My experience with speakers and headphones is that those which measure better, do indeed sound better. There is nice correlation.
Why is this not the case with amplifiers? Perhaps we do not measure all important parameters yet.
Good point about soundstage. How can you measure soundstage? Some amps present nice 3d soundstage, some don't. Clearly not predicted by simple thd number.
I believe objectivists and subjectivist will unite in the end, but its still long way to go.
Ps: didn't watch vid either
Why is this not the case with amplifiers? Perhaps we do not measure all important parameters yet.
Good point about soundstage. How can you measure soundstage? Some amps present nice 3d soundstage, some don't. Clearly not predicted by simple thd number.
I believe objectivists and subjectivist will unite in the end, but its still long way to go.
Ps: didn't watch vid either
Didn't say anything in my above post about either type of HPA you mentioned. In fact both models were designed by a member of this forum who makes very low distortion audio products.
As far as feedback goes, IMHO it has nothing to do with lopsided sound stage nor a collapsed sound stage.
"Why is this not the case with amplifiers? Perhaps we do not measure all important parameters yet." -- but don't forget - that's your belief. And that's fine. But plenty would disagree, and think that it does correlate. That's the nub of the subjectivist thing - we're all different, we like different music, things sound different. That's great - part of what makes us individuals. It only gets to an argument when someone claims their subjective view is the right one.
Yes, its a quirk of the auditory system. There are also quirks of the visual system which we refer to as optical illusions. Does that mean you can't safely drive to work because you can't trust your lying eyes?
Maybe its because amplifiers already measure pretty well, and or they tend to be more LTI than speakers? The correlation between HD/IMD and SQ is greatest when HD/IMD is poor. When HD/IMD pretty good, then its no longer the biggest problem with amplifier SQ.
Think I remember glazing over this video before.
Apparently a previous audio salesman.
Video about blah blah blah in the 80's 90's blah blah.
Sales experience helped him establish his business.
that is good. dont wanna pay 10 grand
for 1000 dollars worth of drivers, so blah blah.
Or hear generalized personalized misleading info about specs in magazines
30 years ago blah blah.
2 speaker wires, press play on player. whatever
Apparently a previous audio salesman.
Video about blah blah blah in the 80's 90's blah blah.
Sales experience helped him establish his business.
that is good. dont wanna pay 10 grand
for 1000 dollars worth of drivers, so blah blah.
Or hear generalized personalized misleading info about specs in magazines
30 years ago blah blah.
2 speaker wires, press play on player. whatever
No. Expectation bias is when someone sees a nice-looking PSS phase noise measurement of an expensive clock and expects great sound.
As a scientist, analytical biochemist, analytical instruments is my profession. So i am objectivist by profession.
But when amplifier with unmeasurably low distortion sounds worse than other amp with much worse parameters, i can not help it. If all my friends hear the same and agree, hence my statement. That does not make subjectivist, just someone who decides what amp to use by extended listening sessions, not specs.
Just a side note, we receive samples from process development department, analyze, and report back. Often we test parameters which are useless or irrelevant. Only small percentage of tests is whats called cqa's, critical quality atributes.
Same goes for other professions. Like doctors. You can test for lots of stuff, but not all is useful.
Same goes for other professions. Like doctors. You can test for lots of stuff, but not all is useful.
Last edited:
A better question is how do you know what was the soundstage in the recording. The perceived 3d soundstage can be a result of anomalies in the reproduction such as crosstalk or phase shift.
There are many ways to eliminate or at least reduce all manner of psychological effects - expectation bias, placebo effect, pathological skepticism, etc. If it was easy to analyze the sound everyone could do it. in addition, there are simply too many variables involved, many of which are hidden or unknown, to be able to make snap decisions. It’s a little like trying to solve x number of simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns.
Last edited:
Just distinguish peek-measurement and hearing-measurement;-)
Results of peek-measurement-procedures are not calibrated to the results of auditory-measurement-procedures. Peek measurement methods and their results are based on unscientificness when it comes to assessing the primary task of audio devices.
Besides, just cover the loudspeaker cabinets with a blanket or cloth e.g.. And do "hear-measure". And do "look-measure"-)
Results of peek-measurement-procedures are not calibrated to the results of auditory-measurement-procedures. Peek measurement methods and their results are based on unscientificness when it comes to assessing the primary task of audio devices.
Besides, just cover the loudspeaker cabinets with a blanket or cloth e.g.. And do "hear-measure". And do "look-measure"-)
This is related the main point of John's video. We fool ourselves constantly because that's the way our perception works. Our ears are not microphones, our eyes are not cameras directly informing our consciousness. We constantly build and update a model of the world in our brains which is strongly referenced to experience. As with most things in nature, it's the most economical way to be smart. Most of what we perceive is inference. That's why the mess of a distorted sound field our speakers throw out can be transformed into a satisfying audio experience. The engineering should always be as good as it can be, but we have to acknowledge that the huge amount of processing our brains do to build the illusion is also a major part of the experience.
This video firsthand is a very well done (!) ad for DeVore Fidelity, Brooklyn. This gets obvious within the 20 seconds of the video. So any one that proceeds beyond this time mark, does it at it's own risks and perils ...
I did. Like within so many audio related ads, you get some real knowledge transfer, amongst a lot of hype and disinformation. As I watched it, I first was appealed by the funny setup with the fire extinguisher, then by the cat's one eye inline with the speakers on the t-shirt, ok, this guy also seems to like to show off his audio collection ... and then initially by the history of audio amps and theirs advertising. Then I have viewed the video for another 10 minutes, despite the fact of getting more and more bored by the style of the speech. Then I started skipping forward, but it got not anything better: DeVore omits to include any potentially important or interesting side-facts. Side-facts however which could disturb his clean, argumentative straight line. And doing so, he carefully avoids a more in-depth and maybe also more complex discussion. This makes for an apodictic and annoying speach style - no, thanks. Finally and logically he also simplifies the psychoacoustic sequence down to a nonsense content. So ... excellent insight? No. At least not into the foundation of our individual acoustic perception.
But then, hey ... why complaining? Finally, we are talking about daily business within an audio business ad. My fault to have expected something different and to have wasted 30' of my lifetime. I was certainly mislead by the attribute of "excellence", waiting for any improvement as viewing time went by. And why might this video induce such a discussion here? For me, I have wasted another 15' to write this text.
At least I will not waste any further time by entering into yet another needless, useless and worthless objectivists vs. subjectivists debate. Everything has already been said about this one, too much already has been written, and as such any further elaboration on this subject is as exciting as running down a well-trodden path. So, bye.
Last edited:
A well designed HPA will manipulate at least some measure of crosschannel to get a reasonble in-your-head soundstage.
It's the worst line amp you can use.
Jan
All logic and physics points that they should. So probably YOU are not prepared to accept this as it is the final bastion for real HiFi. Or prepared to change other things in the system to accommodate the better amplification.... HP, after all, is just an "extra" which you perhaps isn't as fuzzy with as the "real" gear. Just guessing..
//
So, technically, according to you, we do not even need to bother to listen to amplifiers, just look at amir's list of thd on asr site from low to high for all amps tested to know how each sounds. Great, problem solved.
Than I think John should read a bit more literature and expend his knowledge and understanding, instead of putting the time in ranting on YT videos.
There is no discussion about preferences and perception.
The only discussions that are left in the field of psycho-acoustics, are where the boundaries are.
Aka, data and measurements that can be quantified.
Which has been on hold for decades.
Personally, I think for very obvious reasons that don't have much to do with science and technology.
To be honest, I find the whole start and approach of the discussion rather empty.
It's literally the same discussion again for the last two decades, if not more.
The whole debate is not even stale anymore, but well over its expiration date.
I find it rather boring, if not extremely boring.
Some people clearly missing the point and goal of measurements.
I guess they still just dump random ingredients in a pan, pray and hope it will taste good, and when it does they call it magic voodoo? There is no magic voodoo in audio. (well, there is, it's called emotional perception)
I think that says more about the expertise, knowledge and experience of that person, than something about measurements.
I mean that with 100% no offense, just as an objective observation.
Well, or there is one other thing, and that is a different approach in life in general.
Some people like the mystery of things.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it will give you a good approach to fully get a grasp of things.
But like cooking, there are also (master) chefs that still like dumping random things in a pan and see what works.
Which is fine, but not a argument why the rest is BS.
It just explains a different approach.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.