Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I don't know what to make of what you just wrote :). Here is the order of how you can measure performance with highest reliability to lowest:

1. Instrument measurement.

2. Blind listening tests.

3. Sighted subjective listening tests.

Without putting value on each, do you agree with this order?

Amir,

You must tell us exactly what type of blind tests you are referring, their conditions and what type of measurements.

Short blind tests, carried under pressure with a narrow selection of music, have limited value for an adequate appreciation of high-end systems (as you always refer to excellent gear in your posts, I consider they are the target of your post). I always need some long auditions, carried along days or weeks, before I have a firm opinion about a system.

As I already referred, short blind tests carried with many individuals can be interesting for development and market research, should be used for research if you have the knowledge and the budgets, but are useless for audiophiles.

In an ideal world, the long evaluation tests should be carried blind. However it is not possible unless we get some very generous sponsors ...

Concerning measurements, it is a broad term. What measurements are you exactly referring to? Just power, FR, THD and IMD single values ?
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
I don't know what to make of what you just wrote :). Here is the order of how you can measure performance with highest reliability to lowest:

1. Instrument measurement.

2. Blind listening tests.

3. Sighted subjective listening tests.

Without putting value on each, do you agree with this order?

Sorry, I don't want to sound argumentative, but what instrumental measurement can reliably measure the way that a system can convey tonality?
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Short blind tests, carried under pressure with a narrow selection of music, have limited value for an adequate appreciation of high-end systems (as you always refer to excellent gear in your posts, I consider they are the target of your post).

Do you have any data to support this statement? This point of view is often used by audiophiles as a reason to reject the results of tests that disagree with the subjective evaluations they've made over longer periods of time, but I've never seen any studies to support it. In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.

Tim
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
That is the claim. But that claim is anecdotal. When challeged we are invited to listen as long as we like. As we have discussed before Audio has perverted the DB protocol and the interpretation of the statistics. Please show me some studies that prove rapid switching and short tests are the best. These exist mostly for economic reasons.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.

Tim

Sounds like a fun time Tim. Click-Quick, listen! Click-Quick, listen again! Click-Quick, listen! Click-Quick, listen again! Did you hear any difference? Let me try again... Click-Quick, listen! Click-Quick, listen again!
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Sorry, I don't want to sound argumentative, but what instrumental measurement can reliably measure the way that a system can convey tonality?

We're using "tonality" rather creatively here, but what can it mean in the context of an audio reproduction system other than the way that system re-produces and emphasizes musical tones? As in warm, bright, euphonic, analytical, musical, etc? I personally reject all of these terms as hopelessly fuzzy and would find it much more useful to simply describe the frequencies being emphasized or de-emphasized, but if that is what we're talking about, there is nothing there that is not measurable.

Did you have something else in mind?

Tim
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
Do you have any data to support this statement? This point of view is often used by audiophiles as a reason to reject the results of tests that disagree with the subjective evaluations they've made over longer periods of time, but I've never seen any studies to support it. In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.

Tim

I think that there are applications for long, extended blind tests and there are applications for short, quick switching.

In the high-end system, a lot of times we talk about a system for having a "sense of ease", "relaxing to listen to", "immersive", etc. etc. All are very subjective criteria, and I for one am not smart enough to think of a way to measure them. Here is where long, extended blind tests are needed.

Other times we talk about "microdynamic detail", "lack of glare", "wide and deep (and tall) soundstage", "pin point imaging", etc. etc. Again, subjective, and I don't know how to measure. With this, short, quick switching is needed.

These (and others) will be explored in the other dialectic where I will actually convene a listening session (Feb 10th - save the date) to explore these issues.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
OK I see on another thread Don said this-except that in testing with fast switching (< 6 seconds or, again IIRC that's about our auditory memory).
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
We're using "tonality" rather creatively here, but what can it mean in the context of an audio reproduction system other than the way that system re-produces and emphasizes musical tones? As in warm, bright, euphonic, analytical, musical, etc? I personally reject all of these terms as hopelessly fuzzy and would find it much more useful to simply describe the frequencies being emphasized or de-emphasized, but if that is what we're talking about, there is nothing there that is not measurable.

Did you have something else in mind?

Tim

I agree that those terms are hopelessly fuzzy. As are the terms that I mentioned in the post above. However, I personally don't think that THD, IMD and FR tells me the whole picture.

I can see in FR a tonally "warm" amplifier with slightly elevated 80Hz to 160Hz response. I can also listen to an amplifier that I think sounds "warm" but has a perfectly flat frequency response. Where I'm struggling is - is there a way to measure this besides what we already know?
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
In fact, all the data I have seen indicates that the most accurate listening tests have occurred in controlled conditions, with very rapid switching between short playback samples of the systems/components/media being tested.

Tim

Can you refer to some links or references of published papers that support the validity of such tests for classing equipment ?

I have seen they are mostly used to show preference for some type of sound, using statistical analysis.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
I agree that those terms are hopelessly fuzzy. As are the terms that I mentioned in the post above. However, I personally don't think that THD, IMD and FR tells me the whole picture.

I can see in FR a tonally "warm" amplifier with slightly elevated 80Hz to 160Hz response. I can also listen to an amplifier that I think sounds "warm" but has a perfectly flat frequency response. Where I'm struggling is - is there a way to measure this besides what we already know?

I guess I don't have an answer to that question because I've never felt compelled to ask it. I have systems that are, by audiophile standards, "analytical." They sound warm playing warm recordings and bright playing bright ones. Really excellent recordings lean not one way or the other. That has always been my experience with "neutral," "analytical" components, components that measure very flat and clean have always sounded that way to me. I have always assumed that the components I've heard that had a signature tonality would reflect that tonality in measurement. Do you have an example of a "warm" component with a flat FR and distortion and noise low enough to be of little concern?

Tim
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Can you refer to some links or references of published papers that support the validity of such tests for classing equipment ?

I have seen they are mostly used to show preference for some type of sound, using statistical analysis.

Not sure what you mean by "classing equipment." I'm talking about using it to determine if differences can be perceived.

Read Sean Olive's blog. Read Floyd Toole. Read the research papers of any large company doing serious research, audio or otherwise, in which AB/X testing is used to determine the perceptible difference between two or more things. It is not even remotely controversial, and no one out there who is serious is trying to prove it. Outside of "high-end" audio, switching fairly rapidly between the things being tested is the standard. If you want to know if a wine lover can taste the difference between Cabernet #1 and Cabernet #2, you don't give him a couple of weeks to drink, stare at the labels, discuss it with his friends and then get back to you. You and Greg asking me to verify common sense. If I Google it, what I'll find is a bunch of audiophiles trying to disprove it and maybe a couple of professionals just confirming that it's the thing you do, because to them, it is obvious.

And if that's not good enough for you, I asked for data first. Show me the slow, casual, sighted listening test conducted by independent research professionals. Just one.

Tim
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
I guess I don't have an answer to that question because I've never felt compelled to ask it. I have systems that are, by audiophile standards, "analytical." They sound warm playing warm recordings and bright playing bright ones. Really excellent recordings lean not one way or the other. That has always been my experience with "neutral," "analytical" components, components that measure very flat and clean have always sounded that way to me. I have always assumed that the components I've heard that had a signature tonality would reflect that tonality in measurement. Do you have an example of a "warm" component with a flat FR and distortion and noise low enough to be of little concern?

Tim

Solid-state: Pass Aleph 3
Tube: BAT VK-55SE
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Which is it Tim? Common Sense or Science? It has been acknowledged over and over by those that advocate proper DB it is just to problematic and time consuming. Even Sean Olive Does a modified version of a true DB. For me you have to be familiar with A&B before you can choose. I think that's why so many people are unable to distinguish between A&B. They are not familiar with either. We all went to school. That's why we study. The more we expose ourselves to something the better we are table to remember?. So it is difficult to come into a room listen to equipment for the first time in with a 15 second music clip or tone burst ;asses thier sound quality; put it into memory; and pick it out in a rapid test.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Going back and re-reading the original post that started this thread, I can see it was doomed to fail from the get-go. The original post stated that we needed to add back some "desirable" distortions which of course are the very words that will drive many to distraction including me. Components shouldn't be in the business of adding distortions to our music in order to give us "tone." Our goal should be sound input = sound output if our goal is fidelity to the source. For some people, fidelity to the source is really not their goal and they want to add their own seasonings and spice to the recipe to make it sound the way they want it to. And I submit that if you want to add "desirable" distortions to the source signal, you are not in the high fidelity camp. There is no shortage of jigger-pookey devices both old and new that you can buy and insert into your playback chain to give you all sorts of effects to your music. If this sort of tea gives you pleasure, by all means drink it. I just don't see any reason to keep discussing a thread that was started on the premise of "truth and tonality, can they coexist?" Of course they can coexist in the sense that you can start off with truth (high fidelity) and mix in some tonality (distortion), but you will no longer have the truth.
 

garylkoh

WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Sep 6, 2010
5,599
225
1,190
Seattle, WA
www.genesisloudspeakers.com
Mark - perhaps.... but I am reminded of one of the philosophies of Chinese traditional medicine - yi tu kong tu - or using a poison to counteract another poison. Perhaps, just perhaps, if you have mostly the truth (absolute truth being unattainable in a hifi system at the current state of the art) then a little poison may counteract some of the falsehood and edge you closer to the truth? Is there any merit in this though? Just for the sake of discussion......
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
You are right. I can't beleive I got sucked into another OT DBT argument.:(
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
Going back and re-reading the original post that started this thread, I can see it was doomed to fail from the get-go. The original post stated that we needed to add back some "desirable" distortions which of course are the very words that will drive many to distraction including me. Components shouldn't be in the business of adding distortions to our music in order to give us "tone." Our goal should be sound input = sound output if our goal is fidelity to the source. For some people, fidelity to the source is really not their goal and they want to add their own seasonings and spice to the recipe to make it sound the way they want it to. And I submit that if you want to add "desirable" distortions to the source signal, you are not in the high fidelity camp. There is no shortage of jigger-pookey devices both old and new that you can buy and insert into your playback chain to give you all sorts of effects to your music. If this sort of tea gives you pleasure, by all means drink it. I just don't see any reason to keep discussing a thread that was started on the premise of "truth and tonality, can they coexist?" Of course they can coexist in the sense that you can start off with truth (high fidelity) and mix in some tonality (distortion), but you will no longer have the truth.
+1.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
I don't know Gary. Now your getting into audio alchemy. Every recording can't require the same type or amount of "poison" (distortion) to be added assuming it needed any in the first place. If every case is different, how are you going to "fix it" by adding the same thing to every recording? I don't see any positive outcome with this line of thought. This is almost like SE tube amps which are known for adding lots of second harmonic distortion that many people find pleasing because maybe, just maybe, too much of the second harmonic was removed during the recording process and by adding it back in, we are bringing the reproduced sound closer to the original sound.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing