Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[terryj]

wow, see what happens when you go to bed and then have a look!

have really enjoyed the last few pages, great questions steve and excellent answers from the variety of reviewers, thanks everyone.

alan, a good insight into the pressures you (as a mag) are under in a business survival sense. It allows us (even tho many of us suspected it was that way) to see what you currently feel you can and cannot do, unfortunately it also re-inforces the suspicion that the review industry glosses over many things.

Has anyone else ever thrown up their hands ion exasperation that every piece of equipment is a winner? look at any CES report, everything (usually) sounds magnificent.

So HOW do mags help the reader to narrow down their choices?? It can't, as everyhting is good at the end of the day you need to audition them yourself. There is a state here in australia where every number plate from there starts with the letter Y. I don't get it, if a number plate is to differentiate vehicles, and every plate starts with Y, may as well drop the Y yeah??

Same deal here, if everything is great, no bad reviews, may as well drop the reviews. All it becomes in effect is a list of what is available.

Unless it is written in an entertaining style and so it devolves to mere entertainment.

which is fine, no 'moral' judgement...as long as you know that is all it is, entertainment.

jazdoc suggested this

I would propose the following fun challenge:
The objectivists could put together a system from an extensive equipment list, blinded to everything except objective numbers. The subjectivists would do the same; assembling a system from the same equipment list, except blinded to everything except how the system sounds. Each camp could set up their system to the best of their ability at a show and have the public decide which sounds better.

Ive similarly often thought this would be fun. For me, the rule that I could not judge the speaker by listening beforehand would be hard, but hey that little extra would make it interesting no??

Ron, your part post

Where is there evidence that one has undertaken any sort of training to correlate what one hears with the measurements? As previously noted by me and by Sean Olive, Harman will soon be offering for free software which will spoon feed people lessons in learning to detect various kinds of distortion, amongst other things. How many subjectivist Audiophiles here are going to take Harman up on this free offer? A show of hands, please. I'm guessing none, that's why they are golden ears.

I know how I must come across, pure hard nosed objectivist, but hey no way in the world would I probably do that!

Why?? because I love my system. The last thing I'd want to have is a new set of critical ears that suddenly alerted me to flaws that I never knew existed. (unless of course the control of those were within my power, in that case yeah I'd go for it haha)

I was going to say how pleasnt the tenor of the discussion had been, then I read (with quite some dismay) the following

Oh excuse me. Move over. I will bow down and lick the feet of great Sean Olive too.

Oh and spoon feed? How fxxxing condescending is that?

Oh, and what piece of audio equipment has Sean ever designed and commercially marketed? He's just a great marketing tool.

Myles B. Astor
Moderator, Vacuum tubes, Reel to Reel and Turntable Forums
Senior Assistant Editor
Positive-Feedback Online
www.positive-feedback.com


Thought, given the subject of the thread, that it was appropriate to include the post of the poster.

And a moderator to boot.

Ha, how ironic. My very last post mentioned that if the review industry were halfway serious they would avail themselves of appropriate research into what measurements correlate with listener preference, even jokingly suggested that the mag would organise a bus tour of harmons facilities, do the course and see if it helps their review process.

I even suggested that IF they felt the research was wrong they would (by experiment) re-do that research and come up with BETTER data.

Nope, fingers in ears and nah nah nah.

One of the more obscene disrespectful posts I have seen in a long time. And, in the oh so well educated eyes of this particular poster Sean has been reduced to being a mere marketing tool.

Tell us Myles, how have YOU advanced the state of audio lately?? Writing entertaining reviews, or simply publishing them.

 

[terryj]

a quick addendum

I understand the thought process of 'I have heard speakers that measure poorly yet sounded good to my ears'. I'm not so sure of the extension 'therefore measurements don't matter', but that is old ground.

That then lead to the thought of the primacy of listening reviews.

Now, I have yet to see this point covered.

'Have any of you heard a speaker that was well reviewed yet you didn't like?'

See, basically the opposite side of the coin, yet surely as equally valid as the question usually posed??

If that second situation can or has arisen, where does that leave us?

Ultimately, in the subjective camp, we like what we like.

At least measurements (if complete and done correctly) are objective. But they are only a tool, and a tool is only as good as it is used. Rather than fighting for an entrenched position, why do people not ask themselves 'hmm, that measured a certain way and I did not like it' and go from dismissing the usefulness of measurements but rather go to 'what does this tell me about my own personal preferences'??

Maybe, from measurements, we could find out *we* prefer a rising treble response. (or whatever) I think some of the problem is that people conflate a bald objective measurement with the idea that it also carries with it a command 'thou shalt like'.

Nope, they have no feelings, they don't care. they simply are what they are.

Personal preference IS king, and once you know your own personal preference (from measurements) then they suddenly become useful.

Even Seans data, they do NOT tell us what everyone would like. They can only guide to what 'most' people seem to prefer. Like everything, there WILL be a bell curve involved, and any bell curve will contain the extremes.

Anyway, just thought it useful to ask the question (as the other always seems to be the guideline) 'do you always like what the reviewer likes?'

 

[DonH50]

'Have any of you heard a speaker that was well reviewed yet you didn't like?'

A few examples:

1. Rogers LS3/5a. For a while the darling little baby of the reviewers, but I thought it sounded a bit "muddied" and much prefer full-range speakers.
2. Beveridge 2SW/2 (I think that was the model?) Loved by some, but I thought other 'stats did a better job, and it seemed a bit "beamy" to me.
3. Infinity IRS. Well, OK, with the right room and amps, I did like this one, but most of the time I did not. It was just too hard to get the bloody thing set up so you got a seamless soundstage and image that didn't wander a bit with frequency, and you needed a huge room. Maybe I'm just jealous.
4. B&W 804. Just recently (this year) heard them, and compared them to the 803's. I could hardly believe they were in the same line, the 804's seemed so much "lesser" than the 803's. Electronics and room may have played a part, but my friend who was trying to decide between them later had the 804's moved to use the same room and electronics, and it was still a rousing loss for the 804. I hope they did better with the new version; as far as I'm concerned, the old 80x line should have started with the 803.

I am sure there are others, but there's a start... - Don

 

[Alan Sircom]

'Have any of you heard a speaker that was well reviewed yet you didn't like?'

Yes I have. There are many, some that I can respect, but don't like. Others that I simply don't like. Sometimes this is a whole product line, or one product in a range doesn't shine like the others. I have even reviewed products that ultimately are not to my taste. And I have said such things in print. Unfortunately, somewhere in translation from English to Review English, "this is an excellent product, but not one that I would personally own." becomes, "if you connect this up, your wife will leave you for your best friend, your colleagues will laugh at you and you will die painfully and alone." No matter how carefully we write such things. This applies whether the magazine is one big audio love-in, or has the full gamut of reviews. Because few see this as a full gamut.

I have never been able to fathom this. It doesn't apply in other fields. People buying cars or cameras don't really need telling that a 1-5 star rating (for example) means respectively poor, below average, average, good and very good. In audio, they seem to mean bad, bad, bad, bad and remarkable. Even in the face of exceptionally bad reviews in the same issue, it seems people are unable to rank even surface operational descriptions (how can "the eject button shouldn't be under the CD tray" be just as bad as "the turntable repeatedly ran backwards"?). In addition, any star rating below three-stars (or the magic 59%) is agenda-led according to the conspiracy theorists. Even if the review ended with "...because it caught fire."

 

[Ron Party]

...Unfortunately, somewhere in translation from English to Review English, "this is an excellent product, but not one that I would personally own." becomes, "if you connect this up, your wife will leave you for your best friend, your colleagues will laugh at you and you will die painfully and alone."

I've always loved the English sense of humor.

 

[terryj]

Yes I have. There are many, some that I can respect, but don't like. Others that I simply don't like. Sometimes this is a whole product line, or one product in a range doesn't shine like the others. I have even reviewed products that ultimately are not to my taste. And I have said such things in print. Unfortunately, somewhere in translation from English to Review English, "this is an excellent product, but not one that I would personally own." becomes, "if you connect this up, your wife will leave you for your best friend, your colleagues will laugh at you and you will die painfully and alone." No matter how carefully we write such things. This applies whether the magazine is one big audio love-in, or has the full gamut of reviews. Because few see this as a full gamut.

I have never been able to fathom this. It doesn't apply in other fields. People buying cars or cameras don't really need telling that a 1-5 star rating (for example) means respectively poor, below average, average, good and very good. In audio, they seem to mean bad, bad, bad, bad and remarkable. Even in the face of exceptionally bad reviews in the same issue, it seems people are unable to rank even surface operational descriptions (how can "the eject button shouldn't be under the CD tray" be just as bad as "the turntable repeatedly ran backwards"?). In addition, any star rating below three-stars (or the magic 59%) is agenda-led according to the conspiracy theorists. Even if the review ended with "...because it caught fire."

love your writing, thanks.

anyways, it was just a rhetorical question, didn't really think people would answer!!

All I really meant is if we follow the 'logic' of 'I have heard speakers that measure poorly that sounded good' EQUALS 'therefore measurements are of no use'

why do we not get the following..

'I heard speakers that reviewed well that I did not like' EQUALS 'therefore reviews are of no use'.

Of course, in these arguments, we only ever get the first equation, never the second.

To me they are logically consistent.

 

[Ron Party]

The only camps I see are these:

1. Those that want the whole picture.
2. Those that don't.

I'm OK with either camp if they are populated by strict consumers. Reviewers must be in camp 1. If you make claims about products versus other products -- including promoting products on message boards -- you should be camp 1 if you want to have credibility. If you simply like to enjoy music over your system -- end of story -- then either camp is fine.

Excellent post, Jeff. Speaking as one in the rationalist camp, and Steve certainly can attest to this, I have repeatedly stated that everything in this hobby is a flavor choice. There are no right or wrong flavors. I like blondes, you like brunettes, someone else redheads. Beautiful. Heck, even Ethan, who tilts even further than I do about these kinds of matters, has repeatedly posted the same thing. End of discussion, if we're talking about flavor choices. Whatever floats one's boat, yada, yada.

Setting up straw men like "I'd rather be enjoying the music rather than paying attention to some silly old measurements" begs the question: why are you participating in this thread? It also makes a huge leap that those that do pay close attention to measurements don't listen. Again, this is a simple straw man and not worthy of further comment. We're not in the fifth grade.

Indeed. If the discussion is limited to "I like blondes, you like brunettes" and nothing more, then there really is nothing more to discuss.

But, of course, we know there is more discuss (or this thread and many others like it would not even exist) and you ask why are they participating in this thread. Isn't it the case that some Audiophiles go one step further, i.e., I like blondes, and you are wrong for liking brunettes? In other words, their flavor choice is better. Better for everyone. Better in the absolute.

In matters audio, this translates into, e.g., if you don't think vinyl is superior to digital, you must be deaf, or if you like SS more than tubes you must be deaf. Why? Because somehow they have this egotistal, elistist self-proclaimed divine connection with live music that those who prefer a different flavor don't have.

Now when one claims something is better in all cases, it no longer exists in the realm of flavor choice. If one dismisses another's flavor choice on the basis of some objective standard, it no longer exists in the realm of flavor choice. Instead, these are statements in the absolute and, as such, they are falsifiable.

So if someone says vinyl is superior to digital, or vice versa, in all cases, this no longer is a personal flavor choice. This is an alleged fact. And as an allegation, it can be proven or disproven. Measurements are but one tool which can be used in this endeavor.

Now for those Audiophiles who disparage the tool of measuring, well, it is a virtual certainty they would have one or more nulls below 200 hz in their rooms and would have no idea how to address the problem. How does an Audiophile who is afraid of measurements determine the optimum placement of multiple subwoofers? Of course we as a collective have the benefit of the research done by the Harman group and Earl Geddes about multiple subwoofer placement. And we also have the benefit of some very fine software about which Ethan and Nyal are posting. People like Keith Yates, Dennis Erskine, et al., when they do an installation, how do you suppose they go about doing their jobs?

So Jeff, in answer to your question, why do some Audiophiles fear measurements, the answer is fear. Fear of being proven wrong. Fear that the facts won't align with their beliefs. Your article was and is spot on. As you concluded,

You either want the whole picture or you don't. And it takes all this. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Setting up straw men like "I'd rather be enjoying the music rather than paying attention to some silly old measurements" begs the question: why are you participating in this thread? It also makes a huge leap that those that do pay close attention to measurements don't listen. Again, this is a simple straw man and not worthy of further comment. We're not in the fifth grade.

yes; i did say something like that; in a moment of agnst. then later in the same post i said;

so the objective performance is very important to me.

which it is. and i do measure things and make some decisions based on those things.

i have never said that measurements, or science, or any objective information is not important; but it's not the final arbiter for me most times. i have an RTA, and an oscilloscope, and other tools which are used from time to time. i have friends who are very technical and assist me in these areas. many of my posts in this thread relate to the fact that designers need to listen in the creative process along with measure; they never infer eliminating measurements.

my particular speakers are active in the bass and so have multiple adjustments for the bass and also tweeter adjustments. these controls are counter intuative and very interactive. to set them up requires an RTA to get it close and then fine tune them slightly by ear.

currently i'm working on my room, making changes, and the changes are based mostly on measurements. waterfall plots actually.

and my whineing has more to do with a desire to be enjoying the art of the system and not thinking about the numbers any more than i need to be.

i'm participating in this thread because i don't think audiophiles are 'afraid' of measurements as the thread asks; i think many audiophiles like to keep them at arms length and use them as part of their picture....but not to surrender to them.

 

[kareface]

I personally only mind it when Audiophiles promote snake oil. I've measured & calibrated quite a few systems, I don't really mind if people prefer the sound of something that doesn't reproduce accurately, this has to be taken into account when calibrating. I don't really mind anything that produces measurably different output, someone might prefer it even if it isn't ideal. Who knows, maybe someone really likes the sound of bose, lol. However, I do take a great deal of issue with people who ignore measurements of products that don't have any impact on the reproduction. Most people here know what I'm talking about, stickers, markers, metals, pads, rocks (lol), clips, tapes, bowls, creams, cables (within reason), colors (which blows my mind), freezing, heating, quantum tunneling (don't even get me started) and a whole list of other things. I would be happy as a dog at the beach if we could just agree on the fact that if a product produces no measurable difference after running a reasonable range of tests, it isn't doing anything. Some people might argue that some measurements don't represent listening appreciation, and I would agree that subjectively people might prefer things that don't represent improved reproduction. I just wish we could come to the consensus that a product that results in no measurable difference represents no audible difference in most, if not every case. There are some things that you might perceive, but you unquestionably didn't hear, I don't care how much cream you greased the jackets of your speaker cables with.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I personally only mind it when Audiophiles promote snake oil. I've measured & calibrated quite a few systems, I don't really mind if people prefer the sound of something that doesn't reproduce accurately, this has to be taken into account when calibrating. I don't really mind anything that's produces measurably different output, someone might prefer it even if it isn't ideal. Who knows, maybe some really likes the sound of bose, lol. However, I do take a great deal of issue with people who ignore measurements of products that don't have any impact on the reproduction. Most people where know what I'm talking about, stickers, markers, metals, pads, rocks (lol), clips, tapes, bowls, creams, cables (within reason), colors (which blows my mind), freezing, heating, quantum tunneling (don't even get me started) and a whole list of other things. I would be happy as a dog on the beach if we could just agree on the fact that if a product produces no measurable difference after running a reasonable range of tests, it isn't doing anything. Some people might argue that some measurements don't represent listening appreciation, and I would agree that subjectively people might prefer things that don't represent improved reproduction. I just wish we could come to the consensus that no measurable difference represents no difference in most, if not every case. There are some things that you might perceive, but you unquestionably didn't hear, I don't care how much cream you greased the jackets of your speaker cables with.

It's a nice wish, but we'll never get there. Some will always insist on dramatic, immeasurable benefits so they can continue to believe in the superiority of their preferences. And so the line between utter BS and preference will always be blurred.

P

 

[Robh3606]

i'm participating in this thread because i don't think audiophiles are 'afraid' of measurements as the thread asks; i think many audiophiles like to keep them at arms length and use them as part of their picture....but not to surrender to them.

Measurements are a tool nothing more. There is nothing to surrender too nothing to be afraid of. To not use them or understand them is like trying to fix a car transmission without a service manual with a pair of vice grips and duct tape. It might take you a long time to get it right and if it works at all it won't be as well as it could. Measurements can give you very useful information that you would not be able to get any other way. To completely ignore them, vilify them, or disparage people who use them is foolish. People who do use them look at people who don't and simply don't understand why ?

As I see it you are not doing yourself any favors by ignoring them. You are just making things harder on yourself when you set-up your system in your listening room and limiting your knowledge on how things really work.


Rob

 

[Jeff Fritz]

...but not to surrender to them.

Has anyone even suggested that in this thread?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Has anyone even suggested that in this thread?

of course, repeatedly.

and then some more.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

of course, repeatedly.

and then some more.

I don't believe it is an either/or proposition. I think being more inclusive leads to greater understanding. I'd hope that you'd agree with that.

But the implications when you make statements like "maybe someday i'll grow up and be an objectivist" or "it would be interesting to find out the hours listened per week of objectivists verses subjectivists" or "but some are more into 'sound' and others more into 'music'" or "i like to see myself as interested in both but i know when i don't listen much i'm not as happy" are divisive. Mainly, it draws a division that exists in your mind because of your presumptions. You don't know how much music I listen to, or how much I enjoy music, or even how "happy" I am. But drawing those distinctions is part of the verbal weaponry used to attack, or as defense. I will not "surrender" to the measurements is more of the same. C'mon.

I'd simply like to see folks embrace all the resources at their disposal if the goal is truly high-fidelity sound. It's what I've argued for all along.

 

[steve williams]

Nicely stated Jeff

 

[jazdoc]

Wow! You leave a thread a few hours after a post... ;-)

I believe that Mike L and Jeffrey Fritz are probably quite similar to their approaches. I've witnessed the results of Mike laboring over speaker placement based on detailed room measurements. While the sound ultimately determines Mike's individual choice of speaker placement (and everything else), the measurements certainly assist him. It has been my experience that amongst experienced audiophiles, despite the wide variety of musical tastes, room dimensions and equipment budget and preferences, the sound of their system tends converges to the same small general locus.

My introduction of 'subjectivist' and 'objectivist' to this discussion was not meant to be absolutist; rather it was a broad generalization of how one tends to approach audio. Despite being an engineer, I haven't put in the time or effort to develop a detailed understanding of acoustics, circuit design, etc. BTW, this is by my choice. There is a fine line between enjoyable hobby and obsession. For me, starting down the road of greater technical expertise might cross that line. I also happen to be one of those people who don't watch the DVD extras on how directors film stunts and effects because when I go to a movies, I want to 'suspend disbelief'. Believe me, I already spend enough time learning about the artists, performance, and hunting down LP's...ask my understanding spouse!

 

[microstrip]

I would be happy as a dog at the beach if we could just agree on the fact that if a product produces no measurable difference after running a reasonable range of tests

Can I write down my 2 cents?
First you have to specify what measurements and with what degree of accuracy you consider relevant. Only after you can define what you mean by "measurable difference". I think this is the main source of disagreement. In my professional life (I do research in radiation detector development) we only use objective data, but we know exactly what to measure and the relevant specifications for the problem.
But as far as I know there is no agreement on a standard set of measurements for high-end audio.

 

[silviajulieta]

Measurements are a tool nothing more. There is nothing to surrender too nothing to be afraid of. To not use them or understand them is like trying to fix a car transmission without a service manual with a pair of vice grips and duct tape. It might take you a long time to get it right and if it works at all it won't be as well as it could. Measurements can give you very useful information that you would not be able to get any other way. To completely ignore them, vilify them, or disparage people who use them is foolish. People who do use them look at people who don't and simply don't understand why ?

As I see it you are not doing yourself any favors by ignoring them. You are just making things harder on yourself when you set-up your system in your listening room and limiting your knowledge on how things really work.


Rob

Dear Robh3606: I can't say it so good like you, I agree.

I think that the measurements vs preferences subject is something that in one way or the other needs a reference needs targets to achieve. Speaks on " blondes " or Burnettes " is a vey wider parameter I think we need a more precise target/objectives.

What I will states next is only for the people that shares/have similar targets:


I don't know which is your main/primary/first target when you heard your audio system through any source: digital or analog.

I know which is my first target: to reproduce what's in the recording.
This main and first target has nothing to do with preferences or what I like or do not like it. It is as simple as that: reproduce what's in the recording.

Second target: reproduce what's in the recording in accurate way. Preferences? has nothing to do here yet.

Third target: reproduce what's in the recording adding the less and loosing the less.


Till this moment IMHO preferences are out of the " equation ".


Fourth target: that what I hear/heard was not only truer to the recording and accurate but that " sounds " good according my music live music experiences/know-how and audio know-how. Sounds good means that I can enjoy it.



From this targets/point of view measurements not only goes first than " preferences " but are critical to choose the audio items that could help me to achieve all those targets. So my " golden ears " are a tool that will confirm how nearest or not I'm from my targets and here begin our endless quest for perfeccionism/fine tunning our audio system.


I will take the Dartzeel Phonolinepreamp ( that retail at 30K big dollars. ) because is very good example that shows the view that I'm trying to states/say ( why measurements is an important tool ):


for I can have the hopes that I can hear what's in the recording ( LP's ) through an analog rig the very first condition is that the cartridge signal be processed ( in the phono stage ) not only with the right gain ( amplifier. ) to be handle by the amplifier/speaker but more important and critical that that phono stage mimic the inverse RIAA eq. with what the recording was made with out no deviation.

Normally any decent phono stage comes with a RIAA eq. deviation spec of: 0.1db from 20hz to 20 khz, this is the norm/standard. With out this accuracy I can't begin my LP hearing/listening to achieve my first target: reproduce what's in the recording.

Any single deviation put me away from that target. The Dartzeel measurements in this critical spec ( RIAA eq. ) is not only " dramatic " but the worst out there, even tubes electronics are a lot lot better in this regard.

Here we can read and see of what I'm talking about through the JA Dartzeel mearuments:


+ " The NHB-18NS had rather more RIAA equalization error than I'm used to seeing in a high-end preamplifier (fig.1), the output at the edges of the audioband being a very audible +1.3 and 2.5dB with respect to that at 1kHz " +++++

http://stereophile.com/solidpreamps/607dart/index5.html , here you can see Fig. 1.


JA was really polite in his comments about .


Dear friends, the measure on the RIAA phono stage ( any decent one ) must see through the chart ( like the one in Fig. 1 ) as a FLAT LINE ( 20hz to 20khz. )with no more than 0.1db on frequency deviation. You can see that the 10-11 music octaves are all out of target, a heavy heavy coloration/distortions. I can't think in a more worse cartridge signal way of degradation!

An examples of other RIAA phono stage measurements that shows what we are talking about ( deviation no higher than 0.1db as a " rule ". ):

http://stereophile.com/phonopreamps/621/index6.html fig. 1.

http://stereophile.com/solidpreamps/999rowland/index7.html fig.6 ( this phono stage has 3.3K on retail price. )

http://stereophile.com/phonopreamps/525/index4.html



You can see that the Dartzeel figure looks certainly not like a FLAT LINE but really bad and this is what we heard through the Dartzeel when a cartridge signal goes through. The things are even worst in the Dartzeel: the frequency RIAA response must be the same for left and right channel and you can see in the chart/diagram that both are different: the Dartzeel has one RIAA eq. for the left channel and a different one for the right channel!!!! There are other big " errors " in the Dartzeel that you can find if follow reading that link.


What all these means?: IMHO means that we can'T make any cartridge evaluation or we can't make any audio item evaluation ( tonearm, amplifier, TT, cables, speakers,including room. ) using a phono cartridge as source tool to know the " real " quality performance of that audio item including any cartridge through the Dartzeel because that Dartzeel sounds is heavy deagraded and means too that is important to be aware on measurements/specs that are critical for audio item performance.


Certainly from my point of view and with the Dartzeel measurements as a fact/evidence MF, M. Lavigne or the Dartzeel owners does not want to hear or cares what's in the recording, their preferences/targets are way way different.



I'm not a " numbers " lover but as in this example numbers shows its critical importance I try to learn about " numbers " and its meaning and use it as necessary to improve and to be nearest to the recording. Preferences can't diminish the right and precise measurement, preferences are only a way to say I like this or I don't like this but don't tell us what's right/true or not: are only preferences.

As we can't diminish our preferences in front of measurements as we can'y either diminish measurements in front of preferences.

Other very usefull measurement/spec that makes a real differences for the better ( always. ) is amplifier output impedance. Before we can match our preferences we must match the amplifier ( any ) output impedance with the electrical speaker ( any ) impedance and phase CURVE, even before we decide the power we need against the speaker efficiency.

For we can match any speaker electrical impedance curve and to handle with out " errors/deviations/additional distortions/inaccuracies/etc, etc. we need a low ( very low ) amplifier output impedance, at least 0.3 ohms or lower. If the amplifier output impedance is for example 1.0 ohm or 1.5-2.0 ohms ( or higher ) then just before we can even connect to the speakers know that we will have severe degradation to the signal audio only for this impedance mistmatch in the speaker/amplifier combo.

If you care about then please don't " hear " what a speaker manufacturer or an amplifier manufacturer or a speaker/amplifier audio distributor/dealer or an audio friend or a magazyne reviewer has to tell you about if what they have to tell you goes against the subject or try to diminish it.

This is another critical and extremely important subject where " numbers " could help a lot.

I insist we need: TARGETS precise targets before we can use the right measurements and match our preferences.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I do grow weary of kill joys who only want to talk about measurements instead of how something sounds.

Not to be a killjoy, but why do you think measurements can't tell how something will sound? The "I don't need specs" mentality is fairly new, at least in professional audio circles. When I was getting into the biz in the late 1960s, specs were considered very important and were always included in product reviews and manufacturer literature. Of course, features matter too. But back then, professional audio engineers understood that specs can indeed tell how something will sound. Or at least how far away a device is from sounding neutral.

How come most of the kill joys on this sight don't even list their gear (and you know who you are)?

I can't speak for others, but I never hide the gear I own and I've listed it many times. Here it is again for my home studio:

Computer: 2.4 GHz Dell XPS Duo-Core with 4 GB RAM, more than 1 TB of hard drive
storage, dual-layer DVD burner, and two monitors including a widescreen LCD.

Audio hardware: M-Audio Delta 66, Mackie 1202 and Rane MP 24 mixers.

Audio software: Sonar, Vegas Video, Encore, Sound Forge, DreamStation software
synthesizer, Yamaha Visual Arranger, Jammer Professional, CD Architect, DVD Architect,
UltraFunk plug-in pack, Sonic Foundry Noise Reduction, and too many other programs,
plug-ins, and soft-synths to list individually.

Microphones: 1 pair AKG C-451, 1 pair audio-technica AT-4033, DPA 4090.

Mixdown monitoring is through a pair of Crown PowerBase amplifiers (1,040 watts total),
driving JBL 4430 bi-amplified studio monitors, and optionally with a pair of Yamaha
NS-10M bookshelf speakers powered by a Sony stereo receiver. I also have a 5.1
surround system in my living room home theater for surround mixing projects on a
Dell laptop.

Acoustic Treatment is far more important than gear, and I have plenty of bass traps as
well as absorption at the first reflection points on the side walls and ceiling.

You can see a brief video tour of my home studio in THIS 2.8 MB Windows Media file.​

The audio portion of my living room home theater has a Pioneer consumer-grade receiver, Mackie 624s for the main speakers, and an SVS PB12-Ultra/2 subwoofer with dual 12s.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

as far as I know there is no agreement on a standard set of measurements for high-end audio.

There are only four parameters needed to describe everything that affects audio fidelity:

* Frequency response
* Distortion (several types including THD and IMD and truncation distortion)
* Residual noise (includes tape hiss, hum and buzz, vinyl clicks and pops, etc)
* Time-based errors (wow, flutter, jitter, ringing)

That's it! There are no other categories. Nothing else is needed to assess the fidelity of audio gear.

--Ethan