What's wrong with Redbook, really?

[FrantzM]

I was waiting for you to post something like this eg. two products have the same measurements and sound different!

An impossibility...

If they sound different there must be some way , some parameters that are different ... Come On! There is such a thing as Science you know .. whose applications allow the posting of such non-scientific and epistemologically incorrect statements.

 

[MylesBAstor]

An impossibility...

If they sound different there must be some way , some parameters that are different ... Come On! There is such a thing as Science you know .. whose applications allow the posting of such non-scientific and epistemologically incorrect statements.

Assuming you have or are doing the the right measurements. Do you believe we have all the means available to correlate what we hear with what we measure? If you do, then I suggest going back and rereading Daniel Levitan's first book This is Your Brain on Music.

And of course, your subscribing to a reductionist point of view that totally ignores any possible synergies between components. BTW, reductionism doesn't work when it comes to complex systems (rather than simple systems) such as the human body.

 

[JackD201]

Well we do know that the same speaker, which should measure the same, will sound and measure differently with different amps. So what exactly do the published measurements tell us except that they've hit the performance targets, if intentional, and pass QC? If it's not the amps, what about the source. Say we replace the Benchmark in Tim's hypothetical system with a dCs, Burmester, Berkley Alpha or Emm?

It just points out that we have to evaluate things as a whole in my opinion.

 

[microstrip]

An impossibility...

If they sound different there must be some way , some parameters that are different ... Come On! There is such a thing as Science you know .. whose applications allow the posting of such non-scientific and epistemologically incorrect statements.

Frantz,

Please read the previous posts and make a small effort to understand our posts, excusing our sometimes free language. No one is said that there was no measurement that could not separate them, but there was a inoffensive reference to simple measurements followed by a kind joke by Myles

But simple measurements would not tell the difference.

As you like so much the term science, we should remember that in science the value of a measurement is almost meaningless unless it correlates with something (I am using the word correlation in the sense there is a rule that connects both) . Do you want me to start writing always Correlative measurements? Will it be enough to avoid useless fights?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well we do know that the same speaker, which should measure the same, will sound and measure differently with different amps. So what exactly do the published measurements tell us except that they've hit the performance targets, if intentional, and pass QC? If it's not the amps, what about the source. Say we replace the Benchmark in Tim's hypothetical system with a dCs, Burmester, Berkley Alpha or Emm?

It just points out that we have to evaluate things as a whole in my opinion.

I think if we would only evaluate the parts thoroughly enough, the whole would, for the most part, take care of itself. But in consumer hifi, that level of evaluation does not exist, so the point is moot.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Of course you can correlate sound to measurements. Given good enough measurements and enough experience, you can predict sound with measurements. Speaker designers do it all the time whether they admit it to their public or not. Can you rank quality from measurements? You can tell an awful lot about from good measurements, but that may not be the quality you're looking for.

Tim

Tim,
Happily you are saying it better than me! Last time I referred to the need to use audio empirical knowledge in development it was badly accepted. But any one with a curious mind will ask you to be specific and enumerate the exact (type, precision and range) of measurements you refer as good enough measurements , Please not give us just a vague list, and do not send us looking for references elsewhere!

BTW, I know we should not use the poor examples to support our views, but if you look at the interpretations of waterfall diagrams in reviews you will find very strange arguments on their appreciation!

 

[JackD201]

I think if we would only evaluate the parts thoroughly enough, the whole would, for the most part, take care of itself. But in consumer hifi, that level of evaluation does not exist, so the point is moot.

Tim

I wouldn't make that sweeping a statement. There are many on this forum alone that have done more due diligence with their rooms and equipment than many a home recording operation which is the largest market of the products you list Tim. One could always try and assemble a system based on numbers but even then, something as seemingly mundane as loudspeaker placement or even listening chair location can terribly skew the outcome. So no, I don't subscribe to the idea that evaluating parts thoroughly enough would for the most part take care of itself. There are complex interactions happening in every system. This is true of all systems be it a dock or separates. The only difference is who makes the decisions.

We could turn your challenge around you know. You could name whatever pro gear you want and I'm pretty certain it could be beat with consumer products in any objective criteria of your choosing. It's not the arrows my friend it's the archers. Tools, they are all just tools.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I wouldn't make that sweeping a statement. There are many on this forum alone that have done more due diligence with their rooms and equipment than many a home recording operation which is the largest market of the products you list Tim. One could always try and assemble a system based on numbers but even then, something as seemingly mundane as loudspeaker placement or even listening chair location can terribly skew the outcome. So no, I don't subscribe to the idea that evaluating parts thoroughly enough would for the most part take care of itself. There are complex interactions happening in every system. This is true of all systems be it a dock or separates. The only difference is who makes the decisions.

We could turn your challenge around you know. You could name whatever pro gear you want and I'm pretty certain it could be beat with consumer products in any objective criteria of your choosing. It's not the arrows my friend it's the archers. Tools, they are all just tools.

Of course, on all counts. When I said that enough of the right measurement of the parts would more or less take care of the whole, I was thinking lab measurements, and mostly components,not speakers, definitely not rooms. Sorry, thought we were talking about that synergy thing again. I'm sure there are people here measuring their systems in-room quite thoroughly. And yes, I'm sure that if I named a monitor, someone, probably someone like you , could come back with an audiophile speaker and we could lob that one back and forth indefinately. You have to go back to where this little cat fight began...this time anyway...someone referenced the blind listening tests in which gifted violinists preferred new instruments to incredibly valuable Strads. I said it was no different in our hobby, that I'm sure I could find an amp that could not be distinguished from a Goldmund (please don't take my penchant for casual use of examples too seriously, it's the concept I'm talking about, not the Goldmund) in blind testing that would also be much more accessible to millions of music lovers.

Sometime later...I've lost the plot in the pissing match...I used, as I often do, pro audio as an example, and I engaged, as I often do, in a bit of hyperbole.

All hell broke loose.

But I still stand by the premise: The quality of very high-end systems, by any objective measure, can be matched at a fraction of what most of them cost. Truly excellent high-end audio reproduction can be accessible to millions more people than the few who can afford the very high end. It can be done with pro gear. It could probably be done with very carefully chosen audiophile gear. The very high end is about more than its objective sound quality. It is about looks, badge, prestige, power (and most of us don't need to or even want to buid nightclub-sized listening rooms), size, weight....impression. And much of the very high end's cost is in these areas, not in sound quality.

But Mark's absolutely right; I made the challenge very easy for myself. I cooked the rule book. I wouldn't even have to leave the high end to make my point, if I'd just keep my "few thousand dollars" hyperbole out of it. And I do not need comprehensive measurement to know that, by any objective measure, a pair of small Revels and a sub, will out-perform most of the weird, wonky, absurdly expensive high end horns on the market. How can I be so sure? Because the Salons were designed based on objective measures. If you want good objective performance, it's kind of important that you attempt to achieve it. Much of the high end doesn't even believe in it.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

You are not going to find two speakers that measure the same even in frequency response, so the issue of two speakers measuring the same but sounding different is never going to be an issue.

 

[microstrip]

And I do not need comprehensive measurement to know that, by any objective measure, a pair of small Revels and a sub, will out-perform most of the weird, wonky, absurdly expensive high end horns on the market. How can I be so sure? Because the Salons were designed based on objective measures. If you want good objective performance, it's kind of important that you attempt to achieve it. Much of the high end doesn't even believe in it.

Tim

Tim,
Would you buy these speakers?

 

[microstrip]

You are not going to find two speakers that measure the same even in frequency response, so the issue of two speakers measuring the same but sounding different is never going to be an issue.

Rob,
Measuring the same should mean yielding the same values within a certain tolerance window. And then it is again an issue.

 

[Robh3606]

Hello Myles

That's beginning to sound like the same argument given for why analog people didn't like digital. Dealers would jump on this if you could show that speaker measurements tell you everything you need to know. Would save them a hell of a lot of time selling. And time is money to them.

Well if we use your model of all measurements and no listening I don't see it saving them money. I see it going along the way on Oppo and Emotiva and that would effectively put them out of business.

Could you please explain why measurements are predictive of how a speaker will sound but not for electronics? Actually that flies in the face of what leading measurement mags like Stereo Review have said.

First off I didn't say that I said this

"Not that tired old reference again, we are looking at speakers here. If there is anyplace where measurements can be more useful it's here."

There are much greater differences in sound between speakers, it's much easier to see what the differences are.

If you are refering to a previous post read Tooles book it's all in there.

As far as Stereophile, which I enjoy and subscribe too, they are not the place to be looking for what's going on in the research end of the business. Take a look at what papers are being presented at AES and go from there.

Measurements are rarely cause effect. And as any scientist knows, there are often many explanations and possiblities for a given effect.

You obviously have never done any to come up with a blanket statement like that. They are most certainly cause and effect, If they were not they would not be repeatable.

Rob

 

[Robh3606]

You are not going to find two speakers that measure the same even in frequency response, so the issue of two speakers measuring the same but sounding different is never going to be an issue.

That not true at all. You can buy pair matched speakers to within a db or so. When you DIY you can also pair match drivers and get very good results.

Tim,
Would you buy these speakers?

LOL sneaky

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I might need a bit more information....

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...)
You obviously have never done any to come up with a blanket statement like that. They are most certainly cause and effect, If they were not they would not be repeatable.

I think you are misunderstanding the original statement. It is not addressing the measurement act per se. He means that what is being measured in not the only cause of that effect, and some times is not related with the effect.
Being repeatable is a necessary but not enough condition.

 

[microstrip]

I might need a bit more information....

Tim

Exactly what? (I hope not the price )

 

[JackD201]

The very high end is about more than its objective sound quality. It is about looks, badge, prestige, power (and most of us don't need to or even want to buid nightclub-sized listening rooms), size, weight....impression. And much of the very high end's cost is in these areas, not in sound quality.

Sadly, there really are those that equate price with performance and think throwing more money at their problems will give them better sound. Even sadder is that that is the impression many have about those of us that pour a lot of ourselves into our music reproduction.

In hindsight, I could have stopped and been happy with the much less expensive and yes, less large night club sized listening room (I'm actually cracking up as I write this. I did go nuts didn't I? LOL). In my defense (trying to be serious now but still chuckling... ehem...) it happened at a time when I was in a very, very stressful profession and going flat out in both system configuration and especially listening kept me sane and, to my family, lovable Well, it's here, I'm lovin' it and unless I have no choice, I ain't going back. I don't see myself going any bigger though, that is unless I find myself in an even higher stress profession!

In the same breath, I can also say that I have heard many, many systems that would blow peoples minds that did not cost much more than the system you proposed really because these guys had a clear vision of what they wanted, knew, better yet learned, what to do and did squeeze out every last drop of performance. Fellow member Jadis' system comes to mind. So do Mullard88's smaller killer combinations. Then there are the really talented DIYers who've been able to make miracles happen for even less (although if you put a dollar value to the cost of their time and labor they'd probably come up even). So all in all I think it is an unfair generalization to paint all audiophiles as, for lack of a better word, posers. If there's anything that bothers me about your position about pro audio is that I have not seen it happen.

 

[Robh3606]

It is not addressing the measurement act per se. He means that what is being measured in not the only cause of that effect, and some times is not related with the effect.
Being repeatable is a necessary but not enough condition.

Im not getting what you are saying??

what is being measured in not the only cause of that effect,

What other cause and effect would there be? Can you give me one as an example?

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Exactly what? (I hope not the price )

No, no. Just the model and brand will do. Seriously, I wouldn't buy any speakers based on charts, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is I am no expert, and I rely on them (experts) to explainthe measurements. I know enough to know that there are many ways to measure, and many ways to make the graphs look like you want them to look. Enough to be dangerous. So no, I wouldn't buy those speakers based on those, or any other graphs.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Assuming you have or are doing the the right measurements. Do you believe we have all the means available to correlate what we hear with what we measure? If you do, then I suggest going back and rereading Daniel Levitan's first book This is Your Brain on Music.

And of course, your subscribing to a reductionist point of view that totally ignores any possible synergies between components. BTW, reductionism doesn't work when it comes to complex (rather than simple systems), human physiology.

Myles

Your previous statement is incorrect. We all can agree to that. I could have let it pass but it is time we all stop making of Audio reproduction an esoteric, unknowable, impossible to approach endeavor. This leads to the present state of this industry with few progresses and a flight toward higher prices for meager to non-existent gain in performance. If a person can perceive it, it can be measured. An anthropocentric way of rephrasing that “if it exists it can be measured”.
It is great time that the people that have this industry at stake, we, audiophiles, understand that the present course toward a sort of esoteric, hermetic, special realm , is not one that will make the industry grow or advance the state of Audio Reproduction in one’s home (or ear) . Of course some people will (and are) making money off the present state of affair and likely will make more but this may prove to be unsustainable. It seems to be in the interest these people in the industry to espouse this "Science-is-not-enough-to-comprehend-Audio" approach, one that is more popular here at the WBF thanI would have thought. It creates an entry barrier, since those not in the circle of initiates cannot “understand”… mere measurements cannot bring results because there is something special that goes beyond science thus only available to the priests, sorry to those with the Knowledge (what knowledge?) and the (very special) ears to be able to produce gear of the aulity we deem “High End” of course with the appropriate price tag .. These people are almost anointed and chosen… hush …hush … Mere measurements are for those who listen to mp3, Audio Video receivers … or to Redbook CD…
Another term which in this industry means anything is the one you, again, just used:"Synergy" as if there is something magical and extraordinary about it. Again not so, components matching is just that: Match the various components of an Audio Reproduction chain so that they perform at their best. And that is the province of Science, again. You may get some results pairing an Apogee Scintilla with a 5 watts SET amplifiers. IT will likely play some notes ... By just looking at the specs it should be known that this can't be a good match. Period! Now, if we are approaching flavor of the moment, then the choice becomes wider since we are dealing with subjectivity, one area where the human mind can coerce infinity ... Anything goes although one could apply statistics and predict with a fair degree of success what some people will (likely) like
To be OT somewhat. We need to measure more and try to correlate what we measure with what we hear or what we prefer hearing, an interesting subject of investigation in itself, preferences.... that is something Levitin alluded in the book you quoted, which by the way, I have read and recommended to this forum and others. His book is not about the rejection of science, oh no! Quite the contrary: It is about embracing Science to understand and enjoy music more.