I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
Based on my observations of this controversy over many years I will attempt to elucidate the divide.
I cannot speak for all s, but at least a portion of us believe we can best achieve our goals for sound reproduction with audio systems by listening. We believe with experience and mindfulness, listening skills can be valid means to accurately convey to our minds and senses such that we can accurately choose components and systems that conform as close as possible to our aural memories of live non-amplified music. This being possible while at the same time understanding and acknowledging our sensory limitations and/or subjective qualities of them. We don't deny the validity of measurements, we simply believe current measurement protocol isn't capable of measuring what our ears and senses convey to us.
Again, I can't speak to all o, buy my understanding of their position is that as imperfect as present measurement protocol is, if that is even an admitted liability, it is still superior to the most skilled listener in ascertaining component and system sound quality. The senses are not and cannot be relied upon vs measurement.
If I have this right, I don't see the divide ending anytime soon. both sides are going to hang onto their beliefs. Some 0 may disagree with my use of the word belief attached to their argument, my retort to that is current measurement protocol doesn't explain everything, thus, some measure of belief applied to o argument.
I'll only make this one last argument to defend the s side. Again, I don't want to speak for all s, but I believe many, if not all of us live life to pleasure our senses. We enjoy good food to pleasure our palate, we love to gaze at esthetically pleasing form to pleasure our sight, we love to hear music reproduced on audio systems that pleasure our hearing. In order to attain pleasure of the senses one needs to simply enjoy, not always second guessing or analyzing and/or doubting our senses. Yes, part of this is monkey brain, we have inherent needs for pleasure. While we are aware of the limitations of our sensory perceptions, we can trust in them enough to derive pleasure from them.
I derive great pleasure from my present audio system, I'm well aware of it's limitations, but it conforms close enough to live non-amplified instrument and vocal timbre, and also conforms in other parameters of sound quality enough to believe live performance is taking place in my audio room. And this doesn't take a lot of mind twisting and/or suspension of reality to achieve. I'm well acquainted with this aspect of stereo reproduction and perception, and I know the less work one has to do here pays off handsomely in pleasuring one's senses. Whether the pleasure I currently experience from my unique audio system conforms to some other persons idea of what a system ought to be, frankly, doesn't bother me in the least.
At least some s also know why I and others like what they like. We're very aware of every issue o brings up, the difference between s and o is what we value. In the end whatever gets you off is fine with me.
Beautifully put in a nutshell.
This thread has generated interesting and thoughtful commentary.
taking a tube amp and measuring it against a modern chip amp is a lesson in futility. Engineers have been able to get cheap chip amps to measure perfectly for some time now, and the kinds of outcomes that Amir bleats from the rooftops were never in doubt. Yet people still keep buying tube amps, and will continue to do so as long as they produce the sonic goods…
Q.: “ … I just can’t clear my head of this. I don’t want to start a measurements vs listening war and I’d appreciate it if you guys don’t, but I bought a Rogue nSphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir’s review and he just rips it apart. ….. Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep. “
The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it.
“And in what business is there not humbug? “There’s cheating in all trades but ours,” is the prompt reply from the boot-maker with his brown paper soles, the grocer with his floury sugar and chicoried coffee, the butcher with his mysterious sausages and queer veal, the dry goods man with his “damaged goods wet at the great fire” and his “selling at a ruinous loss,” the stock-broker with his brazen assurance that your company is bankrupt and your stock not worth a cent (if he wants to buy it,) the horse jockey with his black arts and spavined brutes, the milkman with his tin aquaria, the land agent with his nice new maps and beautiful descriptions of distant scenery, the newspaper man with his “immense circulation,” the publisher with his “Great American Novel,” the city auctioneer with his “Pictures by the Old Masters”—all and every one protest each his own innocence, and warn you against the deceits of the rest. My inexperienced friend, take it for granted that they all tell the truth—about each other! and then transact your business to the best of your ability on your own judgment.”
― P.T. Barnum, The Humbugs of the World: An Account of Humbugs, Delusions, Impositions, Quackeries, Deceits and Deceivers Generally, in All Ages
“Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.” ― P. T. Barnum
At least some s also know why I and others like what they like. We're very aware of every issue o brings up, the difference between s and o is what we value. In the end whatever gets you off is fine with me.
@atmasphere If you read that post again, that was not a posit, rather a question? I can’t make that posit without having heard the components I speak of. You posit they’ll all sound the same, apparently, you trust the measurements over human sensory perception. This in a nutshell, speaks to difference between O and S, I need to listen, O’s don’t.
The point I believe that you might have missed is the fact that he is an amplifier designer and manufacturer.
I would be pretty disappointed if Ralph, Bruno, and/or a handfuls of other “engineers” were using tweaks and burning of incense to design gear.
I would reword your quote to be:
This in a nutshell, speaks to difference between us.
I listen carefully to O that have a track record of quality gear as understanding the objective science.
And I listen to S as story tellers, sometimes conveying the qualitative.
A good objectivist understands what tickles the toes of the pure subjectivist.
The reverse is almost never true.
Maybe a subjectivist could be in a middle ground of wearing the twin hats of objectivist, and liking the subjective experience. But I doubt it.
It seems more common that one either is not capable of understanding the technical nuance, or they just do not want to… and they like to hold up their hands and claim it is all unknowable.
At some point though it is true that no matter how glowing the prose is, it is hard to make believe that something is good, when it in fact, sounds bad.
Hence I would not say “Trust our ears”, but I would say, “Verify with our ears.”
And realistically the dealer, and more to the point… salesmen, have a low track record for trustworthiness.
My first dealer, Walt at Woodland stereo always made sure I went home with the right stuff. He helped Arnie Nudel with his first loudspeaker the Servo Statik. Walt had the best sound of any SoCal audio shop. Many years later I was dealing with Kevin Deal, he has a good ear and I just have to tell him what direction I want to go in and he gets me there. If you haven't found someone that is on your wavelength, keep looking around and going to shops until you find that person.
I go back to the 60s, thank you very much. I'm not sure where you are shopping but there is no incentive to have a disappointed customer unless you are selling speakers out the back of a white van. A good dealer will help you on your journey through the maze of possible choices. You probably need to shop at better stores if you think you are being lied to and being sold "snake oil".
We need ways to determine if a dealer, manufacturer or salesman’s claims are factual, semi factual or total B.S. that is wittingly or unwittingly fabricated.
We can try doing that in our houses post facto after purchase, or using some measurements a priori.
I like to do as much of that in an a priori fashion as possible.
And realistically the dealer, and more to the point… salesmen, have a low track record for trustworthiness. Whether it is used cars or stereo gear, if they were EE types, or automotive engineers or mechanics, then they would be making things, or fixing things… not selling things.
I like bartenders and baristas as much as the next fellow... maybe more so…
But striving actors and philosophy majors are always interesting to talk to.
However I would not be taking their advice on technical matters, nor on medicine, nor on world politics.
We seem to want to trust stereo salespeople perhaps more than they should be trusted.
I set the bar at whether they can speak to a graph, or explain in some technical way why piece is worthwhile, and when they resort to magic and synergy, I pretty much put the shields up and engage engines to leave.
@atmasphereIf you read that post again, that was not a posit, rather a question? I can't make that posit without having heard the components I speak of. You posit they'll all sound the same, apparently, you trust the measurements over human sensory perception. This in a nutshell, speaks to difference between O and S, I need to listen, O's don't.
As Charles previously stated, and I stated in previous post, we don't deny science and find it useful. We also don't deny the validity of our individual sensory perceptions for our OWN choices.
It has never been my intention to present my observations, listening experiences as some objectively verifiable truth. They are presented as an obvious subjectivist, my system and preferences there for all to see. And based on my observations the vast majority of posts here follow this pattern. I don't see much if any misrepresentation in posts that listener's experiences are shaped by their preferences.
I presume vast majority of visitors and contributors to this forum understand it's greatly dominated by subjectivists. ASR and some of diy forums, objectivists. I haven't dismissed ASR in any of my posts, and have in fact used them to some extent in purchasing decisions. And they do present their listening impressions on that forum, at least some there attach some validity to their sensory perceptions. I am in fact a hybrid of O and S for initial purchase decsions, however, I do attach validity to my sense perceptions for long term ownership.
Who dismissed science of how we hear? The plascidity of the brain? Certainly not me. For instance do speakers " break in" or does our brain adapt to the sound of the speaker room interaction. Looking at the components of a passive speaker there’s very little that would benefit from break in of more than a few minutes to a few hours but it can take our brain a few days or weeks to adjust to a change. I agree there are far to many who reject science not only of how things work but of how we work as well.
This problem of audiophiles living their lives according to how things were 30-40 years ago has caused a lot of suffering (and to be clear, when people have made up stories about life and life does not agree with those stories, that is the source of all human suffering). Back then, if the manufacturer, distributor or dealer's lips were moving, he was lying
I go back to the 60s, thank you very much. I'm not sure where you are shopping but there is no incentive to have a disappointed customer unless you are selling speakers out the back of a white van. A good dealer will help you on your journey through the maze of possible choices. You probably need to shop at better stores if you think you are being lied to and being sold "snake oil".
I haven’t noticed any participant on this thread rejecting scientific data, who’s doing that? I would acknowledge that there are posters (including myself) who believe reliance on measurement is no substitution for listening. Ralph has eloquently pointed out that relevant measurements are rarely utilized and presented even though they’re available.
Speaking of scientific data rejection, why are some so seemingly narrow minded and dismissive of the research and information regarding the fascinating study of ear-brain processing of interpreting sound? Too complex to bother with? Science demands curiosity, humbleness and an open mind. Probably a lot simpler and reassuring to just cite data from a sheet of paper.
The effort to delve into the science of human hearing may just be too daunting for some, so it’s easily ignored.
@cd318Now as to the reasons why some consumers would reject scientific data, perhaps it’s just a question of pigheadedness?
I haven’t noticed any participant on this thread rejecting scientific data, who’s doing that? I would acknowledge that there are posters (including myself) who believe reliance on measurement is no substitution for listening. Ralph has eloquently pointed out that relevant measurements are rarely utilized and presented even though they’re available.
Speaking of scientific data rejection, why are some so seemingly narrow minded and dismissive of the research and information regarding the fascinating study of ear-brain processing of interpreting sound? Too complex to bother with? Science demands curiosity, humbleness and an open mind. Probably a lot simpler and reassuring to just cite data from a sheet of paper.
The effort to delve into the science of human hearing may just be too daunting for some, so it’s easily ignored.
ABX and blind tests are the platinum standard. Sighted tests are dismissed as irrelevant, no way to have a control for bias. I fail to understand this idiotic aversion to science.
This aversion to science seems to be endemic amongst throughout history.
Let's not forget that Galileo, Darwin and Freud have all been vilified for daring to even suggest that mankind is perhaps not the God created centre of the known universe.
As you might expect, most of the anger came from those that had a vested interest in denying the evidence that was presented, namely certain powers in the church.
With audio, you could argue that the reasons for denying science are somewhat less principled.
Here, amongst certain unscrupulous corners of the industry, it's not a question of a possible theological or even philosophical belief, but merely an attempt of sheer greed by deception.
As we already know, not even scientists and engineers can live in a world free of outside political and economic influence and temptation. Some can be easily bought and sold all too easily in this age of pragmatism.
Now as to the reasons why some consumers would reject scientific data, perhaps it's just a question of pigheadedness?
Ralph what you are referring to in terms of measurements is far removed from what we are presently being provided from these sites and their advocates. I would sincerely welcome legitimate and predictive measurements.
@charles1dadASR is actually providing a lot of information, much of it quite useful. They don’t always hit the nail on the head (see the PSAudio regenerator review where Amirim pretty well missed the point). But they do graph distortion vs frequency and usually show the distortion spectra. I’d like to see the distortion spectra a -6dB of full power in addition to 1 Watt, and also see the distortion vs frequency at 1 Watt, -6db of full power and also full power. They could do all that if they caused their hands to move. So my opinion of them is higher than yours; and I think they can do better with little effort.
If you see distortion rising with frequency take that as a Bad Thing (likely bright and harsh, not what you like if my guess is right 😉). Your SETs don’t do that, neither do our OTLs or any zero feedback amplifier. Amps that run feedback need to not do that too. So right there you know something very useful that is routine on that site.
The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious, no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.
How can you possibly state this with such confidence without proving that you or anyone can reliably detect differences after 2 components have been tested by a sight like ASR or equivalent.
- THD+N from 100mW to max power at 20Hz, 500Hz, 1-5-10-15KHz.
- Power versus distortion single frequency from 10mW to max
- Frequency response at 4R, which would allow extraction of output resistance
- 32 tone inter modulation tests. This would represent real music.
- I saw a 2 ohm test on a recent amp from 50mW and up
ON DACs add:
- frequency response at various input sample rates and with the different filters the DAC offers.
- jitter test
- usually tests all the input types, but not consistent
I am aware of some videos highlighting some potential corner conditions (at least with DACs) that ASR does not test for, but which may also not be an issue with real music. This still brings me back to my first paragraph. With real music can you detect issues?
@atmasphereFWIW I fault the 'objectivist' camp as much as the 'subjectivists' in this debate. Many of them don't know about all the specs that make a difference and allow their expectation bias to color their perceptions. IOW guilty of exactly the same thing as the people they fault. That is no way to make progress! Put another way if one is in possession of the facts, then one knows there is no good reason for objectivists and subjectivists to be at odds.
Ralph, this paragraph succinctly nails the point I've tried to explain with numerous posts on this and other threads. The high level complete and "meaningful " type of measuring audio electronics you are describing aren't being utilized .
The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious, no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.
Ralph what you are referring to in terms of measurements is far removed from what we are presently being provided from these sites and their advocates. I would sincerely welcome legitimate and predictive measurements. Until this happens I'll just listen. BTW Thanks for your kind comments.
@atmasphereWhen I'm speaking of accuracy and it's association with color, I'm thinking about two components that measure exactly the same in every measurement undertaken. Now lets say those measurements are such that one was deemed to be an accurate component. Will these two components, or any number of components tested, meeting the above criteria necessarily sound exactly the same.
There is a failure of logic in this post. If all the proper measurements are taken and they are the same, the two pieces will sound the same too.
Since the rest of your post is based on a faulty premise, you might want to rethink this.
40 years ago it really wasn't practical to do the measurements that we can today. Sometime in that period we turned a corner. But the important specs don't show up on spec sheets for the most part (I do remember seeing an Adcom spec sheet clearly showing an increase in distortion above 3KHz, showing why the amp had brightness and harshness- even 20 years ago, this stuff was starting to show up). But audiophiles for the most part are living their lives as if the only measurements we can make were those of the 1980s and before. Back in those days the spec sheets were the Emperor's New Clothes- an amp that looked good on paper rarely sounded good as well.
This problem of audiophiles living their lives according to how things were 30-40 years ago has caused a lot of suffering (and to be clear, when people have made up stories about life and life does not agree with those stories, that is the source of all human suffering). Back then, if the manufacturer, distributor or dealer's lips were moving, he was lying and this has been a way of life for so long that we collectively no longer think about the fact that we are being lied to, we just know and accept that we will have to take the damn thing home and listen to it to know how it really sounds!
We are living in a transitional time where the measurement tech has caught up with our subjective experience- now we can measure things that we hear with excellent correlation. The problem now is actually seeing the specs we need to see and knowing what they are telling us.
I've outlined all this previously.
Rather the point is that measurements aren’t reliably predictive of what a given audio product will sound like. They do not replace the act of listening.
@charles1dad's comment here puts this dilemma in a nutshell- although I've always appreciated his comments as being some of the more level headed seen on this forum, the simple fact is that we have arrived at a point where the quote above was true at one point but isn't any more (although his advice of simply listening to see if it works for you is quite valid). If we do all the measurements (including in the room itself) we can quite reliably predict how things will turn out. Honestly it appears to me that people don't do all the homework. For example, how many here have run pink noise through their system to see how it fares in the room? FWIW these days that is quite easy compared to only a few years ago- as they say, 'there's an app for that'.
Pink noise can show you room issues, breakups in speaker cones, all sort of pesky stuff! It won't show you brightness caused by distortion, but you can get that information from proper measurements of the electronics.
FWIW I fault the 'objectivist' camp as much as the 'subjectivists' in this debate. Many of them don't know about all the specs that make a difference and allow their expectation bias to color their perceptions. IOW guilty of exactly the same thing as the people they fault. That is no way to make progress! Put another way if one is in possession of the facts, then one knows there is no good reason for objectivists and subjectivists to be at odds.
So, prescribe to everyone components, or a set of components making up an entire system. I'm sure you guys could come up with a number of systems meeting your objective criteria to prescribe to us subjectivists. We then could have face offs between the objective systems and any number of subjectively chosen systems.
This is not at all what I am saying. No one knows whether you personally like your bass a little heavy, your treble rolled off, or perhaps what I have been told a warmth that can come from certain distortion artifacts. Any components or set of components that can cause these changes will be subject to subjective evaluation for your personal preference.
What I am saying, is that it is highly unlikely to the point of improbably, that given two components not easily effected by system level interactions, say two DACs, or two interconnects, that measure very close in their performance (and in the case of DACs make sure the settings are the same), that you will be able to differentiate them without visual clues. I am also saying it is quite evident that audiophiles rarely test their claim that they are capable of this.
I wish I could be fooled into believing a system sounds good when it sounds bad. I'd save a lot of time or money. It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws.
This "the gold standard is a long term evaluation" was a lie started by people trying to extract money out of your wallet. I have been into audio like everyone else here for many decades. I don't remember exactly when this lie started, but I think in the 90s.
You also though are misinterpreting what I am saying. You will not be fooled into thinking a bad system. You could easily be tricked or trick yourself into believing that given two systems -exactly the same-, that one of them is better. That is not a minor distinction.
I do understand that a set of components, each with preferred set of measurements in allignment to accuracy would result in a whole that deviates less from this objective than those that deviate/color the whole. Following this, the system conforming with the objective requires less interpretation by the end user, being subject to human sensory failability. I get it.
So, prescribe to everyone components, or a set of components making up an entire system. I'm sure you guys could come up with a number of systems meeting your objective criteria to prescribe to us subjectivists. We then could have face offs between the objective systems and any number of subjectively chosen systems. What do you think the results would be? I presume great variability to the point there would be no valid conclusions drawn other than humans are subjective. Individual/subjective human sensory perceptions would upset any conjecture humans would choose the objective system by any statistically compelling margin.
And so, imposing some objective measurement/accuracy criteria in evaluating hierarchy of audio components/systems is futile effort. People will continue to choose for themselves the sound qualities they prefer, you or I may not concur with their choices, but this is of no matter.
In speaking about First Watt amps just now in another thread, it comes to mind how Nelson Pass, a designer/engineer of some renown, has any number of these amps, with different colors we use to synergize with entire systems. I"m quite sure Nelson understands accuracy, linearity in regard to audio design, yet he allows and understands the human psyche and all their unique desires and preferences. He also understands that even at the level of individual parts, each has unique sound qualities, what some would dismissively define as color.
I for one am in love with color, I love all the colors we can perceive. I love we have choices of tubes, push pull, SET, all varieties of power and signal tubes, I love SS, class A, AB, D, I love all the various choices of parts, boutique parts included, I love all varieties of speakers, dacs, turntables, cartridges. I could go on and on, but I love the CHOICES we all have, color is a wonderful thing! Black and white, zero sum games, prescribed heirarchies no fun, and more importantly, not the whole truth. Reductionist conclusions replaces critical thinking far too often these days.
Yes, individual human perceptions can be confounding, wrongheaded, infuriating, etc. In the end it is what it is, always seems pithy philosophical comment to my mind, but it is concise and true.
It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws
ABX and blind tests are the platinum standard. Sighted tests are dismissed as irrelevant, no way to have a control for bias. I fail to understand this idiotic aversion to science.
I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.
I wish I could be fooled into believing a system sounds good when it sounds bad. I'd save a lot of time or money. It's easy to "fool" oneself on a blind or short-term listening session. That is why the gold standard is long term evaluation. It's very hard to convince yourself somethings sounds good after you have experienced all it's flaws.
Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn’t believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.
You misinterpret what I am saying. Sensory perception is important. You may prefer the artifacts in a tube amplifier. The output resistance of a tube amp may provide a pleasant change to the frequency response of your speaker and atmasphere has suggested some speakers prefer this. Turntables can have color in addition to the fact the mastering is different. These are significant changes for which preference is relevant.
Where the differences are extremely small, at least from an extensive measurement set, then preference is either a very questionable or false premise. Without testing if your brain is playing tricks on you I place little validity in it.
Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn't believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.
Ok, certainly our sensory perceptions can fool us, but do present measurement regimes and total reliance on them lead us to a better individual decisions?
And then, we as humans have great ability to learn, evolve, we have the ability to train ourselves to be better listeners. Listening to a wide variety of systems, components, even parts for the diy modder over a long period of time, exposes us to many variables, which if we're ever mindful of, can improve listening skills and aural memory. I'm not claiming this infallible method, but are measurements done in lab situ on individual components really a superior method for determining best sound quality for our systems in our rooms and for our unique ear/brain sensory perceptions! A really preposterous posit to my mind.
This is also not to say measurements don't have their place, certainly important to the engineer/designer, assembler of audio components. Also important for assembling a more synergistic audio system. But as a replacement for experienced listeners choosing for themselves this is symptom of machine belief. Perhaps some day, but AI hasn't yet surpassed human ability in choosing individual audio systems.
I also continue to sense the measurement/subjective divide is symptom of psychological reactive forces. One side doesn't trust humans in general sense, this obviously valid conclusion. And on our side, we have the self proclaimed 'Golden Ears', objectivists posing as subjectivists, irritating and extremely deluded with all their hubris. On the measurement side we have belief in machines, understandable response to human failability. measurements not subject to nearly endless vagaries of human variability. Perhaps some day AI will be preferred method for assembling an audio system, but not yet. I'll go back to robot model I brought up much earlier in thread. This portable measuring robot will be placed in each listening room, do full analysis of individual components, and full system analysis, will also know each individual listener preferences and/or sensory perception system. At this point I MAY trust measurment/machine over my own analysis/senses.
In SS or Class-D amps one wants pretty stunning measurements.
Otherwise even 90-100 dB+ SINAD can sound distressing depending on the TYPE of distortion.
In a tube amp, one could have a SINAD of say 60 and it would sound pretty likeable and musical if the lower order distortions are masking the higher order harmonics.
I think the comparison was feedback and no feedback not tubes and no tubes specifically. I think the critical element was low distortion at all frequencies and at low to high power. I did not find the use of the 90-100db term well defined. Perhaps @atmasphere can expand on that.
I found this mindset short sighted and shallow when advocated by the late Julian Hirsch decades ago and certainly even more so more so today.
Things change. I think that was the 70s? We didn't have cell phones, or even personal computers.
I hear noise raised as an issue but to me it's a false issue for me and likely most. My system is dead quiet during silent portions of tracks. Other system issues? What are they if inaudible?
The camps are not as you describe them in your case and this topic. This is not about measurements defining a sound which I don't see anyone saying in this topic. It is about measurements being able to test the lumits of what is audible. As most audiophiles never test their claims of what they can hear, I see little reason to believe them. If you want to define camps, I see the camps, primarily, as those that accept humans are fallible, variable, and whose perceptions are hence also fallible and variable, and those that do not.
You keep mentioning divergent camps, and also the OP stated:
I don’t want to start a measurements vs listening war and I’d appreciate it if you guys don’t
But Ralph did point out where the measurements and the listening are at odds… and why they are at odds.
Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep
In SS or Class-D amps one wants pretty stunning measurements.
Otherwise even 90-100 dB+ SINAD can sound distressing depending on the TYPE of distortion.
In a tube amp, one could have a SINAD of say 60 and it would sound pretty likeable and musical if the lower order distortions are masking the higher order harmonics.
Basically we want no higher order harmonics, or if we “have to have them”, then we want to have them masked by lower order harmonics.
(And some IMD stuff related to feedback bandwidth gain product.)
If I got that wrong maybe @atmasphere can tidy up my understanding of it.
The more I read that measurements don’t matter, the more it makes me want to question whether the expert opinions from amp designers have merit.
Hence I bring it up.
Maybe a 2nd reading is in q. I haven’t read anyone proclaiming measurements don’t matter. Rather the point is that measurements aren’t reliably predictive of what a given audio product will sound like. They do not replace the act of listening. Good night to all.
If they measure so close, I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.
I found this mindset short sighted and shallow when advocated by the late Julian Hirsch decades ago and certainly even more so more so today. The distrust and dismissive mocking of what a human being hears and yet pure allegiance to measurements. Two divergent camps, count me in with the listeners.
I have bee very clear with my comments on this thread that I value the listening experience far more than a reliance on test acquired measurements. You seem to have taken a counter position (As you questioned some of my ’supportive stance of listening’ replies in this thread). Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make. Your last post is strange. Anyway as I’ve previously stated, just do what works best for you.
Charles
I suppose to find top shelf amps we have:
Cost
Looks
Features
Measured performance
I am trying to figure out how those amps that I have not heard of might be evaluated objectively in a 4,3,2,1 fashion… rather than in a 1,2,3 fashion?
Basically while you favour listening, I need to sort through the bevy of choices to get to a small enough list, so that I can then search for what might be close by. Then I can listen.
If you have all those amps close by, then it does seem easier or you to just listen.
(Plus you seem to totally discount measurements… so #4 is off your list.)
Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make.
The other point is that Ralph’s description of what matters seemed to be dismissed out of hand. The more I read that measurements don’t matter, the more it makes me want to question whether the expert opinions from amp designers have merit.
Hence I bring it up.
You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints.
This is impossible with a proper measurement set.
If they measure so close, I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.
I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.
Go solely by belief? What are you talking about?
I have bee very clear with my comments on this thread that I value the listening experience far more than a reliance on test acquired measurements. You seem to have taken a counter position (As you questioned some of my 'supportive stance of listening' replies in this thread). Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make. Your last post is strange. Anyway as I’ve previously stated, just do what works best for you.
I believe that this move would please you very much. Go for it. If I were to make a change
I want to listen first, not just make a change.
I am pretty much done with belief.
(I am not an amp designer, and AFAIK neither are you.)
( Primarily to reduce box count but retain superb sound quality) it'd be either Aries Cerat Genus or the Viva Solista. Both are what I believe to be excellent SET integrated amplifiers.
I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.
Evaluation of the quality of a design is important....
But there is many design quatitative product, and yet a great varieties of acoustic implementation...
Recreating with the original acoustic digitalized or analog information conveyed by the gear system a relatively truthful representation or translation of this information in a room acoustic is the real problem...
Buying relatively good gear nowadays is easier than in the past...
@invalidI think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.
That’s a valid point and therein lies the problem. You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints. So which one of them is accurate in reproducing music recordings? @snscomments are on the mark in regard to the concept of audio accuracy.
The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?
Only a system could be deemed accurate. That would by necessity require the same speakers and room to be absolutely accurate.
At a single component level, the only applicable measure would be whether that component faithfully (accurately) outputs whatever it is input. The DAC or Amplifier with the lowest noise and distortion (across a complex set of measurements -- which do seem to be done now), would be as a component the most accurate.
From what Atmasphere has written, there is potential with some speakers, where the speaker is designed to be used with an amplifier with a high output resistance. This brings in a system level accuracy that could not be determined by measuring a single component. Components such as DACs, Pre-amps, and interconnects could be tested in isolation for accuracy. For speaker cables, I don't think accuracy is a relevant measure. They do what they do. R, L, C, and perhaps skin effect. Everything else is just marketing.
I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.
This is electronical accuracy...
This is not acoustic and psych-acoustic "accuracy" which is a word anyway not used in acoustic to describe the naturalness of a timbre tonal playing chord (colors) in some room, at some location, with some violon or with some other violin with this player or this other one... There is not so much accuracy as such here, but the TRANSLATION of this recorded acoustic event which imply a gear designed "accuracy" to convey the acoustic information and a room mechanically controlled "accuracy" or the most optimal objective acoustic room dispostion for this optimal experience of perception ...
Slightly off-topic I know, but me and the wife have have a half dozen quality steel string acoustic guitars. All sound different, including the clutch of Martins.What I’m trying to say here is don’t go too nuts, tone color-wise.
@atmasphereWhen I'm speaking of accuracy and it's association with color, I'm thinking about two components that measure exactly the same in every measurement undertaken. Now lets say those measurements are such that one was deemed to be an accurate component. Will these two components, or any number of components tested, meeting the above criteria necessarily sound exactly the same. If not, at least one of those components cannot be accurate, we could say it has colorations. Doesn't stating any particular component as accurate, mean any component not replicating absolutely exact same sound qualities is inaccurate or colored? Anointing any component as accurate assumes an absolute hierarchy of components, the accurate one being the objective reference.
The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?
So, my issue with the term accuracy is when its used in the context of this hierarchical order, or contention there are absolute accurate components, those not meeting criteria mentioned above inaccurate. Now, accuracy in the context of conforming to timbre of live non-amplified instruments, vocals MAY be valid use of the term. A component that reproduces natural timbre can be said to be accurate. This doesn't apply to amplified instruments as they are subject to many inaccuracies of amplifying equipment, we cannot know their exact timbre unless we were in recording venue at time of recording. Still, both amplified and non-amplified recordings subject to recording vagaries, perhaps these recordings don't present accurate timbre. Bottom line, very little or no opportunity to directly compare live instrumental, vocal timbre, what we'd call natural timbre, to recorded timbre which may or may not exactly replicate natural timbre.
Accuracy, in either of these contexts seems to be rather useless term for audio reproduction. And if we accept accuracy is invalid term here, what are the objective criteria we can use to judge audio components? With so many variables constantly in play, seems we are left to pleasing ourselves. Where's the problem!
we can say that we do not want the playback system to be supplying further changes to the recording. Holmz
I don't think this gets covered enough. It is nice have a baseline, and I can understand why people want to be true to original. Good, bad, or otherwise, it is nice to listen to the music as created by the artist and their team, which the artist signs off on. Really depends on the music as well.
@atmasphereThe problem here might be the terms used, since ’coloration’ is usually a bad thing in the context of getting as close to the musical event as is possible. But instruments have tone ’color’; one must be careful to not conflate the two ideas!
Live instruments do indeed have "tone color". Some audio components are much better at preserving this natural characteristic. Some components do not convey these essential qualities and instead present an alternative thinner, lean, bleached and sterile/lifeless presentation. False coloration can move in either direction of the spectrum.
In recent weeks I had the pleasure of hearing a live un-miked cello and a week later a baritone saxaphonist. Pure full tone,richness and harmonics, just beautiful sound. Live and natural. I don’t want audio components that dilute and present a strip down low fat/calorie version. I’d like to get as natural a sound as is reasonably within my means. Live acoustic instruments have plenty of "tone" and "color", undeniably so.
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.
