Measurements & Sound Quality

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Which aspects of or factors in sound quality have no measurements that correspond to them?

 

Either cases where the measurements have not yet been made, or cases where the measurements cannot be made...

 

counter example: frequency response

 

possible example: "sense of space" or "real instruments playing in real space"

 

Two I can think of:

 

1)  What is subjectively and variously called "resolution", "micro detail", etc., and sometimes confusingly a sense of "grain" or "smoothness".  Distortion, FR, etc. are no doubt related but are not exhaustive.

 

3) A sense of "presence" or "thereness" or "liveliness" or "realness" or "immediacy" (and could be related to what the brits call PRAT).   Again, measurements seem to be related but not exhaustive.

 

 

 

[crenca]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

In my view, the problem is that measurements are unrelated to taste and what most people do is evaluate sound/performance according to their taste instead of assessing it from an observationist perspective, just as a biologist would describe a particular specimen or event.

 

On the contrary, measurements are very much related to taste.  The HP's I am presently listening (Focal Clears) are "clear" (a taste/subjective description) accurate (timbre, dynamics, etc.) and the CSD's, FR, distortion, etc. measurements all correlate to the subjective taste.  There IS a relationship after all.

 

The problem is the subjectist audiophile myth that measurements are "unrelated"...

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

It's not that measurements and sound are unrelated. It's that that the measurements don't matter much because they don't measure what they need to measure to describe sound quality.

 

Transducers actually have more measurements that matter than say amps or preamps. But, frequency response measurements of a headphone don't tell you how the transducers sound. The standard measurements used to describe amps and preamps really mean nothing in the end. There are amps out there that sound like crap that measure fantastic and there are amps that measure adequately that sound incredible.

 

In the end, no matter how well or how bad something measures, you need to listen to it to know how it sounds. The measurements don't help hear.

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong.  These measurements are related, do matter, and do describe the sound and its "quality" to a strong degree.

 

Your just repeating radical subjectivism as an article of faith.  Measurements have a long and strong track record of direct and obvious correlation to the sound, and the whole audio/electronic industry depends on this correlation...

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

Just repeating? Dude, I have been listening to audio gear for over 40 years.

 

Here is what Nelson pass had to say in an interview:

 

"Measurements and listening go hand in hand. There is a correlation between objective and subjective, but they’re not strictly causal relationships. Clearly, there are some amplifiers that measure great with “standard” measurements but don’t sound so good, and there are examples of good-sounding/bad-measuring as well. The discrepancies are interesting because they point to either things that have not been measured—more likely, misinterpreted—or aspects of perception and taste that don’t correlate to measured flaws. Or both.

In the end, the subjective experience is what our customer is looking for. Our taste in sound may not appeal to everyone, but it’s what we have to work with, and we only need a small segment of the market to be successful. I don’t neglect the measurements; I put them to work."

 

You probably have been buying into and repeating this "It's that that the measurements don't matter much because they don't measure what they need to measure to describe sound quality" Audiophile Myth for 40 years as well.

 

Pass does not back you up. He very clearly points to the correlation in the quote you choose (and says elsewhere that he and ever other designer utterly depends on it).  He is overstating the case here, perhaps because it is exactly as he says about "our customers" and "subjective experience".  He is playing to the crowd like any good politician or salesman.  Pass is a good salesman -  very very $successful$ in the all too subjectivised Audiophile market. 

 

Andrew Jones is more honest.  He openly admits he designs by measurements all the way to the end, and only "tweaks" by ear.  Measurements cover almost all of the design process because they are that good.  In today's consumer electronic world, that is how most things get done.

 

Audiophiles are like men standing on a new bridge next to the engineering who built it having this sort of discussion:

 

Audiophile:  "Measurements of physical phenomena did not get you very far in designing this bridge - enabling it to hold up your and mine weight did it"

 

Engineer:  "Why yes, yes they did"

 

Audiophile:  "But you don't understand all that much about sub-atomic particles, quantum flux, gravity waves, ubertanium and warp drive - not really"

 

Engineer:  "Um, true, but not really relevant..."

 

Audiophile:  "Be honest, you felt your way through designing and building this bridge.  What's your secret, fair dust?  Yep, it must be fairy dust holding us up..."

 

 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Since measurements are more accurate than the ear, I wonder what "tweaks" are needed.

 

Off the top of my head I don't remember - I recall watching a couple of interviews on Youtube where he explains his design method and use of measurements a year or two back.

 

edit:  this might be one, but the one I am really thinking of was at least an hour I believe:  

 

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Since measurements are more accurate than the ear, I wonder what "tweaks" are needed.

 

Oh, I don't believe it is useful to say that measurements are more "accurate" than the ear, or vice versa.  Different domains.  I think you can only correlate statistically.  Perhaps a psychoacoustic guy will chime in...

[crenca]

35 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Wondering if there are any measurements/specs of the different implementations that correspond to different subjectively reported sounds?

 

Me to...too...also...

[crenca]

19 hours ago, Miska said:

....This is already demonstrated and known by lossy compression algorithm design, such as MP3 or AAC. Only multi-tone analysis can tell truth about lossy compression. And if you look at transients, you are also essentially looking at very complex case of multi-tone.

 

 

I am intrigued by the bolded statement Miska!

 

What in your view is different about "transients"?  Most of the time transients are (wrongly) presented as a special case of out of band effecting in band sonics, with confused and confusing assertions of a "dirac" like nature somehow being critical to in-band response (in the signal, and/or in electronics, and/or in transducers, etc.).

 

All "real" music is of course multi-tone, so as I see it the whole signal is "complex".  What is it about "transients" (and here I am implicitly asking you to define exactly what you mean by the term) that is more complex than the the rest of the signal?