State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[MarcelNL]

Unfortunately stereo science is a mostly a perceptual science, that has its proper methods, that can surely include technical measurements. We can't debate it using just physics and engineering.

I think we agree on this one

 

[tima]

I think just as important as how quickly the system can change its just as important WHEN to actually correct. This is what the Japanese figured out with control systems related to audio. Do it too suddenly or frequently and it impacts negatively the sound. This is why Brinkmann’s DD uses high mass and low torque as does Primary Control…slow changes seem to be less audible.

My guess is that assessment of the platter speed is continuous. The Monaco's software has predictive ability and changes are very small. Correction is maybe once or twice per side. I read comments talking about jitter that give the impression it is constant and irregular - don't know where that idea comes from.

 

[PeterA]

The real answer is that if resources were directed to such subjects many things could be measured and studied. However no one will spend a single cent on systematic knowledge of turntable sound - manufacturers will just focus on their particular preference. So we keep discussing our sound preferences, as you say.

The “real” answer? Who says?

 

[morricab]

Niels Bohr said that nothing exists until it has been measured.

For sure the universe as we know it exists only as a construct in our minds formed from eons of feedback from our senses geared for our survival…true reality don’t and probably cannot know

 

[tima]

ah yes no access to das Ding an Sich - only phenomena for you !

 

[morricab]

My guess is that assessment of the platter speed is continuous. The Monaco's software has predictive ability and changes are very small. Correction is maybe once or twice per side. I read comments talking about jitter that give the impression it is constant and irregular - don't know where that idea comes from.

Yes I think they are measuring several thousand times per revolution...what the software does with that in terms of speed correction is somewhat unknown I guess as they are probably not keen to give out that info. It is a critical aspect of how DD TTs with DC motors work properly...or not. No regulation at all would be at the mercy of drift and groove drag...even if the mass of the platter is high. Having a great motor is very important (do you know exactly what is used in the Monaco?)... I have found that coreless/slotless motors or what Pioneer/Exclusive came up with (not sure how it works exactly but I think they called it linear induction motor) but without a sophisticated control it won't solve all the problems.

 

[tima]

Yes I think they are measuring several thousand times per revolution...what the software does with that in terms of speed correction is somewhat unknown I guess as they are probably not keen to give out that info.

Faster than that. 1.8 seconds for a revolution. The 2.0 reports platter speed to it's controller 166,289 reads per second. So not quite 300,000 reads per revolution. It has a 40 mips computer - a little more than an Intel 80486/75 DX4. It's hard to grasp these numbers. Digital in the service of analog. Alvin would not talk about the controller software.

The motor is custom built, coreless, slotless.

Cool pictures, Brad.

 

[microstrip]

Neither. It was just the wrong types of measurements, that's all.

It seems that some audio engineers and engineering inclined audiophiles have an absolute certainty as to the conclusiveness of their favored measurements.

I am a scientist (a biochemist), and as such I don't have the blind confidence that some (not all) engineers have who are not trained to have a scientific outlook. As a scientist I know that there is a lot that I don’t know. Therefore, my first instinct as both a scientist and an audiophile is to trust my ears even in the face of "perfect" measurements (to their credit, many of the better audio engineers do the same; while they know the crucial importance of measurements as a guide in their work, they use their ears as final arbiter). I simply assume that in the face of contradiction between audible result and measurements, those measurements are only of limited relevance to that which actually would need to be measured. Often what needs to be measured is not known. It took digital engineers years before they realized the detrimental effect of even miniscule amounts of jitter in the digital chain, as opposed to the much greater tolerance of the human ear towards analog wow and flutter.

Having said all that, I am a digital guy, and while I very much enjoy great analog in friends' systems and acknowledge how incredibly good it can sound, for me digital is the present and future of my own system. I just don't use the "superiority" of some measurements of digital over analog as a decisive argument in favor of digital. I am not naive.

Al. M,

IMHO nowadays the audio scientists know that the measurements accessible in magazines do not correlate with our particular preferences in stereo. In fact they do not care about audiophiles - they are too particular and in too small number to be an interesting subject of study. Also the recording conditions and the playback conditions of stereo are too diverse to allow any systematic study.

Sometimes we forget that being an audiophile is an hobby. We embellish two channel sound reproduction for our enjoyment. The advanced technology that is being used in gear has surely lots of science behind it, but little audio science is being used in the development of equipment - designers use mainly their empirical knowledge and beliefs.

 

[microstrip]

The “real” answer? Who says?

IMHO my answer agrees with known facts, so I considered it the "real" answer. But if you know facts that show otherwise, please refer them and I will be happy to debate them and change my mind if I am wrong.

A requirement to build science is full public exposition and debate. Audio manufacturers systematically refer to their "science" in their marketing literature and white papers, but when asked about anything more than that say they can't reveal it in order to protect their intellectual property and prevent being copied - I understand and accept it. However such situation is not compatible with the progress of science.

 

[morricab]

Al. M,

IMHO nowadays the audio scientists know that the measurements accessible in magazines do not correlate with our particular preferences in stereo. In fact they do not care about audiophiles - they are too particular and in too small number to be an interesting subject of study. Also the recording conditions and the playback conditions of stereo are too diverse to allow any systematic study.

Sometimes we forget that being an audiophile is an hobby. We embellish two channel sound reproduction for our enjoyment. The advanced technology that is being used in gear has surely lots of science behind it, but little audio science is being used in the development of equipment - designers use mainly their empirical knowledge and beliefs.

Would be interesting to see a designer that is using the Gedlee metric or Cheever's metric in the design of an amplifier, pre-amp or DAC output stage. Of course Lamm claimed to have his own audio science in the form of a mathematical model correlating to what listeners prefer.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Measurements are a tool .
But in the end its all about voicing the product to ones liking
Which is very different for every designer / brand , i was astonished how different all the brands sounded in munich .
They basically all claim they dont add / distract to the signal ,but the end result is all over the place

 

[Al M.]

Al. M,

IMHO nowadays the audio scientists know that the measurements accessible in magazines do not correlate with our particular preferences in stereo.

Well, the people at the Audio Science Review Forum seem to believe that their cherished measurements strongly correlate with "objectively" better or worse .

But then, the term "science" in their forum's title is a cheap parody of the real thing.

 

[MarcelNL]

I've heard a fair amount of audio gear that was designed and built by EE's with an interest in audio, it never sounded as anything you'd hope to accomplish. Whether that was a IGBT amplifier, or a tube amp, hybrid amp, SS amp or speakers, and it puzzled me for quite a while until it dawned upon me that in their world 'enough is enough' to make things work, mediocrity is built in for free.

 

[morricab]

Well, the people at the Audio Science Review Forum seem to believe that their cherished measurements strongly correlate with "objectively" better or worse .

But then, the term "science" in their forum's title is a cheap parody of the real thing.

Not Science...Scientism...

 

[MarcelNL]

Not Science...Scientism...

more like scientology if you ask me ;-)

They religiously believe in measurements and seem to be declaring gear as 'great' if the measurements are conform with what they think is important.

 

[Rensselaer]

IMHO my answer agrees with known facts, so I considered it the "real" answer. But if you know facts that show otherwise, please refer them and I will be happy to debate them and change my mind if I am wrong.

A requirement to build science is full public exposition and debate. Audio manufacturers systematically refer to their "science" in their marketing literature and white papers, but when asked about anything more than that say they can't reveal it in order to protect their intellectual property and prevent being copied - I understand and accept it. However such situation is not compatible with the progress of science.

Perhaps, in regards to Audio manufacturers, it is true that their literature eschews measurements to protect intellectual property (or perhaps, because there is nothing valid to show). Be that as it may, I have found that most of the reviewers for magazines and on-line reviews that I have seen do include measurements in reviews.

IMHO, and that of many others on this forum who are looking for that system that "sounds" best; "measurements" do not reliably predict how any particular piece of equipment will "sound". I am wondering if there is a subset of audiophiles out there who seek out equipment which "measures" best?

In most of the reviews I have read, the reviewer gives an undifferentiated list of "all" the "reference" equipment they own, without saying "which" particular pieces were used in the review. I personally would be happy if a reviewer would simply list only their review equipment being used to test the piece in for review.

Next I would like the reviewer to demonstrate his/her expertise by advising the potential buyer what other equipment (regardless of the tested piece of equipments "price point") would be a synergistic match with the tested piece, to make a best-sounding complete system with the piece of equipment tested. Unfortunately, reviewers never suggest combinations that would combine synergistically. They usually do include the requisite waterfall plots and test measurements. Do reviewers include measurements because they believe their review looks more scientific and thus more valid, or do they know there are audiophiles out there who buy equipment for the measurements and not the sound?

It doesn't matter to me what kind of "audiophile" one is, be it a love of audio equipment that "sounds" great, or "measures" great, as long as they love audio equipment.

 

[andromedaaudio]

John Atkinson Stereophile does a very good job at measuring and correlating that with what he actually hears.
Very informative imo.

 

[Al M.]

John Atkinson Stereophile does a very good job at measuring and correlating that with what he actually hears.
Very informative imo.

Yes, his measurement sections are among the better ones in the industry, even though not without their biases. And the measurements, like all in audio, are still quite limited.

 

[christoph]

The “real” answer? Who says?

42?

 

[MarcelNL]

42, ?, tssss ....everyone knows it is Phi