Measurements & Sound Quality

[Ryan Berry]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Online's often cheaper too, and consumers have certainly always valued that  (sometimes to their detriment, but then some brick and mortar dealer experiences can be detrimental as well).

 

In ways yes.  In other ways it's not.  It depends on how the manufacturer structures the way they sell.  Cutting out the dealer lets the manufacturer make a bigger profit in a lot of cases, instead of actually driving the cost down to the consumer.

[iaval]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:56 PM, pkane2001 said:

 

Good luck contacting OEM. Apparently he responds to a chosen few. Talk about poor support. And no warranty provided.

 

I got it figured out in the end. 

Turns out I just have to drill out the headphone socket, following instructions in this video:

 

For convenience I drilled one 3.5mm next to the ear for easy access. I plugged in 1/8" jack and immediately noticed 10kOhm load. Great! 1V RMS seems to be correct input voltage. I wonder if I drill one more hole next to it, maybe the system recognize the presence of another socket and switch to balanced mode. 

[amir57bs]

if you believe in measurements you should first measure effects of music on human brain.

if you could not model ear/brain by mathematics then you never find why measurements are far from our brain response.

if your brain react positive to a tube amplifier (5% THD) and it reacts negative to solidstate amplifer (0.00001% THD) then typical Audio Society measurements are not related to good sound..

 

I think Audio is Black Art and there is very very very limited real knowledge about relation of good sound and objective measurements .

 

for example i hate balance cables, i prefer RCA (un-balance) cables , i never found any reason for that. theory says the balance is far better than rca but my ears say rca is better.

i think most of the time (not all the time)  measurements are opposite of good sound.

 

check this :

https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-cd-41x-cd-player-measurements

 

Audio note DAC measurements is not ideal .

 

 

check this real monster :

https://www.stereophile.com/content/weiss-dac202-firewire-da-converter-measurements

 

weiss is super accurate , more accurate than120k$ dcs or msb . weiss measurements is ideal.

 

 

but when you listen to them in a good high efficency speaker you can not enjoy weiss.

I agree Audio note is not ideal under 100hz and weiss is better for bass and i agree the AN distortion limits the transparency in complex music like huge classic orchestra but we could find a way to improve AN DAC but i will not go for weiss. most of those ideal measurements kill music.

 

[marce]

On 12/14/2018 at 5:56 PM, Ryan Berry said:

 

I'd obviously tend to disagree here.  Especially when we're involved in a hobby that gets down to using material A vs. material B for shelves and components, whether cables need to be elevated off the ground, whether speakers need spikes, etc. to achieve the best sound quality.  We tweak our systems constantly to get that (what we perceive) 1% better sound.  So the idea of not comparatively listening to the different pieces available seems a bit ludicrous to me, especially considering how the closer to the source you go, the bigger the effect tends to be on the overall sound of the system. 

The reason there's so few shops, in my opinion, is because it's a very specific market.  Similar to the reason we don't have nearly as many camera shops as we once had, convenience has supplanted quality for the general public when it comes to audio.  It's more convenient to shop online than it is to go into a store and deal with a salesperson, so most consumers will gladly give up quality for ease of completing a transaction.

Does better sound equal true fidelity?

[Miska]

IMO, things must measure well and sound good at the same time. I cannot accept either alone.

 

[iaval]

A good exercise might be to learn how a particular distortion sounds like (in exaggerated simulated scenario), and use that knowledge to confirm which measurement to use to confirm it. 

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, marce said:

Does better sound equal true fidelity?

 

From my reading, my guess would be that (beyond specific things like louder sounding better) in general what we  experience as better sound is very closely related to what we've heard a lot of.  For nearly everyone today, that means recorded and reproduced sound as opposed to live. So the desired goal - the sound of live music - becomes ever more difficult to subjectively evaluate.  Yet subjective evaluation is necessary because this is, at the end of the day, about what makes individuals perceive the thing they're hearing to be "real."

 

A quick analogy to the visual world: Some televisions do a better job of showing motion naturally (for example Samsung).  Others do a better job with color (for example LG).  Yet others do a better job with "blooming" or "clouding" in dark scenes.  Which is more "real"?  The subjective answer, and therefore the pertinent measurements, will be different for different people.

[Jud]

Just now, iaval said:

A good exercise might be to learn how a particular distortion sounds like (in exaggerated simulated scenario), and use that knowledge to confirm which measurement to use to confirm it. 

 

Particular distortions will bother different people to different extents. So you can learn the measurements that correspond to different distortions, and also which distortions matter more to you (and which less).

[iaval]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Particular distortions will bother different people to different extents. So you can learn the measurements that correspond to different distortions, and also which distortions matter more to you (and which less).

Particular distortion will usually show on more than one measurement method. Crossover, for example, is bound to be visible on spectrum and on the waveform. However my point was to exercise the hearing perception more on discerning these effects, the same way as mastering engineers learn to recognize a particular frequency band where a fix might be necessary. This also helps for communication with others - "this speaker is catching resonances around 800Hz", better than "something in the low-mids sounds funny". 

Next step might be perfect pitch. 

 

My point was to exercise this sense, as however imperfect it may seem, it's certainly possible to better it. 

 

[Ralf11]

2 examples of euphonic distortions:

 

1. slight fall in SPL vs. freq. sounds better to most listeners based on tests by JBL, et al.

 

2. even order distortion in amp stages (tho it is not clear to me that this has been rigorously tested, nor that it sounds better than no distortion at all)

[KeenObserver]

I would like to know what the measurements are for a veil being lifted?

I have seen "a veil was lifted" a thousand times,  but I have never seen the measurements.

Perhaps we can have a group of golden ears listen while one parameter at a time is changed.  When they go: "Aha, a veil was lifted", measurements can be taken.

[bluesman]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

2 examples of euphonic distortions:

1. slight fall in SPL vs. freq. sounds better to most listeners based on tests by JBL, et al.
2. even order distortion in amp stages (tho it is not clear to me that this has been rigorously tested, nor that it sounds better than no distortion at all)

1. Could you please direct us to the source of that information?  Everything I've ever read says that minor differences in SPL when comparing playbacks favor the louder, even if it's only a fraction of a db.

 

2. Harmonics, which are generated by every acoustic musical instrument) are multiples of the fundamental frequency (f).  The first harmonic is 1f (which is the same note as is being played), the second is 2f (one octave above the fundamental), the 3rd is 3f (which is pitched above the second by a musical fifth), etc.  Each successive harmonic is lower in energy than the ones below it, assuming no external "interference" from the source.  That interference, a combination of resonance and attenuation that alters the balance of natural harmonics generated by an instrument, gives each one its unique sound. 

 

Even order harmonic distortion means generation of even numbered harmonics, i.e. 2nd, 4th, 6th etc).  Odd order harmonics become more and more dissonant with the fundamental note and the lower harmonic structure as the order ascends.  The first harmonic and the lowest even order harmonics reinforce the fundamental notes being played, i.e. the actual note sounds a bit louder because it's being reinforced by quieter tones at exact octave intervals above it.  This gives the reproduced sound a slight low end boost similar in effect to the low end of the switchable "loudness contour" found in the front end of almost every audio amplification device in the 20th century. Its purpose was to compensate for the increased natural nonlinearity of human hearing at lower SPLs, and it made music sound "better" to users who expected a more dramatic SQ than is found in live music. The "loudness" or "contour" switch has been replaced by DSP, which lets users add the same kind of EQ in digital systems.

 

Does this kind of boost actually sound better than none? That's purely subjective, but far more people prefer artificially inflated low ends than naturally lean ones in virtually every listening "test" ever done - and a casual survey of DSP settings wherever I go shows that most people do boost lows and highs.  This tends to reinforce the fact that even order harmonic boost (a polite term for distortion, since it's not in the source material) is thought to sound better by most people.

 

Playback at live listening levels renders such boost unnecessary. Whether listening at SPLs far short of that is improved by such boost is subjective.  But pianissimo passages heard live are also affected by our nonlinear hearing, so boosting quiet passages in playback also gives them an unnatural quality compared to live performance. Boost not for me, but it's apparently preferred by the majority of listeners - and this is why they also prefer even order harmonic distortion (which, functionally, is addition) to none at all.

[Teresa]

5 hours ago, marce said:

Does better sound equal true fidelity?

 

It does if it is more realistic. IOW sounds more like acoustic music heard in person in a live setting.

 

5 hours ago, Miska said:

IMO, things must measure well and sound good at the same time. I cannot accept either alone.

 

 

I agree completely with this! 

 

Good measurements and sound that sounds and feels realistic from naturally made recordings is what I desire.

[Ralf11]

I posted some info re freq. response curves some time ago on this site.

 

Not sure what your point is re even ordered distortion.  However, that effect should not be confused with the Fletcher–Munson curves or their follow-on revisions.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, iaval said:

A good exercise might be to learn how a particular distortion sounds like (in exaggerated simulated scenario), and use that knowledge to confirm which measurement to use to confirm it. 

 

Very true, but some of the worst offenders can't be easily 'canned' - that is, switched on and off to one's hearing, in a neat, controllable package.

 

Just take all the varieties of digititus - fans of analogue well know the irksome qualities of digital sound "not being quite right" - examples being a dull, listless presentation; or detail being lost in a "black hole"; or a persistent, disturbing edginess. These are all valid distortion artifacts; but how does one create a nicely predictable sample of each of these anomalies?

[bluesman]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Not sure what your point is re even ordered distortion.  However, that effect should not be confused with the Fletcher–Munson curves or their follow-on revisions.

Let's try again - you don't seem to understand what I'm telling you.  Your question, to which I'm responding, is why "...it is not clear to me that this... sounds better than no distortion at all". First of all, I don't think it does.  But most people apparently do.  It was you who called this "euphonic distortion".  So either you also think it improves SQ (the most common definition of euphonic is "pleasing to the ear") or you're saying that you understand that others think it improves SQ even though you do not.  You asked why it is considered euphonic.

 

Even order distortion means additional energy is being added to the recorded musical waveform at frequencies corresponding to the even harmonics of each and every fundamental tone in that waveform.  Because the even order harmonics reinforce the fundamental tones in the recorded spectrum, and because the energy in the lowest harmonics is greater than that in higher order harmonics, this harmonic addition actually does provide some reinforcement of the lows in the same way that equalizing to the F-M curves does. The lowest frequencies in the reproduced spectrum are perceived as being louder because they are. As far as the ear is concerned, this is a "correction" similar to the use of F-M equalization, and it's considered "better" by those who boost their low end with EQ / DSP. Why else would they do this?

 

So my suggested answer to your question of why some think that even order harmonic distortion is "euphonic" (your term) is that this adds weight to the fundamentals in a manner similar to F-M EQ. No, it's not the same response curve, and that's irrelevant. It has a similar sonic effect that supporters call "warm". Personally, I apply no EQ of any kind (other than the RIAA curve needed to play my vinyl). I'm simply offering a logical and well supported theory as to why many people think that even order harmonic distortion sounds better than none.  There's no question that it sounds better than an equal amount of odd order distortion unless that distortion is confined to 1st order energy (which does not happen).

[Ralf11]

I have not seen any studies supporting your ideas.  If you know of any, please post them.

[iaval]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Very true, but some of the worst offenders can't be easily 'canned' - that is, switched on and off to one's hearing, in a neat, controllable package.

 

Just take all the varieties of digititus - fans of analogue well know the irksome qualities of digital sound "not being quite right" - examples being a dull, listless presentation; or detail being lost in a "black hole"; or a persistent, disturbing edginess. These are all valid distortion artifacts; but how does one create a nicely predictable sample of each of these anomalies?

Isolating the elements is vital for proper identification and study. If those effects are real, there should be some reliable method of confirmation.

Once isolated, then try to figure out what's going on. 

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, iaval said:

Isolating the elements is vital for proper identification and study. If those effects are real, there should be some reliable method of confirmation.

Once isolated, then try to figure out what's going on. 

 

Agreed. Unfortunately, in the thirty odd years since we've have directly used digitally stored source in playback situations there has been scant interest in precisely assigning various causes to the "ills" of digital sound. At one point a catch-all misbehaviour was assigned: jitter - but this is a poor choice, IMO.

 

IME lack of engineering robustness at a system level is a key factor, as evidenced by the fact that interatively introduced strengthening and workarounds, in the various parts of the chain, resolve these SQ issues.

[iaval]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

interatively introduced strengthening and workarounds, in the various parts of the chain, resolve these SQ issues.

Usually not without introducing other problems. 

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"ills" of digital sound

I'm a bit unclear on this - digital in this context is meant as PCM? 

The biggest problem with the CD era music IMHO is that dreaded loudness war, and the fact that many artists can't even render lossless track out of their DAWs and therefore supply labels with MP3s. 

[sandyk]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

2 examples of euphonic distortions:

 

1. slight fall in SPL vs. freq. sounds better to most listeners based on tests by JBL, et al.

 

2. even order distortion in amp stages (tho it is not clear to me that this has been rigorously tested, nor that it sounds better than no distortion at all)

A little too much even order distortion may result in a slightly too warm sound.

 Australian designer Hugh Dean ( AKSA from DIY Audio) once tailored his solid state amp's residual distortion products to sound more like a vacuum tube amplifier.

[jabbr]

Just reading through this and too many individual responses to quote but ...

 

I agree that measurements are essential but which ones? Folks tend to measure what us easy which means what their scope is already programmed. The “typical” THD measurements don’t tell the picture nor are the only measurements available. 

 

Probably don’t need to delve into sensory neurophysiology and trying to math model the brain.  We know about electric physics really really well. 

 

So ... as has been suggested : I’ve been listening to a lot of live music recently and there are two types:

1) acoustic unamplified: the acoustics of the room/hall are important as well as accurate reproduction. 

2) amplified blues/rock etc... what makes this sound live? I get the sense the amplification equipment has a fair amount of distortion: large Class D etc arrays of speakers as well as on stage tube guitar amps. 

 

So really the question should be: what in our living room is lacking that a live concert has? Send that signal to the brain  

[jabbr]

To add on: there is another category:

 

3) purely electronic music never intended to be played live ... problematic because the reproduction system is being measured in isolation and the requirements thus could be anything ...

 

What makes an “annoying” sound less annoying? Was it intended to be annoying? The only absolute here is fidelity to the recording, and when strict adherence to measurements are thrown out then the “best SQ” could be anything ??‍♂️

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, jabbr said:

what in our living room is lacking that a live concert has?

Musicians.

[PeterSt]

55 minutes ago, jabbr said:

So really the question should be: what in our living room is lacking that a live concert has?

 

The playing together. Must be about PRaT or something.

Anyway, I more or less frequently reported that "we" now are waiting for the applause at the end. It doesn't come ? then it's a studio recording after all.

 

IOW: I think this sensation can be there all right. But don't ask me what it takes to get it there, technically. Better balance ? Anyway it must be about better quality of some sort; the fact that the quality seems to be improving is, ... a fact.

 

I think it resembles the being startled about a baby in the room while none is there. These are the first signs of such an improvement towards the live happening. Next comes breaking glasses, dropping boxes, rain inside of the room and name it.

Of what I perceive of it, it is also related to how one is able to envision the (singing etc.) position of the artist.

 

Of course it is all related to naturalness. But, this is only a symptom. Still it encourages for envisioning "live". The real live recording does not require that much. This already started out with applause, or singing along, etc.