When do measurements correlate with subjective impressions

[fas42]

What the truth is, that the majority of people on both sides of the "battle" don't want to hear, is that not enough is measured about the performance of the system overall - and that the insertion of a different component normally alters the 'balance' of any higher resolution rig, because the engineering is always too inadequate to ensure that this doesn't happen. The fantasy is that all you have to do, using one of Paul;s beloved analogies, is to just stick a bigger engine under the hood - and your performance vehicle will always be better in every possible way ... any automotive engineer who believes this will be out the door so fast that his feet won't ... . Because, the car is a system , and every subsystem highly likely will have to be touched to ensure that the full potential of the greater power can be fully realised.

 

Until people learn to measure "properly", the debacle will continue - the answer is that the system has to be measured, not the component.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Of course this raises what's somewhat the flip side of good measurements correlating with subjective good impressions - what types and levels of distortion and noise are euphonic for at least some people? (Beyond the usual mention of tube electronics euphony, there are things like the Aphex Aural Exciter, literally a piece of electronics to produce noise and hash, used in the production of Born to Run, for example.) 

 

For myself, none. Once one appreciates that one can "leave the system behind", and only hear what's on the recording, subjectively, then anything that gets in the way of achieving that is useless. It's immediately irritating, like having someone pour some substance over the windshield of your car, "to enhance the view" - all you want is completely unimpeded vision of what's on the road in front of you.

[fas42]

18 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The one that I heard substantially before anyone else was slew rate limiting, and to me it was fingernails-on-chalkboard irritating, while from the reactions of others it seemed fairly innocuous to them. I own Spectral amplification, with a very fast slew rate. This led me to wonder whether I liked the Spectral stuff because I dislike slew rate limiting, or whether owning the Spectral stuff had made me more sensitive to something I was unaccustomed to hearing in my own system.

 

Just wanted to bring this up to raise the general idea that individual sensitivity to various forms of distortion may vary, and so @4est's original question may not have the same answers for everyone.

 

More likely the latter ... people have become so used to the typical misbehaviours of audio systems that they literally "expect it to be there" - "All rigs sound like that - it's just the way it is ...".

 

People complain that audio replay doesn't sound like the "real thing" - but then are unable to register that the sound replay is in fact quite distorted ... "it sounds like a typical high end system, therefore, it must be right".

 

When one has no trouble using the words "immersive", "effortless", even "magical" ... that in fact is nothing more than undistorted replay sound - the contents of the recording faithfully conveyed.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

With 2-channel audio, there's obviously a limit as to how close to the "real thing" the sound can approach...

 

Obvious? If a MCH recording is made such that direct sounds are encoded to present from behind one, say, then that would be true. But in terms of the subjective experience I have found that 2CH when working optimally ticks all the boxes - for me. The intensity, air, sense of instruments in full cry, which immerses one in the sound world that was captured, or created back in time, on numerous occasions has had me thinking, "I can't imagine how this could sound better ... I'm there!"

 

It's the "fool you!" quality of high standard SQ that makes the effort of doing what it takes to get there worthwhile - I have never had the slightest interest in MCH, because well done 2CH has always been enough.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, STC said:

 

A sound is real when it fits all the necessary cues of spatial hearing. When one of the cues contradicts with the natural sound cues than you will know the sound is artificial.

 

I agree with this. The brain triggers into deciding that the sound is "not real" when a single cue doesn't add up - the amazing thing is how far this can be pushed, in terms of where one listens, trying to latch onto a cue that the sounds are fake ... the typical standard of stereo playback is well short of what's needed, and hence is trivial to catch out - merely move a bit to one side, and any sense of an illusion collapses.

[fas42]

51 minutes ago, STC said:

 Common sense says no laptop speakers can sound better than even the MidFi let alone the tiny laptops filling the whole room. If such modification can be done then there is no reason why only one elusive man achieved that. Perhaps audio Einstein in the making. 

 

And this is what I have to deal with ... 😁.

 

Ummm, a conventional system with decent amp and good sized speakers will fill a room - a laptop, with tiny speakers going full bore, means that I have to listen hunched over the keyboard, ears a few inches from the speakers ... you know, like listening to headphones with the cups moved away from your head, 🙂.

 

"Higher fidelity" components should make it easier - but you will be worried about damaging their resale value, by being too enthusiastic with mods. Lower priced items you can hack to the point of destroying key parts; and you will learn more that way. Especially, that the types of distortion that disrupt the sense of the music "filling the room" can be tweaked away in most instances, if one spends enough time at it.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

Precisely my thought about many of your posts here. It goes both ways, Frank.

 

Indeed it does ... every time I get a post rabbiting on about how important the room acoustics are, the eye glazing meter rockets up, 😉.

 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

Very interesting - and I'm all for using our ears, so long as some effort is made to close the loop and actually look into new measurements that might explain what we're hearing.

 

That is quite different, though, from an argument which posits "as yet unknown measurements" simply as a way to indefinitely forestall the application of measurements to a discussion of sound quality. (To be clear, I'm not saying you are putting forth such an argument.)

 

What really, really upsets some people is that I keep going on about how poorly executed design underlies a lot of the audible problems - "How dare he imply that my very expensive gear is not good enough!!" ... well, if you want the Truth ...

 

One can even see using simulation software, Spice, how many of the circuits used are faulty in their ability to be accurate, when the "going gets tough!" ... virtual measurements are enough to show the weaknesses in the designs - so what hope have real world examples?

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I disagree. That isn't why folks find your posts annoying.

 

So, why do you find them annoying?

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

It is your style of communication.

 

Specifically:

 

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

1. Spamming almost every thread on this site with repetitive posts that are only marginally related to the topic under discussion.

 

Every thread? I tend to keep to General Audio, and when I look at recent activity, over 24 hours, there may be one thread that looks interesting, elsewhere.

 

Marginally related? ... A good recent example?

 

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

2. An underlying tone of superiority. "You lot have your heads up your ass and you're never going to get good sound unless you do things my way."

 

It's you who see a "tone of superiority" ... I think, "It's so frustrating seeing people spend so much time and energy focusing on aspects that will only have a marginal impact on them achieving what they're after - how can I suggest an alternative approach, which worked for me, which doesn't offend?"

 

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

3. A complete unwillingness to listen to the options of others.

 

I've been reading about the options others use for 35 years - and I know they won't do a thing for me, because they don't address underlying problems. And when I listen to systems constructed using this type of thinking, there are so many boxes that can't be ticked. Which means that I don't see the point of spending time considering methods that don't do the job, efficiently

 

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

4. Your belief that every person on this site is only interested in expensive equipment and quick fixes.

 

 

Well, it is a hobbyist arena ... 😁. The scorn people pile on with when I mention low priced gear is guaranteed to make me react - and the demand that I must have "special knowledge", that I just dump in full force, does irritate ...

 

People like to ignore that I've known for 35 years what's possible ... which is not the same thing as having known for 35 years exactly how to always get such, at a push of a button. ... The latter will likely never happen, but people express their annoyance at me saying that .

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Racerxnet said:

Because your polished turd is still a turd at the end of the day.

 

Which is a good opportunity to use a visual analogy ... 😉.

 

Someone buys a very expensive television set, huge size - and sets it up with the bare minimum of adjusting of all its operating parameters; he wants it to look spectacular!!, and by golly, it does that in spades ... the colour bowls you over, almost stains your clothes, it's so intense. IOW, subjectively, it's a turd ,,,

 

I recently got a decent sized TV at the other end of the cost spectrum, and have spent weeks very finely adjusting all the settings that make sense, step by step, 😉 - trying to optimise every area where the set isn't quite perfect in the way it presents. So, it's going through a process of "polishing".

 

What does that do for me? Well, it allows me to "see through" the picture - the colours always make sense, it never disturbs me, whether it's a dark period piece, a hyped up quiz show, an ad, or a news report. If the program is an intense colour kaleidoscope, that's what the set delivers - it 'pops' beautifully. The TV is a chameleon, it takes on the persona of what happens to be showing.

 

And that's what I want an audio system to do ... turns out that the polishing gets a cheap rig to do what the fiddling with the visual settings of a visual playback device does - stops it being an obvious, ummm, turd.

[fas42]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Your analogy doesn't work because there's nothing wrong with the signal being broadcast.

 

And there's nothing wrong with the audio recording, 😉.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

There's where we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Fair enough ... but remember I've refined my "polishing" technique enough to get past the normal 'roughening' that audio reproduction adds - big surprises are in store if this is done properly, 😉.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't believe this to be possible. The best any audio equipment can do is accurately reproduce what's on the recording. If a recording is shite, it will always be shite.

 

But the elephant in the room is, how do you know your equipment is accurate enough?

 

No need to tell me that all the components have fabulous specifications, and that someone, perhaps Amir, has measured, conventionally, that all looks good, 😝.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Who's Amir?

 

Someone you mentioned in a post a couple of days ago ...

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

In answer to your previous question about elephants, I've got a collection of favorite recordings that I know well and have heard on multiple systems. If they sound "right", the system is good enough for me.

 

Care to name some of them, so I could possibly align to what you're looking out for?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

A few that come to mind:

 

Tsuyoshi Yamamoto - Midnight Sugar & Misty

Ray Brown Trio - Live At The Loa

Gene Harris Trio with Scott Hamilton - At Last

 

 

I see your POV ... have looked at all of these on YouTube clips. Very well recorded, especially the Yamamoto - even on my "tiny laptop speakers" the treble on the piano has tremendous, clear bite.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

I don’t think there are all that many posts about room acoustics and acoustic treatment on this site. I enjoyed Chris’s recent article about the acoustic treatment and DSP correction he used in his room, and I personally would enjoy more articles and discussions in the same vein.

 

Always tends to happen when I mention that I never worry about this, 😉.

 

11 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

The is a good correlation between the measurements you get out of software like REW, and what a system in the room sounds like subjectively, certainly at the bass end.

 

Depends what sort of bass one is after - which sounds sort of silly ... isn't bass, just bass? My interest is in whether the bass line of the music comes through with complete conviction, rather than whether the lowest possible frequencies are reproduced - and I have always been disappointed with rigs of other people: the poorly set up ones are wallowing in boomy nonsense; and other ones just fail to project the intensity of what the lower end "is doing" - too half hearted in presenting what's happening there.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

In my experience the most cost effective way to get a system with dynamic, clear and full range bass is with a fully active system with two or more subwoofers and sufficient acoustic treatment that REW measurements show that the room mode ringing has been well suppressed with bass traps.

 

I would like to agree with that - but had some listening experiences at an audiophile's home further up the road, which ticked the boxes on being active, having two, massively heavy, sealed subwoofers; the rig having been calibrated numerous times with a DEQX unit; frequency sweeps showed faultless bass frequency behaviour, in the room ... but it didn't deliver. CDs I brought to play, with a powerful bass line, were underwhelming ... I was quite surprised by this result.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Richard Dale said:

 

The point I am trying to make is that I now regard room measurements as an essential part of improving the subjective sound of the bass end of my systems.

 

Fair enough. Would you be able to describe what the change was when you did this, say, on some particular type of music - or on instrument sounds?

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Confused said:

My girlfriend sounds different in different rooms, depending on the room acoustics.  Does that mean that she is not properly sorted?

 

Well, if the acoustics get so bad that she sounds like an old flame, and you blurt out that name - then your girlfriend may decide to sort you out ... 😉.

 

Edit: Hadn't come across kumakuma's reply yet, when I posted this.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, jabbr said:

I’d like to see if @pkane2001’s distort software can simulate this. I would want to first upsample to 24/384, then apply a phase noise plot, then send to a low jitter DAC. That’s how I would do it on my system. 

 

My experience with the Distort software, via Archimago's THD test, is that it does things that mimic the type of problems I hear in systems, that remind me of issues that require "sorting out" - the sense of unease when listening is certainly made worse by the deliberately introduced artifacts.

 

To repeat what I have said many times - I have never directly modded or tweaked something with the intention of "reducing jitter" - if the numbers changed by what I did, then it was a side effect, and wasn't what I was aiming to do. Whether the measured jitter being reduced, say, was indeed what caused the SQ to improve I can't say - all that mattered was that the robustness of the system had been improved, with commensurate improvement in what I was hearing.

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

There has been some talk of degrees of various distortion measurements, jitter, which may be perceptible and at different sensitivity levels for different people and different levels of training etc. Again, are there predictive values that reproducibly hold true for most people about what the subjective correlate sounds like? Is it just that it somehow  makes things sound irritating in ways that are hard to define? Somehow a little less natural, organic or less "real".

 

 

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 ...

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, barrows said:

With digital playback, while the artifacts are usually very low in level, they (artifacts) are often non harmonically related to the music, and it seems to me that these types of non-harmonic (or is the proper word enharmonic?) artifacts are much more disturbing to the ear/brain perceptual system, perhaps because these types of artifacts do not generally exist in nature.  This is purely speculative on my part though, but if accurate it would seem to explain why analog playback often sounds more "natural" than digital playback, even though we know scientifically, that digital playback has far less distortions/noise than analog.

Furthermore, I think some of the best digital designers are aware of what, at least some of, these artifacts are, and I think these designers work to eliminate these non-harmonic artifacts.

Some digital products, which measure poorly on standard measurements, but audiophiles seem to like how they sound, may be "sounding good" by doing either: masking the artifacts via the allowance of "pleasant" distortions, such as 2nd harmonic as one might get with a tube based output stage, or perhaps they are actually reducing the artifacts, and in the process of doing so, increasing other types of distortions/noise, but because the really annoying artifacts are gone, the sound is still pleasing.

I suspect until designers and those who study psychoacoustics really get together and work on this (perhaps using brain imaging techniques) it is often just going to be speculative as to what artifacts are problematic, and what distortions are acceptable.  And then engineers have to figure out how to measure them.

 

+100 ... !!

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi Frank,

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

 

Cheers, welcome back!

 

Indeed I do no more than what others do - the difference is what that I have a very specific agenda when doing such; because I know from repeated successes what occurs when enough is done, 😉.

 

43 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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?

 

I have no doubt it's the presence or absence of certain types of distortion - but they are of a style where it's hard "to pin the tail on the donkey". Not purely random noise, nor simple THD, IMD, etc - they correlate to some degree with the input signal, but are random enough in nature to make it hard to point to a picture on a screen, and utter, "There's the culprit!"

 

Unfortunately, the particularly nasty varmits are those which embed that distinctively grey, flat quality in replay from digital source - I don't know anyone who can point with conviction at numbers specifying this.