Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[MylesBAstor]

If we are going to be accurate, I never said room treatment was bad. I said its current emphasis is overrated. Fad is your word. It is that overemphasis that will wane. I got into to this because someone said it accounts for 96% of what we hear. To me that is overemphasis.

So if the room is 95% of the equation, then we should spend 10K on room treatment and $1000 on a Sony receiver, CD player and speakers in the room and it will sound magnificent.

 

[kareface]

It may be only me, but I love new data especially when it destroys a previously held opinion!

To learn something new is gold, to learn something AND have it remove a previously held position that is false is something else entirely, it is magical, it can be life changing.

For sure, we are only talking audio here...hardly important really...but as a principle in life the above takes some beating. Because, if what we hold as true is actually wrong, well depending on which aspect of life we are talking about it can and does have pretty major impacts.

To clear that fog away and see what is in front of us with a new and clear perspective...gee does life hold any greater pleasure than that?? THOSE are the magic, profound and life changing events we get.

So I simply cannot understand anyone's reluctance to examine their prejudices, in any sphere of life. I mean, by simply examining your assumptions does not necessarily mean they will be overturned, it does not mean you need to become a leaf in the winds of opinion. If your assumptions/beliefs are strong and robust enough, then the more examination they will withstand.

By altering them as the evidence demands, they will become MORE robust and useful in life.

But you gotta be willing to examine them surely?

Instead we see the opposite from people, the weaker and more fragile their opinions in life, the more strongly they defend them.

Back to the mundane field of audio, we can recognise the same features. Those displaying them (and we all do) will never see them when they do it, but it will be very clear to the disinterested reader...hmm disinterested may be misunderstood by some. I use that term as used by john ralston saul..unconscious civilisation I think it was. Meaning not having a vested interest in the argument.

Man, I love learning, and the best way to do that is always be willing to look at how my own assumptions or prejudices may be colouring my view on any given topic. They are the barrier to understanding new concepts.

I largely agree with this. I'm also skeptical of things that claim to change the current paradigm. I've seen lots of data that doesn't fit the current model until more research has been done, then everything seems to fit together nicely. New information is great, but with out a great understanding of what it represents, people can build assumptions that may not reflect the findings. Too often, especially when data is being represented by people outside off the scientific community, facts are misrepresented or overstated. People who eagerly latch on to the new are just as guilty as those who stubbornly refuse to let go. Some data is interesting, and can represent something new. The majority is just refining our existing understanding.

 

[RUR]

So if the room is 95% of the equation, then we should spend 10K on room treatment and $1000 on a Sony receiver, CD player and speakers in the room and it will sound magnificent.

To keep things in proper context, the genesis of this is, I believe:

In my estimation and personal esperience, the speakers and room/speaker interaction represent 95%+++++++++ of what we hear..

I don't agree with the 95% thing.......

Room and speakers. As I opined in that thread, we may not agree that 95%+ is the right figure, but most folks would (or should) agree that the percentage is huge when compared to other contributors.

 

[terryj]

nice cartoon...hmm, that's another thing, does anyone else notice how frequently we see reports of 'cancer breakthroughs'....yet here we are decades later.

I did not think I needed to add the riders that the 'false' ideas actually needed to be false, or the 'new' ideas needed to be true, that was a given in my argument.

That is kinda easily tested in life tho, it is the a hah moment that accompanies the epiphany that is a telling clue, it is the sudden explanation for past results of actions based on the false idea, the sudden clarity that goes with the removal of misunderstandings.

So yes, your caveat is true, (and to bring it back to topic) I was not talking about fads hahaha.

Still, I think what I was trying to say mostly is that there needs to be the desire to learn, to want to learn. And I think most people can readily differentiate between stubbornly refusing to examine data in order to win a net argument vs carefully examining what is presented to them and THEN responding. And an essential part of that examination is looking at your own ideas on the subject to see if they need modifying in any way.

 

[kareface]

nice cartoon...hmm, that's another thing, does anyone else notice how frequently we see reports of 'cancer breakthroughs'....yet here we are decades later.

I did not think I needed to add the riders that the 'false' ideas actually needed to be false, or the 'new' ideas needed to be true, that was a given in my argument.

That is kinda easily tested in life tho, it is the a hah moment that accompanies the epiphany that is a telling clue, it is the sudden explanation for past results of actions based on the false idea, the sudden clarity that goes with the removal of misunderstandings.

So yes, your caveat is true, (and to bring it back to topic) I was not talking about fads hahaha.

Still, I think what I was trying to say mostly is that there needs to be the desire to learn, to want to learn. And I think most people can readily differentiate between stubbornly refusing to examine data in order to win a net argument vs carefully examining what is presented to them and THEN responding. And an essential part of that examination is looking at your own ideas on the subject to see if they need modifying in any way.

It's not a matter of something being true, it's how the data is represented. People don't take into account negative feedback or assume rates remain linear and data gets projected out to extremes. In the contexts of the research the information is accurate, but when applied in an environment with other variables the results won't be the same. A great example of this is absorption coefficients, which are measured using the total surface area of the device. Some devices are designed with being placed against a wall in mind and don't have absorption over their total surface area. This lowers the coefficient in comparison to a standard panel, but the reality is when both are placed near a wall in the position they would normally be applied the one with the lower coefficient values frequently outperforms the one with the higher values. You have to understand how free-field absorption coefficients are measured to understand why this would be the case. In the center of the room something designed to work in a corner won't operate as well as a normal panel, but when used as intended it'll outperform the panel in the same position. I see this a lot with thicker corner traps like this:

 

[Orb]

It may be only me, but I love new data especially when it destroys a previously held opinion!

To learn something new is gold, to learn something AND have it remove a previously held position that is false is something else entirely, it is magical, it can be life changing.

For sure, we are only talking audio here...hardly important really...but as a principle in life the above takes some beating. Because, if what we hold as true is actually wrong, well depending on which aspect of life we are talking about it can and does have pretty major impacts.

To clear that fog away and see what is in front of us with a new and clear perspective...gee does life hold any greater pleasure than that?? THOSE are the magic, profound and life changing events we get.

So I simply cannot understand anyone's reluctance to examine their prejudices, in any sphere of life. I mean, by simply examining your assumptions does not necessarily mean they will be overturned, it does not mean you need to become a leaf in the winds of opinion. If your assumptions/beliefs are strong and robust enough, then the more examination they will withstand.

By altering them as the evidence demands, they will become MORE robust and useful in life.

But you gotta be willing to examine them surely?

Instead we see the opposite from people, the weaker and more fragile their opinions in life, the more strongly they defend them.

Back to the mundane field of audio, we can recognise the same features. Those displaying them (and we all do) will never see them when they do it, but it will be very clear to the disinterested reader...hmm disinterested may be misunderstood by some. I use that term as used by john ralston saul..unconscious civilisation I think it was. Meaning not having a vested interest in the argument.

Man, I love learning, and the best way to do that is always be willing to look at how my own assumptions or prejudices may be colouring my view on any given topic. They are the barrier to understanding new concepts.

Although trust me to put a slight downer on this, most opinions are pretty easy to overcome.
However the challenge is overcoming those that are entrenched views,passionate opinions, etc as this is one of the most difficult aspects of bias related to cognition-thought processing to overcome.
I can see this even in rational engineering/scientific posters who do not necessarily realise when it occurs, always easier to see from the outside if looking or learning such mechanisms.
Another example is pride, easier said than done overcoming an opinion when pride kicks in.

I have to say an example IMO of one the very best on the Internet audio forums-sites in coping/resolving these factors is John Atkinson and can be seen if you take a detached view and look at his approach/methodology/structure to posting, I appreciate he may not be everyone's favourite though

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

It's not a matter of something being true, it's how the data is represented. People don't take into account negative feedback or assume rates remain linear and data gets projected out to extremes. In the contexts of the research the information is accurate, but when applied in an environment with other variables the results won't be the same. A great example of this is absorption coefficients, which are measured using the total surface area of the device. Some devices are designed with being placed against a wall in mind and don't have absorption over their total surface area. This lowers the coefficient in comparison to a standard panel, but the reality is when both are placed near a wall in the position they would normally be applied the one with the lower coefficient values frequently outperforms the one with the higher values. You have to understand how free-field absorption coefficients are measured to understand why this would be the case. In the center of the room something designed to work in a corner won't operate as well as a normal panel, but when used as intended it'll outperform the panel in the same position. I see this a lot with thicker corner traps like this:

Indeed and was one of the points I was making as well, I feel in many cases the generated measurements are used out of context to what the test prodedure-protocol scope was intended for specific to the hardware or software tested.
Research papers is another case in point as you say, as many generate more discussion points than actual conclusive points.
As an example research into human behaviour into beats-rythms-memory has been ongoing for over 10 years at one academic research lab specifically focusing on reaching conclusive evidence-points on this subject matter.

Cheers
Orb

 

[terryj]

Although trust me to put a slight downer on this, most opinions are pretty easy to overcome.

Well, depends I guess. I wasn't talking about 'which salad dressing I prefer'. I find the hardest ones to shift are the unexamined ones, often of the 'everybody knows' type. Very much along the lines of your next bit

However the challenge is overcoming those that are entrenched views,passionate opinions, etc as this is one of the most difficult aspects of bias related to cognition-thought processing to overcome.

.

(this is getting way off topic in one sense, but not in another. I'm convinced that a lot of this is at the bottom of most audio arguments, meaning it is not about the gear or differences in gear, but 'purely' in the realm of 'psychology')

So I meant very much along the lines you've just mentioned. Not this trivial veneer stuff. Those unexamined ones, because unexamined, manage to simply bypass our normal scrutiny, and then get lodged deep down and rarely, if ever, get looked at again. It's interesting to examine some of the mechanisms by which these can get embedded, how they can manage to get by our censor. It is often an authority figure (parents, first school teacher, that sort of thing), or from those WE elect as an authority figure...(this one can be very prevalent in audio!!), which is why I always caution 'beware of who you elect as your guru'. 'Everybody knows' can be very much a societal or cultural thing, so I can imagine that would be an interesting field to plow!

And, 'because everybody knows' it is hardly likely to be closely examined is it.

Another one that is interesting ( and again can apply very much to audio beliefs) is that which comes from being first. Often when we are forming our thoughts about a certain subject, when we come across something initially, it can also take primacy. Especially if it is forcefully put, or sounds reasonable (ie not necessarily anything more than that, tho it could be of course) or comes from an authority etc. They simply get lodged as the basic datum on the subject, and once buried it can be hard to dislodge, especially if it was put there with out too much thought. Any conflicting data simply hits up against it and (as it is unexamined) acts as a barrier to being able to look past it.

Great stuff to look at! well, for me at least..probably boring to others.

 

[Gregadd]

If my pm box is full email me. rgregadd at aol.com. If it's about room acoustics...

So far I have been completely unable to communicate any of my ideas. Allow me to take one last stab at so called, dogma,prejudice and ignorance. I bet the Reverend Al Sharpton thinks Rush Limbaugh is a prejudiced, ignorant, racist. What do you think Rush Limbaugh thinks of Rev. Al Sharpton?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If my pm box is full email me. rgregadd@aol.com. If it's about room acoustics...

So far I have been completely unable to communicate any of my ideas. Allow me to take one last stab at so called, dogma,prejudice and ignorance. I bet the Reverend Al Sharpton thinks Rush Limbaugh is a prejudiced, ignorant, racist. What do you think Rush Limbaugh thinks of Rev. Al Sharpton?

I doubt we really know what either of them think. They are both entertainers who exaggerate for effect and play to the extremes. They do melodrama; slapstick. But is what they say what they believe? I doubt it. It's hard to imagine that anyone smart enough to make millions off of ignorance is actually that ignorant. It's easier to imagine them sharing a drink and laughing at the fools on both sides who take them so seriously.

I'll leave it to you to bring this tortured metaphor back to audio.

P

 

[Gregadd]

I doubt we really know what either of them think. They are both entertainers who exaggerate for effect and play to the extremes. They do melodrama; slapstick. But is what they say what they believe? I doubt it. It's hard to imagine that anyone smart enough to make millions off of ignorance is actually that ignorant. It's easier to imagine them sharing a drink and laughing at the fools on both sides who take them so seriously.

I'll leave it to you to bring this tortured metaphor back to audio.

P

I guess I failed again to communicate. Sigh!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I guess I failed again to communicate. Sigh!

I think you're communicating just fine, Greg. But it seems to me that you're trying to equate a rational approach that's rationale occasionally turns out to be wrong with a faith-based rejection of the rational that frequently results in normally intelligent people believing in the mystical superiority of demonstrably inferior reproduction. They are not, as you are trying to propose, opposite extremes. They are fallible reason and the lack of reason.

P

 

[es347]

Hey fellas, any chance of avoiding political or faith-based metaphors in the future?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hey fellas, any chance of avoiding political or faith-based metaphors in the future?

No problem.

P

 

[Gregadd]

I think you're communicating just fine, Greg. But it seems to me that you're trying to equate a rational approach that's rationale occasionally turns out to be wrong with a faith-based rejection of the rational that frequently results in normally intelligent people believing in the mystical superiority of demonstrably inferior reproduction. They are not, as you are trying to propose, opposite extremes. They are fallible reason and the lack of reason.

P

Nothinhg is infallible and no satandard is absolute. I don't beleive in anything mystcal except Christianity. That is a self proclaimed act of fatih.

From somone who argues for a living: on every debate from every field: you can argue on the merits,you can attack the procedure,you can attack the field of endeavor, or the person making the argument. Finally you can descend into name calling or unfortunately outright physical violence. Personnaly I prefer it when they attack me. It stings a little,but it means they have nothing on the merits.

Did not mean to offend. I'll make a better choice of metaphors next time.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nothinhg is infallible and no satandard is absolute. I don't beleive in anything mystcal except Christianity. That is a self proclaimed act of fatih.

From somone who argues for a living: on every debate from every field: you can argue on the merits,you can attack the procedure,you can attack the field of endeavor, or the person making the argument. Finally you can descend into name calling or unfortunately outright physical violence. Personnaly I prefer it when they attack me. It stings a little,but it means they have nothing on the merits.

Did not mean to offend. I'll make a better choice of metaphors next time.

No offense taken, Greg.

p

 

[Ethan Winer]

I never said room treatment was bad. I said its current emphasis is overrated.

LOL, room treatment is still ignored or at least misunderstood by the vast majority of people who play music through loudspeakers. There is very little public "current emphasis" other than by me and Floyd Toole and, I suppose, some of our followers. Excluding loudspeakers, the room one listens in has fifty times more effect on the sound than any audio gear. Yet look at the "associated equipment" list that accompanies hi-fi type reviews and I bet less than ten percent of them list any acoustic treatment at all. But most include tweaks that cannot possibly affect the sound, such as cable elevators and magic AC power cords. My efforts to explain the importance of room treatment over the past 10+ years are definitely having an effect, but there's still a very long way to go! So over-emphasis? No way.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Regarding frequency response, sure but bear in mind on its own it is pretty meaningless

I don't know about meaningless, because frequency response is the best measure of tonal color. But I agree it's not the only thing. There are four parameters that affect audio reproduction:

Frequency response
Distortion
Noise
Time-based errors​

Of course, there are subsets, such as hum and buzz and LP crackles under noise. I explain these four parameters more fully here:

The four parameters
Audiophoolery

I personally felt though off-axis response falls under the same basic FR measurement just at different angles.

Sure, but on- versus off-axis response affects imaging, which some people incorrectly believe is not possible to relate to measurements.

Does the simple FR tell you about cabinet resonance or driver breakup-issues in detail, or potential decay time variance over the FR?

Cabinet resonance falls under both frequency response and time-based errors. A resonance is accompanied by a peak in the response, and also an extended decay time. But driver breakup is definitely distortion.

It would help on that debate if you could provide two different speaker measurements including how distortion affected what the reviewers reported

The main problem here is "what the reviewers reported," which to my way of thinking is more or less a random result.

Seriously, I have no use for subjective impressions because they are not reliable and vary all over the map. What one reviewer loves another may hate. Even the same reviewer might love something one day and hate the same thing the next day if the listening was not done blind.

Distortion in loudspeakers is very complex. Heck, loudspeakers generally are very complex to assess for quality. But sticking with distortion, each driver has its own unique type of distortion that varies with frequency and volume level. Passive crossovers add their own distortion that's unrelated to what the drivers do. To properly measure everything that affects loudspeaker quality is a huge task. Listening alone is inadequate because the speaker's distortion varies depending on frequencies present in the source. So it's not that measurements can't tell us everything needed. Just that seeing a complete set of measurements is very rare.

One reason why I am more suspect of distortion being the only reason is when you look at preamps (ignoring power amps as that really complicates the issue) and say compare a cheap implemented global negative feedback SS to a highly spec-implemented tube zero feedback design and both have very low distortion and flat FR.

The four parameters I listed above indeed tell everything needed about an amplifer circuit. Amplifiers are much simpler than loudspeakers! So for an amplifier all that's needed is frequency response, distortion, and noise. In this case I'll put ringing under frequency response. Regardless, if two amplifiers have a response flat to within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all distortion is at least 80 dB down, then both amps will be audibly transparent and thus sound the same when auditioned properly (level-matched and blind). Looking at the data for those two preamps I'd assume they sound the same. Of course, the specs may not apply to everyone's system. For example:

THD achieved into 60kohm (2nd-4th harmonics) re. 1000Hz

Here the distortion is spec'd into a 60k load, but what if your power amp's input is only 5k? And I don't understand the "2nd-4th" restriction. What is the total level of distortion? More important, what is the distortion at other frequencies such as 20 Hz and 100 Hz etc? Differences in specs that are not reported could account for a different sound. I don't see IM distortion listed, and IMD is generally more audibly damaging than THD.

Often when I list my "four parameters," someone will say there's more to audio fidelity than that. But every time I ask what else there might be, I never get an answer. I am ready to accept that there's more to audio fidelity than these four parameters, as soon as I see credible evidence.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I love new data especially when it destroys a previously held opinion!

Yes, that's much better than the way I said it.

if what we hold as true is actually wrong, well depending on which aspect of life we are talking about it can and does have pretty major impacts ... Instead we see the opposite from people, the weaker and more fragile their opinions in life, the more strongly they defend them.

Indeed, and there are lots of things I can think of where what most people believe is wrong. Don't get me started!

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

we may not agree that 95%+ is the right figure, but most folks would (or should) agree that the percentage is huge when compared to other contributors.

Here's a simplistic way to assign a percentage value: We can ignore electronic gear and cabling etc because anything decent will be flat within 1 dB over the audible range. Good loudspeakers are flat within 10 dB if not less. But most rooms vary by at least 30 dB, especially in the bass range.

A 20 dB difference is a 10:1 ratio. So loudspeakers have more affect than electronics by 90/10, and the room is more important than speakers by 90/10. Therefore:

Room = 90 percent
Speakers = 9 percent
Everything else = 1 percent.



--Ethan