Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[Gregadd]

Etahn-your arrogance is amusing. It's no wonder you are in trouble all over the net.

 

[Ron Party]

So as to keep this thread moving on with the OT in mind instead of devolving into a flame fest, and since Randall appears to be following this thread, I thought I'd ask Randall for his comments on Jeff's article. Randall, what say you?

 

[microstrip]

I have shown an awful lot over these pages! If there's something you don't follow, tell me what parts you don't understand and I'll try again.
--Ethan

Ok, there were a few. For me measurements should report numbers and units, but the conditions of the measurements have to be clearly specified. Unhappily at previous posts I can only see very few quantitative values. But one of them is -80 dB for all distortion in amplifiers as threshold for being not audible. At what power and with what signal should we measure it?

 

[Steve williams]

I also want to congratulate Jeff for putting up the busiest thread on our forum

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What I find absurd is saying only "You're wrong," without bothering to type even one sentence explaining why I'm wrong or what is right.

--Ethan

ok, i'll bother. first; here is what i felt was absurd;

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

i find that absurd because it trivializes so much that goes into the experience of music reproduction.

one day spent at an audio show such as CES or RMAF visiting multiple rooms, all which are not ideal, few of which have any treatment, illustrates time and time again how careful set-up, excellent gear assembled synergistically, and great sources and recordings can result in very good sound. if a room was 90% of the performance then these rooms would sound like crap. some do sound like crap, but many sound good, and some sound wonderful.

not objective enough approach for you? how do you know that? have you measured these rooms and compared them to an 'Ethan' approved room? and then had listeners offer their subjective viewpoint on whether these 'best of audio show' rooms sound better or worse than the rooms you help.

forgetting about controversial issues such as cables and tweaks; there are many aspects to any system performance that end up being significant in the final level of performance.

it starts with the quality of the power grid. how clean is the power? this affects noise floor and dynamics, as well as the performance of every step in the signal path.

source gear quality as well as importance of the format and software/performance. really; the very best recordings somewhat trump everything. crap in-crap out. sometimes you would rather not hear everything that marginal recordings can tell you. i'm trying to stay away from the whole analog-digital issue for sure; but at a show, when the rooms all sound the same to a degree, a great analog recording raises the level of performance of a room.

amplification. Steve's Lamm ML3's can actually put lipstick on a pig. to say that it's contribution is less than 1% to the audio reproduction is an absurd statement.

finally; speakers are easily more than 9%. whether it's 20% or 50% is a question, but whatever it might be (and it likely varies from system to system) it's more significant than you suggest. if one listens at modest SPL's and the room is reasonably sized, the room's significance is reduced and the speakers are increased. i've heard magical systems in small rooms that look like they cannot sound as good as they do.

my initial response noted that i have made a huge commitment to having the best possible room, with the best possible room treatments designed into that room. hell; i even moved to another home so i could build my 'room' in a barn. so i do not feel i sell the significance of the room short. OTOH i realize that it is not anywhere near 90% of the performance.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Real music as a opposed to just test tones. Is that the best argument you can come up with?

I don't measure I'm subject to ridicule. I measure and I am subject to ridicule. It is my mistake for taking you guys seriously. I use this device which comes with test cd and is used at live concerts by professionals to check among other things frequency response. It cost around between 300 to 500 dollars so I could afford it. It is also easy for the lay person to use.

OK. I will try to explain.

First, using such a device with a test CD of broad-band noise will give you some indication of the general outline of the FR in your room and system. However, the resolution is to low to show more than a suggestion without details and, of course, the results will vary depending on where you put it and how you aim it. Second, using it with music is of little use to most of us except for curiosity. It cannot tell us much about the system as (1) music does not have a flat or reference frequency response and (2) it is constantly changing.

Kal

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree that Ethan has overstated the importance of the room. Not that a really bad room can't ruin a great system, it can, but given a reasonably normal living space with rugs and some big soft furniture and a pretty normal mixture of hard stuff and soft stuff, a good system will sound good and a bad one will still sound bad. But this takes us back to the central point of subjective vs. objective, fear of measurements, whatever you want to call it:

Steve's Lamm ML3's can actually put lipstick on a pig. to say that it's contribution is less than 1% to the audio reproduction is an absurd statement.

That's a huge problem unless you're saying that Steve's Lamms have some really precise and powerful EQ built into them, because even if it isn't a pig, even if it Ingrid Bergman, it's still going to paint it with the same lipstick.

P

 

[terryj]

am I the only one to think that ethan was not completely serious with his figures??

heck, maybe he was?, it's just that (given the context and when it was posted) I felt it more tongue in cheek and deliberately provocative rather than an actual figure he felt true?

hmm, maybe ethan had better tell exactly what he meant, given the attention that statement has attracted.

 

[Randall Smith]

So as to keep this thread moving on with the OT in mind instead of devolving into a flame fest, and since Randall appears to be following this thread, I thought I'd ask Randall for his comments on Jeff's article. Randall, what say you?

First, let me state that Jeff and I are very good friends who live in the same town. Every morning, around 7:00 AM, we talk on the phone for about 15 minutes while he is driving to work. During those conversations we discuss many different audio topics and some of them end up in an article or two. In the 5 or 6 years I have known Jeff, I have learned quite a bit. He is very knowledgeable and is a great resource not only because of his experience, but also because he has access to many experts in the audio industry. Many of my opinions are opinions I have adopted from Jeff, but by no means do we agree on everything. Jeff has written many different opinion pieces on this topic and one that really applies here is "Measurements don't tell you everything" article. We measured two speakers, one $6000 speaker and then the Arrakis. It was interesting to see that both speakers measured almost identically in the room, but in reality the speakers sounded differently. The Arrakis had much more speed and articulation in the bass by a wide margin. The speaker can do this because, 1- it is designed to do so and 2- the interaction between the speaker and the room is good enough to allow the speaker to do its thing. If the speaker placement isn't right or the room doesn't have enough bass absorption, Jeff wouldn't be able to achieve this. I would imagine that everyone can agree that speaker placement is important? Now this Gregadd comes across as someone who still claims the world is flat. Until he can comprehend the importance of acoustically treating a room and how ultimately, acoustically treating a listening room is one of the best bang for the bucks improvements you can make to yours system, he is wasting our time in this thread.

Having said that, it is my opinion that the people who discount measurements do so partially because the measurements do not jive with what they have purchased. Take Wilson Audio speakers for example. People who own their speakers often speak out the loudest when it comes to discounting the need for a speaker that has a linear frequency response. Jeff used to own the X-2's as well as a pair of Sophia's and a couple W/P's. I have heard these speakers in his room, in dealers showrooms, and in the Transparent Audio's Sound Room in Maine. I have heard their speakers sound incredible and I have heard them sound bad. They have a "house" sound that people love and I can understand why people love it so much. There is a speed and clarity to it that is impressive. However, from studying measurements, both ours and Stereophile's, I see that their speakers do not have much low-end output below 50Hz. So, when people claim that Wilson speakers have "deep and powerful bass" then what are they talking about? Sure, with careful placement, you can get lower bass in-room, but that sound is boosted by the room and isn't necessarily a product of the speaker. Doug Schnieder answered a letter from a guy on Soundstage today concerning Wilson's bass response. I agree with Doug. Take OB, nothing against him or anything, he seems to be a nice guy and ultimately, he is a great ambassador for our hobby. He allows many people to come into his listening room to hear his impressive audio system. By most accounts, everyone leaves impressed with what they hear. A year or so ago, someone did a bank of in-room measurements that were far from perfect. He is happy with his system and those measurements do not change that, nor should they. But, the sound achieved in his room isn't tonally accurate. His speakers "re-mix" the sound so to speak. If someone likes the way a pair of Wilson Audio speakers makes their favorite music sound, then more power to them. I have no right to tell you how to spend your money. But, I have every right to my opinion.

In the end, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone's personal taste in audio equipment. What it boils down to for me as a reviewer is understanding what each audio component is doing to my favorite music and then reporting it to the reader. My approach to achieving this is to own speaker and equipment that are neutral in nature. Both in the way they are designed, right down to how they sound and measure in my room. This is the perspective I am coming from and it works for me. If someone generally doesn't agree with me, then they will not like my reviews, but I would bet they would love to listen to my system!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Steve's Lamm ML3's can actually put lipstick on a pig. to say that it's contribution is less than 1% to the audio reproduction is an absurd statement.

That's a huge problem unless you're saying that Steve's Lamms have some really precise and powerful EQ built into them, because even if it isn't a pig, even if it Ingrid Bergman, it's still going to paint it with the same lipstick.

P

there are amplifiers, and there are other amplifiers, and then there are the ML3's. they are likely not strictly neutral, and who knows how they measure. but pretty much anyone who has heard them has fallen in love with them.

any reasonably efficient speaker system powered by the ML3's will make wonderful music happen. my point was that any decent speakers in almost any room would sound special with that amp.

it's an experiential thing; you'd actually need to listen to the ML3's to understand.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

there are amplifiers, and there are other amplifiers, and then there are the ML3's. they are likely not strictly neutral, and who knows how they measure. but pretty much anyone who has heard them has fallen in love with them.

any reasonably efficient speaker system powered by the ML3's will make wonderful music happen. my point was that any decent speakers in almost any room would sound special with that amp.

it's an experiential thing; you'd actually need to listen to the ML3's to understand.

I'd love to hear them, but I'm afraid it wouldn't help me, or anyone, understand that. I'll take it as a penchant for overstatement and let it slide, I suppose.

P

 

[Ron Party]

Randall, great post.

Mike, having been extemely fortunate enough to have been invited over on numerous occasions to Steve's, I concur that his system is indeed extraordinary. Having stated that, there is no question that Steve has chosen those amps because he likes the flavor they contribute to the sound in his room, and he has posted the same on numerous occasions. That those amps impart the same flavor on all source material is not legitimately in dispute. PP is absolutely correct.

 

[Randall Smith]

I also believe that everything matters, from the way the sound makes you feel to the way science helps the system properly reproduce the sound. It all works hand in hand!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'd love to hear them, but I'm afraid it wouldn't help me, or anyone, understand that. I'll take it as a penchant for overstatement and let it slide, I suppose.

P

well; until you listen how can you know you would not love them? you need to listen to amps like this. like sitting in a museum looking at a Van Gogh (that cannot be measured either).

i admit i have a penchant for really great sounding amplifiers.

i don't own the ML3's as i agree with Ron that they do add some color (and my wife would kill me). but it's the most glorious color.

 

[Robh3606]

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

Hello Ethan

I think you are over doing it a bit. When I read that post I took it as partially tongue in cheek. I agree the room is very important but if the basic system has real flaws the room won't fix them. By a real flaws I mean a peaky on axis frequency response graph in anechoic measurements as an example. Another would be issues in the off axis response which is an as designed problem that can't be fixed with EQ or room treatments. Under the best of circumstances you may not be able to fix all the issues a room has with room treatments. An example of that would be a deep notch in the bass response. Fortunately deep notches are not as audible as peaks so it works in our favor. I am not saying that you can't improve a room you can. My point is all of these approaches have definite limitations. A big part of getting things right is understanding them and being able to work around them when you can. Back too the original purpose of the thread.

Hello Orb

Sorry I didn't mean to put you to work on that response I understand what you meant now thank you for the clarification.

Rob

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Randall, great post.

Mike, having been extemely fortunate enough to have been invited over on numerous occasions to Steve's, I concur that his system is indeed extraordinary. Having stated that, there is no question that Steve has chosen those amps because he likes the flavor they contribute to the sound in his room, and he has posted the same on numerous occasions. That those amps impart the same flavor on all source material is not legitimately in dispute. PP is absolutely correct.

Ron,

fair enough. i choose Steve's ML3's to avoid anything personal for me in my response. let's go ahead and substitute the darTZeel amps; either my own NHB-108 or, the NHB-458 monoblocks, for the Lamm ML3's. here is a pic of both different amps in my system earlier in the year.

i included both amps since there are speakers that could be a bit too tough a load for my Stereo darTZeel....whereas the 450 watt Monoblocks can handle anything.

i think either of these amps would make a much larger than 1% effect in a positive way on a system.

 

[terryj]

diffusor looks nice Mike, had not noticed that before.

hmm, hope that laptop is for streaming and not measuring haha!

 

[Ron Party]

i included both amps since there are speakers that could be a bit too tough a load for my Stereo darTZeel....whereas the 450 watt Monoblocks can handle anything.

i think either of these amps would make a much larger than 1% effect in a positive way on a system.

Mike, go back and read Ethan's original statement. It is a qualified one.

Those 450 watt Monos, maybe they can handle anything, maybe they can't. Maybe they would have more than a 1% effect in a positive way, maybe not. It does depend on a few things, doesn't it, including, for instance, at what level you are playing your music, what crest factor is in the track your playing, etc.

So in a thread about measurements, and in particular, why some audiophiles fear them, an answer which is nothing more than "I think" is insufficient and serves to bolster Jeff Fritz's position. Where is the data, as Amir likes to state, to support your position? "I think" is not data. It is not falsifiable. What you think, another is free to think the opposite, and neither of those thoughts can be examined. And that was PP's point.

As an aside, I also don't agree with Ethan's percentages. I agree with Chuck's (audioguy's). The room and speakers make up 95%, or 90%, or 85%, whatever, the vast majority. I would say, though, that the speakers and the room must be considered as one, inseparable, in this analysis.

 

[RUR]

I agree that Ethan has overstated the importance of the room. Not that a really bad room can't ruin a great system, it can, but given a reasonably normal living space with rugs and some big soft furniture and a pretty normal mixture of hard stuff and soft stuff, a good system will sound good...

Good, perhaps, but not great. Neither objectively (as measured) nor subjectively (you have to hear the difference to appreciate it). Not sure if that's what you meant.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

well; until you listen how can you know you would not love them? you need to listen to amps like this. like sitting in a museum looking at a Van Gogh (that cannot be measured either).

i admit i have a penchant for really great sounding amplifiers.

i don't own the ML3's as i agree with Ron that they do add some color (and my wife would kill me). but it's the most glorious color.

Oh, I don't know that I would not love them, in the right system, on the right recordings. What I failed to understand was this statement:

any reasonably efficient speaker system powered by the ML3's will make wonderful music happen. my point was that any decent speakers in almost any room would sound special with that amp.

So these amps will make warm, sweet speakers with a bass-extension emulating low midrange hump and a harshness-reducing upper midrange dip sound wonderful, then they'll turn right around, without any eq, or any other changes in the system and make dry, treble-forward speakers with a lean bass sound wonderful too? They'll smooth out the edgy, compressed, badly EQ'd "Magic" (Springsteen), then disappear to let the near-perfect remaster of Kind of Blue through to the speakers unmolested?

I'm not questioning your honesty, Mike, just your objectivity. What you're proposing is impossible. I may love them, on some recordings, in some system, sometimes. But other times, I would simply want them out of the way. And as much as I'd like to hear them, I don't need to hear them to know that.

P