Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Of course distortion exists everywhere, Bob, but our ears have adapted, our lifetime of soaking up acoustics means that we know which distortion is "right": live music no matter where it is always sounds live, hell, we even know the signature of crap, overloaded PA systems. But in our listening rooms when there are two forms of distortion mixed, that of the original recordings, and an extra layer injected by the playback system, most times those two styles don't mix: it's like adding salt to ice cream, highly unpleasant. So you have two options: only play immaculate recordings, recorded to an inch of their life to have no unpleasant artifacts; or reduce the level of distortion of the playback system so it doesn't intrude on the "distortion" of the musical event ...
Frank
Perhaps I was unclear. I prefer noise and distortion as close to inaudible and FR as flat as possible in electronics. Transducers are a different animal. I don't think there is a speaker with an audibly flat response, but there are a few that come pretty close. I suppose if you put them in an anechoic chamber you'd get pretty flat in the sweet spot. Don't know if I'd prefer it or not, but I doubt it. I've heard in-ear monitors that are about as close to dead flat as a transducer can get. I'm not crazy about them, to tell you the truth. My desire for flat electronics has to do with control and convenience. I'm not attracted to the world of balancing one components color against anothers, seeking some kind of synergy that pleases me. It seems a much more logical and efficient path to find relatively neutral electronics, then pick transducers that sound good to you with the most recordings.
Tim
Frank, I cannot stand bad sounding recordings, and that includes a lot from my music collection.
I didn't have much choice in the seventies and eighties and nineties (I simply don't play them).
And most of them I didn't repurchase three, four, five, six or even more times.
I am very poor, I cannot afford perfection.
And I lost my entire LP collection from the sixties to year 2000. ...Financial hardship, total breakdown.
And what I rebuilt is way far from what I had before.
It's Ok, I got some great music I can play; much less than few people,
but much more than many of them. :b
More good music equals to diversity in life with a wider understanding; I believe.
And I am convinced that they measure well as well.
...On emotional impact and clarity and dynamics and spaciousness and imaging and soundstaging...
I didn't have much choice in the seventies and eighties and nineties (I simply don't play them).
And most of them I didn't repurchase three, four, five, six or even more times.
I am very poor, I cannot afford perfection.
And I lost my entire LP collection from the sixties to year 2000. ...Financial hardship, total breakdown.
And what I rebuilt is way far from what I had before.
It's Ok, I got some great music I can play; much less than few people,
but much more than many of them. :b
More good music equals to diversity in life with a wider understanding; I believe.
And I am convinced that they measure well as well.
...On emotional impact and clarity and dynamics and spaciousness and imaging and soundstaging...
If I would have one $ billion dollars,
I would buy Steve's system to anyone member here who wishes so. :b
I hope that it would be enough money. If not, I would borrow the rest.
* Roger's (Dressler) system is pretty good too, so people would have a choice at least. :b
And both Roger and Steve are into good room acoustic measurements.
I would buy Steve's system to anyone member here who wishes so. :b
I hope that it would be enough money. If not, I would borrow the rest.
* Roger's (Dressler) system is pretty good too, so people would have a choice at least. :b
And both Roger and Steve are into good room acoustic measurements.
Tim,
Several people have presented in WBF qualitative and quantitative definitions of "flat electronics" and most of modern audiophile electronics fall in this category. However, it still needs that kind of synergy to extract the full audiophile potential of it.
Or are you just addressing in your post just these 5% that fall outside the typical definition of "flat electronics"? ( FR 20-20hHz +/-1dB , total distortion of any type < .1% )
I do not have nothing against "flat electronics" - all my system is in this class - but I do not take its performance for grant of success unless finely tuned and matched . And, IMHO, "flat electronics" pieces sound very different form each other.
Just to be sure, I would like to learn from you what are the quantitative values of measurements that you consider should be reached for a piece of equipment to be "flat" - I have a defined idea of some other members sensibilities, but not yours .
Micro, I would expect any electronic component that measures +/- less than 3dB, across the audible range, against a real load to be close enough to flat for me. Of course there's a whole lot more to it than that. There is noise and distortion and transient response and headroom (another set of complications in and of itself)...it's not all that easy to get your head wrapped around which is one of the reasons why I take comfort in good active systems. But I'm not big on "synergy." I think electronic components in the signal chain that meet appropriate standards should and will play well together, though almost all of the exceptions are in the high-end, which may be where all this fiddling comes from. And I think when you get to the end of that chain you need a good match of amplifier headroom and speaker efficiency. This part is harder, because speaker manufacturers tend to be less than forthcoming about the load their speakers present and their efficiency ratings tend to be very flatteringly selective. But it isn't rocket science either, though it is fairly unlikely to be solved with any efficiency by audiophiles who barely believe in engineering, switching components around and listening for "synergy." I'm sure it sometimes gets there, but it's the hard way. In any case, they seem to love doing it, so if it takes awhile, I guess that's a plus.
tim
tim
The biggest amount of distortion comes from the loudspeaker systems.
A god matching amp(s) for high-end loudspeakers are the ones speakers' designers use themselves, in general (god starting point anyway).
Then depending on your patience and aptitude, analog or digital, or both is your ultimate poison.
Analog (TT & R2R), we all know why, on the pros & cons.
And digital (CD/SACD via HDMI or SPDIF, & downloading high res via USB or else),
we also know the culprits (jitter, and clock precision, & more).
Synergy between all the components, with the least amount of stress possible.
I like that.
A god matching amp(s) for high-end loudspeakers are the ones speakers' designers use themselves, in general (god starting point anyway).
Then depending on your patience and aptitude, analog or digital, or both is your ultimate poison.
Analog (TT & R2R), we all know why, on the pros & cons.
And digital (CD/SACD via HDMI or SPDIF, & downloading high res via USB or else),
we also know the culprits (jitter, and clock precision, & more).
Synergy between all the components, with the least amount of stress possible.
I like that.
Last edited:
Hello, Terry. That quote right there sums up my thoughts on the subject. I added what is in bold myself, forgive me for altering your quote a tad bit.
Steve, I believe you are on the right track with people being sensitive to certain frequencies and why some hear differently than others. I remember hearing of a case where a certain frequency would cause severe pain/migraine headaches to this one gentleman. What happened was the tube or canal that carries the frequencies had a small hole in it. In his case, the hole was pointed toward the brain. When that certain frequency hit, it would partially escape through the hole and the frequency would start literally vibrating his brain. From what I recall, he was not alone. There have apparently been many cases such as this, although still rare.
My point would be that while this may be a rare and extreme case, it might suggest a wider picture of why some folks hear things differently. At least the members here are blessed with being able to hear frequencies without pain [to a point]. Then there is the ear/brain interaction arena and how each individual interprets sound. Much of this and most likely many other aspects is without measurement yet, hence Terry's quote above.
Thanks Jim, I'm just not there yet in my audio evolution.
* But I know this is it. By the way, MOG is not available in Canada.
That kind of discussion will never end. Much more interesting is, why is it so common that units with proper specs have absolutely nothing to do with the reproduction of the real thing?
This is the reason for a lot of Audiophiles to go for units which sound better than others, because it is their time sitting in front of the speakers and listening to something.
It is normally no problem to get parts which have top datas AND have a superior sonically reproduction ability. The reason why NO-ONE uses them is very simply: They ARE expensive. Factor 10+
This ruins every profit calculation, such a unit (Speaker, Preamp, Turntable, Cartridges...) would rise automatically in the region of 20k own costs. Launched in the market with the typical profits for everyone in that chain would make such a unit super expensive and would not make the Manufacturer wealthy.
So, all of them (more or less) think all day long about a way to get "something" as cheap as possible BUT no one will detect that. One way is to create very expensive looking Frontplates and similar. And that works. Who cares about sound. That chapter was closed long time ago. That's the way it is. Creating a Hype is much more cheaper (zero) than buying top parts (there is only one exception all over the years, that is Digital, here is only one goal, processor power and when you need the latest processors then you have to pay the price, no way out...but later the worth drops like a stone, PC-Market, (what do you expect?)...
So, the happy Audiophile can pay and pay and the discussion will be alive forever
Is there a way out? Of course. Get it as cheap as possible that the resale does not hurt you. That's the secret today.
This is the reason for a lot of Audiophiles to go for units which sound better than others, because it is their time sitting in front of the speakers and listening to something.
It is normally no problem to get parts which have top datas AND have a superior sonically reproduction ability. The reason why NO-ONE uses them is very simply: They ARE expensive. Factor 10+
This ruins every profit calculation, such a unit (Speaker, Preamp, Turntable, Cartridges...) would rise automatically in the region of 20k own costs. Launched in the market with the typical profits for everyone in that chain would make such a unit super expensive and would not make the Manufacturer wealthy.
So, all of them (more or less) think all day long about a way to get "something" as cheap as possible BUT no one will detect that. One way is to create very expensive looking Frontplates and similar. And that works. Who cares about sound. That chapter was closed long time ago. That's the way it is. Creating a Hype is much more cheaper (zero) than buying top parts (there is only one exception all over the years, that is Digital, here is only one goal, processor power and when you need the latest processors then you have to pay the price, no way out...but later the worth drops like a stone, PC-Market, (what do you expect?)...
So, the happy Audiophile can pay and pay and the discussion will be alive forever
Is there a way out? Of course. Get it as cheap as possible that the resale does not hurt you. That's the secret today.
Please allow me to add a bit more...
Where are the measurements for imaging? Depth, perceived height and width?
Where are the measurements for the size of the venue the recording was held in? Small recording studio, auditorium, concert hall, open venue?
Where are the measurements for the depth of the sound stage -vs- listening position? How far is the stage in relation to the performance and how far in relation is that to you?
Where are the measurements that compare to the recording and how well the speaker portrays it? "Absolute sound"? I'm quite sure live music can be measured easily against a reproductive one...I'm just sayin'....
Where are the measurements for the atmosphere?
Where are the measurements for the transparency of the speakers disappearing in front of you verses other speakers or reproductive means?
Where are the measurements that can accurately give the end result of natural rolloff as it hits your ears? I.E. a high hat or a piano strike. I'm not talking about frequencies here.
Where are the measurements of texture in a woman's and especially a man's voice?
Where are the measurements for mid-range purity that you just can't put your finger on?
What is the perceived stereo separation of individual players within the sound stage?
Where are the measurements for the presence of things that were not intended to be in the recording, like a pencil snapping as someone walks across the back stage and how real it sounds?
Where are the measurements for being able to tell where the guitar player is in front of you, how high or low he is from you, how far away he is from you and where his fingers are strumming/plucking the guitar in relation to where he is changing the notes, especially when there are 3 guitarists and they are all playing simultaneously?
There could be 100's more questions of the "measurement of".....this is just a sample of them and why I think Terry nailed it at the beginning of this thread.
Last edited:
The measurements are there, but the interpretation is hard. Especially when you are talking about wildly-varying musical signals.
Measurements provide a lot of great info even if you can't read into them how much "air" your amp has.
However, in most audiophile forums, even asking the question of measurements vs. listening is mixing gasoline and matches.
Measurements provide a lot of great info even if you can't read into them how much "air" your amp has.
However, in most audiophile forums, even asking the question of measurements vs. listening is mixing gasoline and matches.
Hello, Don. Thanks for chiming in. May I ask where the measurements are....but most importantly, for what?
Do you guys prefer the sound from an acoustic Gibson guitar or from a Martin one? Fender?
Jean-Claude Larrivee? ...
How do they measure in graphic representations?
How relevant is this? Is the musician playing his instrument more important at the end?
...His style, false notes or not, and with the ambient noise from his environment,
natural (venue) & mechanical (mic pickup, recording machine, etc.) ...
Just don't go in the red. :b
Jean-Claude Larrivee? ...
How do they measure in graphic representations?
How relevant is this? Is the musician playing his instrument more important at the end?
...His style, false notes or not, and with the ambient noise from his environment,
natural (venue) & mechanical (mic pickup, recording machine, etc.) ...
Just don't go in the red. :b
I agree. After all, those who make amplifiers voice them. The same goes for virtually anything in audio, regardless of how it measures. SET amps distort like Hell, according to an oscilloscope, but they sound sweet to me. The same goes for everything, really. I started out with the notion that anything I made should be neutral, but I realized that I didn't understand the definition of neutral, and I wouldn't know it, if I heard it. If you say you know, you lie. What we have is equipment that is, in fact, yet another musical instrument in the chain. The trick is getting all the instruments to play well together. If we somehow manage that, we have a flavor that is generally accepted. After all, it is just about flavors, and those flavors represent music. That representation helps us relax, escape, or whatever it is that we are trying to achieve. Measuring it won't help the end game, will it?
Moral: Close your eyes, and try to appreciate what you hear. Try to forget about getting so damned anal about everything because avoiding that sort of stress is why most of us got into this crazy hobby in the first place.
Win
Moral: Close your eyes, and try to appreciate what you hear. Try to forget about getting so damned anal about everything because avoiding that sort of stress is why most of us got into this crazy hobby in the first place.
Win
I would dispute that. Gear can get to a level where for all intents and purposes it gets out of the way, audibly. There is no need to accept flavours from the equipment: they will still be there, in the background, at a low level, but subjectively, that's where they'll remain -- the "flavour" of the performance will overwhelmingly dominate. I have spent many years seeing this behaviour over and over again: irrespective of the gear, the better it gets in the important areas the more the audible result ends up approaching a precise end point: the sound of the intrinsic recording.
An example I experienced some months ago: a friend has both analogue and digital, which are on a par. He played a vinyl of a classical, Decca, piano and violin chamber music. Which I have on CD, only. It just sounded wrong, the tonality wasn't correct to my ears. Then we discovered a very significant "issue" with the analogue side; corrected that, and lo and behold, there was my familiar recording, all the dots were now correctly joined. The sound of the musicians playing now matched my strong sense of that event's sound.
And his equipment is totally different from mine, in so many ways ...
Frank
I'm of the opinion that most audiophiles don't fear measurements rather they distrust them as current measurements do not correlate with hearing - we all have our own experience of this correlation gap. The number of such reports are too numerous to dismiss despite protestations by some to the contrary.
So the logical conclusion is that measurements do not tell the full story! What could be the problem? Do we not have an enormous battery of measurements to choose from?
The main problem stated already is that we don't know what to measure for & how to interpret our measurements. The problem seems to me that we don't have a fully mature psychoacoustic model which can focus our measurements & aid our analysis.
In my opinion the area that has been greatly overlooked is perhaps beginning to be addressed now - see here for some papers about temporal resolution "Psychophysics, auditory neurophysiology, and high-fidelity audio"
Whether or not you agree with his research findings, it does shine a spotlight on this overlooked aspect of hearing
The other interesting factor in this is the ubiquitous nature of the most common measurement method used today & it's shortcomings, FFTs. Here's a quote from James keiser "The most widely used signal processing tool is the FFT; the most widely misused signal processing tool is also the FFT."- James Kaiser http://www.mayhu.com/talks/SPTTour.pdf
So the logical conclusion is that measurements do not tell the full story! What could be the problem? Do we not have an enormous battery of measurements to choose from?
The main problem stated already is that we don't know what to measure for & how to interpret our measurements. The problem seems to me that we don't have a fully mature psychoacoustic model which can focus our measurements & aid our analysis.
In my opinion the area that has been greatly overlooked is perhaps beginning to be addressed now - see here for some papers about temporal resolution "Psychophysics, auditory neurophysiology, and high-fidelity audio"
Whether or not you agree with his research findings, it does shine a spotlight on this overlooked aspect of hearing
The other interesting factor in this is the ubiquitous nature of the most common measurement method used today & it's shortcomings, FFTs. Here's a quote from James keiser "The most widely used signal processing tool is the FFT; the most widely misused signal processing tool is also the FFT."- James Kaiser http://www.mayhu.com/talks/SPTTour.pdf
