Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?

[Jud]

Originally Posted by esldude

"Obviously musical satisfaction isn't something DBT's should get used for, and aren't. They are used to determine if you hear a difference. Where the rub comes in is DBT showing no difference is perceived, and yet listeners will report over longer terms one component is more satisfying than another. If one component is more musically satisfying for reasons having to do with sound quality, then it must alter the sound in some way discernible by the listener. Unless hearing is more acute over long periods then short listening tests should suffice. And if short tests show no difference, then one would think no matter the length of listening neither component can provide better or worse satisfaction than the other. Unless one can figure out what part of long term listening is more acute to differences than short term one is at a loss to know why or how it could be true without being due to non-sound quality factors."

 

The desperation to defend his (esldude) position leads to increasingly wacky answers.

 

I don't see wacky, I see someone sincerely looking for information and answers. Dennis tends to look in different directions than I do for answers, but that's a good thing in a couple of ways. Helps keep me honest, and even better, clues me in to references I wouldn't have found for myself.

 

Anyway, hope we can stay away from the personal stuff.

[Julf]

Anyway, hope we can stay away from the personal stuff.

 

Hear, hear!

[Encore]

Where the rub comes in is DBT showing no difference is perceived, and yet listeners will report over longer terms one component is more satisfying than another.

 

Please note that this was not what I was saying, Dennis. I may be that way or not, but I was limiting the discussion strictly to hearing differences of a hifi nature, i.e. never before heard details or soundstage. Often I simply don't hear the the differences, and certainly I can't judge their full scale until after a day or two.

 

BTW, would you agree that it is a problem of DBT's that the aural memory can't be erased between trials? I.e., that details noted on better equipment can't be erased from the test person's memory, and therefore are easier to identify when switching back to poorer gear.

[Jud]

BTW, would you agree that it is a problem of DBT's that the aural memory can't be erased between trials? I.e., that details noted on better equipment can't be erased from the test person's memory, and therefore are easier to identify when switching back to poorer gear.

 

Not Dennis, but I've wanted to comment about this for a while. There's no limitation in a rapid switching test saying you can only listen once to item A, and then only once to item B. I personally switch back and forth repeatedly when comparing, in part to counteract any effects of the type you're talking about. (That is, having heard something noteworthy from item A, one is naturally listening for it from item B. But now let's switch back and forth as many times as necessary to find out whether item A's presentation of that noteworthy sound is different from item B's, and if so in what way.)

[Daudio]

One thing that I see as important in long term listening, that hasn't seemed to be mentioned much here, is the variety of source material that is auditioned, and types of listening situations.

 

I have a set of a dozen or so albums and tracks that I usually listen to with each change in equipment/software. Unfortunately the set has changed over time with migrations from vinyl, to CD, to digital, with some overlap. These recordings are of high quality, and expose various aspects of SQ, such as deep bass, sound staging, and midrange purity. They are also very familiar to me, having been played on lots of different variations of my system(s), and on other high end systems, so I know the 'sound' well and can more easily detect changes for the better or worse.

 

I also listen to more 'normal' recordings, as part of my regular music diet, as well as favorite music, but poor recordings, to span the recording quality spectrum.

 

A combination of critical listening (often a PITA), and just listening for pleasure, or even background music, over a long term, provides a variety of different listening types, to add to the variety of different types of recordings.

 

Thus the opportunity for perception of difference and quality is maximized. More audio phenomena is exposed to my ears, both conscious and unconcious hearing processes are engaged, and potential bias's fade away over time.

 

DBT's ? Not for me, thank you.

[esldude]

esldude is the only person on the planet to deny the importance and legitimacy of any subjective listening and when faced with evidence of subjectivity by individuals such as Bob Stuart esldude usually relies on his old cop out of "it's a dillusion" or listeners "convince" themselves.

 

This is an individual (Bob Stuart) who you reference often as an EE authority (in combination with his formal education in psychoacoustics) and what he says in this interview completely contradicts your point of view.

 

The first paragraph is a distortion of my views and what I have indicated numerous times here. The second paragraph doesn't bother me all that much. Bob Stuart himself contradicts himself if you read his AES papers vs his interviews. It would seem obvious why. He even hints of other ideas in his interviews like the one you quote often. But clearly he is operating as a different persona as a promoter of his company in the audio press, and as someone trying to improve sound playback rationally when he writes papers for AES presentation.

[esldude]

Please note that this was not what I was saying, Dennis. I may be that way or not, but I was limiting the discussion strictly to hearing differences of a hifi nature, i.e. never before heard details or soundstage. Often I simply don't hear the the differences, and certainly I can't judge their full scale until after a day or two.

 

BTW, would you agree that it is a problem of DBT's that the aural memory can't be erased between trials? I.e., that details noted on better equipment can't be erased from the test person's memory, and therefore are easier to identify when switching back to poorer gear.

 

Yes, I agree that is an issue when blind testing uses music for the signal. Mr. Stuart tries to combat that by having his listeners very, very familiar with the test music over a quality system before doing the test. How well that helps out is not determined though one would think it helpful.

 

DBT's work in the cleanest manner when simple test signals are used. Now if these simplified test signal limits can be related to hearing limits listening to music you wouldn't need to use music. I may think that has been done more or less well enough. Others who doubt the results will think only music as a test can be a fully useful signal. Then when music is used and results aren't as expected at least some then complain of the problems of using music for a test signal.

 

I also think a stressful or overly focused attention during a test distorts the experience. How much that distorts basic limits of perception is somewhat up in the air. Despite claims to the contrary I don't think subjective listening is of no use. It does suffer from a high enough rate of hearing differences that aren't real (false positives) that determining the edges of what is perceivable is problematic. I have come to think that is enough problem that the related problems of measurement and blind test are a more reliable and consistent guide.

 

If you haven't seen it, a kind of approach I think is exemplary is Robert Stuart's in this paper.

 

http://www.meridian.co.uk/ara/coding2.pdf

 

Is actually only 19 pages of reading, and very informative. The graphs and figures referred too are all at the very end of the document. But are very informative so do look at them. I believe this was from 1996.

[4est]

One thing that I see as important in long term listening, that hasn't seemed to be mentioned much here, is the variety of source material that is auditioned, and types of listening situations.

 

I have a set of a dozen or so albums and tracks that I usually listen to with each change in equipment/software. Unfortunately the set has changed over time with migrations from vinyl, to CD, to digital, with some overlap. These recordings are of high quality, and expose various aspects of SQ, such as deep bass, sound staging, and midrange purity. They are also very familiar to me, having been played on lots of different variations of my system(s), and on other high end systems, so I know the 'sound' well and can more easily detect changes for the better or worse.

 

+1

 

Even if all of these features could be within on track, I think our brains would go into overload in the attempt to assimilate it all.

[Encore]

Not Dennis, but I've wanted to comment about this for a while. There's no limitation in a rapid switching test saying you can only listen once to item A, and then only once to item B. I personally switch back and forth repeatedly when comparing, in part to counteract any effects of the type you're talking about. (That is, having heard something noteworthy from item A, one is naturally listening for it from item B. But now let's switch back and forth as many times as necessary to find out whether item A's presentation of that noteworthy sound is different from item B's, and if so in what way.)

 

I think the crucial question is: Why did it take a better system to become aware of e.g. the never-before-heard detail? That said, I do agree that one can gain some insight from a couple of rapid switches, but after that things tend to muddle IME …

[Encore]

One thing that I see as important in long term listening, that hasn't seemed to be mentioned much here, is the variety of source material that is auditioned, and types of listening situations.

 

I have a set of a dozen or so albums and tracks that I usually listen to with each change in equipment/software.

 

Yes, that's another reason why rapid switching is problematic--it only works with one or at the most a few recordings.

[spdif-usb]

Jud,

 

In the early days of CD we were working on a system and were listening to a very familiar recording that had a guitar in the back. One day we realized that we weren’t listening to a guitar, but to two guitars. It’s that kind of step change that is fascinating. Human hearing is non-linear on lots of levels, and because we have memory, we can never perform the same test twice. If a better system lets you hear an instrument you hadn’t noticed before, for example, you can go back to a lower-quality system and will always hear that instrument.

In the above example, if you switch back and forth, you have a fifty-fifty chance of hearing the better-quality system first, so you have a fifty-fifty chance of always hearing two guitars on both systems. At the same time also, you have a fifty-fifty chance of hearing the lower-quality system first, so you have a fifty-fifty chance of hearing one guitar on the first, two guitars on the second and then, finally, two guitars on both for the rest of your life (or until an electric engineer erases your memory...).

 

There's no limitation in a rapid switching test saying you can only listen once to item A, and then only once to item B. I personally switch back and forth repeatedly when comparing, in part to counteract any effects of the type you're talking about. (That is, having heard something noteworthy from item A, one is naturally listening for it from item B. But now let's switch back and forth as many times as necessary to find out whether item A's presentation of that noteworthy sound is different from item B's, and if so in what way.)

[Encore]

Yes, I agree that is an issue when blind testing uses music for the signal. Mr. Stuart tries to combat that by having his listeners very, very familiar with the test music over a quality system before doing the test. How well that helps out is not determined though one would think it helpful.

 

Well, I'm not sure how it would be helpful. The interesting thing is that even though one may notice the details revealed by the better system when reverting to the lesser system, it doesn't follow that the lesser system sounds suddenly sounds as good as the better system.

 

 

DBT's work in the cleanest manner when simple test signals are used.

 

I'm glad that we agree there :-)

 

Then when music is used and results aren't as expected at least some then complain of the problems of using music for a test signal.

 

No, I'm complaining about the way music is used in DBT's with rapid switching. Again, I'm not against DBT's--it's the rapid switching which is the problem.

 

 

If you haven't seen it, a kind of approach I think is exemplary is Robert Stuart's in this paper.

 

http://www.meridian.co.uk/ara/coding2.pdf

 

Is actually only 19 pages of reading, and very informative. The graphs and figures referred too are all at the very end of the document. But are very informative so do look at them. I believe this was from 1996.

 

I will, once we're done renovating our new apartment. Took a quick glance at the conclusions, though, and I pretty much agree. Although perhaps more related to the other thread about Vinyl on CD, i belong to the people who believe that LP's, despite their shortcomings in terms of traditional measurements, have an edge over digital (not just CD's). I've heard a loosely assembled record player give a CD player three times its price (CD player was very good and had a price of about 8.000 US$) a thorough beating, using the same recording (Mahler's fifth w Barbirolli on EMI). The thorough beating was in terms of mainly sound stage size.

[spdif-usb]

I think the crucial question is: Why did it take a better system to become aware of e.g. the never-before-heard detail?

The answer to that should be obvious IMO, it's just because none of the lower-quality systems had been resolving enough to reveal the detail, i.e. the distortions caused by those systems were effectively hiding the detail.

[sandyk]

The answer to that should be obvious IMO, it's just because none of the lower-quality systems had been resolving enough to reveal the detail, i.e. the distortions caused by those systems were effectively hiding the detail.

 

And not necessarily because the systems didn't measure well using current test criteria.(wijnk)

The amplifiers designed by the U.K. technical author Douglas Self have VERY low distortion etc. but are reported by many to sound bland, with the sound mainly between the speakers. i.e. A quite mediocre soundstage. They do however make excellent "buiding blocks," especially if the power to the front ends is markedly improved.

[spdif-usb]

Yes, I agree that is an issue when blind testing uses music for the signal. Mr. Stuart tries to combat that by having his listeners very, very familiar with the test music over a quality system before doing the test. How well that helps out is not determined though one would think it helpful.

He told Robert Harley in the TAS interview that he and his team go into blind testing "to find out when we stop hearing a distortion", so I guess that explains why.

DBT's work in the cleanest manner when simple test signals are used. Now if these simplified test signal limits can be related to hearing limits listening to music you wouldn't need to use music. I may think that has been done more or less well enough. Others who doubt the results will think only music as a test can be a fully useful signal. Then when music is used and results aren't as expected at least some then complain of the problems of using music for a test signal.

The main problem with using music as the audible content in DBT is called "human bias". I already said that Poppy Crum presented (at the AES show of 2009 held in New York City) objective evidence of the fact, albeit using recorded speech rather than music. James "JJ" Johnson explained (at the same AES show, about 5 minutes before the start of Poppy Crum's presentation) how "everything audio can be steered". Everything, in the literal sense of the word, including DBT.

I also think a stressful or overly focused attention during a test distorts the experience. How much that distorts basic limits of perception is somewhat up in the air. Despite claims to the contrary I don't think subjective listening is of no use. It does suffer from a high enough rate of hearing differences that aren't real (false positives) that determining the edges of what is perceivable is problematic. I have come to think that is enough problem that the related problems of measurement and blind test are a more reliable and consistent guide.

 

If you haven't seen it, a kind of approach I think is exemplary is Robert Stuart's in this paper.

 

http://www.meridian.co.uk/ara/coding2.pdf

 

Is actually only 19 pages of reading, and very informative. The graphs and figures referred too are all at the very end of the document. But are very informative so do look at them. I believe this was from 1996.

I have read this paper some time ago and I think the obvious thing that matters is the fact the whole audio reproduction chain has to be taken into the equation. According to page 5 where distribution formats are discussed, it is naïve to use considerably more data to represent the sound than prevailing psychoacoustic theory would suggest. However, as many of us are aware of, most music distributions today are still suffering from errors regardless of whether it's naïve. So, a playback chain that doesn't add more of the same type of errors will keep many of those errors from becoming audible, as well as will keep audible errors from becoming even more audible than they already were.

[chg]

Bob Stuart himself contradicts himself if you read his AES papers vs his interviews. It would seem obvious why. He even hints of other ideas in his interviews like the one you quote often. But clearly he is operating as a different persona as a promoter of his company in the audio press, and as someone trying to improve sound playback rationally when he writes papers for AES presentation.

 

So, I was exactly right when I said the following earlier:

 

chg: "I thought esldude would at least say something along the lines of, that's not what he (Bob) said, or that's not what he (Bob) meant, as he usually does when presented with such information."

 

So you're saying that Bob Stuart didn't mean what he said in the interview piece below, he only said that because "...he is operating as a different persona as a promoter of his company in the audio press…" So you're saying he is lying to promote his company? That is so beyond ridiculous it defies logic and is a pretty slanderous against Mr. Stuart. Another desperate attempt to defend your way of life.

 

 

Bob: My brain comes at it from different directions. One is a deep love of music. Another is that I’ve got trained hearing; it started out being acute and then over the years I’ve learned to recognize certain kinds of things, particularly identifying the cause of a defect.

The errors that occur in an audio system have completely different dimensions. The kind of distortions a loudspeaker makes are completely different sonically from the ones that an amplifier makes, generally speaking. It’s really important to understand how a human being responds to sounds. We don’t hear sinewaves and noises and clicks and ticks, which are the vectors that electronics and acoustic engineers use to measure systems. When we hear a waveform there’s a very complex cognitive process that follows—we immediately externalize that sound as an object. If you design on an electrical engineering basis you’d say that an amplifier only has to be flat from 20Hz to 20kHz and with distortion below “x.” You’re immediately starting out with a model that says I believe I understand completely how this all works, and I’m not giving any value to the subjective mapping or the interpretive mapping or the cognitive mapping of what’s going on. So you can measure something objectively, but you know as well as I do that it’s possible to design a system that measures well but is not satisfactory. That’s why we inform everything we do not only with psychoacoustics, but with critical listening. You have to listen to everything.

What I think is outrageous is to say we understand everything about how the human hearing system works, because what we do know is that it’s incredibly sensitive to certain kinds of differences and very tolerant of others. That’s why you can get away with pretty horrific codecs for telephones, and why MP3 doesn’t completely destroy the intelligibility of the content.

[esldude]

As you have done before CHG, you put words in my mouth to build the version you wish to dispute.

 

I didn't say he lied. If you read his comments very carefully, they don't really come up to the point of lying. They aren't even completely diametrically opposed contradictions of his other writing. They put emphasis elsewhere, present alternate emphasis that sort of kind of agrees with the leanings of something like an interviewer from a famously subjective audio mag. They do in general give a different picture than his more technical writings. Yes, like someone either promoting his company or at least being more agreeable of people who review his products well as he has nothing to gain by disputing what those publications like about his products.

 

You can quote the parts of Mr. Stuart you like all you want. I can quote his white papers for another idea. The truth of what he does might lie elsewhere in between. It is clear where he puts the emphasis in his white papers and AES publications is not where you would think from reading his interviews done for the buying public. No matter how much you wish it weren't so the statements are out there for all to see. I don't have to imply he didn't mean what he said. He says differently in his own words taken from other sources.

[Paul R]

Well, let's be a little more accurate - you choose to interpret what he says differently than other people do. That does not make your interpretation right. I would suggest you edit all this up into a email, and write him and ask him what he means. That's the only way anyone here will know.

 

-Paul

 

 

As you have done before CHG, you put words in my mouth to build the version you wish to dispute.

 

I didn't say he lied. If you read his comments very carefully, they don't really come up to the point of lying. They aren't even completely diametrically opposed contradictions of his other writing. They put emphasis elsewhere, present alternate emphasis that sort of kind of agrees with the leanings of something like an interviewer from a famously subjective audio mag. They do in general give a different picture than his more technical writings. Yes, like someone either promoting his company or at least being more agreeable of people who review his products well as he has nothing to gain by disputing what those publications like about his products.

 

You can quote the parts of Mr. Stuart you like all you want. I can quote his white papers for another idea. The truth of what he does might lie elsewhere in between. It is clear where he puts the emphasis in his white papers and AES publications is not where you would think from reading his interviews done for the buying public. No matter how much you wish it weren't so the statements are out there for all to see. I don't have to imply he didn't mean what he said. He says differently in his own words taken from other sources.

[esldude]

Well, let's be a little more accurate - you choose to interpret what he says differently than other people do. That does not make your interpretation right. I would suggest you edit all this up into a email, and write him and ask him what he means. That's the only way anyone here will know.

 

-Paul

 

No I think I interpret what he says pretty much like others. I would even say if I had only read the Stuart interview done by Robert Harley I would represent his views pretty similar to the way chg does. I however then read some of his AES work and it isn't just my interpretation, it simply says something different than his interview(s). Now whether I surmise his AES papers are closer to what he has in his mind or whether his interviews in popular mags is closer to what he has in mind it becomes a judgment or interpretation on my part. Clearly I think the AES work is closer to what he really thinks and how he goes about things. But I can hardly claim a pope's infallibility on the issue. But I don't need infallibility to simply read what he says and see they aren't the same in two different locations and times.

 

As for writing and asking him, his public interviews and his other papers are different enough I doubt I could count on the direct straight answer from him if I got one at all. Maybe so, maybe he would straight out define one or the other.

[chg]

As you have done before CHG, you put words in my mouth to build the version you wish to dispute.

 

I didn't say he lied. If you read his comments very carefully, they don't really come up to the point of lying. They aren't even completely diametrically opposed contradictions of his other writing. They put emphasis elsewhere, present alternate emphasis that sort of kind of agrees with the leanings of something like an interviewer from a famously subjective audio mag. They do in general give a different picture than his more technical writings. Yes, like someone either promoting his company or at least being more agreeable of people who review his products well as he has nothing to gain by disputing what those publications like about his products.

 

You can quote the parts of Mr. Stuart you like all you want. I can quote his white papers for another idea. The truth of what he does might lie elsewhere in between. It is clear where he puts the emphasis in his white papers and AES publications is not where you would think from reading his interviews done for the buying public. No matter how much you wish it weren't so the statements are out there for all to see. I don't have to imply he didn't mean what he said. He says differently in his own words taken from other sources.

 

So you're the one to determine which statements he meant and which ones he didn't? Ridiculous! How do you know the interview wasn't the more accurate representation of his position? Because you say so? Also, do you really think white papers are the place one would include subjective information?

 

It's so obvious to me what's happening here. You attack any hint of subjective evidence because it threatens your daily way of life (which is researching, measuring, testing, bickering on CA). So you continue on with your biased objective agenda and often times make silly, desperation counter arguments in order to maintain your routine. In my opinion, you're not interested in finding truth, or learning, it's more about preserving the routine. Some that support you here are fooled and don't see the incredible bias involved, but I do.

[Julf]

How do you know the interview wasn't the more accurate representation of his position? Because you say so? Also, do you really think white papers are the place one would include subjective information?

 

I guess that most of us, if we would have to pick, would assume papers presented at an engineering conference for a limited, knowledgeable audience would be more accurate than an interview, interpreted through a journalist in a consumer-oriented magazine.

 

It's so obvious to me what's happening here. You attack any hint of subjective evidence because it threatens your daily way of life (which is researching, measuring, testing, bickering on CA). So you continue on with your biased objective agenda and often times make silly, desperation counter arguments in order to maintain your routine. In my opinion, you're not interested in finding truth, or learning, it's more about preserving the routine. Some that support you here are fooled and don't see the incredible bias involved, but I do.

 

I hope you realize that this variation of what you wrote, with some minor editing, might apply just as well to you:

 

"It's so obvious to me what's happening here. You attack any hint of objective evidence because it threatens your daily way of life (which is not based on any actual technical knowledge, but subjective opinion). So you continue on with your biased subjective agenda and often times make silly, desperation counter arguments in order to maintain your routine. In my opinion, you're not interested in finding truth, or learning, it's more about preserving the routine. Some that support you here are fooled and don't see the incredible bias involved, but I do."

 

Not very pretty, is it? So how about instead of making disparaging remarks about the daily life of people, maybe instead address their statements on a factual basis, addressing the validity of content of the statements rather than the person stating them?

[Jud]

I think the crucial question is: Why did it take a better system to become aware of e.g. the never-before-heard detail? That said, I do agree that one can gain some insight from a couple of rapid switches, but after that things tend to muddle IME …

 

Re never-before-heard detail: I allow for subjectivity here. It may not necessarily be the system, but simply that in all the conditions under which I'm listening at the moment, I happen to particularly notice that detail. In other words I may have heard it before, but never really *noticed* it in quite the same way. But it could be the system as well, in which case: Is there an unnatural level of detail, or does it fit in a natural way with the overall presentation?

 

Re "things tend to muddle:" Yes, I agree there's a sweet spot after which further comparative listening is counter-productive.

[chg]

I guess that most of us, if we would have to pick, would assume papers presented at an engineering conference for a limited, knowledgeable audience would be more accurate than an interview, interpreted through a journalist in a consumer-oriented magazine.

 

So does that then make what was said in that "consumer-oriented magazine" untrue somehow? And, no, one shouldn't "assume" that the conference would be more accurate. One could make the argument that the interview is more accurate because it is less stringent and scientific and the individual being interviewed can speak more freely, casually and honestly.

 

"Assume" "more accurate"? I didn't take you for the type to assume things.

 

I hope you realize that this variation of what you wrote, with some minor editing, might apply just as well to you:

 

"It's so obvious to me what's happening here. You attack any hint of objective evidence because it threatens your daily way of life (which is not based on any actual technical knowledge, but subjective opinion). So you continue on with your biased subjective agenda and often times make silly, desperation counter arguments in order to maintain your routine. In my opinion, you're not interested in finding truth, or learning, it's more about preserving the routine. Some that support you here are fooled and don't see the incredible bias involved, but I do."

 

Not very pretty, is it? So how about instead of making disparaging remarks about the daily life of people, maybe instead address their statements on a factual basis, addressing the validity of content of the statements rather than the person stating them?

 

That's quite a stretch. I'm not here every day, all day, repeating the same thing over and over, with the same agenda. I have many other interests and am quite active on a daily basis. My entire existence doesn't revolve around a single event. You've been following the posts, I'm surprised you don't see the bias on the part of the researcher. If you do see it and choose to ignore it, then you don't support truth, fact, and science the way you say you do. I should add: I'm not trying to protect some hard-line subjectivist point of view, if that's what you're implying. I would say I definitely lean more toward the objectivist side of the spectrum.

 

One can't "address their statements on a factual basis, addressing the validity of content of the statement" when an agenda exists. Look through the very well argued prior points and then the replies that followed. Again, if you don't see the bias and need to preserve the agenda...

[chg]

esldude,

 

In addition to Bob Stuart's comments on subjectivity here are a few others that you might want to try and dispute. Or, you could just say they're wrong and you're right.

 

Daniel Weiss: "Trust your ears".

 

Wlliam Z. Johnson interview:

Johnson: Yeah. In fact, Bob, as an engineer and a technical person yourself, I'm sure you've become aware that the measurement techniques we use today really don't necessarily tell you about the sound quality. Obviously, if it measures badly, it isn't going to sound good. But the simple fact that it measures well doesn't assure that it will sound good.

We have to get past steady-state measurements and get into the realm of dynamic behavior—how does the circuitry perform under actual musical dynamics? So far we don't really have a good handle on how to measure and quantify that. It would be great if we could have some simple number system that would allow us to evaluate equipment sonically, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Harley: You once said that hi-fi is one of the few industries where products are measured one way and used in another way.

Johnson: I have said that on more than one occasion. Every measurement that we're aware of falls into the realm of what we call repetitive, or static, measurement. In the real world, the simplest musical signal has component signals 1/10000 the size of some of the other signals present, and at many, many frequencies at once. It simply defies the abilities of static circuitry measurement.

 

Nelson Pass:

Q: What about all the other amplifiers that measure better?

A: The ear is not a microphone, the brain is not a tape recorder, and measurements are limited in describing subjective quality. I like to have low distortion and so on, but these things take a back seat to what I experience when I listen. There are plenty of products which have great specs – I will not be offended if you buy those.

 

John Curl interview:

Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear.

[4est]

John Curl interview:

Finally I stopped measuring and started listening, and I realized that the capacitor did have a fundamental flaw. This is were the ear has it all over test equipment. The test equipment is almost always brought on line to actually measure problems the ear hears. So we’re always working in reverse. If we do hear something and we can’t measure it then we try to find ways to measure what we hear.

 

Bingo!