Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[Phelonious Ponk]

Seriously Ethan, get off the fence for once. Do you really believe that everything there is to know about the reproduction of sound is known, measured and already understood? That is the only instance where there can be any sort of standard lexicon. Barring that, there is simply no choice but to use language that is illustrative if not technically acceptable. The engineering vocabulary grows minute by minute yet you say all can be explained.

So do you?

I'm not Ethan, but I think the fence may be the appropriate place to stand on this issue. Or at least the middle way - somewhere between there is nothing left to learn and we have learned nothing of significance, therefore we can make up the terms, and the reality, as we go along. Some favorites?

"Musical." Music is musical. Audio equipment is reproductive. People who don't understand this are not expanding the vocabulary of the hobby, they're completely missing the point.

"Warm" would be every bit as meaningless as musical if it had not been consistently attached to a particular coloration, the proponents of which absolutely refuse to admit is a coloration and, in fact, insist it is more "natural," another meaningless bit of poetry in the context of conversations about a technology thats purpose is to re-produce what is already a false construct with the greatest possible accuracy.

"PRaT," or Pace, Rhythm and Timing. As if an amplifier or DAC can actually change the tempo of the music without being so horribly distorted that your grandmother could ID the problem with dead hearing aid batteries.

Really. Sometimes it's just too much.

P

 

[JackD201]

Somehow it's apt that this discussion is happening here. The professional community and the audiophile community both have their own jargon. Ethan would have us believe I think that in the pro world everybody talks like a electronic engineering professor. I'm telling you now that it just isn't the case when qualitative decisions are being made. If you think audiophile jargon is bad go visit the pro boards and see for yourself. The only times audiophile speak gets tiresome are when they are used for hype and when they are used so loosely that one comes away with absolutely no idea of what the writer was saying. Come to think of it, it's the same for any subject where one's perceptions are attempted to be communicated to another. Whether it's about food, drink, visual arts, a pretty woman, or a UFO there will always be something lost in translation.

When in Sweden for an IT conference we were told that the estimated amount of raw data humans receive from our five senses is about 1Gbps. Much of which is filtered out depending on what the individual chooses to focus on. Now tell me P, without a direct connection from your brain to mine, tell me what you hear in even a thousand words.

That's why I strongly believe that all of this "standard" speak of Ethan is nothing but pretentious hogwash. Okay I'm being a bit mean here but I will eat my pride and swallow my foot if he can communicate to anybody here just exactly how his JBL monitors sound using the very standards he supposedly promotes.

I'm all ears.

 

[Gregadd]

JackD201-I think you have it all wrong. Its' existence has been decreed non- existent. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[JackD201]

What are we talking about again?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My Sennheiser headphones begin rolling off slowly at about 100hz, are down about 3db at 60hz, 12db at 40hz. They roll off rather sharply above 18khz. From 100hz to 18khz, they are essentially flat. So, other than very deep bass that is a moot point for headphone listening, and that stuff above 18khz that your 14-year-old daughter and your bird dog can pick up, what I hear is the recording.

I think that might be less than 1000 words.

The difference between my Senns and another pair of "essentially flat" reference headphones like the AKG 701s? Show me good, comprehensive FR measurements and I suspect I could describe it to you in the same terms. The difference between my ears, my perception, and yours? Irrelevant if you're trying to communicate anything meaningful to another person.

Speakers? A much more difficult task, and an essentially futile one, because what I hear, in the near field, in my room, will be very different from what you hear in your room. Ask Ethan about that one.

Electronics? They are even more predictable than headphones, and describing their sound, relative to comprehensive measurements, should be a pretty easy task, and pretty predictable of listening results, at least when listening through good headphones with half a chance of revealing the subtle differences. Unfortunately, too many audiophile components are deliberately colored and do not exhibit anything close to the low noise, low distortion and flat frequency response that even the better midfi does. Audiophiles love the way they look, feel and even sound, however, and are very reluctant to admit that their preference is not objectively superior, so we have invented language to describe their virtues in a manner that is separate from the more objective data that doesn't suit our perceptions.

Thus the usual pile of warm, musical, euphonic PRaT.

With all of that said, this is the way I look at audio. YMMV, of course. And to be brutally honest with myself, if the best, most complete measurements I've seen hadn't supported my point of view as well as they have, I'd probably jump the fence. But they did, and what I like happens to measure very well, not the other way around. So I am, unsurprisingly, a believer in measurement. Except...and I think this is very important...all bets are off when it comes to speakers, because so few people, myself included, have sufficiently treated rooms.

P

 

[JackD201]

Why P, I had no idea you spent so much time listening to test tones!

I'm just teasing. So seriously when you listen to MUSIC you are breaking it down in Hz? You see a spectrum analyzer when you close your eyes?

This is the thing that bothers me about measurement hounds. No offense meant. When I listen to music I try to listen to the instruments and the people that play them. I'd like to think that I am part of the greater majority. Music is not composed with a waveform and musicians do not count time in milliseconds. Music is about discipline, talent and precision but it is none the less best when performed sans a friggin metronome. That is the musical angle of appreciation that is not covered by the lab tech geekery. As far as I'm concerned it is ALL about preference. What I prefer or what makes me feel good is superior to what doesn't. Mine being inferior in somebody else's eyes one way or another doesn't matter. It isn't a competition.

So when your Senns begin to roll off at 100Hz what musical events are being truncated? At -12dB what events have become totally masked?

More importantly, if I asked you if the Senns are good and if I should get a pair, I still would have no idea about what it is you heard. What you gave me weren't any more useful to me than had I downloaded the specs of your headphones. It tells me absolutely nothing about how they performed with actual music playing. It tells me absolutely nothing about how you as a person reacted to the music and if your reaction was something I could relate to. All it told me was that you are of the Signal Cult and you actually think you know what the recording's sound ultimately is.

There is no way to hear "the TRUE recording". Playback will always be nothing more than a VERSION of it. While it can be preserved to a very great degree inside the signal path, all hell breaks loose when those voltage swings are converted back into kinetic energy. As such, EVERYTHING is colored whether we like it or not. Think about it. What you imagine to be neutral is a coloration of it's own.

Even Ethan with his graphs makes a big deal about measurements taken inches apart. So where's that pure signal now? All it proves is Einstein was right about relativity.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Why P, I had no idea you spent so much time listening to test tones!

I'm just teasing. So seriously when you listen to MUSIC you are breaking it down in Hz? You see a spectrum analyzer when you close your eyes?

I don't own any measurement equipment; you've missed the point.

This is the thing that bothers me about measurement hounds. No offense meant. When I listen to music I try to listen to the instruments and the people that play them.

Of course you do, so do I. This conversation isn't about what we listen to/for, it's about how to communicate what we hear effectively in words.

I'd like to think that I am part of the greater majority. Music is not composed with a waveform and musicians do not count time in milliseconds. Music is about discipline, talent and precision but it is none the less best when performed sans a friggin metronome. That is the musical angle of appreciation that is not covered by the lab tech geekery.

See my comment above. Or the one above that.

As far as I'm concerned it is ALL about preference. What I prefer or what makes me feel good is superior to what doesn't. Mine being inferior in somebody else's eyes one way or another doesn't matter. It isn't a competition.

I agree completely. But If I'm trying to tell you what my Senns sound like, it is meaningful and relevant to say that they don't reproduce much below 60hz. Yes, It might be even more meaningful to tell you that they lose the very soft bottom end of a stand-up bass, not enough to lose the note or the performance, but enough to lose the deepest foundation of the tone. I'll throw that in next time. What would be totally useless, utterly meaningless would be for me to say that they are more musical than AKG 701s, or that 701s have more PRaT than the Senns. That, I believe, is the point that you're missing.

So when your Senns begin to roll off at 100Hz what musical events are being truncated? At -12dB what events have become totally masked?

See the comment above.

More importantly, if I asked you if the Senns are good and if I should get a pair, I still would have no idea about what it is you heard.

Perhaps. I was admittedly short-winded. But even with the bit I gave you, you could look up the frequency ranges of instruments and voices and figure it out. If I told you they were warm, musical, euphonic, you would have even less of an idea of what I heard.

What you gave me weren't any more useful to me than had I downloaded the specs of your headphones.

Essentially true, though I gave you independent data, not the manufacturer's. It is arguably more reliable. The point, the one you are still missing, is that good, thorough specs are a much better indicator of what a piece of audio gear will sound like than the invented audiophile vocabulary, which has absolutely no base, no reference, so that each description, each word, can mean almost anything to anyone and nothing to everyone else.

It tells me absolutely nothing about how you as a person reacted to the music and if your reaction was something I could relate to.

And neither would "musical, euphonic, warm and PRaT." They would just manage to tell you less about how they might sound to you.

There is no way to hear "the TRUE recording". Playback will always be nothing more than a VERSION of it. While it can be preserved to a very great degree inside the signal path, all hell breaks loose when those voltage swings are converted back into kinetic energy. As such, EVERYTHING is colored whether we like it or not. Think about it. What you imagine to be neutral is a coloration of it's own.

True to a point. Most recordings themselves are very colored, so even if we had the opportunity to listen to the master in the mastering suite (to bring us back to topic) it's an imperfect world and even the reference of the original instrument, the original event, is invalid. The only reference is the signal, the only goal (for me anyway) is the faithful reproduction of the signal. That is, by the way, a musical goal. Why? Because I enjoy a very wide variety of recordings from early analog to contemporary and compressed. I don't want to color them all with the same brush any more than I absolutely have to. That makes this measurement thing pretty important. Particularly in electronics. As you say, all hell breaks loose when we get to transducers. I just fail to see the point in introducing hell any earlier in the process. If I can't avoid coloration in transducers, let me choose my color there, and minimize it. If you want to add color where it is unnecessary because you like it, enjoy. But let's not pretend that we're still talking about high fidelity when you do.

Even Ethan with his graphs makes a big deal about measurements taken inches apart. So where's that pure signal now?

Compromised. This is why I listen to electronics that measure very well, that often seem to disappear into my signal chain. It's why I listen in the near field. It's why I love headphones. If I had a large room to dedicate to listening, I'd probably put in bigger speakers and extensive room treatments. Instead, I have a wife and family.

P

 

[Ethan Winer]

Do you really believe that everything there is to know about the reproduction of sound is known, measured and already understood?

Yes!

Now, perception is something else, and that's a continuing project for researchers. But basic audio fidelity has been totally understood for 50 years or longer. As I've said many times, if there were more to audio fidelity, we'd have seen it years ago as a residual from a null test. The only exception to my "four parameters" is lossy compression. Why? Because 1) it changes fidelity dynamically in a way that's more difficult to measure, and 2) its success (or not) relies on human perception.

there is simply no choice but to use language that is illustrative if not technically acceptable. The engineering vocabulary grows minute by minute yet you say all can be explained.

I don't have a problem with words like bright and dull because they convey relative levels of HF content. Same for tubby and boomy etc for the low end, and maybe even grungy for distorted. But PRaT and "musical" convey nothing. Especially PRaT because those terms already have a different musical meaning that is already standard.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

The professional community and the audiophile community both have their own jargon.

Actually, the pro audio community has been dumbed down enough over the past 10+ years that the dividing line is now pretty blurry.

The only times audiophile speak gets tiresome are when ... they are used so loosely that one comes away with absolutely no idea of what the writer was saying.

As is the case for much of the audiophile vocabulary. Please define "musical" for us, being as clear as possible and leaving no room for interpretation.

Whether it's about food, drink, visual arts, a pretty woman, or a UFO there will always be something lost in translation.

I agree there. But audio fidelity is a metric, not a subjective opinion. Now, you might like this speaker's coloration more than that one's, but the difference can be better conveyed using more technical terms. The obvious (to me) solution is for audiophiles to learn more about the technical side of their hobby! Then they can use the correct terms. A friend of mine is an expert avid but amateur photographer. He uses the terms shutter speed, aperture, and F stop etc just like a pro would. Grown-ups don't use the word pee-pee when talking to their urologist either.

I will eat my pride and swallow my foot if he can communicate to anybody here just exactly how his JBL monitors sound using the very standards he supposedly promotes.

I'd use words similar to Mr. Ponk when he described his headphones. Just as I'd describe the limitations of my camera by stating its sensor size which affects the depth of field range. But just to satisfy you:

My JBL are decidedly forward sounding, a bit shouty even. Yet they still sparkle with clarity and sheen having little excess bloom. The low end is full yet tight, due in large part to all the bass traps in my room.

Happy now Jack?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

When I listen to music I try to listen to the instruments and the people that play them.

LOL, yep, just as I do too.

Playback will always be nothing more than a VERSION of it. While it can be preserved to a very great degree inside the signal path, all hell breaks loose when those voltage swings are converted back into kinetic energy. As such, EVERYTHING is colored whether we like it or not.

Absolutely, which is why using the correct technical terms conveys that coloration more accurately and with less room for misinterpretation than the usual audiophile prose.

Even Ethan with his graphs makes a big deal about measurements taken inches apart. So where's that pure signal now?

Those different responses are due to reflections that in turn depend on the size, shape, and surface materials of the room you're listening in. The last thing anyone wants is for an audio product reviewer to have his gear opinions influenced by the sound of his own room, which surely will not sound the same as your room.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

pro-gear is what spawns the music that we decode from the cd, airwaves, whatever. No matter what we think of it, there is no denying that fact. So, how can you make an original pro-gear signal "better" with audiophile gear as opposed to "changing" it.

My friend DUP often points out that the recordings audiophiles love were made using normal pro-grade wire, with gear connected to normal AC power cords, and none of the wires were on cable elevators. Yet some audiophiles still believe they can somehow improve on those recordings by using various magical tweaks.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ethan Winer is my new hero.

P

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Meanwhile we are very far away from a very interesting subject in itself ... The value and use of Pro Gear as compared to the usual "audiophile" gear.. The thread started with interesting info concerning some components that would bring the SOTA to our home at a more palatable price .. Gear like some Behringer (!!!) cheapo but good powered speakers at about $250 the pair ..etc as compared to the usual approach ..etc .... Time to get back toward that wouldn't you think ? mhhh? The Thread topic ? I also do think it would be wise to open a new thread on the debate at hand as it is mighty interesting ...

I am starting a new thread here at the request of one of the moderators based on a recent posting elsewhere in this forum.

I think that one of the most remarkable audio movements that has gone largely unnoticed by audiophiles, is the recent proliferation of powered monitor speakers that are now in common use by the amateur and professional music recording communities alike. As most folks know, it takes little more than a Mac and Garage Band software (or the fancier Logic Pro, Pro-tools etc.) to have a fairly competent home-made digital recording studio at a modest cost. Essential to these digital studios are monitor speakers and there is now a plethora of speakers that have built in active crossovers and dedicated amplifiers for each driver that are commonly used in this setting. The big secret is just how damn good these are for the money. I would love to see TAS or Stereophile take some of these on in a critical review. Some monitors with surprisingly hi-tech features such as ribbon tweeters and built in amps are available for around $250 each (i.e. Behringer Truth B3031A, Adam Audio A5). Regarding the latter, Adam displayed its larger home audio speakers at CES last year so this is a company that straddles both markets. For speakers in the $500+ price class, speakers such as the KRK VXT 6 and the Genelec 8040 are available. How many audiophiles know about these? I do remember seeing a review of a KRK speaker in one of the journals a few years ago and can't recall who did it exactly, but to my mind, its an area that deserves more publishing attention. The value here is simply unprecedented. I am using the KRK VXT6 with my digital work station and no, it doesn't compete with my big rig but it is 1/100th the price, very enjoyable to listen to and it holds its own admirably! I'd not only love to see more of these amplified monitors reviewed, but I'd love to see shoot-outs with comparably priced non-amplified gear (i.e. the Genelec 8040 vs a pair of PSB speakers plus a Rotel amp etc.). You get the idea. The floor is open for comments.......

 

[Gregadd]

Ethan read what you wrote and I don't think I saw one technical term. When it comes to describing what you hear Harry Pearson wrote the book. No one else even comes close. The fact that you can describe things the lay person can't really does not mean anything. When I go to the Dr. I don't tell him I have a valve obstruction in my heart. I tell him I have chest pains and difficulty breathing. He then tells me I need an angiogram or a triple bypass. If I tell my psychiatrist sometimes I can't get out of my bed, I can't sleep, don't have any appetite. Then other times I have a ravenous appetite,sleep like a baby, and feel like I can take on the world. He then tells me you are probably bipolar take these pills and you'll feel fine. Sometimes I tell him I just don't feel good. That cost me me money because he has to do a lot of broad spectrum tests to find out what's wrong.( I hope I did not offend you Steve) The point is my complaints are no less valid because I failed to use medical terminology. My clients come in my office. I say What happened? I got arrested. What did you do? Nothing. I take it from there.

My JBL are decidedly forward sounding, a bit shouty even. Yet they still sparkle with clarity and sheen having little excess bloom. The low end is full yet tight, due in large part to all the bass traps in my room.
Forward sounding we use to call that presence, it usually means a peak in the midrange. Shouty- might be to an ehcho or slap effect in yuor room. Clarity and sheen maybe a peak in the high frequency. Full and tight probably means it has flat frequency response and has good transient response. even if I'm wrong I can easily look it up in a book.

As a lawyer I can have great discussion about the law with lay persons. At any moment I can escalate the discussion to a point where they have no idea what I'm talking about. Does that make thier point any less valid?
What does musical mean? Do you really believe I can't describe it? Or are you just jerking my chain. As well read in audio as you no doubt are, that is audiophile 101. There is a difference between accepting a definition and knowing what it means. I think it would be more productive to say I know what musical means. I just don't think it has any scientific validity. For example I know what reverse racism means. I just don''t think it has any validity.
Am I ging to become an expert just to rove you wrong. Idon't think so.

You say measurements can tell everything. Maybe you are right. They have not done it so far.I say you have seriously left me wanting. You have a lot of work to do. If you can bake a better cake from a recipe than my grandma could from scratch, I say bake that cake. Meanwhile I'll be at grandmas enjoying Sunday dinner.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi

Meanwhile we are very far away from a very interesting subject in itself ... The value and use of Pro Gear as compared to the usual "audiophile" gear.. The thread started with interesting info concerning some components that would bring the SOTA to our home at a more palatable price .. Gear like some Behringer (!!!) cheapo but good powered speakers at about $250 the pair ..etc as compared to the usual approach ..etc .... Time to get back toward that wouldn't you think ? mhhh? The Thread topic ? I also do think it would be wise to open a new thread on the debate at hand as it is mighty interesting ...

At the other end of the economic street from the humble Behringers, though still a bargain by audiophile standards. And a link to reviews of many active monitors:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan10/articles/barefootmicromain27.htm

More here:

http://mixguides.com/studiomonitors/

P

 

[RUR]

I find it oddly entertaining that the gents on Gearslutz debate the merits of various studio monitors using much the same subjective terminology as we home audio consumers. Same "How can you comment on these speakers if you haven't heard them?", and many other familiar phrases in evidence, as well. All aspects of the Circle of Confusion appear alive and well.

 

[JackD201]

Ethan,

Musical. Personally I don't use the term because everybody seems to have his version of it. However, If person A and person B can associate a sound or set of qualities with the term, what difference is there between you and me understanding each other when you say forward or shouty other than it being cryptic?

My JBL are decidedly forward sounding, a bit shouty even. Yet they still sparkle with clarity and sheen having little excess bloom. The low end is full yet tight, due in large part to all the bass traps in my room.

What exactly is standard and scientifically acceptable here? Satisfied? I guess not.

Looks every bit the audiophile prose you like to bash from where I'm standing. Granted it's from the more widely accepted and understood part but prose none the less. At least one of the terms was coined by a reclusive ed-in-chief. My point is in time, whether we like it or not (I'm on record for absolutely hating the term PRAT - I do believe it is a linguistic crime) some words and terms we hate may be as clearly illustrative as any of the terms we use now. Like I said I hate the term prat but I know what people mean when they use it. Now you and I both know how to make prat happen with the twist of a couple of knobs on a board don't we.


As for the Pro world being dumbed down. Puh-lease. You are a recording engineer, I am part owner of a media and broadcasting network. Musicians and producers do not tell our engineers what they want in metrics. Just like a good operating system that's got to work in the back ground. How many times has a producer even resulted in using hand gestures to convey the FEELING that they are after. All this has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy or calibration of our monitoring systems or the acoustics of our control rooms. It is ASSUMED that we had done our part to assure that that part is well covered. This should be a GIVEN for any outfit worth it's salt. They come in and our job is to give them the sound they want within reason of course if your name goes on the credits.

Now we're talking about communication. Clearly you and P speak the same language so good for you. Pat each other on the back. You're his new hero now. Enjoy and bask in the adulation. The fact remains however that much as you like to bash certain terms, with a little effort that prose can be translated into a metrics and thus can be consistently repeatable. That you haven't should be no reason to try. All you have to do is ask what the person means by "musical". It may not be a universal understanding of the term but if that person is your client I'm sure that singular understanding gains considerable significance.

As for the acoustics lecture. Thanks but I am US certified. Like I said a proper acoustic environment is a given to me. I don't even talk about it. Like plugging in that source into the socket, it's just another thing that has to be done. I approach every review with a grain of salt in large part because I know for certain his room is different. He may even have gross anomalies. So much so that if the reviewer posts pics of his room and it shows that it's treated, that grain of salt stays just as large. Acoustics or not I am not easily swayed by reviews. I can however take the word of folks whose biases I know especially if they know mine.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan read what you wrote and I don't think I saw one technical term.

Calling my speakers shouty was a joke. As I said above, normally I'd use the type of terms P. Ponk did when describing his headphones. There's a popular "audio book" course for budding mix engineers that trains people to recognize frequency ranges. Anyone who's played with an equalizer can do the same thing. You quickly learn what a 1 KHz cut sound like, and the difference between boosting 100 Hz versus 200 Hz. It's not always easy to nail frequencies exactly by ear, but you can get a broad sense of the different ranges. So from my perspective, that makes more sense when describing the sound of loudspeakers or other devices that are typically not flat.

Forward sounding we use to call that presence, it usually means a peak in the midrange. Shouty- might be to an ehcho or slap effect in yuor room. Clarity and sheen maybe a peak in the high frequency. Full and tight probably means it has flat frequency response and has good transient response. even if I'm wrong I can easily look it up in a book.

That's exactly my point! Why use silly words like "musical" and PRaT when we already have much better, and more precise words?

What does musical mean? Do you really believe I can't describe it? Or are you just jerking my chain.

I never jerk anyone's chain, though sometimes I make jokes. But this is no joke. Please define "musical," as applied to audio gear, in a way that is clear and complete and means the same thing to everyone.

You say measurements can tell everything. Maybe you are right. They have not done it so far.

Yes, measurements can tell us everything about fidelity, assuming the right things are measured. Why do you think they can't? This is a serious question. But again, I'm talking about gear fidelity, not perception or subjective preference.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Looks every bit the audiophile prose you like to bash from where I'm standing.

As I said, that was meant as a joke.

How many times has a producer even resulted in using hand gestures to convey the FEELING that they are after. All this has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy or calibration of our monitoring systems or the acoustics of our control rooms.

Yes! But that is about the emotion and feeling of a performance, where all I've addressed are the terms used to define audio fidelity. Have I been unclear about that?

As for the acoustics lecture. Thanks but I am US certified.

I didn't mean to sound like I was lecturing.

--Ethan

 

[Gregadd]

Calling my speakers shouty was a joke. As I said above, normally I'd use the type of terms P. Ponk did when describing his headphones. There's a popular "audio book" course for budding mix engineers that trains people to recognize frequency ranges. Anyone who's played with an equalizer can do the same thing. You quickly learn what a 1 KHz cut sound like, and the difference between boosting 100 Hz versus 200 Hz. It's not always easy to nail frequencies exactly by ear, but you can get a broad sense of the different ranges. So from my perspective, that makes more sense when describing the sound of loudspeakers or other devices that are typically not flat.

No response necessary.



That's exactly my point! Why use silly words like "musical" and PRaT when we already have much better, and more precise words?

Calling people silly is not productive. See my explanation above. They are not professionals and describe things as best they can based on the information they have. If they knew everything they would not have to hire professionals like you and me.


I never jerk anyone's chain, though sometimes I make jokes. But this is no joke. Please define "musical," as applied to audio gear, in a way that is clear and complete and means the same thing to everyone.

I suppose that it is a matter of semantics. Was that you or someone else who included a busted amplifier in a DBT test? To me that is jerking someones chain. Maybe to you its' a joke. Tomato, "Tomahtoe". It really does not matter.

Before I embark on the quest of defining musicality could you please help me. BTW I have no ability set a standard for the whole audio world. I can tell you what it means to me. If you or anyone else wants to make a standard fine.

The problem I have Ethan, and I have said this before. is I never know whether you are upset by the fialure to use proper nomenclature or you doubt that phonemenom exists at all. Therefore before I define musicality please answer my question. Do you not know what it means or do you claim it is non-existent?



Yes, measurements can tell us everything about fidelity, assuming the right things are measured. Why do you think they can't? This is a serious question. But again, I'm talking about gear fidelity, not perception or subjective preference.

The whole point of music reproduction is not to have perfect measurements or scientific theory. Nothing matters if you can't give the perception of real music to the listener. You may want to eliminate the human element but you can't. That is the only thing that matters. You call it perception or subjective preference. I call it qualitative analysis. A perfectly valid scientific methodology. Dr. Sean Olive uses what he claims is a scientific method to test for what? Listener preference.
I am open to your claim that everything can be measured. My point is as far I know it has not been done yet.Nor would I expect the lay person to perform those tests. For example please tell me what measurement I would look at to tell me what my speakers imaging characteristics are. To be as clear as possible - imaging means the spatial relationship between the musicians.

Agiain I am open to anything you want to tell me about the correlation between what I hear and scientific measurements. Subject to your own brand of skepticism of course. BTW telling me iIm biased or "in love with distortion" really does not help me any.

--Ethan

Wishing you well and enjoy the music.