If you are referring only to yourself, OK. It's good to know your limits.
But if you are asking in a general way:
1: Because not everyone needs rely on measurements, even if they are a handy crutch
2: Because it can be easy to misinterpret measurements and go off on wild goose chases. Using ears as a double check is a good idea.
Good measurements and the interpretation of them is a skill, just like good listening skills.
I can't argue with that. And our bias can even go against our own designs and works. I see that often enough.
Agreed. The same holds for vision, where I work. Skills are acquired with training and experience. Natural ability doesn't hurt, but I doubt it has value without training.
I almost hate to say this, but 'best' is a highly relative or relational notion that depends upon the end (e.g. aims, standards, goals purposes, etc.) one has in view.
Pano - I won't argue with using ears to confirm that the measurements are working (that is what I have done for years), just as I strongly believe that measurements are necessary to keep subjective impressions in check. Using both is always going to be best, but if it happens that one cannot do both then my bet will be on the measurements every time (agreeing that there may be a rare individual who can succeed with ears alone.)
And I absolutely agree that taking good measurements and interpreting them is essential. Looking just at on-axis curves, for example, is just not going to tell you much so of course you can't rely on those oversimplified measurements for a design. It is a complex process that includes simulations, measurements and, yes, listening. My pet peeve is those who claim that measurements don't matter. That's just nonsense.
And I absolutely agree that taking good measurements and interpreting them is essential. Looking just at on-axis curves, for example, is just not going to tell you much so of course you can't rely on those oversimplified measurements for a design. It is a complex process that includes simulations, measurements and, yes, listening. My pet peeve is those who claim that measurements don't matter. That's just nonsense.
Perhaps, but many out there regularly confuse the three in their replies. Anyway...
I see all the time, someone takes the step of setting up for measurement. Then the confusion starts, not to mention the sometimes lack of consensus from others trying to help.
Trying to turn one axial measurement per driver into a speaker is the learning process that is bound to bring mediocre results. The learning curve is steep enough to be a catch 22 situation where if you don't understand beforehand, you'll probably just have more questions.
Long ago I gave up on measurement for a while only to come back to them when I had a better understanding so I can see why some are motivated to use their ears for the whole process. It's not the easy way, but it is..
Trying to turn one axial measurement per driver into a speaker is the learning process that is bound to bring mediocre results. The learning curve is steep enough to be a catch 22 situation where if you don't understand beforehand, you'll probably just have more questions.
Long ago I gave up on measurement for a while only to come back to them when I had a better understanding so I can see why some are motivated to use their ears for the whole process. It's not the easy way, but it is..
This was an area that I used to work in. In general, one audio researcher's work disagrees with another. Many of the publications simply fail to agree with one another in regards to preferences and absolute thresholds. There are many factors playing into those results. The results are never absolute.
I'm not familiar with the conditions of the statistic mentioned, but everything from wording down to who is asking can influence those results. Bias is never completely eliminated from the equation.
Manufacturers, perhaps since they are in it for profit. Papers and writers that support the manufacturing of products with higher exacting tolerances and lower specifications benefit the bottom line. But research - the actual testing that's taken place and evidence that contradicts popular (convenient) conclusions - not so much.
Agreed.
There seems to be more interest in doing things different - for marketing reasons - than actually doing them better. (This is true for both large and small manufacturers.) I think that we, as humans, are to blame for this. Many see "new" as better when, in fact, the field of loudspeakers is quite highly evolved and there is not much that one can do that is both "new" and actually "better". Hence "new" wins out and gets the budget!
There seems to be more interest in doing things different - for marketing reasons - than actually doing them better. (This is true for both large and small manufacturers.) I think that we, as humans, are to blame for this. Many see "new" as better when, in fact, the field of loudspeakers is quite highly evolved and there is not much that one can do that is both "new" and actually "better". Hence "new" wins out and gets the budget!
well, most reputable companies try to outdo themselves and do come out with better products.
for example, new hifiman headphones are better then earlier products, same with revel, jbl, amphion, schiit dac, ec designs dac, ifi audio products, ect.
def not listening to manufacturers claims.
you can find thousands of comparison from peers and hobbyist at head fi, gearslutz, audiogon.
head fi particularly for DAC's and headphones. normally when comparing the old vs new model and generally, the new edition is better.
of course there's exception, but to imply that its all marketing is total non-sense.
There's exception, but in general, the good company's out there do indeed ameliorate their products. sometime its subtle, sometime its obvious.
now, artist commonly gets worse and worse though
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.