When do measurements correlate with subjective impressions

[4est]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

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.

Thank you Barrows!

In starting this thread, my hope was to work on this last paragraph. In part I was hoping to find common ground on this topic as opposed to the vitriol and bickering. I feel this woo woo free obj-fi zone has a definite place here, and I am happy to see that although we lost a few posters, at least one very knowledgeable poster gone lurker has chimed in.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

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."

[tapatrick]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

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.

....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.

Interesting points. When I am on the move I stream through an iphone via bluetooth to Sony WH-1000X headphones. I've noticed how in some ways I enjoy the music more as a whole, even though it has less detail, has a small 'in your head' stage and a more rounded sound compared to my main system which is much more revealing. I enjoy listening at home for the subtle nuances and cues which are revealed and a more realistic illusion of live music and voices. This issue of artefacts that do not exist in nature must be a key factor in achieving a natural sound (or not) while pursuing ever more information from digital recordings.

[4est]

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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?

It's clear to many by now that Frank's tricks aren't anything new or revelatory despite his rhetoric suggesting otherwise. Perhaps that is what happens when one lives in an insular environment? Regardless, I am absolutely sure that measurements can be concocted to test for the the qualities one wishes to address. I just think that we haven't adopted them and/or learned how to interpret them.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

When I am on the move I stream through an iphone via bluetooth to Sony WH-1000X headphones. I've noticed how in some ways I enjoy the music more as a whole, even though it has less detail, has a small 'in your head' stage and a more rounded sound compared to my main system which is much more revealing. I enjoy listening at home for the subtle nuances and cues which are revealed and a more realistic illusion of live music and voices. This issue of artefacts that do not exist in nature must be a key factor in achieving a natural sound (or not) while pursuing ever more information from digital recordings.

 

Hi tapatrick,

 

I have always said I enjoy some music better on a car radio than on a high end audio system. My take on this has been poorly recorded music will always sound more palatable when squashed down,compressed, truncated and less resolved. The brain given the main thrust of the melody and rhythm , without the annoying distractions, can fill in the missing bits to make it an enjoyable experience. This is especially true for familiar music.

 

I believe a similar phenomenon happens with partial hearing loss. The brain steps up to fill in the blanks. Some may think of this an an illusion. I think of it as Perception not Deception.

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

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, 😉.

What was the kit that you had these successes with, and what happened to it?  Just curious.

[Racerxnet]

43 minutes ago, Confused said:

What was the kit that you had these successes with, and what happened to it?  Just curious.

I think Frank went from a Sharp boombox and then moved to the present laptop. Next up is the close and play.

 

MAK

[Racerxnet]

While reading at the Genesis forum, Gary Koh suggested to build a set of servo bass column cables and take the output from the Mid/High amplifier, and feed that signal to the servo amp. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/improving-bass-mid-bass-coherence.13993/

 

I built the cables as suggested. My first hunch was that this may not make a big difference. My room has been measured and treated accordingly. To my surprise the sound was much more coherent. The bass columns blended in way better than they ever have. I have greater latitude in adjustments on the servo amp. The sound is more refined and I retrieve better detail. 

 

I bring this up because the debate, as has been said before, is that the objective person does not use subjective evaluation to make improvements. In this case I have proven to myself that both apply. The scientific principals used in the design have provided a subjective improvement in replay. 

 

1. Capacitance has rolled off the top end which is not needed for the bass columns.

2. Timing, phase and cohesion are much better and can be measured.

3. The room response has improved as a result of the upgrade.

4. A win / win for my system and me.

 

P.S. the eye connectors have been removed and gold plated spades soldered on. Delivery of the spades was delayed and I wanted to try this out. 

 

Thanks,

 

MAK

 

 

[Jud]

14 hours ago, barrows said:

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,

 

They may not have to be pleasant. I remember a post you made a long time ago (you may not remember it or the events you recounted yourself, but perhaps you do) saying that in the PS Audio jitter tests at least some people liked more jitter. In a little test here of 3 pairs of files, both @bluesman and I picked the files with more jitter as sounding better. To me they sounded more "natural" and "dynamic." I make no representations that my own hearing and taste is any good, but @bluesmanis a professional musician with decades of experience who once on this forum accurately picked out the size of a grand piano from a recording. So what was it about the extra jitter in those files that made them sound more realistic to him, or was the result purely random?

[Jud]

By the way - there are just acres and acres of possibly relevant academic psychoacoustic research into potentially relevant topics, so don't lament that no one's looked into any of this, get out there and see if they possibly have.

 

I've run across about 60 published articles in peer reviewed journals or books from academic presses that are of interest to me so far. The knowledge you're wanting may indeed be "out there," and accessible to you.

[Iving]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

@bluesmanis a professional musician with decades of experience who once on this forum accurately picked out the size of a grand piano from a recording. So what was it about the extra jitter in those files that made them sound more realistic to him, or was the result purely random?

 

Pse forgive butting in, I don't know the back story and I am not bluesman (obviously) - but this could easily be a familiarity/discernment effect rather than anything to do with background/distortion - whether familiarity with (timbre let's say of) a specific model of piano or just the way instruments sound if you have a lot of experience playing with bands/orchestras.

 

Once my wife did the Coast-to-Coast walk here in the UK. She'd get me to set up camp and then walk back to meet her as she reached the end of a day's leg. I was on top of a mountain in the The Lake District in bad weather, scouring the horizon for her. I saw quite a few people in the hours that passed. I didn't know it, but she'd got lost although fortunately made it back to where she was supposed to be eventually. When she at last appeared way off in the distance, I knew it was her instantly by her gait. I'm not saying that my wife resembles a Grand Piano. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

[Iving]

... I forgot part of the story.

 

As I was about to go running off waving my arms madly to comfort my distressed and precious wife, an objectivist appeared out of nowhere, insisting that I stopped for a very important discussion. I said just a little impatiently, "What is it?" He just said, "That's not your wife." [or, "Convince me that is your wife before you move another step." - can't remember now, but something like that anyway - might have been two of them talking over each other come to think of it ...] Guess what I said next!

 

Turned out it *was* my wife!

 

All's well that ends well.

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, Iving said:

... I forgot part of the story.

 

As I was about to go running off waving my arms madly to comfort my distressed and precious wife, an objectivist appeared out of nowhere, insisting that I stopped for a very important discussion. I said just a little impatiently, "What is it?" He just said, "That's not your wife." [or, "Convince me that is your wife before you move another step." - can't remember now, but something like that anyway - might have been two of them talking over each other come to think of it ...] Guess what I said next!

 

Turned out it *was* my wife!

 

All's well that ends well.

 

This doesn't ring true to me. Please provide evidence that this part of the story happened. 👺

[Iving]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

This doesn't ring true to me. Please provide evidence that this part of the story happened. 👺

 

The first instalment is true - honest!

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

The first bit is true - honest!

 

I believed that part...

 

BTW, how long did the walk take?

[Iving]

Just now, kumakuma said:

BTW, how long did the walk take?

 

My wife did it in about 10/11 days I think - an average sort of take. Some fitness people in a rush do it in less.

[Iving]

I get that you want to change the subject. It's OK.

 

[tapatrick]

4 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I have always said I enjoy some music better on a car radio than on a high end audio system. My take on this has been poorly recorded music will always sound more palatable when squashed down,compressed, truncated and less resolved. The brain given the main thrust of the melody and rhythm , without the annoying distractions, can fill in the missing bits to make it an enjoyable experience. This is especially true for familiar music.

 

I believe a similar phenomenon happens with partial hearing loss. The brain steps up to fill in the blanks. Some may think of this an an illusion. I think of it as Perception not Deception.

I understand your point - its the different between music and sound quality. I am also referring to the same source file streamed from Tidal through headphones versus through my main system. The loss of detail, cues, soundstage etc does not inhibit the enjoyment of the music in fact seems to enhance the enjoyment. Interesting point about the brain filling in any missing info

 

I presume this is also due to the absence of these 'unnatural artefacts' which may come along with advanced digital audio i.e. more detail and resolution etc. Don't get me wrong, my home system is very enjoyable but even at live concerts with amplified sound i.e. voices I usually find this a tad unnatural...

[tapatrick]

2 hours ago, Iving said:

I'm not saying that my wife resembles a Grand Piano. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

I digress but it's becoming fashionable these days to marry what you want.. Tracy Emin married a rock. Perfectly acceptable for an  audiophile to marry an instrument of choice.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2016/mar/22/tracey-emin-married-rock-love-intimacy

[Iving]

12 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

I digress but it's becoming fashionable these days to marry what you want.. Tracy Emin married a rock. Perfectly acceptable for an  audiophile to marry an instrument of choice.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2016/mar/22/tracey-emin-married-rock-love-intimacy

 

Thanks for the tip ... and I'm tempted with an inanimate option ... but we both said this time that's it.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

This doesn't ring true to me. Please provide evidence that this part of the story happened. 👺

I was tempted to ask for measurements, but decided that would be terribly inappropriate.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Confused said:

I was tempted to ask for measurements, but decided that would be terribly inappropriate.

 

My understanding is that you still ask for measurements as long as put an emoji at the end of your sentence. 👺

[tapatrick]

28 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Thanks for the tip ... and I'm tempted with an inanimate option ... but we both said this time that's it.

😂

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

They may not have to be pleasant. I remember a post you made a long time ago (you may not remember it or the events you recounted yourself, but perhaps you do) saying that in the PS Audio jitter tests at least some people liked more jitter. In a little test here of 3 pairs of files, both @bluesman and I picked the files with more jitter as sounding better. To me they sounded more "natural" and "dynamic." I make no representations that my own hearing and taste is any good, but @bluesmanis a professional musician with decades of experience who once on this forum accurately picked out the size of a grand piano from a recording. So what was it about the extra jitter in those files that made them sound more realistic to him, or was the result purely random?

 

So this is really a great question that gets at the heart of many issues!

 

1) could be random

2) could be something else

3) could be jitter

4) could be a particular interaction of the particular system and jitter

5) could be random ...

 

From a scientific point of view, rather than mere objectivism or subjectivism, you need to understand how to remove all these extraneous variables. You can listen but there are confounding variables, you can measure but there are confounding variables.

 

Sitting down and  measuring might be a similar hobby to simply listening, although the subjectivist wins here!!

 

🤷‍♂️

[jabbr]

Now, back to jitter ... who cares about jitter unless if affects YOUR dac? Why would we assume that all DACs are equally affected? They aren't. On the recording/ADC side, however, the ADC jitter will affect the recording, but there is no one single "jitter" that has universal audible effects. That said, it would be interesting to see what the lower audible limits of audibility of, say, close in phase noise vs correlated jitter -- the reason I separate the two are because:

 

1) correlated jitter is not primarily determined by the clock crystal, rather the circuit layout (crosstalk, ground bounce etc).

2) close-in phase noise is the only significant level of random jitter in circuits with reasonably good clocks.

 

The techniques for measuring close-in phase noise are well known but different from the other well known techniques for measuring correlated jitter -- it turns out that things like eye diagrams capture both so there ...