I have a lot of audiophiles that say the ear test is the best. I believe them. Some of us have to do blind tests etc. I’m in the camp of trusting your own ears because no matter how something measures. Is it more pleasing to you with a particular cable, placement tweak etc. What are your thoughts everyone?
Too many bad recordings out there to just trust your ears.
Case in point. So many recordings have a "grunge" (maybe digital?) to them due to whatever somewhere along the process of getting the original session to the final CD. Better recordings don't exhibit this, but I find it to be somewhat common, maybe especially among earlier CDs. Additionally, it is frequency dependant and my L200/300s barely exhibit it at all..., but also miss so much else in this frequency area.
I designed my own speakers in and for the room in which they are used and have been tweaking them (e.g., changes to the crossovers) for years. I found with the right part selection, I could get rid of the grunge and most things just sounded better without it.
BUT!!! I found that it's removal had artifacts. For example, the Hohner Clavinet through the wa-wa pedal lost some of its characteristic "jaw harp" sound. Ultimately, I figure that the grunge is there and any truely high fidelity system is going to exhibit it in the microdetail.
Do you test drive a car that you are considering buying, or do you make a buying decision based on the Road and Track test?
Yes. Both.
The R&D test (objectives) narrow down the field. The test drive determines if everything is satisfactory. How does a car enter your sphere of consideration without first knowing its most important objectives? You can't always tell by looking. A Corvette may look fast, but a Civic Type R may smoke it around the track. That's why you need to look at measurements.
This also assumes we hear the same. We don't. When I look at a red car do you see the identical color red? Probably not. Thus we all adjust to our own unique perceptions and, in turn, make adjustments for this uniqueness in our prefered SQ. For me It's more about just having fun with the gear and enjoying the music than striving for a single "best" result.
This all assumes there is one objective or subjective standard for SQ that we would all agree on. That will never happen!
There is no one objective standard nor one subjective standard... This is common place fact...
But this common place fact dont justify those who called their gear choice my "taste" and conclude that the job is done...
There is a process of necessary and possible correlation for each of us between objective measures and our subjective physiological biases and hearing history and training..
Then this is true :
Measure once.
Listen twice.
Repeat.
It’s the opposite of construction.
Psychoacoustics standards concerning all acoustic factors are established by a set of CORRELATED experiments where all parameters are varied with different subjects...
No subjects will perceive "timbre" the same way... but they can train themselves as acousticians and musicians do in their own way at their own rythm...I did it...
Timbre is a multidimensional factors experienced it is experience by fis specific ears/brain and only measured in a multidimensional way in varying controlled conditions......
All this does not means that we cannot for ourself in our own room modify the measures parameters at play and then created for ourself an experience of timbre which will be satisfying for us...
Using acoustics experiments and concepts and parameters is better than purchasing an upgrading amplifier and called this "our taste" as if it is the end of the job and the end of the audio road...
i trusted my ears in my acoustics experiments when i changed parameters in an incremental way... Then if there is no one objective nor one subjective standard there is a a numbers of tools and parameters we can use in an incremental process which we will all agree on, like all acousticians agree on the way to create a good room and agree on the necessary possible tools and process to do it from some starting point ...
Being stubborn and justifying laziness by saying each one of us differ by taste is only a way to procrastine what must be acoustically done ...
I use measurements for what they're good for, and use my ears for the rest. Most everything I have is vintage, so it winds up on the bench for safety and performance checks. If it's possible, I will listen first, then measure. We don't listen to square waves on purpose, but that is one measurement from the old days that is still a valid predictor of sonic performance.
one last thing. I get what people say about bias. But my ears are not biased. My ears will not let my mind lie to me! lol . If smthg sounds good it sounds good. If it cost more or cost less good is good if I can save and get better sound then great. If not I’m paying more. Some people also have a price bias. If it’s more expensive I tell my mind that my cheaper stuff sounds better. But sometimes my ears will not let my mind lie to me. lol
I can almost always tell a tube amp from a solid state amp. I can always tell vinyl from other sources (and no, it's not because of clicks and pops). I can tell the difference and tube amps and vinyl sound better to me. Granted, I had to work my way up the upgrade ladder to get where I wanted to be, but measurements don't really matter to me, unless I need a 1.5 Meter interconnect as opposed to a 1 Meter one. Otherwise, I trust my ears.
Further on this-- whenever I decide to mess with the placement of my speakers, I always mark where they are currently situated. Why? Because I always go back to that placement, not because of the measurement, but because that's where they have always sounded best to me.
Look I trust my ear. There is a particular sound I’m fond of. My ears identify it and are drawn to it. Not letting someone else tell me not to trust my own ears
I'm leaning towards warm and clean. I also run and integrated streamer/dac, so recording compression and sound levels make a difference. For instance, I think my aq's cables sound more veiled than my low end audience, but then again it's much fuller and doesn't sound like a full range 12 inch horn either. Lol The clean also seems to factor on low resolution recording. I was getting obsessive and ready to go manic between cables, until I saw the current differences seemingly effect the speaker and resolution quality, with some still probable other factors.
I just want to precise that i am fooled by the usual biases as anyone is...But in a bit less powerful way than for most people...😊
Because i picked a set of new biases more powerful than the traditional one in audio which are : publicity, price tags, esthetics...
My new set of biases is the three working set of controls, mechanical and electrical and especially acoustics...
Then even if i can be fooled by my old biases the same as all people biases, the new one act as knowledge act on "black cat" superstition... A doctor can have this fear of black cat inherited from childhood, but after his training knowledge the superstition even if it subsist in his unconscious, has less power because of the new set of conscious biases : medical science...
Biases are inherited as the result of habit and conditioning, but some can be the results of training and created by our new practice...
Audio is grounded first and last in psychoacoustics not on price tags, esthetic, or gear design... But we must learn how to put this set of biases at the place of the other set of biases...
no, no, no! my apologies. I know English is not your first language, so that was a little cryptic (unclear) on my part. The joke was really an homage to your ability not to get fooled by bias. It’s a wonderful, powerful strength.
no, no, no! my apologies. I know English is not your first language, so that was a little cryptic (unclear) on my part. The joke was really an homage to your ability not to get fooled by bias. It’s a wonderful, powerful strength.
I am not "more evolved" as you just suggested , i said we must learn how to hear with acoustics studies...Then the look of the gear and their price will no more be a so powerful magnet for our ignorance...
@mdaltonoh but they do have car wash mixes. Certain soaps that are hotter for cleans and then cooler mixes that are cooler for sheens. Each at a price tier. Lol seriously, its similar to audio.
Confirmation and falsification of biases dont have the same impact on everyone...
A modern man dont think that black cat can give him black death...
Myself i dont buy costly high end gear, then i cannot suffer as much from this bias which induce us to perceive a better a system because it is better looking and more costly...
I used acoustics as biases set then i must train myself to perceive and act on real concepts, i am compulsively push to do it then i forgot esthetic of the gear and his price ...😊
Now my main audio bias and prejudice 😁 is : it is not necessary to pay 100,000 bucks to have high fi acoustic experience and it is not necessary to buy costlier upgrades to reach this magical minimal acoustic threshold...
Why ?
Because i learned by experiments that this threshold can be reached , with synergetical pieces of gear EMBEDDED rightfully in their mechanical, electrical and acoustical working dimensions...
Then i am now way more likely to suffer from these biases as esthetics, publicity, higher price upgrade because my learning biases for acoustics concepts parameters controls are too powerful and put the other biases at rest as "black cat" superstition, i became more conscious with basic knowledge ... These old biases concerning esthetic and prices amd marketing act as mice on me now not lions no more ...
Pick the right biases set , study and experiment BEFORE upgrading ; then like me perhaps you will even did not feel upgrade as so much useful anymore and especially not necessary at all cost ...
For those who need the point on the letter "i", my opinion will not change nor my biases set, even with a better system than my actual one, at higher cost and with an improved design.
Why ?
Because audio truth cannot change with esthetic prejudices and higher price biases : in truth audio experience is directly and linearly related to our own acoustics mastery and our own electrical and mechanical basic knowledge first and last, nevermind the price or the quality design level of your gear and to nothing else at the end ...
last point (maybe?) thank god the car wash hasn’t started a marketing campaign that their special mix of soap and wax improves the performance of my S4 and Golf. My god, I might be willing to pay them thousands!!!!!
I don't necessarily think it's a constant, rather it be high emf's, power inconsitencies, data lags, or just mood, the changes effect my reality. So ears are patially out.
Don't measure, but look at some specs, which seem flamboyant. I like it warm and I don't rely on artists intentions because a engineers can change the affect, but who wants to rely on that rationale of a mind.
Salt sounds reasonable. Lol room acoustics seem like a definate.
one more point: confirmation bias is alive and well in car performance, just like audio. Case in point: I have had numerous instances where, right after getting my car washed, I experience this compelling sense that my car handles better - swear to god! Why? Well I’ve just spent an insane amount of money - $36 most recently, before tip! - and now my pride and joy looks beautiful. I’m feeling good, and I’m focused on this amazing machine’s performance in a way I hadn’t during the dog days of January and early February when I kept putting off cleaning the car. So I have an enhanced appreciation of my car’s performance, even though that performance has not changed one iota. It happens every time, even though I know it can’t be real! That’s confirmation bias, and that’s why I’d be a fool not to consider measurements!
so let’s tease out more detail on @viridian’s apt analogy, buying a car. Measurements are a really effective way to narrow down my selections when I buy a car. I always look at horsepower, but of course you should also consider weight (as all horsepower is not the same. obviously). Even then, I look at additional measurements, like torque, 0-60, 1/4 mile time, gpad times in car and driver (if road and track). Is that enough? of course not. Doesn’t tell me anything about how crisp shifting is (I’m a manual transmission guy), nor does it tell me about the interior, the overall driving experience. But the measurements are a great way to narrow down my choices as I get serious about making a decision.
No difference in audio. I dare anyone to say they don’t consider power output measurements on amps before they decide to consider them by listening. Similarly, it’s critical to know the minimum impedance and efficiency of speakers before I bother to listen to them (particularly as zIm a tube amp guy). And would anyone dare to ignore the output measurements on low output MC cartridges before making SUT decisions? Of course not, that would just be silly. So clearly ignoring measurements would be a mistake, just as ignoring your ears would be a mistake.
Btw, my cars are a 2012 Audi S4 and a 2103 Golf R, both manual tannies with APR stage 1 tunes to increase hp and torque. Very sweet rides.
My new Von Schweikert VR9 SE MK2 speakers REQUIRE listening adjustments. They have 7 adjustments per speaker and are independent (very different in the highs in particular from one another). One for each tweeter/supertweeter and four for the subwoofer per speaker.
@viridianexactly. Trust yourself and your own experiences. You are the one living with it. Most will argue that they have a secret formula. But they don’t even know how you like your music. They don’t know your equipment etc. trust yourself.
I trust the measurements. At this point, audio is not a mystery to science. It knows how to measure the whole frequency spectrum. It knows what the vast majority of people prefer. And it knows about people's proclivity towards cognitive dissonance. Companies like Harmon Karden have been measuring this for decades and sharing the results.
I want to start out neutral and if my preferences differ from that I can always tweak with a slight tone adjustment. But if the measurements start out all over the place, all the tone adjustment in the world may not be able to fix it. Some people will be outliers. Not so much in audible capabilities but in preferences. And that's fine too.
A lot of good answers here. I've been working with measuring and listening for the last week, listening and noticing what I don't like, and then trying to understand how to fix it. Measurements help get me in the ballpark. I know what a really bad sounding measurement looks like. What's harder to tell is what a really good sound measurement looks like compared to a decent sounding measurement. There are a lot of different ways a system can sound good or bad. If I move my crossover for my tweeters from 600 Hz to 1000 Hz I can get more headroom and dynamics at the price of less natural tonal character because the dispersion isn't as smooth. I also get better imaging in some ways with the higher crossover because it gets beamy between 600 and 1000 Hz. The measurements show lower distortion at high volume and better in room clarity at the higher crossover. My ears tell me the tonal quality matters more.
A lot of good answers here. I’ve been working with measuring and listening for the last week, listening and noticing what I don’t like, and then trying to understand how to fix it. Measurements help get me in the ballpark. I know what a really bad sounding measurement looks like. What’s harder to tell is what a really good sound measurement looks like compared to a decent sounding measurement. There are a lot of different ways a system can sound good or bad. I'm using horns that can load down to 600Hz with some eq. If I move the crossover from 600 Hz to 1000 Hz I can get more headroom and dynamics at the price of less natural tonal character because the dispersion isn’t as smooth at the crossover. I also get better imaging in some ways with the higher crossover because the midbass horn gets beamy between 600 and 1000 Hz. The measurements show lower distortion at high volume and better in room clarity at the higher crossover. My ears tell me the tonal quality matters more. I wish I could have it both ways, but the benefit of the higher crossover really shows when I crank it up louder than I usually want to listen.
I measured a lot in my younger years. I got the Behringer stuff and did digital eq to get my bass response near perfect. I built tons of bass traps and spent all kinds of time messing around in my basement. I'm glad I did it, I got a little bit of a feel for how a graph translates to what I perceive. I rarely do anything like that now, though. The last time I did I set my sub level by ear and measured it and I had set it just about perfect. I decided that in-room bass response can be pretty uneven in the deep bass and it doesn't bother me. You can EQ it down 3-4 db and it'll help but if you eq it down 15 to get it flat it sounds weird.
Ah, okay @calvinj. Thing is, DSP doesn’t really require physical space - certain modules fit the footprint of a playing cards deck, with the software run entirely from within the module or upstream in part from a standard computer. Think “desktop-to-larger old school-style DAC” footprint for any typical DSP module. You could fit at least half a dozen units in the empty spaces on the shelf in your system photo.
To the contrary of your limited space concern, the less listening space you have (and/or the more conflicting the boundaries there are), the better DSP might work for that setup, especially a bass-heavy rig like yours. Similar measurements to what AVR’s have used for calibration over two decades is an over-simplified but conceivable likeness.
On arguing in favor of tuning a system (1) by ear-only vs. (2) an integrative approach of listening and measuring/trying signal processing to better inform you of possibilities:
If you just don’t want to test your system with measurements and attempted corrections in the digital domain, that’s your prerogative and it’s totally fine. But it’s also choosing a stance of “ignorance is bliss.” IOW, you don’t actually know which to trust because no informed position on tuning a system (1) by ear-only vs. (2) by ear with measurements as a guide, can be held by someone who has not tried both. You cannot have an informed opinion about two things if you’ve only tried one of them. Make sense?
Regarding measurements for selecting kit to purchase (vs. tuning a system already had), @erik_squires summarized potential advantages vs. pitfalls concisely and objectively.
I’ve found that with reliable sources and using both, that my ears typically help confirm what the metrics indicate. So the stars have been aligning pretty well for me in that regard of late…..the best of both worlds.
I'm assuming and hoping the manufacturers of my equipment do some measurements but there is no reason for me to do any at home. I setup by ear the way I prefer it. I definitely spend some time doing that. Listening is a skill. Hone stand learn to trust it
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
