Why are objective assessments important...

[STC]

It is not without basis for audiophiles to reject measurements. I have long abandon room measurements for few years now as it did not tell what exactly sounds nice to my or visitors ears. 
 

Measurements are useful for making equipments. I buy equipments based on good measurements. I don’t judge sound based on measurements. If you let measurements, price, colour, brand, designer influence your perception than it is hard to be objective in your subjective assessment of sound quality. 

 

For a long time I was in a dilemma whether to stick to the flat room response or to go with a pool of subjective preference of the listeners. In the end, I went with what I like the best.  Of course, I can switch between the flat and my preference in a flash with just a mouse click so I can back up and provide direct comparisons between perfect flat measurements and general listeners preference. 

 

Sound quality is objective. It can be measured. But sound quality is not what makes a sound likeable. This is governed by psychoacoustics and and discussion about sound production without discussing this will be forever reach no consensus on what is desirable and what’s not. 
 

For anyone who still thinks measurements can objectively tell you about the SQ should just take a good mono recording and play them in your preferred system with ONLY ONE speaker in the centre.  Do it blind folded and you would be surprised if you could reliable tell if there is a difference between DAC, cables and others. The only exception would be speakers. And you are in for more surprises if you measure the most preferred speakers than it is very unlikely to measure perfectly. 
 

Our hearing is not flat nor consistent. It varies through out the day. Give yourself an EQ and start writing down all the settings throughout one year without any changes to the equipment and you will notice that you are actually in a big circle that the changes are repetition that your preference changes for no apparent reason. Maybe, this also explains why audiophiles are always chasing equipments. 

[STC]

21 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

In my opinion therefore we need to establish measurements of the audio signal that not just informs us how the device is performing, as important as that is, but informs us how the sound/music will be perceived, i.e. what will it sound like.

Don’t you think this falls under psychoacoustics? It has been extensively researched and still being discovered. 
 

Blind tests are useful to determine if the difference can be detected by human hearing. If not than whatever specs becomes unnecessary. 
 

I don’t think there was any dispute whether objective or subjective 5.1 is perceived to be more pleasurable and real than 2.0.  What kind of measurements can tell this?  

[STC]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The problem is people have been told it is faithful before and yet it doesn't sound right to human beings.

(Hi David, nice to see active here again. )
 

Referring to the quote above, I suppose by equipment manufacturers, recording engineers and high end reviewers.

 

i don’t see why the measurements are relevant for listening music. Technically, a vinyl is inferior to digital and yet a vinyl system can sound as good as a digital system if not better to some. That itself is enough to convince me that measurements is not going to tell everything. 
 

When you say engineers, there are many out there but what are they actually measuring?  It is only somewhere in 1978 the new standard of object and subjective assessment for sound quality was conceived by taking psychoacoustics aspect into considering for sound quality evaluation. The standard is specified in the ITU.  Emotional response to music is more important when compared to objective measurements. 
 

If you were to play a jazz DSD in a dead room and compare the same in MP3 (320) in a lively room; the preferred one would be the MP3 sound. Measurement wise the DSD is better in every aspect but at emotional level the MP3 in a live room is more natural and believable. 
 

Our own judgment changes with time. As a young boy, I was mesmerized by the Poetry of the sea album. Every night after my parents were asleep, I would sneak in the hifi set to my room and place the speakers to the side of the bed and I will lie in between. It was so real sounding to me at that time. As time goes by, I have forgotten about the cassette until about 10 years ago when I saw the CD. When I played them in my system which is far superior than the player I had 45 years ago, the emotional connection wasn’t there. And like all audiophiles I too thought the analogue tape was a superior medium compared to digital. (Actually, this is also one of the thing why I abandon hirez and high end but that story is for another day).

As you can see from my experience, it wasn’t the measurements that brought out the best sound to my ears when I was a kid. It was the emotional connection of hearing the sea gulls flying from left to right, the boat engine, the crashing waves and the orchestra trigged something in me. 
 

As music lovers, measurements are not relevant. It is about making the sound of your system good so that you would appreciate the music more. Is it measurable? Yes but not with the conventional measurements we use to design equipments. 

 

p.s. Just Google to find out the correct name of the CD and was pleasantly surprised to notice that it was a Quadraphonic recording. glad that I was on the right track at that tender age.   

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi ST

 

coming at this from a purely scientific point of view I don't have a problem with the theory that engineers (or other skilled professional) might be able to produce a signal that is perfectly faithful to the source.

 

Exact replica is not possible with current technology. Close enough is possible and without reference that will be real enough to fool us. But if someone is telling that two speakers can produce faithfully to the source then the sound should generate the same sound waves like the original equipment. That will be a challenge and no practical way to reproduce them at home. 

 

 

Quote

 

As many have pointed out there is currently a poor correlation between many audio measurements and audible sound quality or sound characteristics. I think there is potential for this to change if there are people willing to look (and listen).

Who are they? the latest method of objective and subjective assessment is reliable. 

 

Quote

If you understand how sound and music is perceived it seems reasonable to me, armed with this information, that you might be able to find measurements to reflect this. We might even find out why some people prefer vinyl over digital or vice versa

 

 

 

[STC]

59 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Which is exactly the sort of tracks I've worked on ... pure clipping can be resolved by copying and pasting parts of the track that have the comparable waveform, at slightly lower levels, available to be used, as a template - the ears can't pick that you've 'cheated'.

 

Life is much simpler than that. 
 

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2019/3/20/we-test-3-top-declipper-plug-ins-that-quickly-restores-distorted-audio-listen-compare-amp-vote-for-the-example-you-prefer-the-sound-of