Measurements and the Correlation of What We Hear

[Gregadd]

It's sorta like when I was training for bike riding. All the metrics said I was in shape. Until I got in a race There was a mark difference between training shape and race shape. The metrics were the same but after a couple I was much faster.

 

[RogerD]

Who really buys on measurements alone, the answer is nobody. This whole argument is a red herring,the only time measurements are important is during the design and implementation phase. Any manufacturer of any size today uses computer modeling and voices their components today. How many look under the hood of their prospective equipment purchase,not many. I am more interested in the circuit topology and component quality.

When a piece of equipment is shipped back to the OEM to upgrade,how many ask "how did it measure",I think there would be a long pause,before a attempt at answering that one.

 

[fas42]

But two things we can't really argue about without slipping deep into denial are the effect that very small differences in volume have on the perception of quality, and the incredible brevity and frailty of human auditory memory. These phenomenon are very well studied and documented, and what they tell us is simple: if you have two audio sources set up to compare, even if you can switch between them very rapidly, if you didn't measure and balance the volume between those sources within .5 db or so, you don't know what you're hearing. Seriously. Unless you're talking about big distortions, completely unsubtle stuff that your grandma could hear, you're in the dark. And if you can measure and balance the volume, but you have to shut off one component, unplug it from your system, hook up the next component, power it up, measure the volume to balance with the first component, then listen and evaluate, you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing

Hooo boy! It's really time to pull out the hand grenades this morning ...

Tim, I totally, 100% disagree with you. When a system is working at the sort of level I've mentioned many times, volume becomes almost irrelevant. If a system can show the variations in quality you talk of with the level of manipulation of volume you refer to, then from where I'm standing there is something very wrong with the setup.

From your point of view I can understand why you're saying that. I certainly hear the distortion levels varying in many systems as they up and down volume, the attenuator is in effect a distortion gain control on the system as a whole. So in THAT sense it's perfectly valid to make the point that volume is crucial when assessing quality.

Frank

 

[mep]

Mark has a good point: It doesn't matter if everything can be measured when typically, very little is measured.

Mark, you're right. If it hasn't been measured, it doesn't matter if it can be measured. So your argument is no more valid than saying it can be measured, even if it never has been measured.
Tim

Tim-I was with you until your last sentence. It makes no sense to me. If you left out the word "no" from your last sentence, it would make sense and it would be true.

 

[mep]

Who really buys on measurements alone, the answer is nobody.

Roger-I agree that no one *probably* buys gear based on measurements alone. However, we do have people on this forum who keep claiming that everything we hear can be measured even though that feat has yet to be accomplished and they act like it is already an industry standard. We make our choices based on our faith in the company we buy from, the scant information we can glean from measurements provided by a magazine (and surely not the OEM because they don't provide any), and the spec sheet the company does provide.


What drives me up the wall is when people talk about what they hear with a given piece of gear and subjectivists jump up and down and demand proof through measurements that don't exist.

 

[RogerD]

Mark has a good point: It doesn't matter if everything can be measured when typically, very little is measured. There are a few folks out there, on the pro side and on the fringes of consumer audio journalism, who do pretty comprehensive measurements, but few of them get much audiophile attention and they don't cover nearly enough stuff to feed audiophile internet discussions. So the claim "if you can hear it you can measure it" has actually been supported relatively little.

The other side of that coin though is anyone can say "I hear this." Can he? Really? How do we know? How does he know? I think most of the people in this thread probably missed this post. It's incredibly insightful and got almost no reaction:



Thank you, andy.

We can argue for the rest of the year, and probably will, over the differences between tubes and SS, vinyl and digital, ad infinitum, etc. But two things we can't really argue about without slipping deep into denial are the effect that very small differences in volume have on the perception of quality, and the incredible brevity and frailty of human auditory memory. These phenomenon are very well studied and documented, and what they tell us is simple: if you have two audio sources set up to compare, even if you can switch between them very rapidly, if you didn't measure and balance the volume between those sources within .5 db or so, you don't know what you're hearing. Seriously. Unless you're talking about big distortions, completely unsubtle stuff that your grandma could hear, you're in the dark. And if you can measure and balance the volume, but you have to shut off one component, unplug it from your system, hook up the next component, power it up, measure the volume to balance with the first component, then listen and evaluate, you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Mark, you're right. If it hasn't been measured, it doesn't matter if it can be measured. On the other hand, if you haven't carefully controlled the listening to eliminate for volume differences and lapses in auditory memory (and, yes, expectation bias), you haven't heard it either. So your argument is no more valid than saying it can be measured, even if it never has been measured.

So....what do we talk about now? We all may have just bought ourselves a lot of free time.

Tim

I talk about,the volume level does not need to be matched perfectly. There are certain ques or markers to listen for and clarity is the least volume dependent. If you have great clarity,you probably have excellent dynamics. The degree of ambient information is more dependent on the speaker system. A excellent preamp with increased volume will expand the scale of the reproduction without effecting the clarity. Increased volume should always optimise a system(reasonable levels).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hooo boy! It's really time to pull out the hand grenades this morning ...

Tim, I totally, 100% disagree with you. When a system is working at the sort of level I've mentioned many times, volume becomes almost irrelevant.

Well, that's no surprise, Frank. Your position has been consistently in denial of science so far. No reason to believe you would suddenly embrace it because we're now talking about well-accepted knowledge regarding hearing, not just audio engineering.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I was with you until your last sentence. It makes no sense to me. If you left out the word "no" from your last sentence, it would make sense and it would be true.

Of course, Mark, but if all I had said is what you quoted above, minus the "no," I would have made no points regarding the effects of minor volume variations on perceptions of quality or the brevity of auditory memory and how they relate to what audiophiles seem to think they hear. I would have given my unqualified and un-nuanced endorsement of the point you're trying to make with this thread.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

Roger-I agree that no one *probably* buys gear based on measurements alone. However, we do have people on this forum who keep claiming that everything we hear can be measured even though that feat has yet to be accomplished and they act like it is already an industry standard. We make our choices based on our faith in the company we buy from, the scant information we can glean from measurements provided by a magazine (and surely not the OEM because they don't provide any), and the spec sheet the company does provide.


What drives me up the wall is when people talk about what they hear with a given piece of gear and subjectivists jump up and down and demand proof through measurements that don't exist.

Mark,

Just think,those poor souls that "need" measurements will wonder endlessly in the abyss. If I relied on measurements,I would never make changes or experiment with my system.

 

[fas42]

Well, that's no surprise, Frank. Your position has been consistently in denial of science so far. No reason to believe you would suddenly embrace it because we're now talking about well-accepted knowledge regarding hearing, not just audio engineering.

Tim

Luckily, I don't deny my ears, they are the final arbiters of what's right and what's wrong, as they are for most people here. If you choose to believe in the men in white coats that's fine, but knowledge and understanding frequently has come via other people, at lower levels of authority.

Roger in his last post very precisely stated my point of view about volume with somewhat less fervour than myself: there are a significant number of people who have experienced, and believe otherwise from what the gurus proclaim, they just tend to keep their heads down and speak quietly, for "fear" of being given a backhander by those with strongly opposing views ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Mark,

Just think,those poor souls that "need" measurements will wonder endlessly in the abyss. If I relied on measurements,I would never make changes or experiment with my system.

Roger, it's actually very simple. We talk to the people who have the expensive measuring gear, convince them of our point of view via demonstration, and they will then proclaim of having made a major breakthrough in understanding. All the audiophiles will then come running in their hordes to drink from the new font of knowlege, the dust will settle with people having better systems, and the audio world can move on to the next challenge ...

Frank

 

[microstrip]

(...)

We can argue for the rest of the year, and probably will, over the differences between tubes and SS, vinyl and digital, ad infinitum, etc. But two things we can't really argue about without slipping deep into denial are the effect that very small differences in volume have on the perception of quality, and the incredible brevity and frailty of human auditory memory. These phenomenon are very well studied and documented, and what they tell us is simple: if you have two audio sources set up to compare, even if you can switch between them very rapidly, if you didn't measure and balance the volume between those sources within .5 db or so, you don't know what you're hearing. Seriously. Unless you're talking about big distortions, completely unsubtle stuff that your grandma could hear, you're in the dark. And if you can measure and balance the volume, but you have to shut off one component, unplug it from your system, hook up the next component, power it up, measure the volume to balance with the first component, then listen and evaluate, you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Tim,
Only disbelieve in the long term listening perception and statistical analysis of listening pleasure can explain such remarks. The two factors you highlighted are very true, and this obsession with very rigid conditions is very nice for challenges, but IMHO is not applicable for real conditions of equipment selection, that is the real part of the audiophile decision.

Believe it or not, there is no quick way of selecting equipment. You have to slowly make your decision, based on multiple listening sessions with many recordings. There is a strong risk of being influenced by biasing expectation, and good listening practices can help, but risk is part of the selection process and this hobby.

Peter Walker of Quad once referred that each recording in each system has a unique optimum volume level for best recreation of the illusion of the real - he even stated that this level depends mainly on how the recording was done. When listening to systems, I usual try to find this volume. May be it is easier for the type of music I listen (classical, chamber, ancient music, jazz and acoustic).

 

[mauidan]

Just think,those poor souls that "need" measurements will wonder endlessly in the abyss. If I relied on measurements,I would never make changes or experiment with my system.

Good point.

How'd those BGs work out?

 

[fas42]

Peter Walker of Quad once referred that each recording in each system has a unique optimum volume level for best recreation of the illusion of the real - he even stated that this level depends mainly on how the recording was done. When listening to systems, I usual try to find this volume. May be it is easier for the type of music I listen (classical, chamber, ancient music, jazz and acoustic).

Not the usual +1, or even +12, but rather -1, -12, even -100 ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
Only disbelieve in the long term listening perception and statistical analysis of listening pleasure can explain such remarks. The two factors you highlighted are very true, and this obsession with very rigid conditions is very nice for challenges, but IMHO is not applicable for real conditions of equipment selection, that is the real part of the audiophile decision.

Believe it or not, there is no quick way of selecting equipment. You have to slowly make your decision, based on multiple listening sessions with many recordings. There is a strong risk of being influenced by biasing expectation, and good listening practices can help, but risk is part of the selection process and this hobby.

Peter Walker of Quad once referred that each recording in each system has a unique optimum volume level for best recreation of the illusion of the real - he even stated that this level depends mainly on how the recording was done. When listening to systems, I usual try to find this volume. May be it is easier for the type of music I listen (classical, chamber, ancient music, jazz and acoustic).

I've heard all of that many, many times before, micro. I used to believe it myself. Then I tested it, and it simply vanished.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Luckily, I don't deny my ears, they are the final arbiters of what's right and what's wrong,

So if I don't agree with you, I must not actually listen, I only believe in measurements, I do not trust my ears. Duplicitous old straw man argument: Reposition the opponent into a place so weak and absurd that even your totally unsubstantiated argument will look credible in comparison. Never mind that he never said anything of the sort.

You'd make a fine American Congressman, Frank.

This has gone the only place it really could go; to a dead-end street filled with repetitive protests, baseless theories, and no substance. Ya'll have fun.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

I do enjoy reading these discussions. On one hand you have folks who don't understand electronics claiming that we are not measuring everything and the other those who do understand electronics claiming we do.


Tom

Well first of all you start out with an incorrect assertation and then go downhill from there.

Isn't it too bad that our ears don't work like a test instrument?

 

[Gregadd]

I thought Steve closed the amplifier thread.

 

[fas42]

So if I don't agree with you, I must not actually listen, I only believe in measurements, I do not trust my ears. Duplicitous old straw man argument: Reposition the opponent into a place so weak and absurd that even your totally unsubstantiated argument will look credible in comparison. Never mind that he never said anything of the sort.

You'd make a fine American Congressman, Frank.

This has gone the only place it really could go; to a dead-end street filled with repetitive protests, baseless theories, and no substance. Ya'll have fun.

Tim

Tim, contrary to what some may think, I really appreciate your vigorous input into the debate: as you and many others have pointed out many times, it is very hard to see where individuals are coming from in a forum situation, we can't actually sense what each person's audio experience is in their own environment. As a starting point, you would need a number of audio systems set up, with highly variable replay capabilities, and have everyone have a listen and make judgement on their respective qualities. No surprises, there would be widely different opinions, even with the same sound directly in front of them. Because of all sorts of reasons: expectations, hearing, experiences, etc, etc.

The very same thing happened to me in an audio club situation: 2 very different systems were played, the first which created/retrieved a very airy, realistic ambience of the recording space, nicely holographic in character, the second the classic hifi sound, in your face, intense, sharp, the sound obviously coming straight at you from the drivers. I turned to one of the leading lights of the club, who does reviews for a well known audio website, and said, "Remarkable how the second failed to get anywhere near the first in SQ", and he said, "What do you mean? Obviously the second is the better system!".

After recovering from falling off my chair, I pondered this. In hindsight, this was all about expectation: the second system behaved exactly like a conventional setup was supposed to behave, and therefore was the better system: it delivered an anticipated, desired result. The first system was disturbing, it was being "unnatural", therefore was wrong.

So we may still have quite some way to go ...

Frank

 

[RogerD]

it's too bad it always ends this way. How so many people can have so many collective years in this hobby and have such polarization, nothing ever changes. We all have different experiences and it is possible,most probable to identify each category. Science cannot be denied,but this is a fun hobby,filled with enjoyment and a richer life. In this hobby experimentation for me provides the spice. I for one want a full plate and the food better not taste bland,but that's up to the Chef and I'm the chef.