This whole "measure the same sound different" falsehood really needs to be put down. I'd love to see a setup where this was the case. Where you could identify consistently the different between the speakers in a blind test but there was no measurable indicator that differentiated them. If you could even provide a diver that did that, doesn't have to be a whole system even. This stuff is frequently taken into account when you design sound rooms, trying to claim otherwise is silly. Until someone provides something to support this claim it should really stop getting propagated. It's one of the many myths of the AV world. I think Zaph put it well when he said:
Not understanding reality doesn't change it.
People in general. Even a lot of calibration hardware doesn't take into account the time domain.
Hi,
By all means, do.
In the mean time it would be nice not to take everyone for an ignorant fool, no?
Cheers, 😉
By all means, do.
In the mean time it would be nice not to take everyone for an ignorant fool, no?
Cheers, 😉
I would even state "measures different, sounds the same". Do two in-room measurements of exactly the same set up. You'll find differences in the data.
Best, Markus
I'm not even sure what you intended to imply here. Are you saying because lot's of people believe in this falsehood, it must be true, and by insinuating otherwise I'm slandering them? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to convey. Regardless of what is widely believed, it's still false. Once again, just because you personally believe it to be true or false doesn't mean this is what reality will reflect. It's a fancy way of saying you're wrong. 😉
The problem is that most people only have the manufacturers specs to compare, choosing equipment purely based on that would not be wise.
I recall one of the well known speaker guys saying something like measurements looked good but only after listening tests he decided to use a slightly lower XO frequency. Wonder why that happen if measurements are everything.
Hi,
What I mean is that you keep on moving the goal posts as it suits you.
Manufacturers publish measured specs to go with the marketing ** that sells their amps.
Does the same x% of THD or any other published measurement differ for manufacturer A or B, or not?
Assuming two amps have an equal set of publicized specs, will they then sound the same?
Or, what you seem to be implying, are we totally naieve?
IOW, what's to be trusted? You, the manufacturers, me or just the specs?
If the specs are to be trusted we should be therefore arrive at the conclusion that everything that measures the same will by definition sound the same.
Does it?
If it does then why do two amps that measure the same still do not sound the same?
The answer is obvious to me....
Cheers, 😉
What I mean is that you keep on moving the goal posts as it suits you.
Manufacturers publish measured specs to go with the marketing ** that sells their amps.
Does the same x% of THD or any other published measurement differ for manufacturer A or B, or not?
Assuming two amps have an equal set of publicized specs, will they then sound the same?
Or, what you seem to be implying, are we totally naieve?
IOW, what's to be trusted? You, the manufacturers, me or just the specs?
If the specs are to be trusted we should be therefore arrive at the conclusion that everything that measures the same will by definition sound the same.
Does it?
If it does then why do two amps that measure the same still do not sound the same?
The answer is obvious to me....
Cheers, 😉
Last edited:
Specification and measurements are completely different ball parks. Specs give you an idea of within what parameter a product will fall in. I'm talking about measured results, after the amp/speaker/speaker wire/what ever is in question has been setup, how it can be analyzed. You are talking about apples and oranges here. As I've said before, even the same piece of hardware will sound different in each room because the room has the final filter on what you hear. No manufacture can describe what their product will sound like in your room. However, once it's in your room you can measure the output and relate what you hear in terms of data. I think you are just on a different page.
No I don't think "we" are totally naive. However you can be wrong, it happens often, even to me.
I completely agree. Specs not only give you only a small portion of the necessary information but also provide a inaccurate representation of the data. Thinks like DB scales or channels driven are frequently used to distort the information to make products seem more favorable. It dawned on me this might be the first thing you've said that I agree with.
Remember what I mentioned oh so many pages ago. What you like and what is "ideal" won't always coincide. I know I prefer higher initial DB and decay on the lows and a sharper roll of on the highs compared to the suggested house curve. Does this mean that measurements are now worthless for me? Or that I have to take into account my taste when I'm looking at the data. A perfectly flat response from 10hz-20khz would reproduce the most accurate music, but we won't perceive it that way. In reality everyone has their own Fletcher Munson curve, everyone's going to prefer a different decay. The trick is knowing what the individual likes and how that's represented in the measurements.
Edit: I'd also like to add, if you understand the sonic characteristics of your room, you can begin to see how other things like drivers will impacted by the room. It's not impossible with enough information to fairly accuracy predict what a speaker would sound like even with out measuring it first hand. This would however require more data than what is commonly provided by the manufacturers.
Last edited:
Nope, only those people who put forth extraordinary claims without any evidence.
What I hear is not necessarily 'extraordinary', it is just what I hear. This extra 'proof' is an unnecessary burden add by you, SY, nobody else.
Really, how about freedom from dynamic compression. How about good imaging and feeling of space and sound stage some systems have that others don't. Care to show me where I can see that in the measurements??
Rob🙂
Last edited:
read the title...
perhaps... "there is no difference" could be a viable candidate,no? ...to restate the obvious...😉😉
perhaps... "there is no difference" could be a viable candidate,no? ...to restate the obvious...😉😉
This is quite an interesting point of view. Even in taking photos, most photographers would prefer that they are trying to capture a moving moment that they are inspired by. Realistic is not a goal, but beauty is.
However, in audio playback systems, were are trying to preproduce what the performers are trying to express. The higher fidelity, the more accurate the better. When there is a true improvement in a system, the emotion one feels when listening to music is improved regardless what kind of meterial. Also equally important is that the room acoustics of the original recording environment is also reproduced more accuratelt if the listening room is acoustically well considered.
One other point is that what the performer wishes to express may not be what moves the listener, thus all this tweeking without measurement data.
Just recently, after over 70 EMI/EMC tests trying to design a line filter for a switching power supply, there was one configuration that really made a mark in sonic improvement, massed the test, but leakage current was too big to pass other safety tests. Really frustrating. Might have to go for something less in terms of sound. Then design a power cable for optimum sound performance.😀
Last edited:
Hi,
Wow, I suppose you feel entitled to highlight the typos in other people's posts as well now?
And yes, I still think "we" are totally naive and ignorant and full of ourselves, don't you?
Cheers, 😉
Wow, I suppose you feel entitled to highlight the typos in other people's posts as well now?
And yes, I still think "we" are totally naive and ignorant and full of ourselves, don't you?
Cheers, 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.