My expensive shoes have measurements but it doesn’t matter, all I want to know is will they fit. My expensive new suit has measurements but it doesn’t matter, all I want to know is will my expensive new shoes match.
The people being misled by measruements aren’t being led my manufacturers, they are being misled by reviewers. Idiotic rankings of digital gear based on measurements outside the range of human hearing. Cancelling entire brands who put out features customers actually want as they sell to humans, not bats. The worst of these websites will rant about their own superior $$$ equipment but mot even one person will ever use speakers in a klippel matchine, they actually put them in a room! The horror. The cancelling of brands, the talking down to the customers, is bogus.
You need to measure what matters! Are the customers actually happy? Is the warranty honored? Most importantly is their an in home audition period?
I don’t need someone to tell me if I could or should like a product. My room is not a test bench, or a klippel machine. Who cares what the component measures by itself because unless its a clock radio I’ll never use it by itself, I have to interconnect it in a "system" with "high quality" cables, (as in all cables are not the same).
If you want to measure something measure how your personal system of curated components interact with your room. That’s it. The rest of the stuff you could forget because these days if a brand overpromises and under delivers they will be following a formula for losing money, an no company likes that.
The measurements you reference are typically proper, useful, and genuine. What is "bogus" as you say (not genuine) are those who use measurements as the final decider of truth these are the people who tell you that what you hear doesn’t matter and that we are deluded, living in a fantasy world, science deniers and similar insults, attacks, and abuse. What is particularly odd and indefensible is that these "meauremenalists" often don’t even listen to components that they review, promote, and admire and appreciate.
Do not blame the measurements for they are a useful tool just as what we hear is useful. Many of these You-Tube "reviewers" need to define themselves in a way to appear special, unique, and distinctive and emphasizing measurements and expensive testing tools is one way to achieve that. I also note, observe, and recognize that nearly all of these You-Tubers have massive, dominating egos and that gets in the way of their logic which is so often flawed, compromised, and deceptive.
I understand specs can be useful and their are confusing specs when rating receivers (all channels driven or not). Beyond that 1 in home audition is what answers every other question a customer might have re: value.
Do not underestimate the influence of the prominent YouTubers like Jake Paul, Amir M., or PewDiePie. You won’t believe the number of people who purchase solely on what these influencers say
The more information you give the consumer, the better your chance of making a sale.
I disagree. In the vast majority of cases, the less information the better. More information leads to paralysis by analysis and the customer freezing. Keep it simple: A point system of measurements and price. That’s all it takes to sell. And the master Amir knows that. He has figured it out.
I am sick of measurements that tell me nothing about how a component will sound in my CHAIN of components, I think the measurement thing is bogus because it is supposed to predict how it will sound in my system. No one can predict that because every room sound will impact performance. I think an in room FR meassurement has some predictive value. EQ is like spitting on a fire, it can only do so much.
Measurements do give relevant info. But often the most relevant aren't the standard ones(which still matter) like frequency response and IM and harmonic distortion. The more measurements the better. Without them the final product would be poorer. And you need to know how to read and combine measurements with final listening tests. But ignore them and you'll end up with crap.
Before Thyname or anyone else starts to insult me as a shill for Amir, let me state I'm not a member of his site. I didn't even know who or what ASR was a year ago. According to some members I committed the ultimate sin by suggest Amir was right about something. Anyway, as for measurements, I don't think it's correct to say they are "bogus". They are clearly showing something, but weather or not that something is important could be debatable. A lot of this bickering could be put to rest is more manufactures would simply publish their own measurements to back up their claims? For example, PS Audio makes this statement about the PP 20. "The P20 features an ultra-low impendance analog power amplifier and FPGA based DSD engine that delivers the cleanest, lowest noise sine waves of any regenerator in the world." So would it kill them to includes some with and without test results that back up the statement? Low hanging fruit for Amir? Just pointing out the obvious?
@gregdude. It’s a matter of simple logic. The measurements and the measurer are blind to the system that the component being measured will be used in. Therefore the "is supposed to predict" assertion in the OP is fallacious. It’s an example of the common "argument based on false premises" fallacy.
Thanks for asking me for a link, here is one I chose for this reply. What you have in audio is a "system" where one variable can impact everything in a chain. Take your $500 DAC which you know rules because it measured great, connect it to your $750 preamp that is "best in class", measured great and what does it sound like? It won’t be the same in my room as it will in my neighbors BECAUSE of the variables of the chain. Here is a link to one variable, the interconnection cable:
In essence a simple change in the capacitance of a cable can change the quality of the sound. Now, multiply that times every interconnection in your system and those measurements on the BENCH were hit the fan.
The general public would be better served auditioning it for themselves with 0 expectation bias with a return policy.
I think specs give relevant info. Beyond that there is 0 measurement that will tell me in advance how a component will sound in my 400 ft NYC studio with the tower speakers that measured well I crammed them in, compared to the guy in Austin with a 5000 foot house and a dedicated room.
Wait, I just thought of a measurement that is relevant, the FR of the room. Beyond that the measurements stopped being useful once I knew it was the right voltage for my country. I think published specs are enough for anyone to decide if a product warrants an audition.
I don't think it's correct to say they are "bogus".
I think its fair to see what the specs of a product are. Where "bogus" begins is when you attach judgement. Look at stereophile, they measure stuff all the time but they don't hand out prizes or cancels because of measurements. That's legit, leave it to the customers to decide.
ASR isn't the first or the last to try and cash in on being the gatekeeper to audio. Gene Dellasalla at Audioholics has some great videos but he clearly has an agenda that he is the snake killer, but he is more venomous than the companies he trashes.
I like your line of thought, thanks for participating in the discussion. If I take speakers that measure well, and an amp that measures well, and a preamp that measures well, and a streamer that measures well and the whole kit cost $20K, what should I do? Buy?
When I see a reviewer tout a measurement, any measurement, as a YES or NO to that question I stick them in the bogus pile. Sadly someone, who would have otherwise compared and used judgement, jumped in and spent actual cash because he doesn’t have a test bench? No.
Again, no one website is the first to discover the power of click bait, and won’t be the last.
Some measurements are important, and many manufacturers are not honest about them. The two biggest ones for me are related to Tube amplifier power and Speaker sensitivity. I want to know if a tube amplifier power claims are made by measurements at 1% distortion or 10% distortion. There is no standard for this, and power ratings are all over the place. Also, speaker sensitivity ratings don't seem to mean much anymore. I've seen claimed ratings by the manufacturer being 8 dB lower when actually measured. Did things get worse when they changed the measurement process at 1W/1 Meter compared to 2.83V/1 Meter?
Vendors can’t publish their numbers very well unless there is a standard measurement technique and then people need to know what to do with it. In the 70s and 80s, every amp had to be <.25% THD or nobody would buy it. But there was a lot of lying.
Most people posting here have never worked in a lab. But I’ll tell you it is much less expensive to find a way to improve your measurements than to improve your product.
Publishing a bunch of numbers that the reader doesn’t understand and that don’t really tell you how a component sounds is perfect for the internet age where everyone thinks they can be an expert on everything by reading google.
There is no standard for this, and power ratings are all over the place.
It is actually much worse, power grids are all over the place. NYC is different than the Catskills power grid, go figure.
Also, speaker sensitivity ratings don’t seem to mean much anymore.
Which speakers and what customer? Are you saying specs, as a general rule, are fake?
I’ve seen claimed ratings by the manufacturer being 8 dB lower when actually measured.
Again its actually much worse, parts are allowed to be with x% of tolerances. If you buy a speaker and 3 parts are "within tolerance" but not the same you have no way of knowing what you got, no matter how the sample measured. Which goes back to auditioning.
Passive components have tolerances. Capacitors and inductors are within 5% or even 10% of the specified value. The speaker’s impedance also varies from sample to sample. Combine all the tolerance changes of each component and the desired frequency response of the speaker has changed by a significant amount. This results in pair matching errors that effect stereo imaging.
I have occasionally seen a product(a Technics cartridge!) chosen by a frequency and separation curves and a 1 kHz square wave and my friend who did it was correct. But 99.9 % of the time product selection needs to include careful auditioning. The few times specs can be used directly, at least in my opinion, is when they point to poor performance. I recall a famous 80 watt tube amp that the reviewer liked in spite of the fact he found some instability and it only put out about 2 watts at 290 kHz.
@thyname Why does it bother you, and many others, when I ask for claims to be proven? If a manufacturer claims impedance is lower, or the noise floor is lower, or .........., is it too much to ask for the proof? I have very little interest in ASR reviews for the most part. I have searched for exactly two, as I was interested in all and any reviews of these two items. The PS Audio PP was one and a step down transformer bt Equitech was the other. In both cases ASR APPEARED to show the units failed to provide the claimed benefits. I asked PS to comment directly on the ASR report. I've already posted their response. Your vitriol towards me is unbecoming and uncalled for.
There's a power conditioner I thought about buying but didn't because the measurements determined it was too wide for my rack. I bought another one that fit based on the measured width. Measurements...
@kota1 third party measurements are there to validate manufacturer claims. But lots of people refuse to understand this basic fact. Then you have the issue is when people think their hearing is 100% unbiased and can’t be fooled. Those two combined cause issues since they are opposite of each other.
@kota1 - thanks for your reply. I think the argument perhaps needs to be separated out into two strands. If your essential argument is that - measurements don't reveal how a component sounds and that the reveal even less how a component will sound in a given system - then by and large, I agree with you. At component level (with some exceptions as set out below ( and for clarity, I mean for example, a CD player and not the individual components in the player) unless measurements reveal gross defects then they say little enough about sound quality and certainly do not describe sound quality in substantive way. The same applies cumulatively at system level.
The exceptions to the above are that certain measurements of amplifiers do correlate pretty well with subjective sound quality. For example, SET amps tend to measure pretty similarly in regard to their levels of harmonic distortion and that is subjectively audible. Secondly, there is a reasonable correlation between loudspeaker measurements and aspects of subjective sound quality. But for completeness, I am not arguing that those correlations are in any way comprehensive.
Going back to the basic argument, I still feel that it's a leap of logic from there to concluding that measurements are not useful. The progress of science depends on the formulation of hypotheses and repeatably testing and validating. The more engineers and designers measure, the better they can understand the relationship between their design choices and the subjective performance of their designs.
third party measurements are there to validate manufacturer claims. But lots of people refuse to understand this basic fact.
That's what stereophile does but they don't hand out prizes or shame the product.
Look at the critics shaming not only products but entire companies because of a measurement that has no bearing on how a product will act in MY chain of products.
I think the argument perhaps needs to be separated out into two strands.
That is a lot of arguing.
If your essential argument is that - measurements don’t reveal how a component sounds and that the reveal even less how a component will sound in a given system - then by and large, I agree with you
+1
The exceptions to the above are that certain measurements of amplifiers do correlate pretty well with subjective sound quality.
I agree that they sell power numbers on receivers with either two channels driven or all channels driven, this is inconsistent. As long as they state which one I wouldn’t say its bogus.
I still feel that it’s a leap of logic from there to concluding that measurements are not useful.
I am tired of bogus measurements, the publisher of the measurements can be matter of fact, like stereophile or simply foaming at the mouth with anger trying to shame not just the company, but their customers. It isn’t just ASR, audioholics does this too along with goldensound. You can find a product YOU like that didn't measure best in class. The opposite is also true. You have no idea how a group of products will sound when assembled, in various rooms, based on anything, especially bogus measurements.
@coda1 A perfect example of what I'm talking about is in the March addition of Stereophile magazine. I know many people here don't respect that magazine, but I do respect John Atkinson's measurements. Just take a look at the measurements he did on one of the tube amplifiers and a pair of speakers in that edition. Also, I don't buy the parts tolerance argument. I'm a retired bench technician (Component level) and most audiophile grade equipment tolerances are very tight with many components within 1%, They are much more consistent than that especially when new! It might explain why a speaker's sensitivity is 1 dB lower or why a tube amps power it is a couple watts low but not when the power out is HALF or less than what is advertised or when speaker sensitivity is almost 8 dB low.
I will assume almost no one here has an AES membership? Can you post a summary and comment on the test methodology? The parameters in the testing do not appear at all relevant compared to our audio systems.
Wait, I just thought of a measurement that is relevant, the FR of the room.
Well that would be impossible since every speaker will be different in every different room, but if you understand what is being published from Klippel, and you understand the acoustics of your room you can make some very good conclusions about how that speaker will behave. Horizontal and vertical dispersion plots provide a wealth of information about toe-in, floor and ceiling reflections, side wall reflections, etc. I see most reviewers are providing the standard in-room calculated measurement, as well as the standard early reflections calculations which is a good summary too. Great information on distortion will tell you how load you can play too, or where some stridency may show up in the mid-range, or bass becomes uncontrolled.
@carlsbad, Publishing a bunch of numbers that the reader doesn’t understand and that don’t really tell you how a component sounds is perfect for the internet age where everyone thinks they can be an expert on everything by reading google.
@carlsbad, which is the worst issue, the lack of understanding or the does not tell you how it sounds? I think your post was one of the most salient. I am biased towards speakers. I think there is a knowledge gap between what measurements can communicate, especially with the more detailed measurements reviews are now presenting, and audiophiles ability to interpret them accurately.
I've seen claimed ratings by the manufacturer being 8 dB lower when actually measured. Did things get worse when they changed the measurement process at 1W/1 Meter compared to 2.83V/1 Meter?
There is no enforced standard for reporting sensitivity, so different companies will use different methods. On-Axis anechoic. On-Axis anechoic listening window. Typical room response would be the most common. I think most are using Volts, not watts, but I am sure there are some holdouts too further complicating things. Last may be how they interpret the frequency response to arrive at a single number. I remember someone showing that some Klipsch models were >10db higher in literature versus a measurement. Klipsch uses room response.
We just can't tell for sure, best to simply audition what you are buying at home.
most audiophile grade equipment tolerances are very tight with many components within 1%,
Glad to hear that, another reason why measurements are bogus, you don't need to measure for "proof" of the manufacturers claims as most specs are already accurate.
Also, I don't buy the parts tolerance argument. I'm a retired bench technician (Component level) and most audiophile grade equipment tolerances are very tight with many components within 1%, They are much more consistent than that especially when new!
I can't speak for audiophile speakers, but for professional speakers, most of our parts are +/- 3%, some +/- 5%, some were specified tighter, and some were specified looser. A good designer/company will do a sensitivity analysis as part of their design and design validation. The architecture affects that sensitivity. A low order crossover will be more tolerant of component variation than a higher order crossover.
If I was designing for the potential use of tube amplifiers, I would improve some tolerances to improve impedance consistency.
Is that a response to asking for your comments on the full AES article you linked to (that is behind a firewall)? I find a topic called, "I Am Tired of Bogus Measurements" without substantiating that measurements are bogus as argumentative, but is not the whole point of being here to discuss?
Interesting article on measuring speaker cables, are high priced cables bogus, or not? The bogus websites deny, deny, deny that cables matter, offer them proof and they deny, deny, deny the very "measurements" they claim to embrace.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a simple experiment to identify the performance of a number of different speaker cables by measuring the “error” introduced into an audio system by each cable, i.e., the voltage drop between the amplifier and the speaker. The signals used are both white noise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise) and music.
The results show that the principal factor determining the error of a cable is its geometry. Cables with very widely spaced conductors have the greatest error, closer-spaced conductor cables have less error, and very closely-spaced, flat conductor cables have the least, or near zero error. [Townshend Audio’s Isolda speaker cable is such a design. – Ed.] The results have been presented both visually and sonically at https://youtu.be/v11hmOE1Vcc.
The experimental method has been described in detail, to enable researchers to repeat the tests in order to verify the conclusions. The results of this experiment may embarrass those cable sound deniers who have hindered the advance of hi-fi for the past 50 years, and hence may allow the quality of high-fidelity sound reproduction to advance.
How can a measurement, unless it is inaccurate, "cancel a brand" ? Can you point out some very specific examples of this and how the measurement was inaccurate and cancelled a brand?
"Talking down to customers" ? Do you have a specific person in mind and example? Specifics matter. If you mean the general tone at Audio Science Review to those that don't believe the same thing without stating it, I would not totally disagree, it can be toxic, but I would hope you can then also agree that the treatment is no different here to people that disagree, it is equally toxic.
What proof do you have?
What, do you think I am going to post bills of material? How about doing some research on audiophile speaker component tolerances and comes back to us with your report. +/-5% total tolerance on a film capacitor for audio is pretty standard, but depending on the vendor, 95% or more of their distribution is +/- 3% or less. It comes down to who is going to pay for screening. Air core inductors are typically much better than +/- 3%. Even cheap iron core inductors are +/-3%. High tolerance high wattage resistors are surprisingly expensive, so you ensure your designs are more tolerant of variation. Fortunately, where resistors are used, that is often the case.
I want to know why some people claim you have to level match when listening to different speaker cables of the same Gauge, but different design. You shouldn't have to level match in this situation, after all they tell us that cables don't make a difference.
The experimental method has been described in detail, to enable researchers to repeat the tests in order to verify the conclusions. The results of this experiment may embarrass those cable sound deniers who have hindered the advance of hi-fi for the past 50 years, and hence may allow the quality of high-fidelity sound reproduction to advance.
@kota1, I realize you are trying to post counterpoint, but like the AES article, it would be best to validate what you are posting for relevance and accuracy first. You may want to ask an EE for a review of this before putting your name to it by posting.
I want to know why some people claim you have to level match when listening to different speaker cables of the same Gauge, but different design. You shouldn't have to level match in this situation, after all they tell us that cables don't make a difference.
I would assume just good experimental practice, but there is no shortage of people who just regurgitate what they read on either side of any argument on the internet. I guess it is possible that there could be crazy high inductance or capacitance, or maybe someone could use something like aluminum instead of copper? Measuring the resistance to validate the claim of same gauge seems like a good practice.
I want to know why some people claim you have to level match when listening to different speaker cables of the same Gauge, but different design.
It is to make the errors of the equipment less audible:
If you ever wondered why so many manufacturers dem their equipment with recordings of a female vocalist with minimal back-up, it's because the errors are less audible than with something like a huge classical orchestra performing complexly scored music with great dynamic and expressive shifts.
Here is a study done by Nordost that I replicated in my own system and the reduction in noise is obvious. In this case I bought an after market power cord, a vibration control device, and a QRT power conditioner AFTER an in home audition. If it didn't sound right I could care less about the measurements, in this case the measurements actually confirmed what I was hearing (table on page 4).
So are after market power cords, vibration control devices and power conditioners bogus if they measure well and make the system sound better? Does it win a prize instead?
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.
