How can you possibly tell, objectively, whether something is lost between the source and the speaker without measurements?
I can tell one DUT from anothr by what is there and what is not. No one, that i know of, has measured this, so measurements, at this point, are not very useful.
dave
dave
Okay? And when you hear more or less of something from one speaker or another, how do you know whether that something is or isn't present in the source?
****Edit**** Sorry, this conversation probably belongs in the low-level measurement thread you created. Yes? Shall we move it there?
Ah, but in this case, it's all about subjectivity.
Plenty of people that either don't want, or don't believe (gasp) in measurements will tell you that they use their ears to find if it is a good driver, and some that will want to use EQ will only do so by ears also...
To each his/her own.... Some have their own personal set of golden ears and will decide for themselves what they like... I have no trouble with that.
Unfortunately, some will also be quite vocal about sharing what they believe is a good driver, or good sound, and what is not... again, according to their own rules... without a shred of measurement or proof.
Subjectivity is a dangerous slope. 😀
I knew this thread would go way sideways ... anything with "Best..." in it is bound to be.
OK, here's a thought from a guy who thinks subjective is good. Whenever I read someone ask about "the best" I think they're asking subjectively; asking for opinions. At least to some extent. Depending on the person's level of understanding, measurements are too abstract to tell them how any particular measurement ends up sounding. I like to answer with how I hear the speaker (clean, good bass, tinny, etc.) and other factors such as age, hearing ability, how loud, what I look for when I'm critically listening, etc.
To be honest, I try to follow these conversations and glean what I can, but it quite often becomes far too technical for me. I'm not saying there's nothing I understand. I think it's important to at least understand some things that affect the enclosure type and size, as one example. And I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with deep conversations. I think they're great and I have learned quite a bit over the years. I just think they go deeper than some OPs,(especially someone new to the hobby or someone like me who has a hard time with physics and formulas) can grasp. I try to follow and learn, but sometimes I just want to hear "speaker XYZ is power-hungry but has great bass in a bass-reflex enclosure." I know others like the technical, so it's all good. That's what the forum is all about. But sometimes subjective is good too. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and all the great input. 🙂
Mike
To be honest, I try to follow these conversations and glean what I can, but it quite often becomes far too technical for me. I'm not saying there's nothing I understand. I think it's important to at least understand some things that affect the enclosure type and size, as one example. And I'm not saying I think there's anything wrong with deep conversations. I think they're great and I have learned quite a bit over the years. I just think they go deeper than some OPs,(especially someone new to the hobby or someone like me who has a hard time with physics and formulas) can grasp. I try to follow and learn, but sometimes I just want to hear "speaker XYZ is power-hungry but has great bass in a bass-reflex enclosure." I know others like the technical, so it's all good. That's what the forum is all about. But sometimes subjective is good too. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and all the great input. 🙂
Mike
If it is “music” or the space it was recorded in, or the illusion of space created by the artist, then i assume it is in the recording. And if it evident across many well known recordings i am pretty sure it is there.
dave
Oh, I'm 100% with you. It just seems to me that Dave is trying to put an objective veneer over his subjective taste.
Don't get me wrong. I have absolute zero doubt that Dave has tremendous listening skill and exceptional taste in reproducers. I also think that we all should listen to what we like. But I also have no doubt that, like all of us, he has no way of knowing what is "lost between the source and the speaker" except through measurement, meager our abilities in that realm might be.
Everything else Dave is discussing -- the not-yet-measurable micro-detail realm -- is entirely subjective, a comparison of imperfect reproducers referenced to Dave's opinion of what, say, the voices on a recording *should* sound like.
It could be that the "skin on voices" Dave hears from his favorite speakers is present in the source, or it could be a deviation/distortion that, in Dave's mind's ear, makes the voice sound more real.
Dave seems to be implying that he has some way of *knowing* which it is. But he doesn't. I thought it was important to establish that.
***edit: Dave, I think you posted while I was still typing. So consider that my response to you as wel : ) ***
Last edited:
I'd beg to differ here.
We're working on this on another thread: Low level FR measurements?
And today I measured things that were below audibility. I couldn't hear the test signals at all, but the microphone picked them up anyway.
Chris
All my comments are of course my opinion based on a large experience base with a wide range of stuff, and fortunately an early schooling/training to achieve the ~10k hours of training considered to be required to become very good at something (be it swimming, gymnastics, physics, et al). I have a solid background in Mathematics, physics, and computer science (and more). I have the 1st half of an engineering degree (admittedly the least important half) but a work term turned into a full-time job. I am a voracious reader, including a large trove of audio related materials.
And, i hope, a fairly good track record of designs and help for diyers. One of our designs has spawned something on the order of 1k flat-paks, and probably 10x as many builds, if that says anything. I am always listening and learning still. I do hope all those builds are bringing pleasure to the listener, and further encouraging them in th multi-faceted enjoyment of this hobby.
Everyone will have their own preferences, needs, and budget. They have to make their own decisions.
I well know how important measurements are (especially for designers), but much of what we see fits into the “if the only tool you have is a nail, then everything starts to look like a nail”. They are not the be all and end all, with new measurement techniques often being egges on by what people hear. We still have a ways to go.
Measurements gove us some basic clues as to what works, but they still have been unable to predict how well a system will do at creating the illusion that we all (i hope) enjoy.
All i can share is what i have experienced. I am human and far from perfect (like everyone else hear). Any other member should always take what i say with that caveat and considered it in the context of their specific needs. We all perceive the world thru our senses and th eprogramming tha has evolved in our brain as we grow up. People’s perceptions can be significantly different, but there does seem to be a long standing and fairly uniform need for music in our lives. Th music, and our connection to it, is what s important.
Apologies in advance for the long philosophical bit above.
dave
Dave,
No need to apologize. I fully appreciate it.
One of my favorite old-time designers, Stewart Hegeman, heard things that he couldn't measure and (when we finally learned to measure them) turned out to be right about them.
There's plenty we can't measure. I don't doubt you may well end up being right about what you hear. And whether the micro-details you hear (I don't doubt you hear them) end up being accurate-to-source or not, I also don't doubt they probably add to the joy of a listener's experience. But it did strike me that you seem to be talking about those things you hear as if they are objectively more accurate, so I thought I'd explore it with you.
No need to apologize. I fully appreciate it.
One of my favorite old-time designers, Stewart Hegeman, heard things that he couldn't measure and (when we finally learned to measure them) turned out to be right about them.
There's plenty we can't measure. I don't doubt you may well end up being right about what you hear. And whether the micro-details you hear (I don't doubt you hear them) end up being accurate-to-source or not, I also don't doubt they probably add to the joy of a listener's experience. But it did strike me that you seem to be talking about those things you hear as if they are objectively more accurate, so I thought I'd explore it with you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Love that line
Can’t for love nor money remember what song? take a stab at Emerson Lake and Palmer?
