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

[microstrip]

I am not saying anything yet . Just asking a question for now.


No, I am just at terminology state right now. I like to hear from people who are opposed to measurements, what they think the term means.

Why don't you simply tell us what it means to you?

BTW can you tell us what you mean by "people who are opposed to measurements"? Answering "The 5 who voted I hate all the talk about science.The only thing that matters are my ears." is not acceptable IMHO.

 

[jkeny]

...
Aside: I do think referring to engineers as a group as "cocksure" is a disservice to the profession, but of course I am biased. And, after spending much of career on essentially applied R&D, I have met plenty of scientists who are just as assured of their results and are proven wrong...

Time for me to take a break. - Don

That was not my comment, Don

 

[Tony Lauck]

This begs the question:
What is 'information' ?

To me the 'information' is what a listener in a hall listening to a live un-amplified musical performance would hear. That listener would be positioned at the best seat in the hall.

Information in the sense that I used it has a precise mathematical meaning. The information received by a listener is not determined by the signal he receives, it is determined by how his knowledge changes as a result of the signal. Thus, in the case of your hypothetical listener, if that listener heard the same concert repeated twice from the same seat there would be little or no information derived from the second listening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

 

[Groucho]

CD itself is a lossy encoding method. It throws away information that is in the original sound (if analog) or high resolution master. If the master was 176/24 then CD throws away 5/6 of all the information.

So if we had digital audio at 1E9 Hz sample rate and 1E9 bits and we reduced it to 1E6 Hz and 1E6 bits we would have thrown away 99.9999% of the information? Data maybe. Not information - there's no information in silence.

 

[Tony Lauck]

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here. Most engineers are not so cock sure in the sense they don't know of areas that aren't a certainty. Now yes, if your job is to engineer a solution, you don't get solutions based upon what is not known. You have certain procedures worked out to reliably give performance within known parameters. Now when those areas they work in and have experience with are involved they can be rather sure. If you suddenly told a bridge designer there were flaws in bridge design indicating they don't really work, you probably aren't going to get far interesting that designer. He has built bridges and knows the relevant ins and outs. Can point to bridges that indeed do work to convey loads within design limits without falling down. If he is tasked with something near the edges of the possible or the known, there may be special research or testing to validate a design.

You mean like the designer of this bridge?

 

[amirm]

Why don't you simply tell us what it means to you?

Because I already know my own answer.

Seriously, what I post was characterization of our hearing system. That characterization was determined using listening tests. In this sense, it is completely wrong to say, "I don't believe in measurements. I only trust what my ears tell me." What you are disagreeing with are determinations of what people's ears told them, not some mechanical measurement of equipment.

BTW can you tell us what you mean by "people who are opposed to measurements"? Answering "The 5 who voted I hate all the talk about science.The only thing that matters are my ears." is not acceptable IMHO.

I am talking about people who are offended by the latest discussions around loudspeakers and acoustics. In almost every case, I have seen them refer to our forum become one where "measurements are demanded" and that the forum is "becoming all about measurements." It is puzzling because the bulk of what I had shared was listening tests results, not measurements. People seemingly are using the playbook of subjectivists vs objectivists here which is totally inappropriate as I explained.

 

[DonH50]

That was not my comment, Don

I know, it was an aside in my post, not related to your post. Sorry I did not make that clear.

The comment was made by Al M. in post #70.

 

[amirm]

I wrote this in another thread. I have highlighted a particular sentence and included its context. Amir commented thus about my phrase "...audio science can not yet explain.": "As to confrontation, unfortunately that is what we have even in your statement when you say "audio science can't yet explain." Audio science very much explains much of what you think it doesn't. You don't like that answer but you have to understand that such comments are inflammatory to the other camp and hugely so. You are telling them that they have to throw out a mountain of research, published and accepted audio science. As I said, on a number of other forums, any of the active threads on our forum would have been considered "anti-science" and riots in streets would follow. confrontational."

Does this highlighted sentence, in my original quote above, seem confrontational, controversial and "(hugely) inflammatory to the other camp"? Are the objectivists, or anyone for that matter, offended by this phrase? I'm curious and want to learn if and why this might be.

I have been hesitant to answer your topic question since you got upset at my last answer to you. I am cautiously going to take a shot at it, hoping that since you created this debate thread, my answer won't lead to hurt feelings.

Perhaps I should have written, "I do not think measurements can explain everything we hear from an audio system. For instance, I have not seen measurements that will explain how a speaker system will perform in the areas of micro dynamics, resolution, sense of presence, or the listener's level of emotional involvement, in a given system and room." For these areas of performance, I have relied on my ears.

When I sat through listening tests, I evaluated everything I always do about loudspeakers. Why do you think a) that was a measurement (see my last post) and b) I was not making such determination?

Does audio science really explain everything about how something sounds?

Which area of science is 100% inclusive and if not, do you avoid it? Does medical science explain everything that is wrong with us? Do you avoid it because it does not and go by lay opinions?

 

[microstrip]

Because I already know my own answer.

Seriously, what I post was characterization of our hearing system. That characterization was determined using listening tests. In this sense, it is completely wrong to say, "I don't believe in measurements. I only trust what my ears tell me." What you are disagreeing with are determinations of what people's ears told them, not some mechanical measurement of equipment.


I am talking about people who are offended by the latest discussions around loudspeakers and acoustics. In almost every case, I have seen them refer to our forum become one where "measurements are demanded" and that the forum is "becoming all about measurements." It is puzzling because the bulk of what I had shared was listening tests results, not measurements. People seemingly are using the playbook of subjectivists vs objectivists here which is totally inappropriate as I explained.

It seems you love playing with words and keeping ambiguity, never giving a firm answer first time. IMHO it is the best way to create endless disputes, where you want to become the arbiter.

A listening test can be a measurement. It is how these curves are generated, although I could argue that you are not showing error bars. And I would love to know what you are imagining I am disagreeing with?

BTW, this debate of "objectivists" versus "subjectivists" is a nonsense. What most people disagree with is with incorrect extrapolations carried from measurements. Also BTW, I do not know who are the "offended" and what they think.

Several people have pointed before in WBF to the difference between physical science and social science. Audio science is a mix of both, and this can not be ignored.

 

[NorthStar]

...Like Facebook? :b

 

[amirm]

It seems you love playing with words and keeping ambiguity, never giving a firm answer first time. IMHO it is the best way to create endless disputes, where you want to become the arbiter.

My question and answer were direct, and specific. I will repeat my answer again. People are raising objections to the value of measurements when what is presented to them is results of listening tests. When we perform listening test of one MP3 encoder versus another, we don't say "the measurements show encoder A to sound better than encoder B." We say that listening tests show the encoder A to sound better than B. This is 100% subjective evaluation and occurs all the time in acoustic research.

A measurement on the other hand, is objective. It does not include a human being and hence, is quite robust and reliable.

One cannot mix and match these two concepts and have the statements have any meaning.

A listening test can be a measurement. It is how these curves are generated, although I could argue that you are not showing error bars. And I would love to know what you are imagining I am disagreeing with?

I am not imagining anything about you so not sure why you say that. See my answer above regarding the rest.

BTW, this debate of "objectivists" versus "subjectivists" is a nonsense. What most people disagree with is with incorrect extrapolations carried from measurements.

My focus right now is to be sure that people don't take any graph and think it is a measurement. What is being refused to be accepted as proper audio science is listening tests results first and foremost in the recent arguments. The measurements that correlated with them are only relevant once we get past the listening test data.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I wrote this in another thread. I have highlighted a particular sentence and included its context. Amir commented thus about my phrase "...audio science can not yet explain.": "As to confrontation, unfortunately that is what we have even in your statement when you say "audio science can't yet explain." Audio science very much explains much of what you think it doesn't. You don't like that answer but you have to understand that such comments are inflammatory to the other camp and hugely so. You are telling them that they have to throw out a mountain of research, published and accepted audio science. As I said, on a number of other forums, any of the active threads on our forum would have been considered "anti-science" and riots in streets would follow. confrontational."

Does this highlighted sentence, in my original quote above, seem confrontational, controversial and "(hugely) inflammatory to the other camp"? Are the objectivists, or anyone for that matter, offended by this phrase? I'm curious and want to learn if and why this might be.

Perhaps I should have written, "I do not think measurements can explain everything we hear from an audio system. For instance, I have not seen measurements that will explain how a speaker system will perform in the areas of micro dynamics, resolution, sense of presence, or the listener's level of emotional involvement, in a given system and room." For these areas of performance, I have relied on my ears.

Does audio science really explain everything about how something sounds?

That sentence? No. But I suspect Amir read that sentence and heard many others that have been posted to this board, perhaps some of your own; sentences in which people used the obvious fact that instruments do not measure everything we hear (perceive is probably more accurate, but I digress...) as an excuse to dismiss everything science can measure and the impact it has on realism and preference. They dismiss the science so they can continue to position their personal choices as superior, more "natural" when they can't have more "accurate."

It would, of course, be much easier to simply like what they like without making any excuses for it, but that requires a strong source of humility and confidence.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

My question and answer were direct, and specific. I will repeat my answer again. People are raising objections to the value of measurements when what is presented to them is results of listening tests. When we perform listening test of one MP3 encoder versus another, we don't say "the measurements show encoder A to sound better than encoder B." We say that listening tests show the encoder A to sound better than B. This is 100% subjective evaluation and occurs all the time in acoustic research.

A measurement on the other hand, is objective. It does not include a human being and hence, is quite robust and reliable.

One cannot mix and match these two concepts and have the statements have any meaning.

I am not imagining anything about you so not sure why you say that. See my answer above regarding the rest.

You have very strange definitions of measurement. Are you suggesting that a measurement can not include humans? Should we ask the ET to make our measurements?


Robustness and reliability are created by enough statistics and proper measuring methods.

 

[Don C]

Here is a lecture on loudspeaker testing related to audiophile terms by J. A. the editor of Stereophile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77VKw9Kx6U#t=84

Food for thought, on how it relates to listening.

 

[marty]

A measurement on the other hand, is objective. It does not include a human being and hence, is quite robust and reliable.

Amir, I agree with much about what you say, but this statement is simply incorrect. A measurement, any measurement is not necessarily robust or reliable. Much depends on the variability and reproducibility of the measurement. If what you say was true, all of my lab data should only require n=1 replicates and only a single experiment. As much as I would like that to be the case (it would be a heck of a lot cheaper to run a lab!), one could never convince another scientist or manuscript reviewer with such data which is why the vast majority of experimental data contains replicate data points and/or experiments to indeed assure robustness and reliability of the data.
Marty

 

[NorthStar]

Here is a lecture on loudspeaker testing related to audiophile terms by J. A. the editor of Stereophile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j77VKw9Kx6U#t=84

Food for thought, on how it relates to listening.

Good video, and what many of us are used to from reading Stereophile for all these years (since it was first founded by J. Gordon Holt in 1962).
{I got in in the late 70s myself.}

________

 

[PeterA]

That sentence? No. But I suspect Amir read that sentence and heard many others that have been posted to this board, perhaps some of your own; sentences in which people used the obvious fact that instruments do not measure everything we hear (perceive is probably more accurate, but I digress...) as an excuse to dismiss everything science can measure and the impact it has on realism and preference. They dismiss the science so they can continue to position their personal choices as superior, more "natural" when they can't have more "accurate."


Tim

Thank you Phelonious Ponk. I'm glad you did not take offense to my sentence, "There is plenty of room for discussions about both objective measurements and data and how they effect audio system performance and also subjective listening impressions and how our ears tell us things that audio science can not yet explain" and do not think it was confrontational as Amir wrote. After ten pages and 95 posts, I appreciate an answer to my question in the OP.

I am not sure people "...dismiss the science so they can continue to position their personal choices as superior...." Perhaps they simply prefer their personal choices not caring if it is superior to something else. They may just like what they like. I think it is wrong to presume to know why others do things. And I am not sure that many members of this forum dismiss science. There is still this contention that there is a big divide between the objectivists and subjectivists, but I get the sense from reading these posts that most of us fall somewhere in the middle with a healthy respect for both measurements and what they can tell us and for listening tests and what they can tell us.

Regarding the adjective, "natural": I would argue that if a reproduction of an unamplified musical event sounds natural, then it is indeed, accurate. Every unamplified musical event that I have heard sounded natural. If you mean accurate in the sense of a component or system precisely reproducing what is on the tape, or in the grooves or encoded in the file, then the reproduction may or may not then sound natural. It might depend on the recording and mastering accuracy.

When I use the term "accurate" to describe the sound of a component or system, it is a high compliment. For instance, the sound of that piano on this system is very accurate. I mean that on this system that piano sounds very "natural", "convincing", "believable" and "real". Others may use the term differently.

Fellow member Ack and I have discussed the term "accurate" and I think we use it in the same way. He comments on my system thread using the term to describe our similar goals in our respective systems. I should add that he seems to have a high regard for the role of science in audio equipment, but he also relies heavily on listening to evaluate gear. Interestingly, his knowledge of science makes him highly critical of my Transparent Audio cables, and yet he has commented consistently that my system sounds very accurate, err, natural with them in the system.

 

[PeterA]

Which area of science is 100% inclusive and if not, do you avoid it?

No area of science, of which I am aware, is 100% inclusive. And no, I don't avoid it. That would make little sense to me. Nor, it should be clear, am I avoiding audio science. I just do not understand much of it, but I respect it and appreciate its role in helping us to better understand why things sound the way they do.

Here are three frequency response graphs of my system and room taken from my listening seat about eight weeks ago. It is interesting to note that the different cartridge loading settings correspond to the differences I hear. In this case, the blue line (1K ohm) has a more extended low bass response and sounds the best to me. It is also interesting that the response is fairly smooth to 25 Hz which is surprising with my small two way monitor speakers.

I am interesting in learning more about taking my own measurements and how to interpret the results. I would like to get the left and right channels to more closely match each other and to get the response to be smoother without resorting to digital room correction. It should result in better sound, but I will have to listen to know if it sounds more natural or real to me.

This shows the left and right channels through a digital source. Scale is 1/6th octave



This shows three cartridge loading settings through my analog source. Scale is 1/6th octave



This shows three cartridge loading settings through my analog source. Scale is 1/12th octave

 

[esldude]

You mean like the designer of this bridge?

Never said engineers were perfect or there weren't mistakes. The missed point is how many bridges are made and do work just as expected. A failure like the Tacoma narrows is notable because it is so rare. Audio designers may also have some Tacoma narrows moments, but it will be something that isn't very common.

 

[esldude]

Sure but I think you missed my point - yes, hearing aid designers DO use lots & lots of measurements that aren't used in the usual suite of audio equipment tests. They are motivated by financial rewards in the marketplace to get it right i.e a far bigger market than music playback systems. So, they have the money & the motivation to do any measurements yet none of them have developed a hearing device that is without issues. Why is this the case if we can measure anything - surely in the decades of research into hearing aids the full characterisation of a device for the ear to aid hearing would have been developed? Surely all the possible measurements are available to these developers but yet no hearing aid has been developed that hasn't got issues.

So my question is - do they have the measurements for the perfect hearing aid model but they are unable to build it

Or, have they not been unable to measure everything needed to specify the perfect hearing aid?

My bet is on the second option

They can measure everything in terms of accuracy and signal transfer beyond levels of accuracy the ear is able to do. I would say they are able to measure everything needed to specify the perfect hearing aid. They don't know the processing needed by the ear however. So they lack parameters to fully specify the perfect hearing aid. But they do pretty good, and are getting better all the time. The advancements aren't in measuring basic things.