I believe what DonH50 posted above answers your question. I for one am not entirely certain we know what we entirely know what to measure.
Math Unraveled
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
I believe what DonH50 posted above answers your question. I for one am not entirely certain we know what we entirely know what to measure.
We don't. Here's an example of one way we are still learning...
http://blog.acousticfrontiers.com/w...sure-loudspeaker-directivity-with-lasers.html
Tom
http://blog.acousticfrontiers.com/w...sure-loudspeaker-directivity-with-lasers.html
Tom
Frantz: I can't find the pic (perhaps Amir can) that shows a graph with four speakers and that there was no difference in the order of choice among the trained/untrained listeners. I particularly remember it since it had ML at the bottom of the one speaker listening behind the blanket test and also that Kevin Voecks had shown me the same data two or three years ago at RMAF. It went against all our thinking at the time that trained listeners were made better choices than untrained listeners.
Yes but Don's post isn't saying that we have all the measurements necessary just that using & understanding measurements is pretty difficult.
I'm not even arguing that we don't - I simply don't know. Therefore I am trying to find out from those who make statements like Tom to point out the measurements that can tell us how a device will sound to us. Until this is achieved, it's simply an unfounded statement that we have all the measurements needed.
Understanding more about the inner details of hearing (not just the mechanics) allows us to direct our measurements with more accuracy. So, for instance, this paper shows that linear systems (FFTs etc.) can be beaten by non-linear systems (hearing) in certain fundamental respects. A large number of instruments are non-linear device as is the human voice as is the playback systems we use & our hearing. Indeed non-linearity is the norm in reality. Does this not lead to the conclusion that Sine wave input signals being used to measure our playback systems is pretty misguided & is only used because it is easy to do & good for marketing purposes?
Yet, how often have we heard the quip in forums that a device "FFT shows no distortion below XXXdB & therefore transparent"?
John
We find ourselves in agreement. We will not learn much if we are trying to convince ourselves that we know it all and that not much needs to be learned. At the same time a certain degree of skepticism must be exercised so that we don't find ourselves running after an infinite number of targets.
We find ourselves in agreement. We will not learn much if we are trying to convince ourselves that we know it all and that not much needs to be learned. At the same time a certain degree of skepticism must be exercised so that we don't find ourselves running after an infinite number of targets.
Indeed, you are correct but there is no greater obstacle to learning/discovery than a closed mind. I find it easy to discard my wrong ideas - they are usually uncovered fairly quickly & there is as much to be learned from them as there is from the correct ideas - probably more!
While you're chuckling at your unanimity, I'm having a ball at your irony. Ethan bringing in open mindedness - bwahahahahahah
If I post a number there likely be as many interpretations of causality as there will be people who see it.
Gives us an idea of how much more there needs to be learned and done.
This is hilarious in so many ways - some of which have already been highlighted - open-mindedness from Ethan
"Locking one's head in a vice" quip is exactly the lazy thinking that typically pervades pseudo-science in audio. The fact that we are able to adjust for head movement in our hearing leads to the conclusion that we are not a head with two microphones at each side & a linear processor in the middle. It's exactly this sort of foolishness that exposes limited thinking.
So it's doubly ironic that you should talk about open-mindedness & then cite such an obvious example of the antithesis of open-mindedness, Ethan. But you then go on to cite the obvious to all "head-in-vice" ridiculousness as the reason for variance in hearing....really?????
Yes, humour & levity are great on forums but please indicate it when posting so we don't misconstrue your posts
BTW, unless measurements actually have some relevance to the function of the device, what is your point? I like my measurements to tell me something of value about a device/machine - if buying a car I might want measurements to show something about the experience I will have in driving it. I'm not interested in the fact that measurements can show the chemical make-up of the body paint - it's completely irrelevant to the goal I have for using the car.
Last edited:
I recall that too. So I am as a sophisticated a listener as, say, Keith Johnson? I guess I am having a good morning.
EDIT: In all honesty, I think that "test" was meant to show that even untrained listeners can select the "best" speaker that the trained ones can; but it backfired a little bit...
Last edited:
Yes, Tom has repeatedly stated that the only measurement we need is THD. Amazing how a measurement, how many years old, still holds water!
OK give us two examples of Ethan not boasting about his intellectual superiority and crapping on audiophiles? OK, just one.
Yes, there are differences in what we hear when we move our listening position but to use this as a reason for dismissing reported differences seems somewhat over-reaching, don't you think? very Ethan-like, I would suggest. I don't believe I incorrectly filtered what you said - it seems rather dismissive of reports of differences. Maybe you feel like Ethan, that all this has been sorted out over 50 years ago & "all this boring stuff" is just a waste of time?
"All of us on this forum are aware of masking effects, effects of the room, effects of humidity, altitude, flether munson curves, hearing difference related to frequency and direction of frequency and all this boring stuff, and folks can hear a difference between two components and somehow want a measurment for it when they cant even lock their head in a vise to eliminate a huge part of the variance of hearing....really."
Again, a bit confused by this but you seem to be saying that we don't hear differences - it's all in the head & this is what should be measured?
Yes, simplistic tests will always give simplistic results. I believe that he has been told this on more than one occasion but I see you keep his torch burning so let me repeat that simplistic tests based on simplistic reasoning will get you no further than you already are. I know these simplicities appeal in much the same way as tabloid newspaper headlines appeal to many but don't pretend that they are a statement of truth about anything.
You miss the point that this doesn't account for all or even a small portion of differences heard between systems. Yet you disparage those who hear differences because they don't have a fixed position for their head when listening.
Yes, I'm afraid your comms are not really saying anything concrete or else not getting across to me anyway. Please state something explicitly with some exactitude & without the wiggle room for plausible deniability at a later stage.Why do I seem to be saying that, I never said that, but I did say the "magic" is in your head, not some unknown measurment of an electical signal. Are my communications skills that bad
Which brings us nicely back to the paper in the o/p. Yes these participant's hearing is more sensitive than the audio FFT tests that are normally used for the measurements you refer to above so is this not one example of ears beating measurements?
As said already, simplistic measurements & thinking will give simplistic results. I & others already questioned the wisdom of using a 1KHz sinewave & FFT analysis of a playback system. It is as far removed from music as you can get & fails to stress the playback system & reveal it's dynamic distortions. Now using a non-dynamic test & measuring it with great precision in the frequency domain should make you realise it's limitations. Trying to compare the accuracy of such measurements to the ears ability in this is pretty immaterial to anything of importance. Hearing is not an FFT analyser - it produces a far more complex analysis of a dynamic signal in real-time - not a simple snapshot of a static signal. The ears are almost certainly sensing & paying more attention to other areas of the sound field which aren't revealed in simplistic FFTs
Note: The ears do not measure electrical signal, rather it's the illusion of the sound-field that is being sensed.
Last edited:
While many might agree in principle with the proposition that measurements are more sensitive than hearing, you (Tom) present no evidence (nor for that matter has anyone else, anywhere) correlating specific measurements with specific audio qualities. Richard Heyser made a start at that, and others like Floyd Toole and even John Atkinson keep taking and recording many different measurements of both transducers and electronics in the (presumed) hope that some correlations will emerge, but that hope is only rarely borne out.
Why harp on 2-channel stereo as the main culprit to accurate sound reproduction when we can't even get that right? How does adding more imperfect channels really get us closer to accurate sound reproduction?
Why harp on 2-channel stereo as the main culprit to accurate sound reproduction when we can't even get that right? How does adding more imperfect channels really get us closer to accurate sound reproduction?
While I admire Mr Olive for his training program, I have a few questions; 1st, how is the training administered? Is it in a controlled environment or self administered? If self administered over the computers, there might be problems. Once I took a test on my laptop which indicated I can hear 20khz but in actuality, I was hearing the distortion of my headphones. Also, if listening to a symphony over the computers, I am hard pressed to differentiate between the violin and viola and viola and cello. 2nd, how long is the training? It took me a long time for the violin. viola and cello. Initially, my system was not transparent enough and the viola and cello sound as one. After it was transparent enough, I still need the cue that it was above the cello to tell. Only after some time that I can do it. Listen to single instruments is quite easy but in a symphony not so if the placement cue is not there. 3rd, is there an exam? Is it geared towards minimum or high passing grade? The book I quoted says 10,000 hours to gain expertise and it was found that the rank and file violinists practiced far less than the 1st violin and the 1st less than the soloist. So, in this case who is the expert? 4th, there is a preference rating. This could be a double sword. How can you accurately predict one's preference? The guy who can only hear 10khz, 14khz, 18khz and 20khz respectively is going have a very different way of listening to the treble response. So is the guy who likes loose, accurate or overly tight bass. This is matter of degree not an exact science. Shouldn't the tester be trained rigorously to have no preference but IMHO, this cannot be achieved as we human listens differently.
People like Tom and Ethan will use the inconclusiveness to conclude that there is no difference but the reverse is also true because we do not have a standard that can stand scrutiny. Coupled with the findings of the paper in this thread and Amir's wrt to being able to hear into the noise floor (does this means those who hear a blacker black is not imagining things after all
,), all it tells us is that we are nowhere near to conclusively say we know all that is to know.I can't believe the old circular argument about how we can measure anything and everything and all measurements are better than our ears is still alive and well. Having the ability to take measurements is great. Knowing what to measure and how to interpret the data are quite something else. Outside of some people on this forum who claim otherwise, lots of intelligent people in this hobby including designers don't feel that we know all of the parameters that we could measure that will correlate with the sound that our ears hear. So saying that we can measure anything without admitting that we aren't sure of what should be measured and how to correlate those measurements with our hearing is disingenuous at best. Not everything is as simple as some people believe and would like others to believe as well.
Totally agree - my example of being able to measure the chemical composition of the body paint on a Porche says it another way - so what! - it's a complete red herring - tells us nothing about driving a Porche.
It's like someone so in love with their instruments & what they are capable of that they forget what to use them for.
Similar threads
