Measurements & Sound Quality

[Jud]

1 hour 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"

 

I have always thought the sense of space, or "soundstage" if you like, is at least somewhat susceptible to measurement, else it wouldn't be so trivially subject to manipulation.  Phase, timing and loudness differences all play into this, as does the room response.

 

For what is currently difficult to measure, I'd go along with mansr and say our emotional response, and to a lesser extent our individual auditory response.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, Em2016 said:

Is the current line of AP measurement gear already as sensitive/accurate/precise as  our ear/brain system?

 

I know some will say yes but I guess my next question to them is how do you know?

 

Specifically the AP measurement gear commonly used for our gear - not NASA's or Intel's measurement gear.

 

In most ways measurement gear is far more sensitive, accurate and precise.  However, for detecting patterns in signals, as distinct from detecting the signals themselves, the ear/brain is so far much better at most of this.  (Though AIs are making inroads - for example, there's a phone app that detects what stage of sleep you're in [REM, light sleep, deep sleep, lying awake] acoustically.)

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Berry said:

It gets really complicated when you run into places where the "less perfect" measurement is what sounds better to everyone that's heard the unit - which tends to happen quite a bit.

 

Since people do tend to latch on to certain patterns as being "right," is the fault in the better-measuring unit, or in the people who haven't listened to better measuring units enough, so that the "right" pattern doesn't correspond to the "accurate" one?  Or are the measurements not those that correspond to what most people match to the pattern that says "real"?

 

Is a puzzlement.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, iaval said:

Different question - would sighted listening test with a switchbox be accounted as statistically valid as long as the listener is not aware of which switch position corresponds to which tested gear?

 

Yes, that's "blinded" - in fact I would think double blinded, since neither the test administrator (you) nor the test taker (also you) knows which item is being heard each time.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

For most gear you really don't need to go into a shop.  That is why there are so few shops.  If the gear is clean and genuinely of high fidelity to the input.  You don't need to hear it. 

 

(exceptions are transducers.  On the replay end of it speakers.  You do need to hear speakers.)

 

Though as you've pointed out previously, if you don't have the technical knowledge base it's also useful to hear how a given amp, for example, drives a given set of speakers.

[Jud]

34 minutes ago, esldude said:

Consumers have always valued ease of transactions and use.  That is why LPs sold in the millions and RTR tape in the thousands only.  RTR was the higher fidelity medium, but LP was cheap and convenient. 

 

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).

[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).

[Jud]

13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

The playing together. Must be about PRaT or something.

 

The interesting thing is I remember you having me listen to a piece of music (by someone and The Holy Innocents if I remember, a jazz ensemble piece) with two different settings in your software. It was I think a memory utilization setting, SFS perhaps? Nothing explicitly to do with DSP.  And I told you that one setting seemed much better than the other at presenting the ensemble as musicians playing with and reacting to each other. The setting that wasn't as good seemed to lose the thread of some of the instrumental lines and present the piece as more of a jumble.

 

So even if you didn't know what to measure for musicians playing together, you know how to get your software to reproduce it.

 

Edit: Yes, this - https://www.allmusic.com/album/octave-of-the-holy-innocents-mw0000105086

[Jud]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

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.

 

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

[Jud]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Pass is a good salesman -  very very $successful$ in the all too subjectivised Audiophile market. 

 

In one respect at least, he is more honest than anyone else I can readily think of.  He has released schematics for many, many of his designs.  So we are free to see what the design philosophy/circuitry is, dissect it to our heart's content, measure on simulator and/or actual build....

[Jud]

35 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Nelson Pass is honest. Minimal BS. It is terrific that he can be open about his designs, provide his schematics for hobbyists and make money at the same time. We need more of this. He deserves every penny he makes and more. If you can solder and follow directions, you too can build one of his amps. If you can't then you can pay $$$$. Or get an old refurbished Adcom. Seems very fair to me.

 

Though to be absolutely fair, he doesn't release the current commercial designs.  But a not very old Pass amp for a fairly low cost is an excellent deal.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Hi Jud

 The cost would be prohibitive for DIY people to construct Nelson Pass's big Class A monoblocks for example, given the marked discounts he would obtain for quantity purchases of components, transformers, metal work etc. even if he did offer the designs.

 Then of course, his designs would be exploited by Asian manufacturers, even if he stipulated non commercial use only of his intellectual property.

 

Regards

Alex 

 

Not really. If you look at the DIY Audio thread for the X amps, which were reasonably recent Class A commercial designs, I believe prices being discussed a few years ago were in the range of $400/channel for monoblocks, slightly less for stereo.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi Jud

 I meant the big Class A monoblocks. i.e. 100W/ Channel for example.

 I have heard these, and they are quite big with substantial heat sinks and metal work ,as you would expect due to the large power output in Class A.

 Even my own 15W/Ch. Class A amplifier dissipates almost 100W of heat, so imagine the heat from these beasts in Summer .

Regards

Alex

 

Alex, there was (may still be) an incredibly thorough website by a Pennsylvania professor who built a couple of these. The fellow also was active in the DIY Audio thread about this amp.  Yes, these are the big ones.  The price may or may not have been exclusive of case, but as I recall there were people who managed to get sources for those that weren't too bad either.

 

I'm at a holiday party at the moment, but will see if I can find links, perhaps tomorrow.

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Measurements can tell you everything you need to know about how a component will or does sound,

 

I'm thinking I may have read Nelson Pass saying something more along the lines that Crenca mentioned Andrew Jones saying, that final adjustments might be done with the aid of ears.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Alex, there was (may still be) an incredibly thorough website by a Pennsylvania professor who built a couple of these. The fellow also was active in the DIY Audio thread about this amp.  Yes, these are the big ones.  The price may or may not have been exclusive of case, but as I recall there were people who managed to get sources for those that weren't too bad either.

 

I'm at a holiday party at the moment, but will see if I can find links, perhaps tomorrow.

 

http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/esantane/movies/aleph-x.html#Version

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

If my post made it sound like I was attributing that comment to Mr Pass, that was a mis-communication on my part. That sentence was strictly MHO. 

 

Yes - I thought it was a little ironic that it came at the end of a post praising someone who's said something different.   

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Great article!

 

Tremendously helpful and thorough.  Very kind of him to take the time to provide so much information to others.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Tremendously helpful and thorough.  Very kind of him to take the time to provide so much information to others.

 

Regarding the cost, It was more than $400 even back then for 100wpc monoblocks.  My memory came from thinking about trying to do a stereo version, but it would have had to be lower powered for that price point.

 

Here's an excerpt of what Eric, the author of the article, said at the time: 

 

Quote

For me, this works out to about $700 per 100w mono chassis.... Overall, I suspect that I could build a lower powered stereo chassis for somewhere near $400 to $450.

 

Even so, getting yourself a pair of Pass-designed 100wpc monoblocks for $1400 then (I wonder what it would cost now?) would be quite something.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

A true audiophile.  While at a holiday party, takes time to post and respond to other audiophiles.  

 

Man, it is Christmas, well almost.  That lousy sound stuff can wait until later. 

 

Most of the guests at the party were pretty interesting, but this one fellow was kind of a bore, and he was just about to show us the sixth picture of a bobcat family he'd taken with his phone (we actually get a fair number of bobcats around here, but his bobcats were bigger and better, which he was proving to us via his photos), so I took the opportunity to use my own phone for a minute.   

[Jud]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Remember to pay yourself XX $/hr and consider the number of hours. So ... if you have fun spending time doing it, then great, but  the price ...

 

If I thought like that, I'd have no hobbies. If it's fun, that's not added advantage rather than a cost.  Not that a couple of NC400 kits aren't tempting.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Or not, if the other option is selected.

 

Query: Does the same result apply to all or most recordings? If so, the "other" setting arguably serves little or no purpose.

 

Peter at least currently has posted on his site different settings for two different types of computers.  These represent a sort of consensus among Peter and his customers.

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

If I thought like that, I'd have no hobbies. If it's fun, that's not added advantage rather than a cost.  Not that a couple of NC400 kits aren't tempting.

 

Belated edit: ... that's *an* added advantage....

[Jud]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Right!

 

Just pointing out that cost isn’t just parts cost, and we shouldn’t expect our landscapers nor wedding photographers nor chefs to work for free  

 

First, Merry Christmas! Peace.

 

Second, yeah, especially if you're going to put in the kind of time, thought and effort that fellow put into the Aleph-X project, that's a commitment.

 

Third, getting back on topic, a question that occurs to me, thinking of the NC400 kits and how simple they are: If you were going to add something to improve that kit, (a) what would it be, (b) what aspects of sound would you expect it to improve, and (c) what measurements would you expect to be improved?

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Other than being cost effective, what is the draw for these NC400 based amps? The ones I have heard are too clinical. I can listen to them for long as they give me a headache after a while. 

 

I suppose the draw is that other folks have a different reaction.  

 

You may want to have a look at the Six Moons review of the Nord NC500 based stereo amp.  Once you get past the gabble, his discussion of how different op amps affected his subjective impression of the sound is interesting, and was part of what sparked my question about improvements.