Too small a nutshell, I think.
Although pace, rythmn and timing have an authoritative-sounding ring to them, I think they're ultimately almost meaningless and the notion is simplistic.
My criteria put 25 dB of clean, low distrtion headroom and fast settling time high on the list, along with linear and smooth frequency response on and in multiple directions off axis.
Although pace, rythmn and timing have an authoritative-sounding ring to them, I think they're ultimately almost meaningless and the notion is simplistic.
My criteria put 25 dB of clean, low distrtion headroom and fast settling time high on the list, along with linear and smooth frequency response on and in multiple directions off axis.
Sorry but I'm not so sure.
What is the relationship between the today measurements and what we actually hear?
For example, can someone claims that a Steinway grand piano is more realistically reproduced by a Katana DAC (SINAD 110) than a Totaldac D1 (Sinad 84) DAC?
If so, I woud be glad to understand the relationship.
What is the relationship between the today measurements and what we actually hear?
For example, can someone claims that a Steinway grand piano is more realistically reproduced by a Katana DAC (SINAD 110) than a Totaldac D1 (Sinad 84) DAC?
If so, I woud be glad to understand the relationship.
You completely missed the point by confusing the issue with specific examples.
If what you put in is what you get out to the limits of hearing - you will not hear a difference between that and live sound. Of course its up to the speakers now, and if you want to argue that - go for it. But, in a different thread.
Andrea, I can measure past the limits of audible sound. I have predicted what some amps will sound like, and the reports come back the same. The age of "I can hear something you can't measure" is well over. Dead, gone and R.I.P.
That means that if you want to report on an amplifier or preamp, you're going to have to invest in equipment and learn how to use it, otherwise you are talking out of your hat. If you want to talk about your speakers (we can measure those past audible limits too now), you can give an opinion but that's all. Flowery speech is just garbage talk and has often been proved (by other listening tests) to be inaccurate (being kind here).
Humans make horrible test instruments. You have no fixed reference at all, and your sensors are horribly flawed. The best you can do is a quick A-B in general terms. You can be accurate in gross terms, but for anything detailed you need test equipment. I'm sorry, but that is the truth of it.
I started in audio in the early 1970's and have a very good hearing sense. I grew up with test equipment and experienced the improvements first hand. Of course, you have to know how to interpret the readings, and idiot with test equipment is pretty useless. But so is an idiot with a pair of ears.
It's time to drop the idea that you can hear things you can't measure. That statement is completely false today. Not everyone can, but I did spend the money and time with experience, and I can. So can many others. You need more than a meter and a 'scope. You need an audio spectrum analyzer that is very sensitive - and some processing power.
So piano, fog horn or guitar, it doesn't matter. Measurements can single out those devices that purely amplify. Speaker-brain interface ... That's an entirely different topic with no answer since you threw in the wild card called "the brain". But then, your results will vary depending on day, time, mood, amount of sleep. That is a fools argument. Be my guest and take it up somewhere else.
-Chris
If what you put in is what you get out to the limits of hearing - you will not hear a difference between that and live sound. Of course its up to the speakers now, and if you want to argue that - go for it. But, in a different thread.
Andrea, I can measure past the limits of audible sound. I have predicted what some amps will sound like, and the reports come back the same. The age of "I can hear something you can't measure" is well over. Dead, gone and R.I.P.
That means that if you want to report on an amplifier or preamp, you're going to have to invest in equipment and learn how to use it, otherwise you are talking out of your hat. If you want to talk about your speakers (we can measure those past audible limits too now), you can give an opinion but that's all. Flowery speech is just garbage talk and has often been proved (by other listening tests) to be inaccurate (being kind here).
Humans make horrible test instruments. You have no fixed reference at all, and your sensors are horribly flawed. The best you can do is a quick A-B in general terms. You can be accurate in gross terms, but for anything detailed you need test equipment. I'm sorry, but that is the truth of it.
I started in audio in the early 1970's and have a very good hearing sense. I grew up with test equipment and experienced the improvements first hand. Of course, you have to know how to interpret the readings, and idiot with test equipment is pretty useless. But so is an idiot with a pair of ears.
It's time to drop the idea that you can hear things you can't measure. That statement is completely false today. Not everyone can, but I did spend the money and time with experience, and I can. So can many others. You need more than a meter and a 'scope. You need an audio spectrum analyzer that is very sensitive - and some processing power.
So piano, fog horn or guitar, it doesn't matter. Measurements can single out those devices that purely amplify. Speaker-brain interface ... That's an entirely different topic with no answer since you threw in the wild card called "the brain". But then, your results will vary depending on day, time, mood, amount of sleep. That is a fools argument. Be my guest and take it up somewhere else.
-Chris
In engineering terms, if an audio equipment is able to accurately reproduce the audio wavefront of the original performance, then its accurate. Measurements can validate this aspect reliably.
In real life, individual preferences make us arrive at the wonderful diversity of the numerous amplifiers and speakers which all find takers and which some audiophile or the other will swear by.
In short, measurements can tell you about the accuracy of a reproduction, but may not relate to preferences of the individual listeners. In other words, measurements are important, but not all encompassing.
Asking someone to rate the sound quality is like asking someone to rate a painting. There are many things that majority of the people will agree on, but there will always be some subtleties, that will tug at the heart of some folks more than others. That's the "art".
In real life, individual preferences make us arrive at the wonderful diversity of the numerous amplifiers and speakers which all find takers and which some audiophile or the other will swear by.
In short, measurements can tell you about the accuracy of a reproduction, but may not relate to preferences of the individual listeners. In other words, measurements are important, but not all encompassing.
Asking someone to rate the sound quality is like asking someone to rate a painting. There are many things that majority of the people will agree on, but there will always be some subtleties, that will tug at the heart of some folks more than others. That's the "art".
I don't think so because that involves speakers and microphones. It would be an interesting test though, seeing what the sound of an instrument looks like compared to a speaker using the same microphone, I'm not sure what value such a test would have though?
So I cannot have a different opinion?
I thought so but maybe I was wrong.
In my honest opinion "Speaker-brain interface" (or better System-brain including the listening room) is the topic.
And I believe we are not able to measure this relationship, even with modern tool like the AP since its measurements are not much different than the one performed in the early '70s.
At the end we are using audio devices to listen to music, so I expect a Steinway piano to be as far as possible similar to the one I listen to during a live concert.
And if the piano is not realistic the measurement does not matter.
Finally, if I'm not free to express my opinion on this topic please let me know and I will delete myself from the forum.
Last edited:
Ultimately, the purpose of mics and amps and speakers is to faithfully record/reproduce. The test will provide measurable data in that direction.
Basically a blindfolded listener should not be able to differentiate between a live/recorded performance.
Hi Andrea
You can have an opinion. But good measurements are absolute and will tell you what a piece of electronic equipment sounds like. Period.
So from that standpoint, you can't have a differing opinion. When you begin to talk about perception then all bets are off. There can be no right and wrong, but then the opinions are not useful either. It becomes pointless to even discuss these things except in broad terms.
-Chris
You can have an opinion. But good measurements are absolute and will tell you what a piece of electronic equipment sounds like. Period.
So from that standpoint, you can't have a differing opinion. When you begin to talk about perception then all bets are off. There can be no right and wrong, but then the opinions are not useful either. It becomes pointless to even discuss these things except in broad terms.
-Chris
Hi Chris,
in my experience the measurements didn't tell me what a piece of audio equipment sounds like.
During the last 40 years (unfortunately I'm not a teenage) I listened to stuff that measured perfectly and sounded bad to my ears (the Steinway was a Kawai), while I have listened to other stuff which measured worse but I found them more realistic and natural (the Steinway was almost a Steinway).
So I prefer to take a device home and listen to it in my system for days or weeks rather than rely on the measurements.
The measurements can be a starting point but they are not sufficient to understand what we perceive and what we like.
I can't listen to an audio device that I don't like, even if it measures very well.
I got tired after 10 minutes.
in my experience the measurements didn't tell me what a piece of audio equipment sounds like.
During the last 40 years (unfortunately I'm not a teenage) I listened to stuff that measured perfectly and sounded bad to my ears (the Steinway was a Kawai), while I have listened to other stuff which measured worse but I found them more realistic and natural (the Steinway was almost a Steinway).
So I prefer to take a device home and listen to it in my system for days or weeks rather than rely on the measurements.
The measurements can be a starting point but they are not sufficient to understand what we perceive and what we like.
I can't listen to an audio device that I don't like, even if it measures very well.
I got tired after 10 minutes.
I'm aware tests have be done with listeners comparing live to recorded, I'm not aware of similar using measurements, someone must have tried it.
Hi peufeu,
Looking at the entire spectrum of IMD and THD, plus the noise floor.
Hi Andrea,
There you go again.Depending on the measurements and the quality of the test gear, and interpreting it properly, you can tell what something will sound like. Now, if you have speakers with a silly load, all bets are off. But if they are accurate and distortion free, you stand a good chance of correlating what the measurements show with how it sounds.
Your experience has too many variables involved.
-Chris
Looking at the entire spectrum of IMD and THD, plus the noise floor.
Hi Andrea,
There you go again.Depending on the measurements and the quality of the test gear, and interpreting it properly, you can tell what something will sound like. Now, if you have speakers with a silly load, all bets are off. But if they are accurate and distortion free, you stand a good chance of correlating what the measurements show with how it sounds.
Your experience has too many variables involved.
-Chris
This is a good point, and in terms for the percentage of people who perceive differences.
Almost 19 thousand posts in this thread about something, like sound quality from a system versus measurements?
Sure, measuring sound quality via instruments at a specific point of a system will give some clues.
But being reasonable, room acoustics vary wildly, human ears do as well.
What sounds great in a certain room by one person, sitting in a specific spot, may be aweful to someone else.
Fiddling over trivial figures such as a few hundreths of a percent in distortion levels, noise floors beyond "reasonable" audibility and such is something the aliens from another planet would do.
I conclude, we've been invaded by beings from another world.
And they want to call ME nuts?
Sure, measuring sound quality via instruments at a specific point of a system will give some clues.
But being reasonable, room acoustics vary wildly, human ears do as well.
What sounds great in a certain room by one person, sitting in a specific spot, may be aweful to someone else.
Fiddling over trivial figures such as a few hundreths of a percent in distortion levels, noise floors beyond "reasonable" audibility and such is something the aliens from another planet would do.
I conclude, we've been invaded by beings from another world.
And they want to call ME nuts?
I've yet to be fooled. It seems I can always tell "that isnt someone's 'stereo system'; that's a real piano, drum kit, string instrument, high school pep band..."
To me, the sound of live versus reproduced is like comparing looking out over an actual landscape scene, to a photo of it. While the photo may be a good representation...
It seems that from a cozy restaurant that sells world-trade goods with live performances on the weekends, to the BSO at the Hatch on the 4th - you're going to be listening to someone's "sound system". To me, once the "wavefront" hits the mic diaphragm and transformed into an electric current, much of what makes it sound real is gone, forever lost.
Oh well. It's the best we can do. You can take as many veils off your photograph as you want, it's still a photo underneath. There's something about the "glow" in the color of a real flower, that a photo just_doesnt_quite_capture.
"Stereoscopic-3D" is still fun to recreate, in both audio and visual media. But it's still a joke compared to actual or live seeing and listening. The levels we've achieved so far, is yet appreciated. It's fun!
Hi Chris,
just for example one of my last experiences.
Not too much variables, same environment same source same DAC, same speakers. Different amplifiers only.
I have used relatively easy and transparents speakers, an open baffle like the OBL11 with different drivers.
I replaced the mid driver with the L-CAO AlNiCo 8" full range and the upper driver with the Harwood 2.0 ribbon tweeter.
I attach the frequency response and the impedance (it's a simulation but it's just what I have measured, I canno find the plot).
After several listening sessions all the partecipants did agree that with a 845 DHT SE amplifier the piano, the voices and especially the orchestra were reproduced much more realistic than using a LM3886 based amp.
The measurement told the opposite.
The LM3886 based amp has a THD around 0.002 % at 40W/8 ohm while the DHT based amp has a THD around 1% at 15W/8 om.
Therefore although the measurements are absolutely reliable they don't explain what we have heard.
This is the reason I'm used to listen after measuring.
just for example one of my last experiences.
Not too much variables, same environment same source same DAC, same speakers. Different amplifiers only.
I have used relatively easy and transparents speakers, an open baffle like the OBL11 with different drivers.
I replaced the mid driver with the L-CAO AlNiCo 8" full range and the upper driver with the Harwood 2.0 ribbon tweeter.
I attach the frequency response and the impedance (it's a simulation but it's just what I have measured, I canno find the plot).
After several listening sessions all the partecipants did agree that with a 845 DHT SE amplifier the piano, the voices and especially the orchestra were reproduced much more realistic than using a LM3886 based amp.
The measurement told the opposite.
The LM3886 based amp has a THD around 0.002 % at 40W/8 ohm while the DHT based amp has a THD around 1% at 15W/8 om.
Therefore although the measurements are absolutely reliable they don't explain what we have heard.
This is the reason I'm used to listen after measuring.
Attachments
Given the complexity of such a problem, we have a situation much like the weather. We can measure what is instantaneous, but it takes big big supercomputers to predict the weather even hours in advance.
Not nearly as much effort has been put into audio, so we are not as advanced with the chaos of the above situation.
As Chris says, instruments can measure stuff that we cannot hear and this is very important to getting things technically right.
But the ear/brain is a very complex structure and can, magnitude depending on training and natural ability, and can detect things we cannot (yet) measure. This is fact. Over and over again in history we have seen people saying something is not sounding right and the smart guys go in and figure out what they haven’t been testing for. One of the most notable is jitter,
Someone who really knows what they are doing can get a good idea of what an amplifier will sound like, but to evaluate it in real use, speakers, room, other kit pay, and a big variable, the listener all complicate things and we get into a chaotic/complexity problem, and simple predictions often go out the window.
How the measurers interpret the data is very important. We clearly have stellar sounding amplifiers that do not measure well (in the traditional sense, one has to know which measures are important and how to interpret them), so blindly looking at numbers does nothing.
Take measured distortion for instance. Single number THD has been shown to be pretty much irrelevant, the same measure, before collapse, showing the harmonics is very useful and it seems that the where of the spikes in that spectrum are the phase, is important too.
I leave amplifier design to others who know what they are doing, i just listen to them. As a speaker designer i do know about speaker/amplifier interaction, it can be dramatic.
In the end i leave with this quote from one of the best audio scientists to date:
To quote Floyd Toole:
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.