Audio Science: Does it explain everything about how something sounds?

[ddk]

David,

I'm really quite surprised you see it that way, as from my perspective, you're one of the few here applying 'science' properly. You are going for a 'direct proof/verification'; can an assertion be proved with some statistical certainty, . An 'indirect proof/verification' requires a mechanism of causality. Why does this happen, and how does the mechanism (typically expressed mathematically) predict, and how accurately.
What usually passes for scientific palaver on these boards is often simply a bunch of assertions with no numbers or experiments to back them up. But it sounds plausible to the reader, which is the primary goal of any marketing literature, to make the reader feel smart.

From my perspective, Armin's graphs of speaker evaluations by different cohorts are tremendously informative, and it certainly gives substance to subjective metrics. My takeaway is that among all the differing cohorts, they maintain absolute rank, but those with respectively, audio reviewer, audio dealers, and HK training graduates experience lower and lower variances. And as you lower the variances, the probability of individuals within those cohorts coming to the same statistical results increase. Experience helps, and if done appropriately, rigorous, standardized experience helps even more... I'm unsure why anybody would take issue with that.

FWIW,
Paul

Hi Paul,

I guess since I don't actually manufacture electronics I see DBT, charts, specs, etc. as a matter of day to day procedure rather than applied science the way you would as a manufacturer. I find some of Amir's graphs and arguments interesting too but at the same time his idea of a high end system and mine couldn't be any farther apart, the same goes for designing and installing audio systems. I have a different need and understanding of the "science" from him and probably others. We both recognize the value of what you call science and I call specs but we also know that what finally elevates the end product is experience, knowledge and personal objective subjective values. The same way you subjectively voice your cables I voice my systems, it goes way beyond any measurements. There's a lot more to it than just connecting a few boxes or adding expensive tweaks, and in the end if the client isn't Subjectively happy and in love with the experience its all for naught! No matter how perfect the system and/or room measurements...

david

 

[ddk]

There is nothing, nothing, that a measurement can not discern that is audible to you. However, measurements do not reveal preferences. There is nothing from the mic wiggle to the speaker wiggle that can not be measured.

Do you mind if I put up some measurements and you tell me exactly how each thing sounds? I won't ask which you prefer, just how they sound different based on the measurements and their final impact on the sound.

david

 

[Mosin]

+ Many


It is hard for me to put my head around the notion of "cannot be measured". A phenomenon very existence is proof of its measure-ability. There is no way around it , to me. IT is truism that we don't know it all but we are constantly moving ahead with our knowledge and our ways and means to measure. The measurement may exist but we may not yet be able to correlate it to our perception (I would like to say reliable perceptions but allow me to drop the epithet). I would go as far as saying that the interpretation is key to apprehend reality.

Someone else mentioned the microdynamics and macrodynamics ... What is a dynamic? .. a ratio.. How can it not be measurable?

I am an audiophile and for the most part i listen and like and base my preference on what I deem to be good sounding, an unreliable metrics. ... I fully know that my prejudices are always there and however much I fight them they color my perceptions. yet one can be trained to listen better and I believe that audiophiles do that (to a certain extent) along the way of their audio experiences...
That a phenomenon is not measured is not proof on it not being measurable. I'll stop there...

Because your signature contains an Einstein quote, I'll post this one for the second day in a row. Even he realized that some things are beyond us, and may never be analytically measured. I am willing to accept that with the hope that one day some of the things that we don't understand are quantified and measured.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

 

[NorthStar]

Hey, just wait a minute everyone here! Some of you gentle folks have awesome hi-fi stereo systems. ...And some even have them acoustically calibrated...the room and all.

When was the last time you invited Dr. Floyd E. Toole, Dr. Sean Olive, Dr. Ethan Winer, and doctor Amir in your room to take some serious measurements?
All these experts have been in many rooms, they have heard many great sounding hi-fi music stereo systems from many high well calibrated audiophiles with all the necessary applications, speakers positioning, MLP, room's interaction and integration with the systems, ...they listened extensively, they measured extensively, they listened some more and made corrections when appropriate and when allowed by their owners.

I have seen @ least over hundred topnotch systems here @ WBF of members who have invested seriously and dedicated part of their lifetime into this hobby. ...Business for some.

Are we still looking for some of the bests? ...By listening and measuring? ...Right into their rooms. ...And nowhere else but there.
That, you can feed me some of it...by what you are able to share in your own words when in music trance (listening) and with corroborating measurements from graphs, etc.
Is this sound fair or too far fetched?

What am I selling? Nothing...just expanding my knowledge by asking the right questions and with the right suggestions.

I have not a single drop of a doubt that all your $25,000-$250,000 stereo sound systems are much more superior sounding and performing in the art of sound reproduction than all (most) other people like I with a humble $2,500 stereo rig.
Can we make that $2,500 stereo rig sound as equally good as that $25,000 one, and can we do the same with that $25,000 one in direct comparison with that $250,000 one?

Audio science or audio logic?

 

[ddk]

I am an audiophile and for the most part i listen and like and base my preference on what I deem to be good sounding, an unreliable metrics. ... I fully know that my prejudices are always there and however much I fight them they color my perceptions. yet one can be trained to listen better and I believe that audiophiles do that (to a certain extent) along the way of their audio experiences...

I'm trying to understand what's wrong with having preferences and why would anyone want to be reprogrammed according to someone else's perception?

As Win & Einstein said it ""Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

david

 

[Mike Lavigne]

There is nothing, nothing, that a measurement can not discern in the audible range. However, measurements do not reveal preferences. There is nothing from the mic wiggle to the speaker wiggle that can not be measured.

there is more than preferences that cannot be measured.

interpretations cannot be measured. what do all these sound waves represent? sure, they are sound waves with measureable characteristics. but so what? who cares?

imaging, soundstage depth, width and height cannot be measured. they involve intellectual processing.

degree of realism cannot be measured. involves an intellectual reference. is that a piano or a guitar?

as far as DBT's or any sort of blind testing I reject it....after doing a fair bit of it over the years.

but sometimes it can't be helped. i still do blind judging in a speaker building contest every year or 2 with our local audio club. been doing it for 15 years now. it reminds me of it's limitations. 10-15 different speakers, about 10-15 minutes per speaker and 3 judges rotate into the sweet spot and play snipets of tracks. we have a judging sheet with all sorts of rating points on it. very exhausting and stressful to do that for three to four hours.

I find that any sort of stress or distraction on my mind reduces my optimal music focus and ability to concentrate. my mind has to be clear of distractions.

if I am in 'investigation mode' my wife knows not to bother me. i basically retreat into my cocoon and relax and listen. sort of a zen state. and if for some reason i cannot concentrate then i simply forget about investigation mode until I'm in the right mental place. then after I've done my investigation stage i just listen and relax and see if longer term listening reveals any deeper understanding. many times that can last for days or longer.

i would guess everyone deals with this differently. i know some listeners who 'get' musical nuances easier/quicker than me. i need to be alone with my process. but the very last thing i would do is try doing it blind. i know it would be a distraction from the musical truth.......for me. like a cloud over the picture.

 

[NorthStar]

Maybe because our preferences are limited to our own experiences?

* In reply to David's post, just above Mike.

 

[PeterA]

It is hard for me to put my head around the notion of "cannot be measured". A phenomenon very existence is proof of its measure-ability. There is no way around it , to me. IT is truism that we don't know it all but we are constantly moving ahead with our knowledge and our ways and means to measure. The measurement may exist but we may not yet be able to correlate it to our perception (I would like to say reliable perceptions but allow me to drop the epithet). I would go as far as saying that the interpretation is key to apprehend reality.

Someone else mentioned the microdynamics and macrodynamics ... What is a dynamic? .. a ratio.. How can it not be measurable?

That a phenomenon is not measured is not proof on it not being measurable. I'll stop there...

FrantzM, how do you measure whether or not a listener will hear a sense of presence or have an emotional response to a pair of speakers or to a system? Can measurements tell us this for a particular component in a particular room? What measurements tell us if a particular speaker will sound more dynamic than another speaker? What measurement tells us which system, or cartridge has more resolution?

Is everything measurable and can we know everything from audio science about how a system will sound in a particular room if we don't use our ears? Clearly audio science tells us very much, but can we know and measure everything without using our ears?

Isn't some of audio science based on listening tests?

In other words, can our ears tells us things that audio science can not yet explain?

 

[ddk]

Maybe because our preferences are limited to our own experiences?

* In reply to David's post, just above Mike.

And so what? Without the necessary experience any decision made is a toss up anyway so one might as well stick with one likes. There's plenty of half truths, theory, crap & lies said by people with titles and/or fame, one can fall for anything they claim without the right experience and knowledge without the ability to verify. Without sufficient knowledge one can't even judge if the titled or the famous really know their hand from their butt no less telling the truth!

david

 

[NorthStar]

And so what? Without the necessary experience any decision made is a toss up anyway so one might as well stick with one likes. There's plenty of half truths, theory, crap & lies said by people with titles and/or fame, one can fall for anything they claim without the right experience and knowledge without the ability to verify. Without sufficient knowledge one can't even judge if the titled or the famous really know their hand from their butt no less telling the truth!

david

Are we slave to our own deep beliefs? Are all our stereo sound systems the best that they could be only for us? ...What is expanding our listening music experience means?
We only know as far as we went, and without science we'd be still behind.

Where is the best classical concert hall in the world, is it that new one which is still under construction, in Amsterdam?
And which classical opera performance is the best?

 

[PeterA]

There is nothing, nothing, that a measurement can not discern in the audible range.

imaging, soundstage depth, width and height cannot be measured.

How do we reconcile these two statements?

Perhaps a better question is: What is the definition of audio science?

 

[esldude]

Because your signature contains an Einstein quote, I'll post this one for the second day in a row. Even he realized that some things are beyond us, and may never be analytically measured. I am willing to accept that with the hope that one day some of the things that we don't understand are quantified and measured.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

Except Albert Einstein never said that. Some sociologist in 1963 wrote it in an article. William Bruce Cameron.

 

[ddk]

Are we slave to our own deep beliefs?

Depends. We can have beliefs out of ignorance or based on facts, knowledge and experience. You'll never be a slave to deep beliefs based on truths…

One should always strive to expand one's horizons, that's the natural way. I said not to limit your understanding with so called facts you can't verify.

david

 

[PeterA]

There is nothing to reconcile. Any electrical audio signal, or air wiggle, can be measured with much better accuracy and repeatability than your ear.

What measurement is used to tell us that one speaker, or one phono cable, can produce a better image, or a more believable soundstage than another speaker or phono cable can? Do the speaker and cable designers not also listen as they develop their products? If so, why do they need to listen if measurements alone can tell them what they need to know?

 

[esldude]

Originally Posted by tomelex
There is nothing, nothing, that a measurement can not discern in the audible range.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne
imaging, soundstage depth, width and height cannot be measured.

How do we reconcile these two statements?

Perhaps a better question is: What is the definition of audio science?

I agree with Tomelex as there is nothing to reconcile.

Height is discerned by a notch in response caused by the outer ear shape. It creates a comb filter that is perceived as slightly above starting at around 6 khz. As the notch from the comb filtering goes higher in frequency height perception follows it until somewhere around 12 khz. That happens from reflections of your outer ear shape which has the ear opening offset in an oblong somewhat elliptical reflector.

Imaging is understood pretty well. Below 800 hz timing between ears. Above 2 khz it is sound intensity difference between ears. In between it is a mixture. Some pulse trains at higher frequencies can also use timing. There is more to learn, but a good bit is also known. And it can be measured to see about what to expect as a result.

The others are a bit less direct, but can be synthesized so the idea we don't know about this is rather behind the times.

So repeating Tomelex and myself nothing to reconcile. Those can be measured, and no reason to think they are in principle unmeasurable. Even what brain based processing goes on can be probed and determined experimentally.

 

[NorthStar]

Depends. We can have beliefs out of ignorance or based on facts, knowledge and experience. You'll never be a slave to deep beliefs based on truths…

One should always strive to expand one's horizons, that's the natural way. I said not to limit your understanding with so called facts you can't verify.

david

That, sounds right to me...no more question, for now. :b

 

[Whatmore]

These discussions are generally very useful as a way of learning about people and their behaviour.

 

[NorthStar]

Originally Posted by tomelex
There is nothing, nothing, that a measurement can not discern in the audible range.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne
imaging, soundstage depth, width and height cannot be measured.




I agree with Tomelex as there is nothing to reconcile.

Height is discerned by a notch in response caused by the outer ear shape. It creates a comb filter that is perceived as slightly above starting at around 6 khz. As the notch from the comb filtering goes higher in frequency height perception follows it until somewhere around 12 khz. That happens from reflections of your outer ear shape which has the ear opening offset in an oblong somewhat elliptical reflector.

Imaging is understood pretty well. Below 800 hz timing between ears. Above 2 khz it is sound intensity difference between ears. In between it is a mixture. Some pulse trains at higher frequencies can also use timing. There is more to learn, but a good bit is also known. And it can be measured to see about what to expect as a result.

The others are a bit less direct, but can be synthesized so the idea we don't know about this is rather behind the times.

So repeating Tomelex and myself nothing to reconcile. Those can be measured, and no reason to think they are in principle unmeasurable. Even what brain based processing goes on can be probed and determined experimentally.

? http://theproaudiofiles.com/width-height-depth-in-a-mix/
? www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2005/papers/28.pdf
? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034511/

 

[NorthStar]

These discussions are generally very useful as a way of learning about people and their behaviour.

Totally agree.

 

[esldude]

? http://theproaudiofiles.com/width-height-depth-in-a-mix/
? www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2005/papers/28.pdf
? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034511/

Thanks for providing some references.