flat .
I do think staying within certain limits is a basic speakerrequirement .
I see a speaker more as a electro acoustic machine , one that translates electromagnetic energy into airmovements , the one that does this translation with the least losses /deviations is the best one

Regarding tubes , so as i understood there are some areas where tubes indeed measure better , sounds like the focus should be on that then.

 

[microstrip]

Regarding measurements in speakers :

There are flatmeasuring speakers i like , and there are that i dont think sound very special although measure very flat .

Andromedaaudio,

What are you calling flat measuring speakers? Are you just addressing on axis anechoic measurements? Are you referring mainly to general trends in some part of the band or small band irregularities?

 

[andromedaaudio]

As i dont have a anechoic chamber myself , all my own measurments i have done are in room response measurements .
in general a lot of measurements in magazines or the net. are either 1/3 or 1/6 octave measurements or where the smoothe fact is not mentioned so its sometimes not easy to compare .
I call a flat measuring speaker a speaker that will stay within +- 3 db or better 2,5 db limits 1/6 smoothe factor , the areas being the most important are the X over areas .
So lets say 300 hz 15 khz , The bassresponse measurment can be taken independantly (other units disconnected ) and then inserted in the graph .
I dont like to see big dips in the graph , a big dip is a freq point where the music has less energy /loudness compared to the rest , so its not accurate and there is energy loss

I do approximately 20 - 30 measurements at a time , ranging from on TW. axxis to 5 degrees 10 degrees 20 - 30 degrees , 1,5 meter distance 2 meter 3 meter 4 . the angles are vertical and horizontal .
You could call it average inroom response , but measuring like that you dont always stay within -+ 3 db limits at some mic placements , on axxis or 5 degrees yes , distance also matters , a speaker will deviate from neutral over distance.

Ps to be honest , not having a chamber is not that important in my opinion , what i measure in room above 300 hz matters more to me, as it is real time comparable to what i hear

 

[mojave]

The book "Hearing Conservation in Industry Schools and the Military" by David M. Lipscomb says the following about the sensitivity of the ear (page 303):

The ear is capable of sensory response to sound whose pressure at the ear drum is no greater than two ten-thousands of a millionth of barometric pressure. This pressure moves the ear drum about one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. That dimension is approximately one one-hundredth the width of a hydrogen molecule, the tiniest of all known molecules. Therefore, throughout a significant portion of the ear’s dynamic range, it is moving in sub-molecular dimensions.

 

[Peter Breuninger]

Get the CAT Statement amps at 150 power they will drive anything with pure tautness and pure liquid sound= ask any MBL 101-e users..

Hmmm, ask me please.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I do approximately 20 - 30 measurements at a time , ranging from on TW. axxis to 5 degrees 10 degrees 20 - 30 degrees , 1,5 meter distance 2 meter 3 meter 4 . the angles are vertical and horizontal .
You could call it average inroom response , but measuring like that you dont always stay within -+ 3 db limits at some mic placements , on axxis or 5 degrees yes , distance also matters , a speaker will deviate from neutral over distance.

Ps to be honest , not having a chamber is not that important in my opinion , what i measure in room above 300 hz matters more to me, as it is real time comparable to what i hear

What you are describing is in-room spatially averaged using a non standard and very personnel weighting, only above 300 Hz. Maybe is very useful and excellent for your purposes but IMHO can not be used to describe a speaker as having a flat response. Welcome to the heretic team!

 

[DonH50]

The book "Hearing Conservation in Industry Schools and the Military" by David M. Lipscomb says the following about the sensitivity of the ear (page 303):

That's a little tough to believe... He'd have to show me, me being from Missouri and all.

 

[JackD201]

The cellist couldn't play that cello exactly the same way either, so what tolerances should we be talking about instead of absolutes regarding very narrow time slices in forming any sort of standard?

 

[JackD201]

Golf club and Golf ball manufacturers under regulation from the USGA and R&A use a robot called "Iron Byron". Who knows?

 

[opus111]

Got that right- in spades! *almost* everyone, anyway. As an industry and as hobbiests, we all have to think about the fact that the spec sheets we have been seeing for the last 45 years don't tell us a whole lot about how the equipment will sound, unless inverse correlations are considered. Lower damping factor amps often play better bass, higher distortion amps often sound more transparent, more detailed, less irritating and more musical...

Ironic that Ethan would subsequently post the cartoon giving the orthodox view that undefined bass is due to 'too high Q'

Its pretty obvious that most of what we measure is not important to the human ear, and very little of what is important to the human ear gets measured. We simply have an arbitrary set of measurements that are based on made-up stories from long ago. Sad but true; if we actually had a regime where the measurements made *were* important to the ear, the industry would be in a very different state, probably a lot larger.

I concur - the pie size would be considerably extended, but then the corollary is that the margins would be substantially lower. Could it be that almost everyone is protecting their relatively large slice of a small pie from a much smaller slice of a hugely bigger one?

 

[microstrip]

Of course some very few are unwilling to admit that an ear can not decode a vibration in the air from a speaker as well as electronic test equipment. The correlation between SOTA sound quality and measurements, even if there was one, would not satisfy the few and unwilling, because all the magic would be gone. And the quest for plain old stereo, to somehow replicate the real thing would continue, by the few and unwilling. SOTA and stereo and replication of a live event, another scientific impossibility.

Whether or not you are talking about one ear or two, your ear or ears are not better decoders of sound from a speaker than test equipment. Your measuring instruments (ear/brain interface) are far inferior to test equipment but admitting that does not in any way diminish your pursuit of audio........does it? Naive-agressive; Sir, truly you jest!

I enjoy audio a lot with my imperfect ears but they got limits old boy!

Micro, you make me crazy. but someone has to do it! there must be yin and yang or what do we have to discuss. I can always count on your perspective in these types of discussions.

I am hopeless in explaining you why the detection limitations of the ear compared to your oscilloscope have no consequence in the appraisal of audio system performance - some people have told it much more brilliantly than me and were not successful, why should I have success?

Strange to know that now you openly seem to have doubts in the existence of a correlation between SOTA sound quality and measurements. What do you want the measurements for?

I hope you do not fall in the "magic would be gone" argument temptation - it is nice as a joke, but nothing else.

 

[opus111]

2) the audio equipment makes a better "sound" to your ears

Why the scare quotes? I'm having no trouble at all with micro's English so the language barrier is probably not actually made of language, more a barrier of ideology?

 

[andromedaaudio]

If you dont think so , no problem , as i said flat on axxis until 5 degrees maybe 10 degrees , who cares if a speaker has only a flat response on axxis with one measurement , meaning you have to sit still all the time while listening .
I want to listen to a speaker that has a good overal balance on axxis and off axxis , just one measurement being on axxis and being flat doesnt tell the whole story .
But its the last time i explained it to you , ive explained myself well enough i think

What you are describing is in-room spatially averaged using a non standard and very personnel weighting, only above 300 Hz. Maybe is very useful and excellent for your purposes but IMHO can not be used to describe a speaker as having a flat response. Welcome to the heretic team!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think there are language barrier issues between us as we can not seem to stay focused on simple answers to questions, but if you want, please indicate what SOTA means:

1) the audio signal is almost perfect and no distortions from mic to speaker output

OR

2) the audio equipment makes a better "sound" to your ears

or, is there a number 3?

3) The audio equipment make a better "sound" to his brain.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I think there are language barrier issues between us as we can not seem to stay focused on simple answers to questions, but if you want, please indicate what SOTA means:

1) the audio signal is almost perfect and no distortions from mic to speaker output

OR

2) the audio equipment makes a better "sound" to your ears

or, is there a number 3?

Yes, the number 3) The audio equipment that fulfills optimally the objectives of sound reproduction, as defined for example, in the book "Sound Reproduction" of F. Toole. He needs some tens of pages to explain it and clearly explains why your argument of reality versus stereo is not an issue in sound reprodcution.

Curiously reviewer Ken Kessler used the same basic idea in his review of the Wilson Audio XLF speaker
"We tend to forget the basic rule of high-end audio and the definition of high fidelity: to reproduce music so accurately that you are fooled into thinking that you’re present at
the original musical event. We have all had moments (certainly back in the 1960s... ) when the sound was so plausibly real that we had to do double-takes.

Through the XLF, it happens with far greater frequency than anyone could hope to experience. The way this speaker manages and directs intangibles like air and space, beyond the reproduction of the actual notes themselves, adds mightily to the realism."

Once again statistics is the key issue. Unless people manage to understand it, they will go on using the words " "sound" to your ears" as a childish weapon.

I do not want to exacerbate your craziness state , but may be you should thing that an iceberg has something more than a tip. Or that behind the audiophile smoke, there is some fire.

 

[microstrip]

3) The audio equipment make a better "sound" to his brain.

Tim

Happily. Mine and many others so it becomes statistically valid. But yes, you have a point, it seems some people only want to listen with their ears.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Happily. Mine and many others so it becomes statistically valid. But yes, you have a point, it seems some people only want to listen with their ears.

They may want to, micro, but they will find it is impossible. But the fact that we hear with our perceptions, not just our ears, is of little use in the design and manufacture of audio reproduction equipment. Our perceptions are infinitely variable, even within ourselves. Our mood, our physical condition, our expectations all impact perception. So reproduction equipment, I think, will be much better served by addressing reproduction, not human perceptions. Even things like the fact that humans are negatively sensitive to some harmonic distortion content and actually tend to interpret other distortions as pleasant is a reproduction issue, not a perception issue. And the answer is technological -- build the device with the lowest possible distortion and add a circuit that dials in "musical" distortion at will.

My guess, and YMMV, is that given such an option, most listeners would tire of it quickly and rarely touch that dial after a few weeks, but it would be facinating to find out.

I trust my perceptions to, on average, prefer more accurate reproduction. The decades of Canadian govt, then Harman speaker tests conducted by Toole and Olive indicate that my trust is well-placed. So I'll go with that. FWIW, there are times, usually when I'm stressed and aurally over-loaded, when even very good recordings seem fatigueing. I have eq presets for those times that boost the mid-bass and roll off a bit of treble. And they sound good then. But when I'm fresh and feeling good, those pre-sets seem to muted, not warm. YMMV on that one as well.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) And the answer is technological -- build the device with the lowest possible distortion and add a circuit that dials in "musical" distortion at will.

My guess, and YMMV, is that given such an option, most listeners would tire of it quickly and rarely touch that dial after a few weeks, but it would be facinating to find out.

I trust my perceptions to, on average, prefer more accurate reproduction. The decades of Canadian govt, then Harman speaker tests conducted by Toole and Olive indicate that my trust is well-placed. So I'll go with that. FWIW, there are times, usually when I'm stressed and over aurally over-loaded, when even very good recordings seem fatigueing. I have eq presets for those times that boost the mid-bass and roll off a bit of treble for those times. And they sound good. But when I'm fresh and feeling good, those pre-sets seem to mute, not warm. YMMV on that one as well.

Tim

Tim,

I respect your option to prefer what you call "more accurate reproduction". As, according to my standards, it contains less information and is less enjoyable than the sound reproduction I prefer, I can not call it as more accurate - only "instrumentally more accurate". Anyway I would love to know from you about the Canadian and Harman electronics tests - I hope you are not extrapolating from the loudspeaker research and development to the electronics.

Curious to refer to the long term and tiresome of some types of reproduction - it is just what the audiophiles typically have against " "instrumentally accurate" reproduction. It is also a big sales argument of highend - I am now quoting Nelson Pass (my bold) : "Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste. We want our products to invite you to listen. We want you to enjoy the experience so much that you go through your entire record collection - again and again. This, by the way, is a very strong indicator."

You are a happy man - most people dream of owning a XLF. You found a perfect reason no to own it no one can dispute - you would tire of it quickly. Typical audiophiles are supposed to get tired after five years - the time to developed and market an improved version!

And yes, we have been here before.