Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[silviajulieta]

OK, here's the problem. Back in the day when I used to test a lot of phono stages and such things were both measured thoroughly and tested, I encountered an issue.

I was using a Pink Triangle PIP at the time. Despite its alarming ability to lock the user out every few days, and its inability to correctly charge the battery supply, it stuck closer to the RIAA curve than any other phono preamplifier I had ever used. It was obsessively neutral, and measured to within 0.1dB of the RIAA curve from DC to light. This was still at the time when I was using a PT Anniversary, SME V and a Technics EPC 205, although that flatted out half way through the test and I had to resort to a Highphonic MC-A5. This was pretty much as neutral a front-end as could be produced at the time.

I was given an Audiolab 8000PPA to test. This was the first product that in measured performance matched that of the PIP. They should have been functionally identical.

They weren't. The 8000PPA was the sort of product that gave neutrality a bad name. I invited a series of listeners for blind testing, level matched and blind enough that they did not even know what products they were listening to. Same result. I played the 8000PPA at high levels, low levels, with all kinds of genre. It was the first product in more than a decade that should have been as good as the PIP to deliver a neutral performance (the PIP itself had been discontinued for a decade and was almost impossible to recommend because they were virtually unavailable). But no-one liked the PPA. It sounded dull.

This wasn't a test where 'no-one' really meant about eight out of ten people. Everyone picked the PIP as the better product. Every time, no matter how lax or how stringent the test was.

How can this be?

Dear Alan: ++++ " How can this be? " +++++, between other answers: same measurements but different unit designs, different electrical impedances on both units that react in a little different way with the other electronics where was connected, different parts in the circuit boards, etc, etc.

Btw, that Technics 205 was a winner and still is, I own it in version MK4. The Highphonic was ok: i think that was the one with the Ruby cantilever I own the MC-A6.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Dear Alan: Obviously we are talking or have very different targets on analog quality performance. My target is " to be nearest to the recording adding and loosing the less ".

We all know that through the whole audio chain the cartridge signal pass for a lot of audio links where in each one that signal is adding many and different kind of degradation and when we can hear that signal through our speakers certainly is really away from the recording.
What can I do about?, well try to loose and add the less in any single audio link. It is not the same quality performance we can hear when a cartridge signal already begin to lose its content from 500 hz and down it that instead of that that signal in that audio link lose " nothing ".

An audio signal lose here 1db and lose there 3db and add there other distortions, etc, etc. and goes on: what are you saying? that that is not important? that we have not to care because maybe we can't hear it?. I have not only the system to be aware of all that but I'm trained to do it. Trying to attain my target I have to care in deep the cartridge signal integrity.

Now, in the Vitus example the subject is not that the cartridge signal goes down -1.5db at 20hz but that the signal goes away of the RIAA recording starting at 500hz. As I posted any single RIAA frequency deviation alter/influence and distorted the audio signal in more than two music octaves! this is the critical subject. This is where we have to understand the importance of measures and what those measures means!!!

For your post I understand you accept that fact and that's fine with me. In my case I not only don't accept it but I think that something has to be terrible wrong for a reviewer like MF can't discern about, can't discern the overall influence of that deviation: from 500hz and down.
But Alan, this same MF can't either discern +2.5db at 20hz with +1.8db at 20khz in the Daertzeel phono stage either. I'm not talking to discern the specific 20hz or 20khz discrete frequency ( I think no one can do it. ) but all the deviation in almost SIX Music Octaves in that Dartzeel unit!!!!

Alan we have to understand on what we are trying to analyze because if you are in a way different " channel " that mine we can't have a conclusion that could help us in this subject.

Of course that I understand your " bias " in favor of the STP people. Fortunately my only " bias " is the MUSIC and be truer to the recording.

Mr. JA and Mr. MF have way different targets about. I can't agree with you because that will be to go against almost everything in the true enjoyment of music through a home audio system.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Raul,

all these MM and MI cartridges you constantly investigate; how do you determine the very best sounding ones?

i've read many of your posts over the years regarding how they sound. but never about measurements. why don't you constantly correlate those listening tests to measurements and prove why one sounds better than another?

i think i know the answer to that. it's because the measurments are almost useless to separate the good, very good and excellent performers. and many times the very best have little tricks up their sleaves which violate the measurment dogma while connecting with the art.

so Mr. Fremer is right in trusting his ears, as you are with all your cartridge perspectives. phono stages are no different. yes; sometimes great performers also measure perfectly, but sometimes not.

nothing wrong with measurements. but a deaf person would not be able to build the best sounding gear.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Raul,

all these MM and MI cartridges you constantly investigate; how do you determine the very best sounding ones?

i've read many of your posts over the years regarding how they sound. but never about measurements. why don't you constantly correlate those listening tests to measurements and prove why one sounds better than another?

i think i know the answer to that. it's because the measurments are almost useless to separate the good, very good and excellent performers. and many times the very best have little tricks up their sleaves which violate the measurment dogma while connecting with the art.

so Mr. Fremer is right in trusting his ears, as you are with all your cartridge perspectives. phono stages are no different. yes; sometimes great performers also measure perfectly, but sometimes not.

nothing wrong with measurements. but a deaf person would not be able to build the best sounding gear.

Maybe I'm being a smarta$$, but tell Beethoven that. Point being, there are many factors, both measureable and not, that make up good sounding equipment or music. Raul and MF are probably both right and (perhaps) wrong. Does it matter in the end? Personally I don't think it does as we each determine what sounds good and the method of how we got to that determination is inconsequential.

John

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Maybe I'm being a smarta$$, but tell Beethoven that.

Beethoven wrote music when deaf; but there is no evidance that he could tell one tone from another when played at that point. he could feel the low frequencies and observe the players. and he wrote the music based on his memory of how things sound, not on measurements. it was based on his subjective perspectives.

i don't believe this analogy fits the question.

now; when a deaf person designs the 'Beethoven's Ninth' of phono stages then i'll reevaluate.

and it's certainly debatable whether he would have ever relied on 'only numbers' to verify the fidelity of his music.

Point being, there are many factors, both measureable and not, that make up good sounding equipment or music. Raul and MF are probably both right and (perhaps) wrong. Does it matter in the end? Personally I don't think it does as we each determine what sounds good and the method of how we got to that determination is inconsequential.

John

i agree that it's up to the listener/buyer/music lover to determine value and musical satisfaction in reproduction performance and whether the measurement numbers have value. if i happened to be the kind of person who would make system synergy/performance decisions based on numbers primarily i think would find another passion/hobby. but, of course, if i had that perspective i would be a different person.......

 

[Ethan Winer]

not only do audiophiles fear measurements, the industry encourages the demotion of measurements to a lesser level of importance and elevates this 'just listen to it' mentality.

Yes, and the reason they do that is because they know that many people will hear what they hope / expect to hear. That's why sellers of ridiculous products like cable elevators and CD demagnetizers and too-small room treatment are glad to offer a money-back guarantee. Sure, some people will return them claiming they heard no difference. Maybe even half will. But the profits are so high, and return shipping is on the buyer, that the sellers still come out way ahead.

IMO getting people to understand the frailty of human hearing is the last frontier in stamping out audio BS.

--Ethan

 

[silviajulieta]

Raul,

all these MM and MI cartridges you constantly investigate; how do you determine the very best sounding ones?

i've read many of your posts over the years regarding how they sound. but never about measurements. why don't you constantly correlate those listening tests to measurements and prove why one sounds better than another?

i think i know the answer to that. it's because the measurments are almost useless to separate the good, very good and excellent performers. and many times the very best have little tricks up their sleaves which violate the measurment dogma while connecting with the art.

so Mr. Fremer is right in trusting his ears, as you are with all your cartridge perspectives. phono stages are no different. yes; sometimes great performers also measure perfectly, but sometimes not.

nothing wrong with measurements. but a deaf person would not be able to build the best sounding gear.

Dear Mike: IMHO if you have the right an precise measure-tool psychoacoustic mathematic model that set all the factors/parameters that in any way affect or have influence in what you are hearing then the measurements that comes from that calculation model always will give you the " reasons "/why's about quality perfromance differences in any two or more audio items on test.
Unfortunately that kind of usefull models does not exist yet.

The Science is a tool that if we know how to use it always can help us.

In the case of cartridges, either MM/MI/LOMC, perhaps is the area more dificult to relate measures against what we are hearing because frequency response or crosstalk or tracking distortion per se can't tell us if that cartridge will has high quality performance or only a medicre one. There are to many factors around that determine the final cartridge quality perfromance, we can name some of them: stylus shape, cantilever build material, cantilever shape and length, stylus mass, type of cartridge magnets, cartridge compliance, body shape and build material, cartridge pin connectors build material, type of cartridge suspension, type of coil wire used, cartridge weight, etc, etc and these are only the " factors " in the cartridge it self we have to add other " external " ones that has influence in the cartridge final quality performance like: tonearm and all what tonearm means, load impedance, etc, etc. and then we add all the cartridges specs.

But know cartridge measurements tell you something about performance. You can read in this forum the Technics EPC-P 100CMK4 review where you can read these cartridge specs:

Frequency response: 5 Hz- 120,000 Hz
20 Hz- 20,000 Hz +,- 0.3 db ( **** )
15 Hz- 80,000 Hz +,- 3 db

Output voltage: 1.2 mV ( * )
Channel separation: more than 25 db.
Channel balance: within 0.5 db
Compliance: 12cu ( 100 Hz, dynamic. )
DC resistance: 30 Ohms ( ** )
Inductance: 33 mH
Recommended load
Resistance: 10 kohms to 1 Mohms!
Recommended load
Capacitance: less than 500 pf. ( *** )
VTF: 1.25 +,-0.25 g.

( * ): both channels measure the same output voltage with out any measurable difference!!!!!
( ** ) both channels in my sample measure the same: 37.3 Ohms with out any measurable difference!!!!!!!

( **** ) each one Technics chart channel frequency response shows “ identical “ with no “ visual “ deviation for both channels!!!!!!!




some of the very high performance qualities/characteristics that shows this cartridge IMHO are because all these great specs/measurements ( you can see in the pictures in Agon the frequency cartridge response chart/diagram: dead flat, you can't see any deviation!!! ) and you can heard/hear it.

I understand the why's you posted those questions: at the end we have to decide through our ears but there are different levels of " ears " ( I mean quality performance. ) depending not only on each one experiences or kknowledge in music and audio but if those great " ears/brain " is trained to discern/detect subtle and not to subtle sound reproduction characteristics in quality performance.

Many of us have a training about with different level too in that training. I was and I'm ( for manuy years. ) in that training not only just " training " but trying to perfectionate it. I had a deep process to attain this kind of training that permit ( to any one trained. ) detct/discern so many things that the " normal " audio/music people can't.
I'm sure that you have that training I'm refering maybe with a different process and different tools but at the end the target is almost the same. Are there differences between you an me regarding how good are each one " ears?, certainly and IMHO more because one of us is at higher level because more training time or trained more in deeep in some " audio detection areas " that because we " likes different " or have different preferences. My Dartzeel " episode " was only one more of many similar " experiences " where I put on test all what I learned through my training, this is a very easy " exercise " for me.

In the other side IMHO what you, me or other people likes has nothing to do with accuracy/measures meaning and the wide understand of MUSIC word. My training was and is almost " with out biased personal " likes " " and certainly with no busines$$$ bias like commercial magazynes and the people that works inside. This fact makes always a difference, I can say makes The Difference.

Anyway, I would like to have on hand that psychoacoustic mathematic model that can/could tell me what to choose in the future with out need to hear it before I choosed!

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

PS: +++ but a deaf person would not be able to build the best sounding gear. ++++, yes it can in the same way Beethoven did it with his compositions.

Mike think about: ++++and he wrote the music based on his memory of how things sound, not on measurements. it was based on his subjective perspectives. ++++++

a deaf designer will do the same: his memory will be his knowledge/skills and tools not only on the elcetronic design or circuit board designs but on the electronic passive and active parts to use in his design, he knows how to make a good design that when is excecuted with the right parts always will perform great with great measurement!, this deaf designers knows all that for sure.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The Science is a tool that if we know how to use it always can help us.

yes; it can help. but it cannot replace us. at least in interpreting that which is the essence of art.....or why we have certain preferences between 2 apparently very similar items that seem to measure nearly the same.

yet; i'm not afraid of measurements. they might (and likely will) help in some way to move the reference forward.

but when measurements are somehow used to discredit a subjective perspective; then i'm going with the subjective perspective first. over time the truth of performance will win out as the collective understanding moves forward. we do need to get our ego's out of the way and be open minded to any possibility since we cannot see the future.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

a deaf designer will do the same: his memory will be his knowledge/skills and tools not only on the elcetronic design or circuit board designs but on the electronic passive and active parts to use in his design, he knows how to make a good design that when is excecuted with the right parts always will perform great with great measurement!, this deaf designers knows all that for sure.

you added a step.

my point was that using only measurements (a deaf person) could not design the best sounding gear.....that the process of design of top level audio gear requires listening as an element.

i did not bring up Beethoven, John did. in fact i said that the analogy did not fit my point at all.

so if this 'now deaf' designer once had done all the work of listening and choosing parts and circuit choices, and now he is deaf he can do it from memory. so what? again; we have subjective listening as part of the equation.

however we approach it measurments cannot get us all the way there by themselves.

science can help, and the best designers get the most help, but they still need to listen too.

 

[silviajulieta]

yes; it can help. but it cannot replace us. at least in interpreting that which is the essence of art.....or why we have certain preferences between 2 apparently very similar items that seem to measure nearly the same.

yet; i'm not afraid of measurements. they might (and likely will) help in some way to move the reference forward.

but when measurements are somehow used to discredit a subjective perspective; then i'm going with the subjective perspective first. over time the truth of performance will win out as the collective understanding moves forward. we do need to get our ego's out of the way and be open minded to any possibility since we cannot see the future.

Dear Mike: I agree, measurements don't replace us.

+++++ " but when measurements are somehow used to discredit a subjective perspective ..." +++++

IMHO it depend where those measurement happen in the audio item in test and how " bad " are/looks those measurements. In the three different reviews I made reference in my posts to Alan there is no doubt that those measurements are not only important but makes a difference and not for the better. I think that MF is or could be better that what he shows in those and other similar reviews.

Mike, I respect these STP people as persons but as professional reviewers when I'm paying for the magazyne sample and when I read what I read my respect for them goes down: it can't be in other way, I'm less " tolerant " than you or other audiophiles that read STP.

Rergards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Mike: Yes, we and our " trained " ears always are the most important " part ", no doubt about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike: Yes, we and our " trained " ears always are the most important " part ", no doubt about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Raul,

i suspect that on this particualr subject we pretty much agree, even though we express ourselves each in our own way.

cheers,

Mike

 

[Alan Sircom]

Some have correctly pointed out that 'something was wrong' with my otherwise-identical phono stage test. And indeed, something was wrong - the original DUT adhered to a 'belt and braces' set of then-upcoming EMI standards that were ultimately relaxed in the eventual requirements for CE-marking - essentially, products were expected to use a range of EMI emission controls (such as ferrites, capacitors and inductors) on the power line, where the end specification did not demand a multiplicity of such controls. A subsequent version measured as per its predecessor and performed good-to-excellent in listening tests. But here's the thing: both versions delivered near-as-makes-no-odds measured performance, and both were remarkably close to the phono performance of the reference. Under any standard measurement protocol you could put these products through, they behaved functionally identically. The EMI requirements were applied to the power supply so were 'inaudible' and did not influence the objective performance of the product, from an audio measurement perspective. Yet, the difference was clearly audible.

This would suggest that what we measure and what we can hear do not correlate at all times and in all cases. Even under rigorous listening conditions. Such issues can be blown out of proportion - the fact I had to call on a test conducted more than 15 years ago suggests just how commonplace such dichotomous events really are - but point to why some audiophiles remain wary of a simple measurement=end result correlation. Given that I have no idea whether the next product to be tested correlates until I listen to it, it's also why I consider measurement to be pointing out the direction, rather than the map entire.

It may be that the seeming lack of correlation between the sound and measured performance of the Vitus phono stage is another such dichotomous event. But seeing as how no-one here has (myself included) had any hands-on time with the product - in the lab, in the listening room or anywhere else (and I don't count five minutes in a show as hands-on time) - I suggest that we simply cannot ascertain that without recourse to idle speculation.

 

[FrantzM]

IMO getting people to understand the frailty of human hearing is the last frontier in stamping out audio BS.

I would agree to that. I have been somewhat bemused and often astonished to see how people can suspend their sense of disbelief and accept some products which seems to screams their manure worth in neon colors ! Things like The Lossless Black Body , M'pingo whatever, Shakti "Stones", Machina Dynamica "Intelligent Box", etc are being not only reviewed but defended by otherwise very keen persons. It is a wonder to me. It is as if we, audiophiles, want to be lead to that road...

I personally think that at times audiophiles seems to be persuaded of themselves as people with superior and unusual hearing abilities. Thus our capacity to hear things that can't be ever measured, our ears are better than any microphones. Seems to place us in a different strata in term of auditory perceptive abilities.
Science, Measurements and the dreaded DBT are unsettling for some because they get too much in the way of such superiority or exceptional sentiments. It seems the height of illogism that something that can be reproduced can't be measured ..ever... I quickly go on record to say that I am not sure we are measuring all the things that needs to be... or that the protocols under which we measure tells us all there is to know. I am reminded of that every time I look at the measurements for the Magnepan 20.1 which seem to me to sound amongst the closest to what I hear when I hear Live music, when these maggies are properly set-up and with the appropriate amplification...
To convince yourselves of what I have advanced about the psychology at play in the anti-measurements stance please consider how many times some of you have felt almost out of place or at the very least intimidated, when after a change (SIGHTED of course) you hear nothing different but have to suffer a chorus of your fellow audiophiles extolling the new component/cable/tweak with all the hyperbole we all are familiar with .. darker background, naturalness and the new one on the block "organic" .. while you heard nothing .. SO the idea that you failed to hear something that ALL did begin to creep in your mind and often you either you begin to "hear", slowly but honestly the "magic'.. or end up faulting your system as not-resolving-enough or maybe being told so nicely.

Very interesting to me and IMO what keeps High End Audio to get to the next stage, that of wider acceptance and audience.. A revival if you will..

 

[MylesBAstor]

I would agree to that. I have been somewhat bemused and often astonished to see how people can suspend their sense of disbelief and accept some products which seems to screams their manure worth in neon colors ! Things like The Lossless Black Body , M'pingo whatever, Shakti "Stones", Machina Dynamica "Intelligent Box", etc are being not only reviewed but defended by otherwise very keen persons. It is a wonder to me. It is as if we, audiophiles, want to be lead to that road...

I personally think that at times audiophiles seems to be persuaded of themselves as people with superior and unusual hearing abilities. Thus our capacity to hear things that can't be ever measured, our ears are better than any microphones. Seems to place us in a different strata in term of auditory perceptive abilities.
Science, Measurements and the dreaded DBT are unsettling for some because they get too much in the way of such superiority or exceptional sentiments. It seems the height of illogism that something that can be reproduced can't be measured ..ever... I quickly go on record to say that I am not sure we are measuring all the things that needs to be... or that the protocols under which we measure tells us all there is to know. I am reminded of that every time I look at the measurements for the Magnepan 20.1 which seem to me to sound amongst the closest to what I hear when I hear Live music, when these maggies are properly set-up and with the appropriate amplification...
To convince yourselves of what I have advanced about the psychology at play in the anti-measurements stance please consider how many times some of you have felt almost out of place or at the very least intimidated, when after a change (SIGHTED of course) you hear nothing different but have to suffer a chorus of your fellow audiophiles extolling the new component/cable/tweak with all the hyperbole we all are familiar with .. darker background, naturalness and the new one on the block "organic" .. while you heard nothing .. SO the idea that you failed to hear something that ALL did begin to creep in your mind and often you either you begin to "hear", slowly but honestly the "magic'.. or end up faulting your system as not-resolving-enough or maybe being told so nicely.

Very interesting to me and IMO what keeps High End Audio to get to the next stage, that of wider acceptance and audience.. A revival if you will..

No you're taking a few extreme examples and ignoring the rest of the vast amount of information out there about equipment and listening. I suggest taking a new piece of gear and listening to it for two months; then go back to your reference gear. That is a very telling experiment as to whether or not the new gear is a step up, down or lateral move.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I suggest taking a new piece of gear and listening to it for two months; then go back to your reference gear. That is a very telling experiment as to whether or not the new gear is a step up, down or lateral move.

Yup. Do it all the time.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Yup. Do it all the time.

Know it seems obvious Kal but you and I know it's not often done, even by reviewers since they are in a hurry to get a scoop

It's funny how the ear can be tricked into thinking that the new component sounds better; it's only after extended listening with a variety of familiar music that the faults come to the forefront.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

No you're taking a few extreme examples and ignoring the rest of the vast amount of information out there about equipment and listening. I suggest taking a new piece of gear and listening to it for two months; then go back to your reference gear. That is a very telling experiment as to whether or not the new gear is a step up, down or lateral move.

in the last month or so i've been lucky to have been involved in the development process of a tonearm. it's already an established product but the designer has been improving it. he has used my room and system to confirm the various changes he has been making. first we listen to his current tonearm; then the last version of the improvements, and then the newest changes.

it's been a facinating process to witness first hand. the designer is a musician and composer by profession, and his tonearm design is supported by the department of engineering of a major university, so it's a serious product.

but the only way to really know whether the changes are an improvement is to listen.

 

[silviajulieta]

Know it seems obvious Kal but you and I know it's not often done, even by reviewers since they are in a hurry to get a scoop

It's funny how the ear can be tricked into thinking that the new component sounds better; it's only after extended listening with a variety of familiar music that the faults come to the forefront.

Dear Myles an Kal: IMHO there is no rules about, that that is what is working for you only means and say: that's working for you and nothing else. Could it works for other people? sure could works but not for all.

I'm not a reviewer like you both but I have a process that I use to test audio items and this process works for me just from the beginning that I'm used it. First I don't trust in the long time ( two months. ) bbecause psychoacoustic brain effects: it is proven that our brain accustom/equalize to " long " sound reproduction time periods, the brain switch and makes the necessary adjustements to the new " sound " and then we lose efficiency to discern against the old audio signal.
So, IMHO the best is to go as fast as you can for not lose these critical/important first listening hours that tell you almost all ( maybe 90%-95% ) about the new signal/sound before the brain be equalized. That's why ( between other targets ) I attend to listen live music at least twice every week and try to heard other systems as often I can: to avoid " brain equalization ".

Now, in my listening evaluation process I use always the same 8-10 tracks ( not 8-10 LP's. ) that over time prove me that through them my tests and audio items evaluation is trusty and I have to say that till today never failed.
This is part of my training and how I'm trained and this kind of process take me not only several years to have 100% of " control " on it but hundreds maybe thousands of hours learning and learning and learning through listening. I know those tracks even its clicks or noises and in which channel I must heard it.

I tryed my " fast " evaluation process a lot of times in a lot of audio systems different from mine and I tested in my system a lot of of audio items with excellent results. It is not " nice " that I tell this but: till today I always been" right ". That Dartzeel episode was and is a testimony of my process.

The first listening hours of a new item IMHO are the more " precious " are the ones that are not " contaminated " ( brain equalization. ) and the ones that already tell you the audio item " signature " that ( if the item is already broken. ) does not changes over time in its mains/fundamental quality performanvce.

As your evaluation audio item process and as my evaluation process I'm sure that many of us have their own evaluation process that is different but that work for them. IMHO no one is wrong and the best is the best that works for you and that always is trusty.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Some have correctly pointed out that 'something was wrong' with my otherwise-identical phono stage test. And indeed, something was wrong - the original DUT adhered to a 'belt and braces' set of then-upcoming EMI standards that were ultimately relaxed in the eventual requirements for CE-marking - essentially, products were expected to use a range of EMI emission controls (such as ferrites, capacitors and inductors) on the power line, where the end specification did not demand a multiplicity of such controls. A subsequent version measured as per its predecessor and performed good-to-excellent in listening tests. But here's the thing: both versions delivered near-as-makes-no-odds measured performance, and both were remarkably close to the phono performance of the reference. Under any standard measurement protocol you could put these products through, they behaved functionally identically. The EMI requirements were applied to the power supply so were 'inaudible' and did not influence the objective performance of the product, from an audio measurement perspective. Yet, the difference was clearly audible.

This would suggest that what we measure and what we can hear do not correlate at all times and in all cases. Even under rigorous listening conditions. Such issues can be blown out of proportion - the fact I had to call on a test conducted more than 15 years ago suggests just how commonplace such dichotomous events really are - but point to why some audiophiles remain wary of a simple measurement=end result correlation. Given that I have no idea whether the next product to be tested correlates until I listen to it, it's also why I consider measurement to be pointing out the direction, rather than the map entire.

It may be that the seeming lack of correlation between the sound and measured performance of the Vitus phono stage is another such dichotomous event. But seeing as how no-one here has (myself included) had any hands-on time with the product - in the lab, in the listening room or anywhere else (and I don't count five minutes in a show as hands-on time) - I suggest that we simply cannot ascertain that without recourse to idle speculation.

I'm assuming what you eventually got to above was that the measurements missed something that the listening caught. That is definitely one of the things that could be wrong. It could be that the wrong measurements were taken, or the instruments were not properly calibrated...lots of possibilities. The blind listening test methodology could also be "wrong." It's not hard to get it wrong and, in fact, if research professionals were not in charge, the odds are pretty good. But to get back to the point, and the original example that got my attention, Fremer's phono preamp review evidently reported huge, massive, whatever the actual hyperbolic adjective was used, bass in a preamp that had demonstrated a measured roll-off in the bass. Instruments to measure frequency response at both greater subtlety and extension than the abilities of our hearing have existed for many years. Something was definitely wrong. Was it the measurements? Could be. I have no information from which to judge. But having read Mr. Fremer's review before, I've been given every reason to believe that he might have simply been hearing what he wanted to hear.

P

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Fremer's phono preamp review evidently reported huge, massive, whatever the actual hyperbolic adjective was used, bass in a preamp that had demonstrated a measured roll-off in the bass.

as i type this; i'm listening to the preamp/phono stage that Mr. Fremer reviewed. boy; the bass is pretty good. i have another respected phono stage in my system and this one is subjectively better in the bass. i actually have 2 separate phono stages in the same model preamp that Mr Fremer reviewed, the other one is set-up and connected to a Mono cartridge and also has very nice bass.

i'll add that it did take a few tries before i was able to correctly match my Lyra Olympos SL cartridge and the Miyajima Premium be Mono cartridge to the preamp properly to get the proper bass performance. but that is typical of most phono stages.

i'm going with Mr. Fremer's subjective comments. of course; my perceptions are subjective too.