Jump to content
IGNORED

When do measurements correlate with subjective impressions


4est

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It may not be "jitter" per se, but my modus operandi for decades has been to just listen to a rig, and wait for "things (that) sound irritating in ways that are hard to define", which immediately translates to the SQ being "less natural, organic or less "real"".

 

My point would be, which is a better use of my time? To go to great effort to extract some number, by some means, which is an exact correlate of what I'm registering - or, merely correct the causal factor ... so far, the latter has won out ...

 

Hi Frank,

your "MO" is well known and i dare say not dissimilar to what most other audiophiles do.

 

I agree that if you can fix the cause of the problem then probably no need to measure it. I already do this by placing for example tube traps in corners of the room. I could measure the resonances but I already have a fair idea of what they will be and where they will be and a number will not likely change where I locate a tube trap.

 

None of this however  addresses the OP question.When (and what) measurements correlate with subjective listening impression? I would love to know the answer.

 

My crude impression is that measurements tell us that the item is operating to spec, whatever those parameters are.They tell us how they will interact and may be suitable to perform with other devices, like is there enough current to drive difficult speakers or will there be impedance mismatching etc etc. No doubt these things have impact on SQ. But still, what are the measurements that correlate with perceived sound characteristics?

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, semente said:

Measurements quantify particular parameters of reproduction. They are deemed good or bad in relation to the accuracy with which the signal is being "handled". Some measurements are bad from a fidelity perspective but the offending distortions sound good (euphonic) to some people.

Whether good measurements sound good or not depends on the listener's preference regarding presentation: it's a matter of taste.

Hi Ricardo

Agreed.

To my my way of thinking, If accurate measurements quantify what the test procedure is designed to look for. What happens from there is interpretation of the result. It is important that they measure what you think they are measuring and mean what you think they mean.

 

I also believe that "not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted."

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

.  I should probably sign out soon also.  I have never written this much on a forum in my life!

 

Hi Bill

fear not my friend , I think your post tally has been stuck on 115 for some years,lol....no one will ever know how much you post.🤣

 

Ive always liked your posts ever since those IIRC "water cooler" days when an objectivist invited me to have a water cooler chat with my doctor colleagues regarding my objection to (his) bullying behaviour. You volunteered you actually had the chat with a psychiatrist colleague over lunch and the response was priceless !

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I think " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Einstein? but could be apocryphal) is a great goal but of course there is "reasonably practicable". In either case it is difficult to agree (or know?) when the goal has been reached. happy to continue discussing elsewhere but not here as I think it would move off topic.

Cheers

David

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...