Measurements don't strictly have to be in numerical form but otherwise this is fair. In audio, the problem is not measuring...it is knowing what to measure. Even when popular measures are found to have poor correlation with sound quality they continue to be promoted. Unfortunately, and this applies to all things, the tendency is to measure what is easiest to measure and leave it at that.
Yes, of course. The polyvinylchloride insulated cable gave the toxic sound, the polyethylene one had the pleasant sonic impression. Didn't they?
Best regards!
We all know (at least we should!) that the human hearing sense ain't no reliable measuring instrument at all. Administering means of statistics yields to verifiable statements, though. We can »calibrate« the human ear to some reproducible extent by doing DBT's with as many subjects as possible. All other statements on sonic quality have to be called claims at their best.
Best regards!
To gain information about groups of people, we need to do measurements on the entire population, or measure a sample and use statistics to make inferences about the population.
For information about one individual, we need only measure the individual.
Also, one can do one's own double blind testing. As both experimenter and subject, if you don't know what you are listening to then experiment is double blind. In addition, it is not necessary to use special hardware or software. Whatever allows for truly blind listening is fine for one's own use.
It seems to me that the whole idea is to fool ourselves into thinking we are hearing real music.
The goal is not to achieve certain numbers on a piece of electronic measurement equipment.
Our auditory system is not equivalent to electronic test equipment.
What I have noticed is a sort of denial, especially among tech-heads.
A: "I built this circuit and it measures superbly."
B: "But it doesn't really sound that good."
A: "It's your crap ears."
B: "Oh, I see. I never claimed to have golden ears. I'm not worthy."
And...
A: "Hey, listen to this!"
B: "It seems to sound very good. Let's measure it."
A: "Ok"
B: "I'm sorry, it has mediocre THD. It only sounds good because you like distortion. There are lots of people who prefer distortion to the real thing so don't feel bad."
A: "Oh dear. That's disappointing. Well, maybe it doesn't sound that good after all."
The proper goal is something that sounds convincing. People who make electronic measurements but fail to correlate them to sound quality are not following a complete scientific method.
Conversely, those who can hear a difference but refuse to believe it because they cannot measure it are also on shaky ground.
The goal is not to achieve certain numbers on a piece of electronic measurement equipment.
Our auditory system is not equivalent to electronic test equipment.
What I have noticed is a sort of denial, especially among tech-heads.
A: "I built this circuit and it measures superbly."
B: "But it doesn't really sound that good."
A: "It's your crap ears."
B: "Oh, I see. I never claimed to have golden ears. I'm not worthy."
And...
A: "Hey, listen to this!"
B: "It seems to sound very good. Let's measure it."
A: "Ok"
B: "I'm sorry, it has mediocre THD. It only sounds good because you like distortion. There are lots of people who prefer distortion to the real thing so don't feel bad."
A: "Oh dear. That's disappointing. Well, maybe it doesn't sound that good after all."
The proper goal is something that sounds convincing. People who make electronic measurements but fail to correlate them to sound quality are not following a complete scientific method.
Conversely, those who can hear a difference but refuse to believe it because they cannot measure it are also on shaky ground.
Last edited:
It seems highly appropriate that a naturopath is used to evaluate a snake oil product. An ironic appeal to authority.
Then, would you please measure by listening:
How long does this take to drop by 2 octaves?
< File
escenteInfinie.ogg - Wikipedia >By listening: How many beats per minute is that:
< File:Risset accelerando beat1 MCLD.ogg - Wikipedia >
Last edited:
But there really are lots of people who prefer a little distortion to the real thing. This was found in listening tests in the 1950s, and is still confirmed today by all the people who buy cheap (or expensive) Chinese 'tube buffers' to add some 'tube warmth' to 'nasty clinical' digital sound.traderbam said:
Correlation between electronic measurements and sound reproduction quality (but not necessarily sound preference) was established about 60 years ago. That is why we know that we need a frequency response somewhere in the region of 20-20kHz, and distortion somewhat smaller than 1%. These criteria may need to be adjusted in the light of new evidence, but they are unlikely to be wholly swept away as some seem to fondly imagine.
Do we believe to look-measure higher THDs when people do love the sound;-?! And miss out, that very often the circuits and build-ups are simpler: much more less noise: much CLEANER sound;-) THDs and TMDs are very seldom relevant;-)
At moment we are not able to look-measure the "audible-relevant-noises"-)
The most do not know anything about it - It seems.-)
At moment we are not able to look-measure the "audible-relevant-noises"-)
The most do not know anything about it - It seems.-)
Oh dear - another person who believes the 'simpler is better' false meme. To prove that this is a false idea simply take any competent audio circuit and randomly choose one component to be either removed or shorted. Either change results in a simpler circuit, yet it is very likely that the sound will be worse.
She doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't drug, ie she is clean, clear and healthy, probably more so than pretty much anybody on this forum.
The fact that she is cooking hot of course has no bearing on me choosing her as a test subject
.Dan.
You are talking about intrinsic noise and 'excess' noise, and yes most disregard this, much less recognise it when listening.
These underlying system noises cause loss in resolution which is not critically important and also masking.
What is important is the nature of this underlying dynamically varying excess noise causing masking.
This dynamically varying noise draws attention to itself....stationary tones and THD overtones can be disregarded by the ear.
System dynamic excess noise causes a recognisable 'signature' which may be pleasant....or the converse.
My experiments show that the nature of this intrinsic system noise can be controlled/reduced/modified such that the ear readily ignores it.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.