When do measurements correlate with subjective impressions

[CG]

It just so happens that there's an interesting conversation posted over at Inner Fidelity.  It's not lengthy enough to be considered an interview, but it still is worth reading.  Or, so I think.  (As of right now, there are no comments...)  If you don't believe Audio Precision is objective enough for you, I don't know what to say.

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/canjam-nyc-2020-audio-precision-measurements

[tmtomh]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

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

 

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

[tmtomh]

On 2/19/2020 at 11:38 AM, Miska said:

 

With TIM, the problem was that the measurements being used were operating on static sine waveforms like in THD and IMD. While problem was with transient signals. Thus TIM is measured with mixture of square and sine waves (15 kHz sine + 3.18 kHz square wave at 4 : 1 level ratio, -3 dB at 100 kHz).

 

In these cases it was due to the amplifier going to internal saturation, due to internal bandwidth issues, during transients only.

 

And this happened already with vinyl and open reel tape recordings, for example in crescendos. Problem was found because some engineers believed their ears.

 

 

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.)

[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?

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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 ...

 

 

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

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

So, why do you find them annoying?

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, why do you find them annoying?

 

It is your style of communication.

 

Specifically:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[Racerxnet]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, why do you find them annoying?

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

[tmtomh]

29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

 

 

That's a shame since room acoustics are important and their impact on the sound can be demonstrated very easily by both listening and measurements. In fact, room acoustics are one of the strongest areas of agreement among subjectivists and objectivists. 

Of course, room acoustics do become irrelevant with headphones, and if you are using a stereo system that - as you have said yourself - is akin to headphones with the ear cups pulled away slightly, then room acoustics aren't going to be an issue for you because you're engaged in near-field listening.

 

But your use case is not all use cases, and room acoustics are significant in non-nearfield listening.

[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 .

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

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?

 

 

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?"

 

 

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

 

 

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 .

 

You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I'm really not interested in debating the validity of my opinion. 

[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.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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 programs 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.

 

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

[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, 😉.

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

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

 

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

[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, 😉.

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

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, 😉.

 

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.

 

No need to tell me again about how you used to believe the same thing until your magical experience 35 years that changed your (audio) life forever.

[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, 😝.

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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, 😝.

 

Who's Amir?

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Who's Amir?

 

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

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

No good can come from picking at those scabs.

 

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.

[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?

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

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

 

[Richard Dale]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

 

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.

 

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.