Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[kareface]

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.

It's actually pretty widely agreed upon. Here's the problem, I'm not talking about the debate over what measurements represent classic audiophile cliche phrases (i.e. the speakers sound lightly musical and encompassing), I'm talking about comparing the FR, waterfall or CSD, IR, Harmonic or IMD, polar, phase, MLS, autocorrelation, voltage, dielectric capacitance, impedance or resistance, (it all depends on what product we're talking about) in an A/B comparison with and without the product. Knowing what quantum tunneling is, I know it has no impact on acoustics, yet some devices are sold as if somehow it improves the way it interacts with air pressure. For any company to make those claims and not have an independent lab make an A/B comparison of the difference is beyond me. It would be akin to saying if you buy the red mustang instead of the green one it'll go faster.

I personally can't name a something that actually produces audible change that isn't represented by some form of reasoned analysis. Some products are sold that openly defy very well understood elements of physics or electrical engineering, don't represent any measurable change in a system, and yet are heralded by audiophiles for their audible benefits. We don't have to agree on what sounds better, let's just agree on what doesn't make any difference to begin with. Understand that some products really don't work, and any perception otherwise is just a representation of product bias. To believe in something that defies well understood elements of science, has no rational explanation for working, produces no measurable differences in a system is akin to believing in magic. If I put this here, magically everything will sound better. If only it was that simple, lol.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Some products are sold that openly defy very well understood elements of physics or electrical engineering, don't represent any measurable change in a system, and yet are heralded by audiophiles for their audible benefits.

As I've said many times, the last frontier in stamping out audio BS is getting people to understand that what they think they hear may not be real. Once people understand and accept that, every single magical tweak will go away. I'm not holding my breath.

--Ethan

 

[amirm]

As I've said many times, the last frontier in stamping out audio BS is getting people to understand that what they think they hear may not be real. Once people understand and accept that, every single magical tweak will go away. I'm not holding my breath.

--Ethan

I suspect most audiophiles know that. What they don't know is what percentage of the time that is the case! Do you know that about yourself? If I played two things and you heard a difference, what percentage of the time you think you will be right or wrong?

 

[Randall Smith]

like this?
http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm

 

[Ron Party]

You are very generous in your assessment of audiophiles, Amir. The fact that things like Shakti stones, the CLCs referenced in Randall's link, and intellichips are bought and defended by Audiophiles provides evidence to the contrary. The fact that some believe you can make a pair of Sophias sound better than a pair of Maxx2s by using more expensive speaker cable provides evidence to the contrary. The list is endless. Many Audiophiles believe, categorically, that if they heard it then it is real. So what percentage is that?

Moreover, your question to Ethan is, as you very well know, empty. Give him a legitimate question. If you play a song on a pair of Sophias and then again on a pair of Maxx2s, with all else being equal, what percentage of time do you think Ethan will be right? Play him a 320kbs MP3 and play him the same track at 192kbs, with all else being equal, and you know very well the percentage will be dramatically different.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Ethan: +++++ " Acoustic Treatment is far more important than gear, and I have plenty of bass traps as
well as absorption .... " +++++

I don't know if it is more important or not, I know is a critical factor that we have to take care, especially: what are we loosing ( audio signal ) through room treatment?, nothing is perfect and even in room treatment exist trade-offs that almost all of us audiophiles are unaware of what we are loosing.

Could you help/explain about with your professional know how in the subject?, because sometimes I see the room treatment like the quimio-therapy in Cancer: it helps in one way and do harm in other ways.

Thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[FrantzM]

like this?
http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm

lol

 

[microstrip]

I personally can't name a something that actually produces audible change that isn't represented by some form of reasoned analysis.

One of the most challenging are signal and speaker cables. Within a reasonable bandwidth for audio their electrical parameters, including triboelectricity effects, can not explain such large differences. Recently we tried an experiment - wiring a system completely with Vallhalla cables and after with Shunyata Orion - Antares. The difference was huge - a few non audiophiles could not believe in the difference, but conclusions on type of sound were systematic.

Warm-up time also puzzles me. Some amplifiers sound hard and horrible for the first half an hour and only after this time reach their best. I have measured one using a 24 bit audio analyzer and could not see any difference in the distortion spectra during the warm-up phase. BTW, supply current was stable within 2% in less than 10 minutes.

 

[DonH50]

Re. Cables: I have always found interactions among cables and components pretty well described what was happening, IF the difference was repeatable.

Re. warmup: Did you measure it driving the speakers? I can think of a lot of reasons a (relatively short) warm-up period might be useful.

Curious - Don

 

[The Smokester]

like this?
http://www.ultraaudio.com/equipment/machina_dynamica_clock_signature.htm

At the end of this review they say:
"Machina Dynamica provides no scientific data supporting the claims they make for their product; instead, they present such concepts as morphic field and Future Time. While those theories are interesting, they make little scientific sense to me."
Clearly the reviewers were suffering from reverse expectations. No wonder it didn't work...for them.

 

[Robh3606]

Machina Dynamica

Those guys are great at what they do. Very shrewd indeed, my personal favorite is the Teleportation tweak.

Off topic but what a perfect example of the extremes in this hobby.

Rob

 

[MylesBAstor]

One of the most challenging are signal and speaker cables. Within a reasonable bandwidth for audio their electrical parameters, including triboelectricity effects, can not explain such large differences. Recently we tried an experiment - wiring a system completely with Vallhalla cables and after with Shunyata Orion - Antares. The difference was huge - a few non audiophiles could not believe in the difference, but conclusions on type of sound were systematic.

Warm-up time also puzzles me. Some amplifiers sound hard and horrible for the first half an hour and only after this time reach their best. I have measured one using a 24 bit audio analyzer and could not see any difference in the distortion spectra during the warm-up phase. BTW, supply current was stable within 2% in less than 10 minutes.

I can tell you that cj amps require a "warm up" of at least 30-60 mins of playing to sound their best (in fact, it's stated in the owners manual); before that, there is clearly no ambience and low level resolution. Years ago, had some AN amps in and it took hours to stabilize (Peter Quotrop claimed that it was in part due to their use of interstage coupling transformers). VAC amps also too a couple of hours to sound their best. As far as solid-state amps go, never turn them off.

But among the components, I also find digital components and cartridges definitely need an extended warm-up period.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

On the subject of warm-up I don't know what to think, my SS were most of the time, left on standby as i lazily went with the audiophile orthodox notion of them sounding better without really listening or caring.. So ... For tubes it would not be practical anyway as their lives would be seriously curtailed if they were to be left on all the time...

Now a measurement question:

Does anyone know of measurements made before and after a warm-up period ?

 

[terryj]

jazdoc


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!

I think this is a good point that bears repeating, not all of us WANT to understand the ins and outs. We are all different, and some things simply 'do not appeal'. I have my own example, computers. I just want to use the &(*&%$$#& things. And, one of the reasons I don't particularly want to 'get into them' is, strangely enough, that once you do (or I do) then I'd probably get into it as seriously as I get into my 'measuring side of things'....I don't have the time and recognise (not that I agree with the word 'obsession' but I get the concept) that to do it properly you DO need to really get into it.

Ha! but when it plays up, then I wish I knew more about them!

So, whilst completely understanding that mindset in audio regarding measurements, the danger is what we have seen repeatedly, it can lead to the FALSE idea that 'measurements are not useful to the audiophile'. they are, but again if it is not for you that's fine, just don't push the false idea.

Unlike Ron, I think amirs post IS quite revealing

I suspect most audiophiles know that. What they don't know is what percentage of the time that is the case! Do you know that about yourself? If I played two things and you heard a difference, what percentage of the time you think you will be right or wrong?

Ron, you made some excellent points earlier about one of the possible sources of fear, that of being wrong. (I was going to make a similar point, but I would have used the concept of tribes haha).

But, your response also revealed a bit of tribalness?? if what you meant by 'audiophile' in that context is those who buy into the way out tweaks that is.

I have seen many times objectivists be as dogmatic and unwilling to look as the most diehard subjectivist, back to the tribal aspect or your point, the only goal being 'to win the net argument at all costs'. It would be good if we simply wanted to learn eh?

My illustration of the equal ability of objectivists to deny that they too could be fallible with their ears or biases..I asked how many of them would find it illuminating to hear their diy speakers against the commercial offerings (which of course we diyers thrash right??) at seans facility.

Very few indeed.

Both sides, at times exhibit these less than desirable traits, and some subjectivists are better than the worst objectivist.

Grace and dignity in the midst of an argument goes a long way in my book.

In a few of the recent thread around here, the mags have been taking a 'bit of a beating', which I find interesting. I wonder if they will avail themselves of a bit of free feedback and have a look at any needed changes??

I mean, it would make for a great article at the very least no? It almost writes itself..

"There are the usual arguments on audio forums, one of the most persistent being the old saw about measurements. Being an old school audio reviewer, I too at times doubted the usefulness of measurements in this hobby of ours.

And it is with that background that I and a few of my colleagues took the opportunity to visit Sean Olive at the harmon facility, and to ask ourselves 'how might measurements be of use to us?' rather than our usual outright dismissal.

This is what we found......'

I mean, I'D read it!!!

I guess most of you would have read this short article?? If so, maybe read it again, if not well, enjoy.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/some_reminiscing/P0/

 

[jazdoc]

Terryj

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I couldn't agree more with your observation that grace and dignity in any situation, not just an argument, goes a long way.

Again, I think both approaches are valuable, indeed probably necessary to achieve the goals of a dedicated audiophile. My point was that it's okay to approach things from these two different perspectives. I also believe that additional technical knowledge can only make a subjectivist a better listener, and becoming a better listener assists the technician validate his hypothesis. I happen to know a tonearm designer who is a classical composer and is a trained mathematician (among his many other talents such as machining and woodworking). I know that both of these skills were invaluable in developing his tonearm.

 

[DonH50]

Warm-up... I forgot about tubes. They do require a longer warm-up period as the gain changes as they warm up and their thermal time constants are on the long side. As I discovered a long, long time ago when I ran a series of measurements and was annoyed that things kept drifting on me... I finally waited a couple of hours, ran the test suite, then let it run over night and repeated the next morning. I do not recall specifics, but over the first couple of hours everything changed quite a bit. After the two-hour period, the 24-hour tests were almost identical.

When we had tube 'scopes in college, I used to have to let them run a few hours before calibrating, again learned after ripping through the calibrations on a couple of dozen lab scopes, only to have to them all come back after the drifted out of spec. I had to let the sit overnight and run it all again, then inform the prof that the TA's needed to turn on the scopes first thing in the morning for a mid-morning lab.

Solid-state stuff generally warms up much more quickly, though I did have to wait an hour or two before measuring some of the big amps and monoblocks. We'd usually run the IHF/FTC (I forget which) 1/3 power for one hour test first, then do all the measurements after that on a "warm" amp. Some components got quite hot after that hour of power...

Digital circuits should need no warm-up (just boot time), but the analog I/O stuff could need a warm-up period, and of course things like bias circuits and buffer amps in ADCs and DACs may drift over time and (mostly) temperature. - Don

 

[terryj]

Hi JD

uhh, I re-read what I wrote and saw that it could have been interpreted that I was suggesting YOU were pushing the false idea, sorry, in that context I meant the 'general' you, not you specifically. In fact I agreed with everything you wrote and thought it worth emphasising.

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[kareface]

Dear Ethan: +++++ " Acoustic Treatment is far more important than gear, and I have plenty of bass traps as
well as absorption .... " +++++

I don't know if it is more important or not, I know is a critical factor that we have to take care, especially: what are we loosing ( audio signal ) through room treatment?, nothing is perfect and even in room treatment exist trade-offs that almost all of us audiophiles are unaware of what we are loosing.

Could you help/explain about with your professional know how in the subject?, because sometimes I see the room treatment like the quimio-therapy in Cancer: it helps in one way and do harm in other ways.

Thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Think about it like this, everything you hear is influenced by the environment the sound originated in. If you take a small tape recorder and walk around in different environments while talking into it, even the poor quality microphone and speaker on it can give you a sense of how influential acoustics are on the sound. You can hear when you go outside, go in the kitchen, bathroom, the living room, all from this cheap little device. Everything below 500hz is dramatically influence by the room, everything above can be hurt by the lower frequencies influence as well as the rooms. I think the double edge of the sword you describe only exists when the acoustics aren't done right. If you correct a room with nothing but open faced bass traps and panels you'll likely over deaden the highs, or even mids. Diffusers can place an unwanted emphasis on the mids and highs. Some resonators are very effective but only in a small range of octaves. This is all very well understood tho, and it's why when a room is properly treated a balance is reached where you tame as much of the LF decay and room nodes as reason allows while leaving the mids and highs diffuse and not overly deadened.

Acoustics is tricky but when done right the benefits are worth it. If you have a fair amount of money invested in your setup and you haven't dropped a dime in room treatment, investing a few thousand into treatments will produce better reproductive results than dumping another few thousand into hardware. I've said in the past and I'll reiterate it here for the sake of discourse, if you don't have room treatments--you aren't an audiophile--you're a gearphile, because it isn't audio that you are interested in. Otherwise you're not hearing the music as much as you're hearing the nodes, nulls, masking, comb filtering, reverb, out of phase or overly concentrated reflections. Unlike most of the products targeted at audiophiles acoustical treatments have a measurable impact on the reproduction. The other nice thing is all of their down sides are easily addressed with a little understanding of their application. In most cases you are only left with the benefits.

For all practical purposes it is impossible to create a perfect environment for reproduction, but even if you can't achieve perfection there are a lot of degree's of improvement between nothing and the reasonable limits of acoustical correction.

 

[Alan Sircom]

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

Except that I have already described a case where this didn't apply. Try it for yourself. Take two products from the same batch with current CE-grade EMI suppression. Measure the above parameters in both (and run an initial ABX test series to confirm identicality, if you want). Quadruple the amount of EMI suppression on the power line (because you probably will not want to 'bodge' the PCB, build a custom box with some suppressing caps, possibly a choke and a couple of ferrite beads on the power lead going in and out of the box), measure again with additional EMI suppression in place. Note that the measurements do not change. Perform an ABX test series, comparing untouched product with 'EMI suppressed up the wazoo' product. Scratch head in confusion.

I am not saying we should abandon measurement. Quite the reverse in fact. Most times, I think the parameters you list do effectively describe the performance of most audio gear. Occasionally*, they don't. It's those 'don't's that I find interesting, and they do not only occur at extraordinarily high prices or to 'Mulder and Scully' products. This is likely the place where neither side is doing its job properly - the audiophile side puts this down to 'measurements don't matter' and the empiricist side puts it down to 'audiophiles and their crazy ideas'. Yes, a lot can be put down to 'crazy ideas' - I know, my magazine promulgates most of them - but I'm not sure if they all can.

We should all be deeply skeptical of "we're done here" proclamations, because they imply irrefutability. The best you can get is "we're done here... for now."


* These are very rare devices, as are the 'sound good, measure bad' products. The fact I'm casting my mind back more than 15 years suggests just how infrequently such products come along, IMHO.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'll have to trust you with that one, Alan, as I won't find time to do that experiment. But it's not the point. The point is the many products, entire categories even, which Ethan's four points of measurement clearly demonstrate to be inferior at the job of reproducing the recording, and which audiophiles claim to be superior at reproducing the music contained within the recordings. (can we have a big, choral HUH?)

When challenged, they say that measurements don't matter, don't tell the whole story, and don't capture the magical musicality of their beloved hardware (here, another HUH? would be in order). Are they afraid of measurements? I don't know if that is the right word. They clearly are not satisfied with their own subjectivity. That they like what they like is not enough. So they deny measurements and invent advantages that do not exist. It does look like a form of insecurity. Perhaps "afraid" isn't such a bad term after all.

P