There's no disputing taste (in Latin that is "De gustibus non est disputandum" write that down and impress your friends). But "taste" isn't something purely idiosyncratic and immutable and one person's taste isn't always as informed as another (I mentioned the study known as "experimental aesthetics" somewhere on this forum recently).
But sometimes it is impractical to use human judgments and there may be grave obstacles to good measurements that are hard to overcome without complex studies (I say that as I guy doing human measurements for the Canadian Space Agency this summer). For example, maybe you can detect differences but are hard pressed to say which is better. Sometimes it takes days of listening to choose.
Ultimately, we need to understand the physical causes that lead to human judgments because you have to do physical design. That is, to understand the psycho-acoustical theory.
But sometimes it is impractical to use human judgments and there may be grave obstacles to good measurements that are hard to overcome without complex studies (I say that as I guy doing human measurements for the Canadian Space Agency this summer). For example, maybe you can detect differences but are hard pressed to say which is better. Sometimes it takes days of listening to choose.
Ultimately, we need to understand the physical causes that lead to human judgments because you have to do physical design. That is, to understand the psycho-acoustical theory.
Maybe I'm not rational, but I have to disagree. Ears are used to decide if one likes or dislikes a system. Ears are about perception only. They are not measuring devices.
Dave
Dlr, can you help me buy a measuring device that will measure "noise" (and not just sound level)? I'm also having a lot of trouble getting my meter to indicate the point where "reverberation time" turns into "muddy."
I've been checking the web but so far no discount coupons for Psych 101 courses. My long experience has been that the people with the firmest negative convictions about what psychologists do, who they are, and the wildest notions on the subject, are those with the least exposure to psychology (except on Oprah).
Last edited:
What's the point you're trying to make? Are measurements useless or is there still work to do to correlate measurements to perception?
Maybe it is about measurement and judgement.
A measuring device does not judge.
But, with previous knowledge of human perception,
we can do "perceptually weighted" measurements.
This would be building a bridge, between unweighted
measurement and human judgement.
Unfortunately the best weighting functions representing
human judgement on measured dimensions are neither
known entirely nor are the known ones undisputed ...
Furthermore the measurable dimensions are not judged
independently from each other, as perception
(of liveforms in general) often tends to judge in a
relational manner, for this makes it easier to get
along with the environment changing from tick to tick.
That makes establishing "measurable quality" difficult
for audio devices, since you would need a set of undoubted
weighting functions including all relevant dimensions.
The set of parameters to be controlled all at the same
time is quite large.
And who wants to doubt, that a red glowing lamp in front
of the listener would probably affect his judgement e.g. on
localization of virtual sound sources ?
A measuring device does not judge.
But, with previous knowledge of human perception,
we can do "perceptually weighted" measurements.
This would be building a bridge, between unweighted
measurement and human judgement.
Unfortunately the best weighting functions representing
human judgement on measured dimensions are neither
known entirely nor are the known ones undisputed ...
Furthermore the measurable dimensions are not judged
independently from each other, as perception
(of liveforms in general) often tends to judge in a
relational manner, for this makes it easier to get
along with the environment changing from tick to tick.
That makes establishing "measurable quality" difficult
for audio devices, since you would need a set of undoubted
weighting functions including all relevant dimensions.
The set of parameters to be controlled all at the same
time is quite large.
And who wants to doubt, that a red glowing lamp in front
of the listener would probably affect his judgement e.g. on
localization of virtual sound sources ?
Last edited:
Oliver
Yes, the task at hand is difficult and we undoubtedly lack knowledge but there's an easy way to improve the situation for everybody: define standards. Get rid of the circle of confusion.
The whole discussion is out of proportion because the audio industry isn't driven by science any more but by marketing. Although the devices are still working in the realm of physics, people talk about them in the realm of subjective likes and dislikes. It really prevents any progress if the color of a status display is more important than what is displayed.
Yes, the task at hand is difficult and we undoubtedly lack knowledge but there's an easy way to improve the situation for everybody: define standards. Get rid of the circle of confusion.
The whole discussion is out of proportion because the audio industry isn't driven by science any more but by marketing. Although the devices are still working in the realm of physics, people talk about them in the realm of subjective likes and dislikes. It really prevents any progress if the color of a status display is more important than what is displayed.
This just reinforces my point. Everything you point out relates to perception. The reverberation time that you reference would be, one would assume, an actual measurement with a mic. Or maybe you're saying that some ears are determining the actual decay rates in msec for comparison.
If ears were so accurate at measuring, then everyone would agree on every speaker system ever designed if one were to accept the premise. If one said that system x is better than system y because it "measures" better with the ear, then all other ears would "measure" them the same.
Odd how so much is claimed on how good is the ear, yet put 100 people with "good ears" into a room and I'd lay a years salary on the bet that there would be significant disagreement as to which one sounds, er, excuse me, measures better with the ear.
Dave
Harman claims the opposite:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=5276&name=harman
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=5270&name=harman
This works only under controlled conditions. Nothing any consumer ever does.
Dave
I'm with you, and Markus (of course). Measurements are usually more reliable and a better choice for determining sound quality than listening, but as Markus points out, the correlation is not perfect. It is still a whole lot better than "it sounds good to me", however.
And, as Markus points out, under controlled conditions humans, novice or pro, are amazingly consistant in thier "preference". Its marketing that would have us believe otherwise.
As someone who designs almost exclusivly using theory and measurments, and having found some good deal of success doing this, I'll never do it another way.
Last edited:
The title of the papers is "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences". Good start. I'm well aware of them. I know your position, I'll take is as a devil's advocate post and respond.
How does this relate to the suggestion that 100 of 100 people randomly selected and placed into a room would not have the same ear "measurement" results? Some claims being made here aren't that very carefully selected test conditions will result in statistically valid results based on measurements vs. perception, it's that ears are the most important measuring devices, regardless of conditions, or at least that's implied as there are no qualifiers to some comments.
What's the reference for calibration of these? Are all ears equally capable measuring devices?
Dave
Last edited:
I don't disagree at all. It's just that "amazingly consistent" is not the same as the most important "measuring device".
It is still based on perception, as you well know, and that was my point. The only way that any amazing consistency can be determined is through rigorous tests of measurement vs. perception with actual measurements of some sort. I simply reject the term for ears being "measurement devices".
One is not measuring with ears, there's no reference other than more perception. If not, how can two people hear the same system and disagree as to which it also then better? In that case, the only way would be for one or both to say that they prefer certain colorations. This happens with tubes all the time, but at least almost to a person they volunteer that they "like" the tube sound. At least most of them are honest about it.
I guess that's how I see it. The reference with ears is a reference to perception. How does one quantify perception?
Dave
Last edited:
Dave, I guess we're on the same page.
That would be wrong and it has been shown so many times that I stopped counting. It makes me wonder that a lot of audiophiles still believe otherwise. Listener bias renders the results in uncontrolled listening tests meaningless.
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
That would be wrong and it has been shown so many times that I stopped counting. It makes me wonder that a lot of audiophiles still believe otherwise. Listener bias renders the results in uncontrolled listening tests meaningless.
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
Seems like we've completed another circle.
Anyone care to compile a list of relevant perceptual studies and post it? That would be nice for all to have.
Dan
Anyone care to compile a list of relevant perceptual studies and post it? That would be nice for all to have.
Dan
Both I'd say, but maybe my definitions aren't the same as yours.
As I see it one must choose the right qualities to then quantify. The problem is that there is nothing related to perception that is an absolute quantity, that is at the heart of the problem. We know what impinges on the ears, but how does one quantify our hearing of it in absolute terms whatever the quality aspect (good, bad, tight, sloppy, loose, accurate, boomy, smooth, shrill, etc.) that does not require some form of interpretation of one's perceptions? There is no measure, yet some think of the ears as the "most important measuring device".
All one need do is consider the Fletcher-Munson Curves. Quantity on that scale shows that even though the relative SPL level (the actual quantity of a selected quality) remains constant, we do not "measure" the sound the same. We don't perceive the "quantity" to be the same, regardless that it is in relative terms. We don't perceive the "quality" of systems to be the same when played at differing volume settings. So how can the ears be the "most important measuring device" since the result of that "measurement" can change so dramatically?
Dave
Last edited:
Dave
I saw you and Markus on the same page, and I think that Markus misunderstood your post. The ear as a measurement device? Well two things: it has been shown to be remarkably "precise" and "high resolution", but then it's attached to a "brain" and thats when the wheels come off. In any sighted "perception test" the ear is basically not a factor because the brain takes over. So "yes" the ear can be a very "precise measurement instrument" and "yes" it can be totally unreliable when not used in the correct manner.
I saw you and Markus on the same page, and I think that Markus misunderstood your post. The ear as a measurement device? Well two things: it has been shown to be remarkably "precise" and "high resolution", but then it's attached to a "brain" and thats when the wheels come off. In any sighted "perception test" the ear is basically not a factor because the brain takes over. So "yes" the ear can be a very "precise measurement instrument" and "yes" it can be totally unreliable when not used in the correct manner.
Hey! I think I said that- "Any stereo you like is a good one."Well the bottom line is what you can hear. They don't go out the window they show what's really there. What counts is knowing when you can make the trade off. Does it look good vs. does it sound good?? I know I will get flamed for that one.
Rob
As for measurements and perception both should be good.
You know what? There sure is a lot of Toole worship around here. Not making a negative out of that but there are many other professional authors with what I consider better work. I found his work mediocre at best.
=SUM
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.