What objectivists and subjectivists can learn from each other

[treitz3]

Everything that is audible is measurable.

Hello, Tom. Are you saying that the perception of audio is measurable? Ear and brain interaction aside, you can measure where an image is, where the sound stage is, where the images are on a sound stage along with the perception of separation between the images, how close or deep the sound stage or image is, the perceived height of the performance, the tonality of the mids, natural rolloff and decay of say.....a cymbal?

All of these are are audible. Therefore, according to you, are measurable. If they aren't measurable, then I would take it that the blanket statement of "Everything that is audible is measurable" is either a false or too broad a statement. Would you agree?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello, Tom. Are you saying that the perception of audio is measurable? Ear and brain interaction aside, you can measure where an image is, where the sound stage is, where the images are on a sound stage along with the perception of separation between the images, how close or deep the sound stage or image is, the perceived height of the performance, the tonality of the mids, natural rolloff and decay of say.....a cymbal?

All of these are are audible. Therefore, according to you, are measurable. If they aren't measurable, then I would take it that the blanket statement of "Everything that is audible is measurable" is either a false or too broad a statement. Would you agree?

I'm neither Tom, nor do I play him on TV, but I think the answer here is that everything in your reproduction system that makes these phenomenon possible is measurable. How these measurable attributes are filtered through human perceptions to create the illusion of stereo is where things get fuzzy. But there is no "magic" in the machine. If it measures poorly, it is reproducing poorly. Whether or not you like it, or it helps you, personally, create the illusion, is another question. But if your media or equipment has relatively poor channel separation, noise floor, distortion, FR, etc. compared to the media or equipment you do not prefer, there is not some as of yet unmeasured ghost in the machine that makes your choice "better" in spite of its measurements, there is a sound it makes that you like, and that enables you to get to the illusion better. And it's very personal. One man's clinical is another's precise. One man's musical is another's sloppy.

And by the way, all of the above applies to image and sound stage. Tonality and roll off, decay, is clearly measurable. There is no ambiguity there.

Tim

 

[Ethan Winer]

Welcome back Ethan.

Thanks. And thanks to Amir (and I assume others behind the scenes) for allowing me back.

Most complete thier deisgins by sighted voicing.

Most? Do you have any references with tabulations etc? :b

Again, I said "major" manufacturers, not the one-man basement operations.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

My challenge not to Mark in particular, is for the "we can't measure everything thats audible" is to find the article that shows what particular "missing thing" is lurking about in an audio signal.

It's simpler than that. If there really were some as-yet unknown aspect of audio fidelity, it would have been revealed 50+ years ago in a null test. The original Hewlett-Packard distortion analyzers used nulling, and more modern methods can null complete music tracks and determine what remains. So the notion that some audiophiles can hear aspects of fidelity that can't be measured is easily disproved. I've explained this so many times in the past, I don't understand why we're still discussing it.

I do agree with this though:

Correlating specific measurements with specific audio perceptions is still far from an exact science, though.

But that's very different from assessing fidelity, or measuring what affects fidelity.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's simpler than that. If there really were some as-yet unknown aspect of audio fidelity, it would have been revealed 50+ years ago in a null test. The original Hewlett-Packard distortion analyzers used nulling, and more modern methods can null complete music tracks and determine what remains. So the notion that some audiophiles can hear aspects of fidelity that can't be measured is easily disproved. I've explained this so many times in the past, I don't understand why we're still discussing it.

It's good to have you back, Ethan. We're still discussing it because the audiophile sound, the extra harmonic content that is added, that is characteristic of analog sources, most tube amplifiers and an awful lot of "high-end" digital and SS gear that is voiced to emulate the sound, only seems to exist in gear that measures poorly relative to gear that does not have the sound. And many audiophiles, while they claim to be subjectivists, don't seem to be quite confident enough in their subjective choices to simply accept that they like the sound. They are compelled to make it more natural, musical, euphonic...superior, on some undefined but objective plane, to that which they do not prefer. To believe in the measurements would be to believe that they like something that is, objectively, beaten by good digital/SS midfi. Instead, they have to imagine that what they hear is some as of yet unmeasurable content that exists in life, is unable to be captured by digital recording or reproduced by ordinary, competent electronics, but is there, lifting their preferences to the next level.

They can see, like the rest of us, what is actually there in their analog media and sources and gear that is not in the recording, and not in the signal coming out of media and gear without the sound. It is extra harmonic content (I'm strenuously avoiding the D word here...). They can see; but they cannot believe. They can go to great effort to construct alternatives that can't be measured, but they can't believe what's right in front of them.

So instead, they believe their ears (but only with their eyes open). And of course they can hear the extra harmonic content. So can I. And I've even had a hell of a time convincing some of them that yes, I have heard it, and no, I did not prefer it. There have been many on the boards, over the years, who couldn't even let me have my own opinion. It's quite interesting.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

I'm quite sure it's a bit more complicated than that. Remember (for one thing) that our own recent poll indicates that at least half of those who bothered to respond listen exclusively or primarily to digital (not analog) sources. And implying that an audio reproduction system at any cost (i.e. SOTA) is anything but a very imperfect reproducer of a musical event will lead to a serious credibility gap. Thus the continued quest by audiophiles for better sound, whether through better sources, better hardware, or better rooms (environments).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm quite sure it's a bit more complicated than that. Remember (for one thing) that our own recent poll indicates that at least half of those who bothered to respond listen exclusively or primarily to digital (not analog) sources. And implying that an audio reproduction system at any cost (i.e. SOTA) is anything but a very imperfect reproducer of a musical event will lead to a serious credibility gap. Thus the continued quest by audiophiles for better sound, whether through better sources, better hardware, or better rooms (environments).

I thought that was pretty complicated, psychologically anyway. And of course it has nothing to do with any implication that any audio system is perfect. It has to do with the ability to accept one's preferences as that, and no more, and to be able to confidently keep those preferences in the face of evidence that what you prefer may be objectively inferior to what you do not prefer.

Tim

 

[fas42]

It's simpler than that. If there really were some as-yet unknown aspect of audio fidelity, it would have been revealed 50+ years ago in a null test. The original Hewlett-Packard distortion analyzers used nulling, and more modern methods can null complete music tracks and determine what remains. So the notion that some audiophiles can hear aspects of fidelity that can't be measured is easily disproved. I've explained this so many times in the past, I don't understand why we're still discussing it.

Ethan, the equipment is there, but it's not being used in a way that actually unearths weaknesses in equipment. For example, I never see tests that assess whether there are changes in time: as a simple example, monitor the distortion spectrum when equipment is cold, when thoroughly warmed up, after having been thrashed. There are never tests to check how robust the power supply is, and how sensitive the equipment is to power line interference.

This things are always assumed to be unimportant, or too annoying to measure, or other "weasel" reasons. But these are at the heart of why some pieces of kit sound better than other for many people ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Tom, let me refine this for you a bit. Any signal by itself, is completely measurable in audio. What happens when two separate channels (signals) are "interpreted" by our ear brain indeed becomes very fuzzy very fast.

This is what I would consider as immeasurable. That being what is in bold. Not all of it but many aspects of it.

However, would you not agree, that one could simply point at (like by using a surveyors tool ) the sources and locations of instruments in the horizontal stereo sound stage and thus measure in degrees horizontal where different people heard the instruments at? Now, this is not electronics measurement, which I am talking about in the above posts, but indeed we can measure the physical results as interpreted by the ear brain interface in this manner using the surveyor tool...agree?

Eh, perhaps but I would not consider this an actual measurement. More of an opinion of perception based upon empirical evidence.

Also, the "audio good things" such as sound stage and a bit of depth and in some cases arguably a tiny bit of height, are ALL manufactured by the mix/master engineer from well know techniques and are most accurately replicated by distortion-less equipment, but their interpretation still comes down to the ear/brain interface, of which NO TWO are alike apparently.

I can not argue with you there, just based upon my own experience. Hence the point I was trying to make. If the "audio good things" are just that......audio, then they should be measurable. At least if we are to go back to your original statement that all things audible are measurable.

 

[terryj]

Hello, Tom. Are you saying that the perception of audio is measurable? Ear and brain interaction aside, you can measure where an image is, where the sound stage is, where the images are on a sound stage along with the perception of separation between the images, how close or deep the sound stage or image is, the perceived height of the performance, the tonality of the mids, natural rolloff and decay of say.....a cymbal?

All of these are are audible. Therefore, according to you, are measurable. If they aren't measurable, then I would take it that the blanket statement of "Everything that is audible is measurable" is either a false or too broad a statement. Would you agree?

It IS possible that the perception of audio is measureable. (I think, ha, we'll see) However, to do that is basically impossible or at least impractical if not useless.

To measure yours (for example) would require me-assuming I have the ability which I don't, so we'll say 'someone'-to sit WITH you at your home and zero in onn these questions...'is that singer to the left of the other? if so, how far. Is it in front of or behind that instrument' etc etc. That IS measuring your perception of that audio event.

But, you can already do that yourself, and it is only applicable to you. Now, let's add a second person to the mix, he sits in your chair and we go thru the oompty pages of questions require to map HIS perception of the (same, don't forget that) audio event as he perceives it.

Completely different, only applicable to him, and NO objective measurement of the system (and for the sake of this argument we'll assume it does measure everything required to fully know the state of reproduction) will be able to identify what it is that causes the difference.

(which is your essential point I think)

Because the answers to the question you posed is NOT within the equipment. It is internal, and that is never investigated. Do you know your personal reaction to varying levels of distortion of the different harmonics? I don't either, but evidently (so they say) that is part of the explanation of why some people prefer one type of amp over another.

We CAN exactly map out the distortions produced by amps, that is trivial. What we do not know and never will is any one individuals personal reaction to those distortions. Now, apply that 'reasoning' to vinyl, cd, dacs you name it and we have audio forums

 

[rbbert]

I thought that was pretty complicated, psychologically anyway. And of course it has nothing to do with any implication that any audio system is perfect. It has to do with the ability to accept one's preferences as that, and no more, and to be able to confidently keep those preferences in the face of evidence that what you prefer may be objectively inferior to what you do not prefer.

Tim

You say that (someone's) high-end system is "beaten by digital/SS mid-fi", and while that may be true for some high-end systems (though none that I know of), most of the high-end systems here are objectively better than a mid-fi digital/SS system. In fact, a lot of them are hifi digital/SS systems. In fact, as you presumably know, there are measurable distortions of various kinds even in high-end gear, and even more so in mid-fi gear. Correlation of those distortions to differences in the audio presentation is lacking AFAIK, and if you have references suggesting the opposite please post them.

 

[treitz3]

It's simpler than that. If there really were some as-yet unknown aspect of audio fidelity, it would have been revealed 50+ years ago in a null test. The original Hewlett-Packard distortion analyzers used nulling, and more modern methods can null complete music tracks and determine what remains. So the notion that some audiophiles can hear aspects of fidelity that can't be measured is easily disproved. I've explained this so many times in the past, I don't understand why we're still discussing it.

Hello, Ethan and welcome back to the WBF. What you say sounds so final, so absolute, so factual and not up for any discussion. Almost as if no other point of view can not ever be possible. I hope you don't think that this will be the case with regards to your opinion. IMO, nobody on this planet knows everything about audio for if they did, there would be a rather large following or at least I would suspect this would be the case. Please refer to my prior post with regards to measurement and what may not be possible to be measured.

I'm not attacking you personally, just the body of your post.

A null test can't assume the inclusion of things that can't be measured to begin with [IMO].

 

[Gregadd]

Thanks. And thanks to Amir (and I assume others behind the scenes) for allowing me back.



Most? Do you have any references with tabulations etc? :b

Again, I said "major" manufacturers, not the one-man basement operations.

--Ethan

De ja vu. I thought my straw poll was as good as yours. You know "most manufacturers are are obejectivists." At least with repsect to speakers we have had this argument before. I tjhink Dunlavy was one of the few who continued to meausre up to the end.

P.S. Being a one man basement operation is more indicative of a lack of capital rather a lack of knowledge.

 

[Robh3606]

Again, I said "major" manufacturers, not the one-man basement operations.

--Ethan

JBL/Harman Use a combination of sighted and blind measurements when they are bringing a speaker to market. They will do sighted first and then do blind evaluations against competitors models in the target price range.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

I(...) We're still discussing it because the audiophile sound, the extra harmonic content that is added, that is characteristic of analog sources, most tube amplifiers and an awful lot of "high-end" digital and SS gear that is voiced to emulate the sound, only seems to exist in gear that measures poorly relative to gear that does not have the sound. And many audiophiles, while they claim to be subjectivists, don't seem to be quite confident enough in their subjective choices to simply accept that they like the sound. (...)
Tim

Tim,

IMHO, your passionate summary strongly distorts the many contributions of many members to WBF debates.

You posted similar views several times, and some of us refuted this false argument, presenting you with cases and brands of excellent sound quality by audiophile standards that show state of the art measurements. You always stick to the SET case, that represents the minority of existing audiophile equipment, tube equipment being over-driven and tests carried with headphones. These had not been the typical conditions of our debates.

 

[rbbert]

I think Dunlavy was one of the few who continued to meausre up to the end.

?? I'm quite sure all major and even most "minor" (I'm not sure exactly who that means) manufacturers measure their products repeatedly. That doesn't mean they don't also listen, nor that measuring is necessarily more important than listening, but they definitely measure.

 

[Robh3606]

?? I'm quite sure all major and even most "minor" (I'm not sure exactly who that means) manufacturers measure their products repeatedly. That doesn't mean they don't also listen, nor that measuring is necessarily more important than listening, but they definitely measure.

Especially with speakers. They have no choice. You need to have individual driver measurements set's to load into LEAP as an example. Typically they would do a set of on axis and polar measurments of each driver mounted in the cabinet. Do impeadence measurements as well. They would take those measurements and drop them in LEAP do do the crossover. Then they would remeasure and compare against the simulations and if looked good they would build up the crossover and start listening tests and go from there.

Rob

 

[treitz3]

OK my man, let us review:

This is what I said....Anything audible is measurable, but no one can measure everything you hear until we can plug into your brain!

What that means very specifically, is from the mike to the output of a speaker (one speaker) at any point in space you choose, we can measure eveything that happened to that signal from the mike pick up to that point in space. Everything that is audible. Audio is actually electronics 101. This covers the first part of my quote above , the "audible" part.

Now on to the second part, the "hear" part. I am trying to make it very clear, as is Tim, that what happens inside our ear/brain interface with those perfectly measurable signals from each speaker in a stereo system is not measurable until we can plug into our brains. The ear/brain interface is where, as a result of signal manipulation in the recording process and throughout the playback chain, is where you "create" in your brain the sound stage as your creation powers dictate

Simply, you create the sound stage from the work done by the recording and your playback system. And what you create (or I) is not measurable presently. The "magic" is inside our heads, NOT in the signal chain.

Tom

From your original post on the subject...

Anything audible is measurable, but no one can measure everything you hear until we can plug into your brain!

Alright, we agree and admittedly I did not take your full post into context. For that, please accept my apologies.

Where I am coming from is the standpoint that a normal 2-channel stereo system's output is audible. Just as a single speakers output would be. Yet we both also agree that there are things within said arena are clearly not. So, from my point of view, all things that are audible can not be measured.

 

[Gregadd]

?? I'm quite sure all major and even most "minor" (I'm not sure exactly who that means) manufacturers measure their products repeatedly. That doesn't mean they don't also listen, nor that measuring is necessarily more important than listening, but they definitely measure.

Pardon me, I should have been more precise. David WIlsosaid and I paraphrase, After optimizing speaker measurememts I sometimes find the speaker lifeless and dull. He often makes adjustments based on what he hears.

 

[treitz3]

OK, thats just abot there....however, for the sake of even more clarity on my opinion. Let me put my opinion it this way:

All audio electronic signal, and all audio displacements of air, are measurable, 100%. All interpretations once the air wiggles in your ear, are at this time not measurable.

Tom

We are now in 100% agreement.