Hi Logon,
I read your Post #296 and am pretty sure that you are referring to me as one of the "detractors".
But I think you fail to understand what I've been saying. It's simply this.
You cannot create a reliable measurement system in which all, or even most, people will agree upon the sound quality of an audio system. And that is because each person has his own scale for making that evaluation. And those scales vary widely from person to person.
Here is a very simple case in point.
My wife has an inexpensive Bose SoundTouch speaker in the kitchen that she listens to while cooking. It has terrible sound quality with a very high level of distortion. She is perfectly happy with it while I cannot even be in the same room when it is playing. She would probably give it a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 and I would give it a 1 or maybe a 2 at the most.
That's a simple example, but I think it pretty well demonstrates that you can't define audio quality in a way that everyone will come to the same answer. So, putting numbers on sound quality just isn't possible.
I read your Post #296 and am pretty sure that you are referring to me as one of the "detractors".
But I think you fail to understand what I've been saying. It's simply this.
You cannot create a reliable measurement system in which all, or even most, people will agree upon the sound quality of an audio system. And that is because each person has his own scale for making that evaluation. And those scales vary widely from person to person.
Here is a very simple case in point.
My wife has an inexpensive Bose SoundTouch speaker in the kitchen that she listens to while cooking. It has terrible sound quality with a very high level of distortion. She is perfectly happy with it while I cannot even be in the same room when it is playing. She would probably give it a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 and I would give it a 1 or maybe a 2 at the most.
That's a simple example, but I think it pretty well demonstrates that you can't define audio quality in a way that everyone will come to the same answer. So, putting numbers on sound quality just isn't possible.
Apologies are not necessary at all, for me. 🙂
Since it was you and not me who talks about "definitive answers", it was enough to reply this simple question: what the "definitive answer" is to know from instrumental evaluations how an audio device sounds?
Haa, yeah, no problems, it's fun activity just to post, hobby like the actual audio part 😀 Writing helps thinking, a lot, so it's quite selfish activity in the end to post a lot. Hopefully always contributing something at least, so it's not completely selfish but at least something for someone.
Last edited:
Hi classicalfan,
I never said that we should include everyone. 😉
I repeated that one has to have an experience in Audio, have good health and good faith and put yourself in "I'm judging an audio system or device" mode.
Good health obviously means, in addition to everything else, also a good hearing system.
Can I ask you something?
You don't have to answer me, of course.
Do you have a good hearing system?
There are question and answer steps that I recommend adhering to when it comes to sound as well - we can only compare and judge by contrasting:
1: is a difference audible, determination
2: is this difference describable - contrastive (we can only describe comparatively), description
3: what is preferred, liked more. Rating.
Only very experienced listeners will be able to assess quality without references, contrasting. I don't want to count myself among them, but just a few weeks ago I tested some TO-220 NPNs and one sounded so great that I claimed I had never heard a TO-220 that good. Only then did I pull out my references. And indeed. It was the best sounding one ever. Memory of hearing;-)
Otherwise, I think it is advisable to have a sound measurement tool at all at the conceptual level that is not related to specific devices or speakers, but can be created with any device and speaker. The only condition: stereo. For this I recommend the speaker setup in #225 and #251. The arguments are mentioned. Anyone can now get started;-)
1: is a difference audible, determination
2: is this difference describable - contrastive (we can only describe comparatively), description
3: what is preferred, liked more. Rating.
Only very experienced listeners will be able to assess quality without references, contrasting. I don't want to count myself among them, but just a few weeks ago I tested some TO-220 NPNs and one sounded so great that I claimed I had never heard a TO-220 that good. Only then did I pull out my references. And indeed. It was the best sounding one ever. Memory of hearing;-)
Otherwise, I think it is advisable to have a sound measurement tool at all at the conceptual level that is not related to specific devices or speakers, but can be created with any device and speaker. The only condition: stereo. For this I recommend the speaker setup in #225 and #251. The arguments are mentioned. Anyone can now get started;-)
The idea that a linear frequency response corresponds to a low coloration is unproven. This is because the ear is a difference detector: everything it perceives contributes to the coloration. And there are above all the "noises" of the parts: signal modulation through material, diameters, shapes and more.
A line meter is not the same as a sound meter;-)
Last edited:
😉
But: Do not switch while listening! The human organism, hearing, is a swing-system. It does need time to swing in and to swing out.
At least 10 seconds still I commend. Minutes are no problem.
Aside: When I had a tooth pulled, it took 5 days for it to disappear in my perception ("tinnitus", swinging;-)
Absolutely, yes. But my room and speakers are in good shape. Sound Lab electrostatic panels are extremely revealing of upstream electronics.
https://www.soundlabspeakers.com/majestic/ Mine are 645 size, and augmented by stereo REL subs down to 14Hz.
Not everyone likes large speakers in their room though.
Last edited:
I would have had a different opinion in my 20's compared to later on about audio. I still want to have an accurate representation but what it is may be dependent on your situation in life. Now a days, I rely on a different set of preferences made by my hearing.
Do you have any references we can look up for "swing-system?" Otherwise, I would assume you are referring to biological oscillatory patterns, such as circadian rhythm.
I have some age-related hearing loss, but that has nothing to do with my position on this issue.
My claim is that even people with excellent hearing will disagree to a very large extent on what they hear and particularly on how they grade it. Sound quality is far too subjective to be graded.
We don't find that to be the case here. However we use trained listeners who perform discrimination observations, and they also judge separately for preference.
Your idea of a delay of minutes between listening to different systems is entirely contrary to what the professionals like Floyd Toole in the field of acoustical comparisons believe.
Perhaps you know more than they do, but until proven otherwise I'll side with the professionals.
Last edited:
Sorry, almost overlooked. But here too: "Reading studies":
Not: This study did prove, but this study did not disprove;-)
Talking about study designs, methods: "science"-)
You have to do, not any "professionals" can do for you;-)
Give > 10 seconds pause, and you will not prove that your hearing only remembers a few seconds;-)
Last edited:
Many oscillations, vibrations, swingings are also electro-physical, which we even record using electronic sensors. For example, heartbeat, brain waves, skin waves, breathing rhythm.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.