Jan and Francois,
Being an amateur painter myself, I often like to make analogies
with art and painting when discussing various things. However,
I think you are going wrong here. What we are discussing is not
musical taste or musical performance, but music reproduction.
It would be more accurate then to make an analogy between
sound quality and reproduction of paintings in print, or something
similar.
Being an amateur painter myself, I often like to make analogies
with art and painting when discussing various things. However,
I think you are going wrong here. What we are discussing is not
musical taste or musical performance, but music reproduction.
It would be more accurate then to make an analogy between
sound quality and reproduction of paintings in print, or something
similar.
measuring
Well, you would be right if "good sound quality" means reproduction of the source sound as faithfull as possible - but even there we don't agree! Many people find that they prefer a tube amp with several % THD to a SS amp with .001% THD, although to your definition the ss one gives "better sound quality". So, you get manipulated, sort of sound, that is preferred to the original. In this state of affairs, how can anybody possibly hope to get agreement on which amp is best?
Jan Didden
Well, you would be right if "good sound quality" means reproduction of the source sound as faithfull as possible - but even there we don't agree! Many people find that they prefer a tube amp with several % THD to a SS amp with .001% THD, although to your definition the ss one gives "better sound quality". So, you get manipulated, sort of sound, that is preferred to the original. In this state of affairs, how can anybody possibly hope to get agreement on which amp is best?
Jan Didden
Re: measuring
I think what I said is still true. We have the same problem with
the paintings. We cannot reproduce a painting perfectly and
different people would probably have different opinions on
which are the best reproductions when we have to make
trade-offs. For instance, which of the following alternative
reproductions of a painting would you prefer:
1) Is perfect in colour reproduction
2) Has infinite resulution
3) Has the same size as the original
Although a somewhat theoretical exercise, I am sure not
everyone would agree when faced with several alternatives.
However, confusing the reproductions with the paintings
themselves will just make the whole discussion more confused,
which is what I meant with my previous remark.
janneman said:
I think what I said is still true. We have the same problem with
the paintings. We cannot reproduce a painting perfectly and
different people would probably have different opinions on
which are the best reproductions when we have to make
trade-offs. For instance, which of the following alternative
reproductions of a painting would you prefer:
1) Is perfect in colour reproduction
2) Has infinite resulution
3) Has the same size as the original
Although a somewhat theoretical exercise, I am sure not
everyone would agree when faced with several alternatives.
However, confusing the reproductions with the paintings
themselves will just make the whole discussion more confused,
which is what I meant with my previous remark.
measuring
Christer,
OK, yes, I see what you mean. You're right. Maybe if we carry the analogy even further, I could answer: "the reproduction that best transmits the emotion, feeling, warmth etc of the original". But then we are back to square one, how do we define those qualities.
Jan Didden
Christer,
OK, yes, I see what you mean. You're right. Maybe if we carry the analogy even further, I could answer: "the reproduction that best transmits the emotion, feeling, warmth etc of the original". But then we are back to square one, how do we define those qualities.
Jan Didden
Re: measuring
and definitions of "how to make measurments"
is a very difficult thing.
Almost impossible.
We can see that in Computer techniques
and most fields of interest to humans.
Yet, it is good with standards that many (all) use.
We should not be able to communicate here,
if we didn't mean the same with our "words".
We use the terms that are defined by the users of English languages.
But standard, definiton or term is not a static thing.
New standards, redefinitions and new "words" emerge.
In the end it is the users of these agreements/terms/standards
that set "the definition of the day".
#############################################################
Give me a defintion and I can measure according to the definition.
I think that is very true.
It was some great man that once said:
"Give me a fixed point, and I will prove anything".
Question is: Which point is YOUR fixed point?
------------------------------------------------------------
Correction:
The greek Philosopher Archimedes once said
"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth".
------------------------------------------------------------
/halo - hope you read his words in accordance to his thinking while he was writing
otherwise there will be something that we have defined by the word "misunderstanding"
And finding common "definitons" or "terms" or "standards"janneman said:
and definitions of "how to make measurments"
is a very difficult thing.
Almost impossible.
We can see that in Computer techniques
and most fields of interest to humans.
Yet, it is good with standards that many (all) use.
We should not be able to communicate here,
if we didn't mean the same with our "words".
We use the terms that are defined by the users of English languages.
But standard, definiton or term is not a static thing.
New standards, redefinitions and new "words" emerge.
In the end it is the users of these agreements/terms/standards
that set "the definition of the day".
#############################################################
Give me a defintion and I can measure according to the definition.
I think that is very true.
It was some great man that once said:
"Give me a fixed point, and I will prove anything".
Question is: Which point is YOUR fixed point?
------------------------------------------------------------
Correction:
The greek Philosopher Archimedes once said
"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth".
------------------------------------------------------------
/halo - hope you read his words in accordance to his thinking while he was writing
otherwise there will be something that we have defined by the word "misunderstanding"
traderbam said:
It is true that the brain processes pressure waves but that is only
part of the story. Emotion takes input from many different levels.
We have other parts of our bodies besides just the brain in our
heads that are affected by sound.
When you are at a live music event you can see that the audience
has a certain energy which is present that the best of performers
can access and invest back into the music instantaneously.
This is almost magical. A playback system
can't do that. But even so there are more things going on
than just an ear-brain connection when listening to HIFI.
The mind likes to think it is all.
If this were the case then a good physiscist or mathematican
could compose the ultimate symphony. Clearly that won't happen.
I agree that measuring how accurately the waves are reproduced
is or should be important but that does not address anything past
the first level. There are others.
"For instance, which of the following alternative
reproductions of a painting would you prefer:
1) Is perfect in colour reproduction
2) Has infinite resulution
3) Has the same size as the original"
A good analogy. Although I think these particular attributes give the state of the art too much credit. Perhaps we are still dealing with lumpy canvasses, tears, stains, smudges, blurring and stretching.
reproductions of a painting would you prefer:
1) Is perfect in colour reproduction
2) Has infinite resulution
3) Has the same size as the original"
A good analogy. Although I think these particular attributes give the state of the art too much credit. Perhaps we are still dealing with lumpy canvasses, tears, stains, smudges, blurring and stretching.
There is music that gives me the shivers when I hear it, even if it comes from a boombox. Sometimes I think the only function of the hearing in such cases is to trigger memories, which then lead to an almost authonomous process that can continue after the music ends. But that has nothing to do with "sound quality".
Jan Didden
Jan Didden
I have noticed that the sound "quality" may even somtimes depend
on whether I've had my coffee or if I'm listening in the
evening instead of the morning, or any number of other things.
But if I could measure every aspect of the system how
would that help me?
Might be just as important to have the right beer at the right
temperature.
on whether I've had my coffee or if I'm listening in the
evening instead of the morning, or any number of other things.
But if I could measure every aspect of the system how
would that help me?
Might be just as important to have the right beer at the right
temperature.
The thing that I don't like with people that evaluate a particular component only with listening test is that they are biased by many factors (especially in magazines): price of the component, design, look and probably advertisement. Comparison must be done with a blind test unless you see people biased (unconsciously) by other factors and the test is not valid.
Having an engineering background, I am a strong believer that electrical phenomena can be measured,- but maybe the classical ways of measuring these phenomena are not up to date.
I think there is a concensus that the THD figure is only half the truth, and that the other half of THD maybe is directly wrong.
This is a very plausible expanation for all the bad sounding, good measure THD amps out there,-- so we are back to the distortion spectrum again, with its "good" even and " bad" odd harmonics....
In the signal theory camp, we talk about linear distortion, - being when amplitude and/or phase response does not follow each other by the defined law. This is an interesting approach to the problem, which goes well along with the THD spectrum problem.
I absolutely agree to the idea that your listening experience might very well be influenced by one's "mood" or psyche, or other non-measurable facts, but that doesn't releive us from the fact that we need some form of common instrument in the form of theory and measurements. With all the digital hokus-pokus we have today, it would be a relatively easy task to make a "split THD", - summing up even and odd order harmonics each by themselves. This should to some extent depict what we hear, in terms of musical and non-musical harmonics.
In my opinion the same logic applies to the cable mysteries,-- there must be a measurable explanation. I absolutely do not beleive in all the mumbo jumbo that is being served in a great deal of the press, probably very often by persons that have never seen nor understood the telegraph equation, - i.e. the transmission line theory.
On the other hand,- I also do hear differences between some of the cables I have tested, so some of the effects are there, but we still lack a common set of definitions to work by. Several of the more technically inclined tests have concluded that we most probably will go towards the transmission line theory, with the addition of rather complex load impedances.
Alas- now I'we put my head up for XXXX
I think there is a concensus that the THD figure is only half the truth, and that the other half of THD maybe is directly wrong.
This is a very plausible expanation for all the bad sounding, good measure THD amps out there,-- so we are back to the distortion spectrum again, with its "good" even and " bad" odd harmonics....
In the signal theory camp, we talk about linear distortion, - being when amplitude and/or phase response does not follow each other by the defined law. This is an interesting approach to the problem, which goes well along with the THD spectrum problem.
I absolutely agree to the idea that your listening experience might very well be influenced by one's "mood" or psyche, or other non-measurable facts, but that doesn't releive us from the fact that we need some form of common instrument in the form of theory and measurements. With all the digital hokus-pokus we have today, it would be a relatively easy task to make a "split THD", - summing up even and odd order harmonics each by themselves. This should to some extent depict what we hear, in terms of musical and non-musical harmonics.
In my opinion the same logic applies to the cable mysteries,-- there must be a measurable explanation. I absolutely do not beleive in all the mumbo jumbo that is being served in a great deal of the press, probably very often by persons that have never seen nor understood the telegraph equation, - i.e. the transmission line theory.
On the other hand,- I also do hear differences between some of the cables I have tested, so some of the effects are there, but we still lack a common set of definitions to work by. Several of the more technically inclined tests have concluded that we most probably will go towards the transmission line theory, with the addition of rather complex load impedances.
Alas- now I'we put my head up for XXXX
Well, there is at least one great (regarding the sound of his products) audio designer who thinks listening is not necessary to design great sounding products - http://www.lammindustries.com/intervie/audiorus.html
How about that
How about that
Well- I never said listenening is not necesseary,- quite the contrary. What I do mean to say, however, is that we need common tools that supercedes and / or complement our at times rather moody hearing.....
Another thing in the same line is that two persons may not hear the same, even simultaneously, as there will always be differences in our hearing curves.
Or are there anyone that will seriously claim to have a "linear " hearing ?? On top of this comes the fact that a lot of the adjectives used by the magnum ears ranges from rather vague to "rather artistic", but none of us, even inside the congregation, will admit that we don't understand hXXX of what they are talking about.
In all other aspect of technology, one relies on common sets of definitions for information interchange. What is there to single out audio and even hifi to be different ??
Music is best played and listened to live, but a reliable technical reproduction is totally possible.....
Another thing in the same line is that two persons may not hear the same, even simultaneously, as there will always be differences in our hearing curves.
Or are there anyone that will seriously claim to have a "linear " hearing ?? On top of this comes the fact that a lot of the adjectives used by the magnum ears ranges from rather vague to "rather artistic", but none of us, even inside the congregation, will admit that we don't understand hXXX of what they are talking about.
In all other aspect of technology, one relies on common sets of definitions for information interchange. What is there to single out audio and even hifi to be different ??
Music is best played and listened to live, but a reliable technical reproduction is totally possible.....
A new way of thinking comes from John Watkinson of Celtic Audio, by the application of information theory to aid determining reproduction quality.
The demands he puts on a Loudspeaker for instance are very tough - and will definitely not be met by >95% of the loudspeakers on the market !!!!!
Some information can be found at:http://www.celticaudio.co.uk/technical2.htm
Regards
Charles
The demands he puts on a Loudspeaker for instance are very tough - and will definitely not be met by >95% of the loudspeakers on the market !!!!!
Some information can be found at:http://www.celticaudio.co.uk/technical2.htm
Regards
Charles
Measuring sound reproduction quality - can it be done ???
I can see now that I should have titled this thread "Measuring sound reproduction quality - can it be done ???"
Anyway, continuing the artistic analogy, which to you prefer - from left to right: original, enhanced, enhanced plus masked? BTW, she is 500 years old this year !!!
Nic
I can see now that I should have titled this thread "Measuring sound reproduction quality - can it be done ???"
Anyway, continuing the artistic analogy, which to you prefer - from left to right: original, enhanced, enhanced plus masked? BTW, she is 500 years old this year !!!
Nic
Attachments
I see that THX springs from a long standing traditon....
"A new way of thinking comes from John Watkinson of Celtic Audio, by the application of information theory to aid determining reproduction quality."
An interesting commentary, but I remain sceptical. I want to
hear the loudspeaker that results from this thinking.
pass/ - has heard a lot of bad equipment with great sounding
theory.
"A new way of thinking comes from John Watkinson of Celtic Audio, by the application of information theory to aid determining reproduction quality."
An interesting commentary, but I remain sceptical. I want to
hear the loudspeaker that results from this thinking.
pass/ - has heard a lot of bad equipment with great sounding
theory.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.