Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[kareface]

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.

First, I want to clarify for my benefit that you're suggesting that excessive EMI suppression produces an audible change to the system that can be identified at confidence through ABX testing that wouldn't manifest in any measurements? I don't take issue with your credibility but I am curious if you have this test documented somewhere I could access. I want to run it by a few people to get their thoughts on the matter. What was the size of the test group and the exact confidence ratio? There have been a few anomalies from time to time but most get hashed out. I hope this was published at some point.

 

[Alan Sircom]

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

Oh but it really is the point. What I have suggested implies there is something that manifests under close scrutiny that shouldn't. That should warrant further investigation, both in double-blind ABX testing and - should these findings be found to be repeatable - trying to investigate what is happening from an audio perspective that isn't being picked up by conventional measurements. This has nothing to do with 'musicality'... two products that should have performed in an identical manner were looking to fail to pass an identicality test. If you want to wish this away with no further investigation, that's fine... but you'll forgive me if I question your motives for wanting to do so.

As to the whole 'measurement don't matter' thing, there is something of a paradox left unexplored. Those who make the biggest noise about audiophiles and their 'measurements don't matter' stance are often those who make an equally big noise about supporting DBTs. But if you look at the Clark and Masters 'Do all amplifiers sound the same?' DBT survey from Stereo Review in the late 1980s, the results suggest that the measurements don't matter after all... because those findings suggest they all sound virtually identical, irrespective of the measured performance.

Faced with the seeming irrelevance of measurement under DBT conditions, why should it suddenly be more significant when the DBT conditions are removed?

Measurement is a useful tool in defining the basic parameters of a component, determining whether it lives up to the empirical standards laid down by the company that made the product and finding prospective happy matches between products where relevant. It's importance should not be understated, but - judging by the evidence - neither should it be overstated.

 

[Alan Sircom]

First, I want to clarify for my benefit that you're suggesting that excessive EMI suppression produces an audible change to the system that can be identified at confidence through ABX testing that wouldn't manifest in any measurements? I don't take issue with your credibility but I am curious if you have this test documented somewhere I could access. I want to run it by a few people to get their thoughts on the matter. What was the size of the test group and the exact confidence ratio? There have been a few anomalies from time to time but most get hashed out. I hope this was published at some point.

It was published in passing in Hi-Fi Choice magazine from the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, the magazine changed publishing houses in 2000 and the archive was not retained. I have laid out the test procedure - and the limitations and failings of the test group size - earlier in this thread. It was mentioned in passing because the EMI suppression systems used in the early sample were a knee-jerk reaction to a proto-CE document that could be mis-interpreted as a belt-and-braces approach to EMI suppression. Products made available to the general public had no such overkill suppression.

Most of HFC's work in DBT was 'back office' and went unpublished. I was keen to make my mark as Reviews Editor and tested different methodologies to see if they could be used in the magazine. A lot of this was done in my own time and at my own expense. In fairness, I struggled to keep DBT panels assembled because the listeners used to more informal blind tests claimed they 'felt like lab rats' under DBT conditions, hence the limitations of the aforementioned test. I also used friends and family, but the problem of lack of listener training became an issue, giving variable and unreliable results.

The end result of this survey was that blind, level-matched subjective panel tests did provide robust enough results without the problem of trying to retain and retrain a listening panel every few weeks. The problem I have with such tests is they tend toward the extremes; people like fireworks, and the product that sounds the most impressive at first listen is usually the one that does the best. I've not been able to construct a short-term test that short-circuits that. Which is why I favor longitudinal tests on listener behavior (listening level habits, musical trends, amount of time listening) relative to the DUT. The problem here is trying to eliminate changes in mood, which is why the test is effectively summed over time.

 

[terryj]

hi alan, first off (maybe you missed it) i ASKED ABOUT YOUR POINT (*arrgh caps lock) to sean about how possibly some of his results may have changed if the listener set the levels. It kinda came up again just now.

anyway, it's great to see an industry guy interested in, and participating in dbts of any description.

There are many grumbles about dbts, one being (fully understood mind) about feeling like lab rats etc etc.

From what you have done, have you gained any 'knowledge' about what to do or not do to make thsee more palatable??

Actually, this is a point I have been intending to make. It's easy to beat some poor old objectivists head saying 'do a DBT you boob'...yet in many cases the hardcore objectivist saying that has never done one, or organised one himself!!

(I have)

They have no idea how much work it is, not just for the poor lab rats, but to organise the bloody thing. And do it well enough to withstand the scrutiny they (no doubt) would give to a 'positive result' of a cable test for example.

In your ideal world, what would be the best way to do a listening audition that avoided knowledge of the component?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Oh but it really is the point. What I have suggested implies there is something that manifests under close scrutiny that shouldn't.

Well, it really is a point, I suppose, but not one that this thread is getting at. Audiophiles don't deny, dismiss and insist upon hearing things beyond the measurements because of something you may have discovered 15 years ago. They do it every day, so they can continue to believe in the objective superiority of their subjective choices. I understand that sounds a bit harsh, but it is pretty hard to deny. Go to any audiophile site and search tubes/valves/vinyl and see how often you find fantasies like more natural, infinite resolution, musical, life-like, etc.

Or just read Fremer.

That should warrant further investigation, both in double-blind ABX testing and - should these findings be found to be repeatable - trying to investigate what is happening from an audio perspective that isn't being picked up by conventional measurements. This has nothing to do with 'musicality'... two products that should have performed in an identical manner were looking to fail to pass an identicality test. If you want to wish this away with no further investigation, that's fine... but you'll forgive me if I question your motives for wanting to do so.

I don't want to "wish this away with no further investigation," Alan, I'm just not interested in doing the investigation personally. And, by the way, if it hasn't been found to be repeatable, if it hasn't been subjected to further investigation or even scrutiny in the past 15 years, yet it is still being used as evidence that measurements don't tell the whole story (something I find believable enough, by the way), I'm not sure I'm even interested in taking it seriously.

As to the whole 'measurement don't matter' thing, there is something of a paradox left unexplored. Those who make the biggest noise about audiophiles and their 'measurements don't matter' stance are often those who make an equally big noise about supporting DBTs. But if you look at the Clark and Masters 'Do all amplifiers sound the same?' DBT survey from Stereo Review in the late 1980s, the results suggest that the measurements don't matter after all... because those findings suggest they all sound virtually identical, irrespective of the measured performance.

I haven't read that one in awhile, Alan, but of course things can measure differently and not be audibly different. That doesn't necessarily mean that the measurements don't matter. It may mean that the instruments can and have measured differences that humans can't hear. Or it could mean, as I think you're implying, that they can measure things that humans can't hear under DBT conditions. Of course those conditions vary from test to test, are controllable, and this answer cannot be anything more than situational, but I'll readily admit that instruments can measure differences we:

a) can't hear at all

b) can't hear under any kind of circumstances in which we are listening to music, not trained for and listening to audio reproduction distortions.

And I could not possibly overstate how insignificant the distortions that fall into category B are to music lovers. Gearheads and engineers? YMMV.

Measurement is a useful tool in defining the basic parameters of a component, determining whether it lives up to the empirical standards laid down by the company that made the product and finding prospective happy matches between products where relevant. It's importance should not be understated, but - judging by the evidence - neither should it be overstated.

You won't get any argument out of me on that point.

P

 

[Alan Sircom]

hi alan, first off (maybe you missed it) i ASKED ABOUT YOUR POINT (*arrgh caps lock) to sean about how possibly some of his results may have changed if the listener set the levels. It kinda came up again just now.

anyway, it's great to see an industry guy interested in, and participating in dbts of any description.

There are many grumbles about dbts, one being (fully understood mind) about feeling like lab rats etc etc.

From what you have done, have you gained any 'knowledge' about what to do or not do to make thsee more palatable??

Actually, this is a point I have been intending to make. It's easy to beat some poor old objectivists head saying 'do a DBT you boob'...yet in many cases the hardcore objectivist saying that has never done one, or organised one himself!!

(I have)

They have no idea how much work it is, not just for the poor lab rats, but to organise the bloody thing. And do it well enough to withstand the scrutiny they (no doubt) would give to a 'positive result' of a cable test for example.

In your ideal world, what would be the best way to do a listening audition that avoided knowledge of the component?

The resetting listener levels is intriguing, but I can't pull anything robust out of the findings. I'm hoping that ends with a '...yet'. My concern with this is we impose a set of criteria in test that we don't have in real life and whether that has any bearing on the end result. I also found - although this is more anecdotal - that from a standardized listening level, if a person tends to turn the music up or down can shape the kind of products they end up liking (a turny-up kinda guy might gravitate toward one kind of loudspeaker, a turny-down guy might choose another). This seemed to happen irrespective of the hearing of the person doing the listening, but I suspect no-one's going to buy a pair of speakers because they are good for deaf people! Not much of a selling point.

As to making the test more comfortable for the listeners, I don't know. I suspect selection and repeated training are the keys. Certainly having people sit such a test 'cold' can prove a disquieting experience for all concerned.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Well, it really is a point, I suppose, but not one that this thread is getting at. Audiophiles don't deny, dismiss and insist upon hearing things beyond the measurements because of something you may have discovered 15 years ago. They do it every day, so they can continue to believe in the objective superiority of their subjective choices. I understand that sounds a bit harsh, but it is pretty hard to deny. Go to any audiophile site and search tubes/valves/vinyl and see how often you find fantasies like more natural, infinite resolution, musical, life-like, etc.

Or just read Fremer.

Most people I know who like turntables and tubes like them because they like the sound of music played through turntables and tubes. The justifications roll out when they are being backed into a corner by someone who tries to tell them they are being an idiot for daring to express a preference.

I don't want to "wish this away with no further investigation," Alan, I'm just not interested in doing the investigation personally. And, by the way, if it hasn't been found to be repeatable, if it hasn't been subjected to further investigation or even scrutiny in the past 15 years, yet it is still being used as evidence that measurements don't tell the whole story (something I find believable enough, by the way), I'm not sure I'm even interested in taking it seriously.

Hey, just putting out ideas that might lead to some interesting observations. I'm not the only one to have made these observations, or to have tested them. I just want someone smarter than me to run with this and find something like a correlation. Periodically, you have to reshake the tree, because the 'no-nothings' are so reluctant to even try these things out.

I haven't read that one in awhile, Alan, but of course things can measure differently and not be audibly different. That doesn't necessarily mean that the measurements don't matter. It may mean that the instruments can and have measured differences that humans can't hear. Or it could mean, as I think you're implying, that they can measure things that humans can't hear under DBT conditions. Of course those conditions vary from test to test, are controllable, and this answer cannot be anything more than situational, but I'll readily admit that instruments can measure differences we:

a) can't hear at all

b) can't hear under any kind of circumstances in which we are listening to music, not trained for and listening to audio reproduction distortions.

And I could not possibly overstate how insignificant the distortions that fall into category B are to music lovers. Gearheads and engineers? YMMV.



P

I think you are missing the point. Faced with such 'finesse', would someone:

a) rely on measurements they do not fully understand - or necessarily want to fully understand - and seem to suggest all things sound the same anyway, or
b) rely on prima facie, and go with what feels right to them?

Please answer, in the light of fuel economy and road safety specifications, and how they relate to SUV sales to Soccer Moms.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Please answer, in the light of fuel economy and road safety specifications, and how they relate to SUV sales to Soccer Moms.

Not sure about all that Alan, but damn you type fast. I can't even get signed-in good until you've posted another 500 words!

 

[FrantzM]

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.

Alan

I admit scratching my head becasue I frankly don't understand what are you talking about here .. Care to clarify?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Most people I know who like turntables and tubes like them because they like the sound of music played through turntables and tubes. The justifications roll out when they are being backed into a corner by someone who tries to tell them they are being an idiot for daring to express a preference.

I fully support those who like the sound of their valves and vinyl and call it a preference. I like EQ, the deadliest of audiophile sins. But I'm not trying to convince anyone that by manipulating the source signal I'm creating something that is mysteriously and immeasurably more like music. I'm just making the bad recording a bit more listenable in a way that is reversible when it's time to play a good one. And your experience is very different from mine. Post your belief in the superior fidelity of digital sources, even on a "digital" or "computer audio" forum, even among those of like mind, and the analogphiles will find you and shout you down. I think some of them must run daily Google searches. Evidently a differing point of view, backed up by a bit of objective data, is all that is required to "back them into a corner."

Hey, just putting out ideas that might lead to some interesting observations. I'm not the only one to have made these observations, or to have tested them. I just want someone smarter than me to run with this and find something like a correlation. Periodically, you have to reshake the tree, because the 'no-nothings' are so reluctant to even try these things out.

I hope they're smarter than me as well.

I think you are missing the point. Faced with such 'finesse', would someone:

a) rely on measurements they do not fully understand - or necessarily want to fully understand - and seem to suggest all things sound the same anyway, or
b) rely on prima facie, and go with what feels right to them?

I have yet to meet the audiophile, either in person or on the internet, who relies on measurements over listening. This strawman only seems to come out for the aforementioned "shouting down."

Please answer, in the light of fuel economy and road safety specifications, and how they relate to SUV sales to Soccer Moms.

Ah...fuel economy and SUVs -- You would have to drive to a few North American cities and visit several "high-end" shops just to audition more than a very few DACs, for example. In light of this condition, which is only getting worse, gear choices often must be narrowed through some means other than listening and auditioned at home with a fair return policy from an online dealer. It's not ideal, but it's real, and it makes measurements, particularly the independent, publication kind that have become so rare, a critical tool.

P

 

[silviajulieta]

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.

Dear Kareface: Thank you for your explanation. I understand the room treatment importance and I already take action on my audio system and I will follow with some RPG additional diffusors. But always comes to my mind if trgough room treatment we could lose some important parts in the audio signal: especialy on mid-range and HF. Thank you again.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Ethan Winer]

If I played two things and you heard a difference, what percentage of the time you think you will be right or wrong?

That's the wrong question. The right question is how often would I know that what I think I hear may not be correct? I know that my own hearing is as unreliable as everyone else's. And I know that it's easier to hear small differences in a fast A/B switch while playing the same few seconds of music, than for longer passages over extended periods of time.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing one loses by adding acoustic treatment is bad qualities that you want to lose. That is, you lose the early reflections that obscure musical detail, including the desirable reverb and ambience that's already present in the music. You also lose the damaging low frequency peaks and nulls and ringing that exist in all untreated rooms. So you don't lose anything, rather you gain a lot. What you hear now is much closer to what's in the recording.

Many people are not used to the sound of a well-treated room. Most of the time when someone hears a good sounding room for the first time their reaction is very positive. But sometimes I hear people say that adding treatment robbed the room of reflections and ambience they consider desirable. I suppose this is preference, but preferring a well-treated room can also be an acquired taste. Someone might not like it at first, but over time they come to appreciate the improved clarity. I know that was the case for me.

How much deadening is desirable also depends greatly on the size of the room. To my ears, all small untreated rooms sound small and boxy. But in a larger room - let's say 25 by 35 feet with a high ceiling - the reflections are softer (walls farther away) and they also arrive later. When reflections are softer and later the room doesn't sound small and boxy, because it's not.

--Ethan

 

[kareface]

Dear Kareface: Thank you for your explanation. I understand the room treatment importance and I already take action on my audio system and I will follow with some RPG additional diffusors. But always comes to my mind if trgough room treatment we could lose some important parts in the audio signal: especialy on mid-range and HF. Thank you again.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Just don't get too aggressive with open faced panels. Mids and highs are directive, if you don't leave a lot of surface area for them to be absorbed they'll remain largely unchanged. You should use some panels tho, it'll take more than a 3-4 before you'll see any problems with over dampening in most reasonable sized rooms. Do you know your current rt60 data for mids and highs?

 

[Ron Party]

Alan, I enjoy reading your posts. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and, pertinent to this thread, you have taken considerable time to train yourself (as was evidenced by our brief discussion re the soon to be released Harman software) to correlate measurements with subjective listening impressions, in addition to which you seem to share with me the idea that one must have a balanced approach toward this hobby, which is what I've been espousing as a rationalist perspective, as is evidenced by these posts of yours:

What I have suggested implies there is something that manifests under close scrutiny that shouldn't. That should warrant further investigation, both in double-blind ABX testing and - should these findings be found to be repeatable - trying to investigate what is happening from an audio perspective that isn't being picked up by conventional measurements. This has nothing to do with 'musicality'

I am not saying we should abandon measurement. Quite the reverse in fact....

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."

"For now" is part of the backbone of the rationalist perspective. Perhaps additional studies will shed light on something, perhaps not, but to deny the validity of the methodology itself is to deny that human perception can be accurately studied. Reliability, repeatability, and reason are the litmus tests. Otherwise, we're just asking everyone to trust us. Have faith in us. Why? Because. Just because. Because I said so.

A couple of other matters. The first is what some might erroneously find as semantics:

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).

... two products that should have performed in an identical manner were looking to fail to pass an identicality test

I know you know the ABX does not confirm identicality.

The second matter is:

Most people I know who like turntables and tubes like them because they like the sound of music played through turntables and tubes. The justifications roll out when they are being backed into a corner by someone who tries to tell them they are being an idiot for daring to express a preference.

I have a complete 180 perspective on this than do you. Indeed this very forum started out as an analog love fest. In its infancy no one here was backing those people into any corner. Far from it, those people seemed to feel like they had free reign to absolutely trash anyone who preferred a different flavor.

 

[Ethan Winer]

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 don't get your point. If adding filter caps etc to an audio device's power supply improves the sound, why do you think that improvement is not measurable? What else do you think accounts for the change in sound?

--Ethan

 

[silviajulieta]

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing one loses by adding acoustic treatment is bad qualities that you want to lose. That is, you lose the early reflections that obscure musical detail, including the desirable reverb and ambience that's already present in the music. You also lose the damaging low frequency peaks and nulls and ringing that exist in all untreated rooms. So you don't lose anything, rather you gain a lot. What you hear now is much closer to what's in the recording.

Many people are not used to the sound of a well-treated room. Most of the time when someone hears a good sounding room for the first time their reaction is very positive. But sometimes I hear people say that adding treatment robbed the room of reflections and ambience they consider desirable. I suppose this is preference, but preferring a well-treated room can also be an acquired taste. Someone might not like it at first, but over time they come to appreciate the improved clarity. I know that was the case for me.

How much deadening is desirable also depends greatly on the size of the room. To my ears, all small untreated rooms sound small and boxy. But in a larger room - let's say 25 by 35 feet with a high ceiling - the reflections are softer (walls farther away) and they also arrive later. When reflections are softer and later the room doesn't sound small and boxy, because it's not.

--Ethan

Dear Ethan: Thank you for take your time about, appreciate it.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Ethan Winer]

if you look at the Clark and Masters 'Do all amplifiers sound the same?' DBT survey from Stereo Review in the late 1980s, the results suggest that the measurements don't matter after all... because those findings suggest they all sound virtually identical, irrespective of the measured performance.

There's a big difference between "don't measure the same" and "measure closely enough to not sound different." A power amp that has 0.003 percent total distortion measures differently than another amp whose distortion is 0.008 percent. But in both cases the distortion is too soft to hear, so the amps will sound the same. All else being equal of course.

--Ethan

 

[silviajulieta]

Just don't get too aggressive with open faced panels. Mids and highs are directive, if you don't leave a lot of surface area for them to be absorbed they'll remain largely unchanged. You should use some panels tho, it'll take more than a 3-4 before you'll see any problems with over dampening in most reasonable sized rooms. Do you know your current rt60 data for mids and highs?

Dear Kareface: My knowledge on the room treatment subject is really low that's why I'm asking. I'm taking the advise and support about from RPG people that I think are very good.

I was several times in audio dedicated system rooms, some really like me and other not so ( I have not an audio dedicated room ). I'm using some Snex and RPG Skylines and I will add something else according what RPG tell me. Right now my acoustics is really good but I know or at least is my hope that I can improve the system/room relationship.

Thank you again.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[FrantzM]

<snip>But in both cases the distortion is too soft to hear, so the amps will sound the same. All else being equal of course.

--Ethan

Ethan

That to me is the crux of the matter, IMO reproduction implies measurements of some sort. Capture (recording) followed by reproduction implies transduction which is a measurement. So if we can hear we are able to measure it ... so .. but the "all else being equal" is vague enough to mean anything .. What else should be equal for the amps to sound alike.
For the record my position is that electronics do sound different .