I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.

Currently used measuring techniques seemingly can’t hold a candle compared to the extraordinary capabilities of the human ear-brain axis processing pathways (Thank you @mahgister ).

You can use cheap off the shelf Op-amps to allow any mass produced entry level DAC to measure quite well and yet sound utterly underwhelming (Like crap).

AFAIK we're there already. Its just that for the most part we never see the important measurements; quite often they simply aren't made! This gives rise to the idea that we don't have the technology to do it.

The trick with opamps is to not use too much gain! The best of them are not good for about 20dB before you get into trouble with GBP. If a designer ignores the impact of that you get into colorations- even though it 'measures well'; but I suspect if the full battery of measurements were applied the problems would turn up easily enough!

In acoustic and psycho-acoustic no scientist use the term "color" in the same pejorative way, like some subjective EXTERNAL quality added to a sound which must be eliminated because the sound must be only "accurate"...This is completely wrong...

Like just said atmasphere: instruments before the recording own their own timbre or colors...A good audio system must be able to CONVEY that and our room acoustic must TRANSLATE that for our ears pleasures...

"accurate" in electronic design is not "accurate" in acoustic , but yes they are related through the human ears evaluation with psycho-acoustic science and listening experiments taking into account what we know about hearing ...

This way to speak about colors in a dismissive way by some, has NO MEANING in acoustic... Why?

Because what is color in acoustic is described as a complex acoustic phenomena which is "timbre" tonal playing perception...

Colors could be unbalanced and perceived like a an indesirable artefact but it is not this way that this UNBALANCED color effect must be characterize not like something EXTERNAL to be eliminated but like something pointing to a design flaw in the gear or to an acoustic room problem, then pointing an INTERNAL problem,  then colors are the  symptom not the disease itself... ...

"Accurate" here in acoustic if we speak of timbre accuracy implicate at least 5 characteristics:

«

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration »

Observe that these characteristics to be relatively "accurately" perceived , because there is no absolute in timbre perception , it is a relative acoustic phenomenon, implied also ANOTHER dimensions than only and mainly electronical measures of components and their potential to relay information or/ and affect it at the same time....This perception of colored tone playing timbre is also essentially a speakers/room acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomenon...

Then dismissing colors as an added deceiving illusion or an indesirable artefact

is thowing the baby with the muddy waters...

Audio electronics AT THE END and TO BEGIN WITH is explained by acoustic not the reverse...Why? because we dont understand right now all there is in the ears/brain relation...

This is a quote from a review of the Audio Note UK Cobra.

https://highfidelity.pl/@main-1173&lang=en

If I am not mistaken, this device was created as a result of engineering efforts to achieve the best possible parameters, and later it was almost completely reworked as a result of listening sessions. This initial DNA is still present in its sound, it is actually its basis. However, it was brought to the point where one can no longer just say that it is a technically correct device, but rather that it is refined - musically and sonically.

Most important part of the review:

However, when we connect it to good loudspeakers and feed it with a signal from a quality source, we will hear magic - real magic with it. Seemingly inconspicuous, musically extremely musical. 

I notice no takers on the accurate contention some objectivists maintain is optimal. How would this so called accurate system play with these recording colors? And that's a simple question to answer. Accuracy contentions in audio reproduction is a meaningless term. Prove accuracy is colorless, and further prove an accurate component or system is absolutely accurate. With some measure of critical thinking you'll find it impossible using objective analysis and/or reason.

@sns 

Well, I was out of town yesterday...

Its not exactly clear what you mean by 'color' but if you can accept the idea that the original performance has color and that the recording thereof also has color, then an accurate system will convey that color.

A less accurate system will convey additional color not present in the recording... two opposite example: the brightness of a system employing solid state amps or the excessive warmth of a system employing SETs.

The 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!

@sns 

I contend all audio reproduction components have colorations, with neutral being our closest conception to what would be accurate. But then one person's perception of what is neutral may not correlate with another's.

I think that is both true and false. With all the variability in humans I have to expect we each have our own unique frequency response. I have to expect that varies even more with speakers where our body can play a part.  Our frequency response is not the same as the person putting the music together for us. The system they used to do that has a frequency response.

I can agree that frequency response tuning to personal preference is as much about personal preference as it is for compensating for unknowns.

Non-linear colorations, distortion and noise, are artificial colorations. I have no basis to disagree with Mahgister that some level of noise may assist in hearing detail when our listening levels are typically below live levels. I am at a loss for distortion. This appears to be purely a pleasant artifact, though I can accept Atmasphere that this could assist in masking worse distortion if that was to occur.  Purchasing an amplifier without these "worse distortions" is not difficult or expensive now. 

@holmz  I do not have the Benchmarks, but would like to try them… Or the new Atmasphere Class D.

I believe that this move would please you very much.  Go for it. If I were to make a change ( 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. 

Charles 

And so we have a post in regard to the truth of colored recordings, no doubt this true. So let's say we have a  recording to the sterile side of spectrum, played back on cooler sounding system would maintain it's position on spectrum. The same recording played back  on more romanticized or warm system would sound closer to neutral on spectrum. And then we have recordings all over the color spectrum, various colors of systems will provide greater or lesser synergy. And then we could take what many would presume to be optimum color, neutral. Well, even this color may result in optimal or less than optimal synergy with various recordings.

I notice no takers on the accurate contention some objectivists maintain is optimal. How would this so called accurate system play with these recording colors? And that's a simple question to answer. Accuracy contentions in audio reproduction is a meaningless term. Prove accuracy is colorless, and further prove an accurate component or system is absolutely accurate. With some measure of critical thinking you'll find it impossible using objective analysis and/or reason.

I contend all audio reproduction components have colorations, with neutral being our closest conception to what would be accurate. But then one person's perception of what is neutral may not correlate with another's. See how problematic it is to conjure up some objective hierarchy of audio components and systems. The likelihood that each of us has an entirely unique system is symptomatic of the inherent subjectiveness of audio reproduction. Julian Hirsch long ago attempted to dictate some hierarchy, which he had to lie about with claims if they all measured the same they had to sound the same. The peeps found out this not true, and he fizzled away.

Again I believe that you and I simply have different taste and preferences as to what sounds right.  Not unexpected in the realm of High End audio so neither you nor  I can be declared right or wrong,  just different.

@charles1dad I do not have the Benchmarks, but would like to try them… Or the new Atmasphere Class-D.

The old VTLs and PrimaLuna are both littered with the pleasant harmonics.

I did hear a Purifi based Class-D and it was sort of quiet sounding, which I attribute to less harmonic overtones from the amp and speakers. But it was not my speakers, and not in my room. It did seem very nice, and it also measures well.

@sns 

I've interpreted color from every single audio system I've ever heard, and that would range all the way from sterile to extremely romantic. Perhaps some believe accuracy lies somewhere outside this all encompassing bell curve. Please suggest to all us deluded audiophiles a single outlier system that is accurate and devoid of color, I really want to hear music reproduced with absolute accuracy. 

Astute observation/comment as is the norm from you.

@holmz 

I haven't heard Atma-sphere latest solid state amplifiers. I'm very familiar with his OTL amplifiers which I find really good. 

I've heard benchmark on several occasions and don't share the enthusiasm some listeners /owners have expressed,  if you like their sonic performance then good for you. Again I believe that you and I simply have different taste and preferences as to what sounds right.  Not unexpected in the realm of High End audio so neither you nor  I can be declared right or wrong,  just different. 

Charles 

I'd say the objectivists have a tall task in front of them.

It is even worse than ^that^, as the recordings have been coloured in a rainbow fashion by the recording engineers.

If we use the term “high fidelity”, then at least we can say that we do not want the playback system to be supplying further changes to the recording.

This may be what Olive referred to as, “the circle of confusion?”

I always hear this color issue from the measurement objectivists, they use the term accuracy as if it has no color. What proof do they have that accuracy has no color? Yes, measurements have correlations to qualities of sound reproduction, but our brains interpret these qualities in both common and unique ways. I've interpreted color from every single audio system I've ever heard, and that would range all the way from sterile to extremely romantic. Perhaps some believe accuracy lies somewhere outside this all encompassing bell curve. Please suggest to all us deluded audiophiles a single outlier system that is accurate and devoid of color, I really want to hear music reproduced with absolute accuracy. And then to prove that accuracy, it must conform to the original recording, we must be present at the time of that recording and/or the production/engineering of said recording. I'd say the objectivists have a tall task in front of them.

AVS tests measurements. It test well or it doesn’t - facts are facts. Good info but not the final decision for art or what a person likes. Some people like paintings that are hyper detailed (like a photo), some like impressionist paintings, which are a bit ’blurred’. I feel music is the same. Some like very detailed, some like a softer sound. Like any art form, the key is to make yourself happy.  I think both are important when comparing equipment.  For example, if you like a speakers particular 'sound' then you may want neutral DAC/AMP to not color the sound of the speaker you like.  Likewise, if a speaker is a bit to crisp, then an amp with a bit of softness to it may be just what you need.  Testing can help us get on the right path.  

Show me just one audio electronic manufacturer that doesn't use aftermarket cables to demo their gear.

Ok - let’s take the Benchmark ABH2.

On the back we find a pair of Neutrik SpeakOn connectors, like we find on many other pro audio pieces… amps and speakers.

Many other amps also use those and they are common item for hooking up amps and speakers.

@holmz

I don’t know who these "upper shelf designers" of amplifiers are that you’re referencing

Well @atmasphere himself opined in the thread, and you quoted him.
There is also the Purifi gear that a lot of manufacturers are using, and a few others that are pretty stunning (Benchmark, Pass, etc.).

I’m in no position to challenge or refute what you’ve experienced. I can just simply say that you and I have had different experiences and as a result, different outcomes that shape and form our respective opinions. I hope that you are able to obtain an amplifier made by one of the upper shelf designers that you cite above.

I am in not position to refute what Ralph said, not Bruno, nor Nelson.

I meant what I have written earlier, follow the pathway that suits you the best. My chosen pathway is to hear and do actual listening of audio products myself. If you are reassured by test measurements then continue with that method. For me it’s woefully inadequate.

Have you heard any of the Purifi based Class-D? The Benchmark, or Atmasphere amps?

I am seriously thinking about selling the VTLs, and the PrimaLuna. But I’ll slide a class-D in first to make sure.

However, the upper shelf designers seem to make stuff that does not require cabels

Show me just one audio electronic manufacturer that doesn't use aftermarket cables to demo their gear.

@holmz

I don’t know who these "upper shelf designers" of amplifiers are that you’re referencing. Okay, you find your tube audio electronics "colored" (As though transistor audio electronics don’t have their own colorations, albeit different). If these are your conclusions based on your experiences, Then I accept them as "yours".

I’m in no position to challenge or refute what you’ve experienced. I can just simply say that you and I have had different experiences and as a result, different outcomes that shape and form our respective opinions. I hope that you are able to obtain an amplifier made by one of the upper shelf designers that you cite above.

I meant what I have written earlier, follow the pathway that suits you the best. My chosen pathway is to hear and do actual listening of audio products myself. If you are reassured by test measurements then continue with that method. For me it’s woefully inadequate.

Charles

If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.

@charles1dad 

I would tend to believe amplifier designers who are building the upper shelf equipment, over the general public.

Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound,  so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components.  Do what suits you the best. 

However, the upper shelf designers seem to make stuff that does not require cabels to serve as tone controls. So they seem to know how it will sound by looking at the graphs. Just because 99% cannot, does not mean that it is impossible.

I have a couple of tube amps, and tube preamps… and I know that they colour things.

I wonder if megadollar car owners spout the same stuff when a Tesla 3 (properly equipped) dusts them at the light.

I don't think an accurate amp is expensive to make.  Technology progresses. Pay more and you pay for different or more power.

And so, I'm told to rely on measurements, both my SET amps total failures based on high even order distortion. And then we have my SMSL amp I use for burn in purposes. I have no doubt the SMSL measures better than both SET amps, so is the vastly inferior sound quality of the SMSL a total figment of my imagination? Hilarious! Even more hilarious, take this couple hundred dollar amp, class D design and compare it to multi thousand dollar class D amp, both measure pretty near exact. Does measurement acolyte believe SMSL sounds as good, lets say Atmasphere class D?

I'm the opposite.  My system sounds really good to me, the best sound I've acheived to date, so I'm scared to run REW and find out I'm wrong.  I'm also scared to upgrade anything and screw it up.

@clearthink

Let me restate. You can compare the frequency response of headphones to speakers. You can also jump off a tall building. Doing the latter without a parachute and the former without applying appropriate corrections are both bad ideas. Are you advocating bad ideas?

I really got into headphones when travelling extensively pre-Covid.

The graph above, the Harmon Preference curve, is based on in-ear frequency response of over-ear and in-ear head phones. If your headphones match this response tested with a dummy head, then they will approximately match the response of a good flat on axis speaker in a room.

Perhaps you should not make insults like this,

I suggest you familiarize yourself with these common practices so as to avoid your misinformation.

when it implies you are providing accurate information, when what you were doing is misleading due to inaccurate or insufficient information.

It’s curves like this (there are several variants) that headphone designs nowadays target. Maybe we should do something similar for Amps plus speakers.

To the original posts author, I think we do that already. It is called flat though it may relate back to the Harmon in room preference curve. That would be worth checking out again.

Artificial Intelligence is NOT intelligence...This is another matter out of this subject thread for sure...

Because "meanings" in human experience emerge through the deeply rooted biological body in all evolutive history beginning with the first cell...And this rooting is INTEGRATED at all scales and worked all the times not as a passed over abandonned tools but like an actual tools, our body host trillions of cells...... Life never let anything die without reason..Life explore and play but is not blind sorry...Randomness is not understood in biology...It is understood only in mathematics anyway...( the most important fact in mathematics is nor order or randomness but some kind of "music", this is demonstrated by non commutative geometry works of the fields medallist Alain Connes)

And in some very important theoretical approach in neuro research we must distinguish INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS completely... They are no more synonymus...

Consciousness is biologically and symbolically rooted , intelligence is only symbolically rooted, one is more fundamental...Consciousness encompass intelligence, not the opposite... There exist in the universe an "artificial intelligence" completely closed on themselves with no root in this universe at all... But i cannot enter this here...

Read Giulio Tononi... among others...or Penrose-Hameroff works etc...About the difference between consciousness and intelligence...

An intelligence rooted in an embodied consciousness work non algorithmically and work CONJUGATED AND IN CORRELATION with all others embodied intelligence through a hierarchical set of Markov blankets......To understand that read Karl Friston works among others...

The prime numbers distribution that Goedel used to created the first part of his famous theorem is essential...And primes numbers distribution is non algorithmically reducible ....

An A. I. do not and never will do...

Transhumanist science is technology gone mad...Not science...Yuval Noah Harari is an exemple of perfect intelligence without any ethical consciousness, he promote the right for some to hack the human body and negate the freedon of humans...

Intelligence has nothing to do with being "wise"....

«Do you claim that poetry rule over mathematics?»-Groucho Marx 🤓

I’m all in favour of upholding the sovereignty of the human mind and perceptual system, but isn’t this just wishful thinking as we enter the age of AI?

"...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system..."

 

Now this is contentious.

«The technical specifications of the human ear are remarkable. We can hear sounds that evoke mechanical vibrations of magnitudes comparable to those produced by thermal noise (de Vries 1948; Sivian and White 1933). Hearing is so sharply tuned to specific frequencies that trained musicians can distinguish tones differing in frequency by only 0.1% (Spiegel and Watson 1984). Finally, our ears can process sounds over a range of amplitudes encompassing six orders of magnitude, which corresponds to a trillionfold range in stimulus power (Knudsen 1923).

These striking characteristics of our hearing emerge because the ear is not a passive sensory receptor, but possesses an active process that augments audition in three ways (reviewed in Hudspeth 2008; Manley 2000, 2001). First, amplification renders hearing several hundred times as sensitive as would be expected for a passive system. The active process next exhibits tuning that sharpens our frequency discrimination. Finally, a compressive nonlinearity ensures that inputs spanning an enormous range of sound-pressure levels are systematically encoded by a modest range of mechanical vibrations and in turn of receptor potentials and nerve-fiber firing rates. The active process additionally exhibits the striking epiphenomenon of spontaneous otoacoustic emission, the production of sound by an ear in the absence of external stimulation. Although considerable attention has been devoted to these properties in mammalian and especially human hearing, the four defining features of the active process are equally characteristic of nonmammalian tetrapods (reviewed in Manley 2001).»

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944685/

@mahgister

"The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify"

So far so good, just like the human eye is not a passive organ of perception. It is understood that the brain contributes as much to the interpretation of the images detected as the eye itself.

There is no reason to not assume that the ear/brain operates in a similar fashion.

"...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system..."

Now this is contentious.

For example, does this include the Klippel software and measuring systems as used by some of the most advanced audio labs today?

If not, then the following assumption cannot possibly hold any water, can it?

"It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim..."

I’m all in favour of upholding the sovereignty of the human mind and perceptual system, but isn’t this just wishful thinking as we enter the age of AI?

deludedaudiophile "You can't compare the frequency response of a headphone to speakers."

You most certainly can and in fact should make such comparisons and they are valid, meaningful, and useful in determining and establishing the relative accuracy of not only each other but the recording itself which is why you will find in many recording studios and other recording environments that both speakers and headphones are used for judgment and evaluation of the work underway.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with these common practices so as to avoid your misinformation.

The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated.

You miss my point....I dont contest the value of this Shannon theorem... 😁😊 

The goal in circuit design is linearity for sure... It is electronical design goal...Noise has a meaning here which is not the same than for the hearing process itself...

You dont seems conscious that all electrical measures has an interpretative meaning ONLY in a theoretical framework refering to our actual understanding about hearing...

Some use the concept "accurate" and "noise" in a confused way...They conflated the two possible meanings of the word "accurate" for a non linear detection system like the ears or for a linear tool detection system and they confused the two ways the ratio signals/noise can work for a linear detection system and for a non linear detection system...

The method by which scientist can study the way introduction of noise can help non linear detection system is called: stochastic resonance method...

The way the cochlea is non linearly structured make it able to use an Hopf bifurcation tool analysis inherent in the small fibers cells of the internal ears...

The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify ...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system...

It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim...

The two groups are deluded not only audiophiles... Sorry....But one at least know that learning how to listen and hearing are FUNDAMENTAL....

@mahgister 

I did not not answer. I simply did not read your post.  Your posts for me, are excessive in number, take too long to make a point, and are filled with information that is extraneous.

Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear...

As our discussion is about audio equipment, not the human ear, it is relevant to keep the discussion at this point to equipment.

Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ...

This statement is not correct. There in an inherent lack of understanding in that statement that I don't even know where to start unpacking. However, I will say two things. The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated.

Are you trying to imply that there are some timing limitations in DACs that are not sufficient for audio reproduction? In the articles it talks about 10x the Fourier uncertainty limit. That will still be a very very large number compared to the timing precision that digital audio must have to support the THD numbers I see quoted. I am sure you can research this and prove that to yourself.

Noise addition in some case can help, not impede the audio experience why?

Then measuring noise/signals ratio to the n’th order is not enough if we dont understand human hearing .....

Answer: because ears/brain being non linear they USED some noise to ENHANCE the perception instead of impeding the perception...

Hearing dont obey Helmholtz old paradigm nor Fourier transform tech...

I simply don't understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime.

When I look at the measurement regimen for electrical products, for audio, it is not something I would call primitive. THD and SINAD tests from mW to 100's of watts at multiple frequencies in the audible range. IMD tests with 32 tones across multiple frequencies from low to high. Instruments that have noise and distortion 120db below signal levels. What is primitive about this?  In my response to @realworldaudio , his impression, and possibly yours is based on perhaps not understanding the measurements.  What is missing is how a particular speaker responds to a particular amplifier, but that is a system issue, and would appear to to be more relevant to certain amplifiers such as tube amplifiers, with high output resistance.

I personally am quite impressed with the technology of the Klippel speaker measurement system. There is nothing primitive about that. I see tests also include distortion at several volume levels, and impulse responses. I expect someone skilled can understand a lot about how that speaker will sound and how it would interact with a room and how it would respond to being turned up.

I think what irks some audiophiles is that sites like ASR declare that some equipment will sound the same, or that some equipment, will make no audible difference. I see that statement made with amplifiers, but it always has qualifications. I my mind there has not been anything convincing that proves them wrong.

I posted all reference to experiments that proved that Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear...

Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ...

But deludedaudiophile never answered...

This is not magic nor am I trying to insist my reference for sound quality is an objective reference. I am very mindful of my own unique sensory perception, biases, preferences, and I allow others those same considerations. I simply don’t understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime. Again, this is symptom of inherent authoritarian mindset.

This is not magic nor am I trying to insist my reference for sound quality is an objective reference. I am very mindful of my own unique sensory perception, biases, preferences, and I allow others those same considerations. I simply don't understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime. Again, this is symptom of inherent authoritarian mindset.

@rudyb 

You can't compare the frequency response of a headphone to speakers.

I've listened to a lot of amps on a lot of different systems, and I would say that specs are probably less correlated with sound in the case of an amp than they are with virtually any other component on the system.

If someone put a gun to my head and said I had to pick a spec for an amp and make a purchase on that spec alone, I'd want to know its weight. That doesn't tell you a lot about it sound, but it tells you more than just about anything else you could name.

I just bought an amp here on Audiogon, and I couldn't tell you its power rating without googling it.

Who would consider this a good frequency response?

It’s the Harman curve. Research showed this to be the frequency response for headphones the majority of people like best.

It’s curves like this (there are several variants) that headphone designs nowadays target. Maybe we should do something similar for Amps plus speakers.

Tone control is mostly stripped off of hight end amps, let alone the good old 'loudness' switch. A multiband equalizer is a very nice piece of equipment ... strangely enough seldom used in high end hifi. I wonder why?

Are you any better @sns , insisting on magic because you won't accept your own infallible and easily influenced hearing?  I replied to @realworldaudio's post, objectively, with no idea or care for his qualifications. Some of the things he said are wrong. Some of the things he says seem relevant, and some are likely outside the scope or even capability of any viable test regimen but does not make them irrelevant, just impractical.

@realworldaudio Thank you for stating what should be obvious. Of course some believe we've already discovered all there is to be discovered. Why not just shut down any research into audio reproduction and human sensory perception, we already have all the measurement protocols and tools needed to prove absolutes, and differences in individual human sensory perceptivity is of no concern.

Watch out for the audio authoritarians, they'll be sure no Toto can open the curtain.

@realworldaudio , I am not an EE, but my I have an advanced physics degree, and have worked in semiconductors, batteries, and development and measurement of those a long time. I have gotten pretty good with metrology out of necessity. Hence I don’t claim to be an expert, but I think I have a good grasp of what is being communicated in the measurements:

*all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room

Stereophile specifically mentions they use for some of their tests a synthetic speaker load that models a real world speaker. This appears to negate some of the above statement. Testing into 4 ohm is standard. Testing in 2 ohms seems common. This will provide insight into more reactive loads. Testing with worse case synthetic loads is common and harsher than real world conditions. For characterizing semiconductor devices we test with synthetic loads to find the "corners" for stability.

*Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by subtractive distortion. Are you stating that the interaction of a particular amplifier with a particular speaker may result in lower overall distortion? This seems possible. I will note that @atmasphere who seems to know his stuff stated most (not all) speakers are designed to be driven with a voltage source which may negate the advantage you may perceive for most listeners. This would be dependent exclusively on the load (speaker) so I don’t see how this could be tested.

*Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured.

This is purely false. Read any of the more recent reviews on ASR. THD and SINAD is tested from very low power to very high power across a range of frequencies from I think 20Hz to 15KHz. I am too lazy to go verify the exact frequencies used.

*Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform.

This is also purely false. ASR tests with a 32 tone IM signal. This is 32 tones from low frequency to high frequency. That would result in a signal that is complex and varying in amplitude as the frequencies add together.

*It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.

I will not call this false, but I think you are not interpreting what the other measurements will accomplish. The 32 tone IM signal will vary from large to small. The THD stimulation also transitions from a very small level to very large. If the measurement is -100db in both cases then that would also be the case for the special condition you are theorizing.

What may be missing is testing if the distortion rises under continued heavy load causing device heating. I do not know if that is a valid real world condition.

I have listened to Nelson Pass. He strikes me as very much a heavy measurements guy. He may tune intentional artifacts in his designs, but what I have read and what I have been on Youtube indicates he is very much measurement oriented.

Great post!

I will only add that we cannot know how to measure and how to interpret these measures correctly if we dont have a correct model of human hearing at the end......

That was the subject of my last 3 posts here.... With some interesting  scientific articles about hearing ....

@deludedaudiophile

I came up with the 95% missing using historic precedents for scientific discoveries. (Throughout history the narrow minds all firmly believed that everything that could be invented was already invented, and now even a 6 year old kid knows it better.) The practices for audio gear measurements are relatively new (just a few decades old). In even 50 years, our practices will be proven as massively inaccurate, and in general quite useless as it probably covers about 5% of what our children’s children will count as measurements that point towards sound quality perception. Although that will be in the future, yet it does not detract from the reality that our current practices are in their infancy. To think we know everything, and we have discovered all the secrets to sound and audio gear is the only sure bet to loose. Doing a google search will do no good now, but will help in 50 years. Also, if google search would answer deep questions on audio measurements, we would not have this discussion, and everyone would be at perfect agreement.

(BTW the 95% is just a symbolic value, please do not start a thread on whether it is 92% or 96.786734% exactly, or it’s truly 57.4%... only time will tell, and although our view will change decade from decade, but the reality will be still the same: today we have a very limited concept of how to measure audio parameters to reflect on sound quality.)

So, a few examples on issues with current standard measurement practices that I know of, I will take only amplifiers for now:

*all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room.

*Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not.

*Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured.

*Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform.

*It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.

 

I mentioned the names of known and proven audio authorities in my initial post, because they have the answers you want from me, but I have no credibility in your eyes, so it’s a waste from me to yap around. Do not believe me, as you do not know who I am, and that’s fine.

I just humbly point out to you (again), to listen to interviews with the fathers of audio measurements and high end industry and hear what they have to say. Thank you for the chat. I hope I have answered your concerns. What I wrote might be completely irrelevant to your quest, and it’s quite likely that you have specific experiences that point you in the direction you want to go, where you will find fulfillment and purpose.

However, ignoring the experts on audio measurements will quite likely lead to a more protracted learning curve than what you are looking for. I wish you success and luck!

If it sounds more like a live performance, but isn't accurate by measurement standards, then what would be the point of accuracy if it doesn't sound closer to a live performance.

@realworldaudio , I feel most of what you wrote is made up. I don't think you will be able to clearly articulate what is missing from the measurements and certainly not 95% of the things that are missing. Perhaps this is the issue. This sounds more like outrage mob mentality that reasonsed criticism. I am welcome to be proven wrong.

@deludedaudiophile 

I came up with the 95% missing using historic precedents for scientific discoveries. (Throughout history the narrow minds all firmly believed that everything that could be invented was already invented, and now even a 6 year old kid knows it better.) The practices for audio gear measurements are relatively new (just a few decades old). In even 50 years, our practices will be proven as massively inaccurate, and in general quite useless as it probably covers about 5% of what our children's children will count as measurements that point towards sound quality perception. Although that will be in the future, yet it does not detract from the reality that our current practices are in their infancy. To think we know everything, and we have discovered all the secrets to sound and audio gear is the only sure bet to loose. Doing a google search will do no good now, but will help in 50 years. Also, if google search would answer deep questions on audio measurements, we would not have this discussion, and everyone would be at perfect agreement.

(BTW the 95% is just a symbolic value, please do not start a thread on whether it is 92% or 96.786734% exactly, or it's truly 57.4%... only time will tell, and although our view will change decade from decade, but the reality will be still the same: today we have a very limited concept of how to measure audio parameters to reflect on sound quality.)

So, a few examples on issues with current standard measurement practices that I know of, I will take only amplifiers for now:

*all parameters tested on non-inductive perfectly passive extremely simplistic loads, while the loudspeakers are highly complex live loads affected by the room.

*Only additive distortion is measured, subtractive distortion is not.

*Change of THD in function of output level and frequency are no paid attention to, while these are strong determiners in relation whether the sound is perceived as natural VS manufactured.

*Amplifier behavior is tested with constantly repetitive primitive signals, while the music output is a highly variable extremely complex waveform.

*It is not examined how an amplifier deals with small signals following a large pulse at the frequency extremes.

I mentioned the names of known and proven audio authorities in my initial post, because they have the answers you want from me, but I have no credibility in your eyes, so it's a waste from me to yap around. Do not believe me, as you do not know who I am, and that's fine. 

I just humbly point out to you (again), to listen to interviews with the fathers of audio measurements and high end industry and hear what they have to say. Thank you for the chat. I hope I have answered your concerns. What I wrote might be completely irrelevant to your quest, and it's quite likely that you have specific experiences that point you in the direction you want to go, where you will find fulfillment and purpose.

However, ignoring the experts on audio measurements will quite likely lead to a more protracted learning curve than what you are looking for. I wish you success and luck!

 Would the issue be that you don't want accuracy?  You want artifacts?  I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn.  

Well, you're free to draw whatever conclusion that you would like.

My pursuit and objective  in home audio  has not changed in 30 years. I want to obtain the most natural and realistic music reproduction that I can hope to reasonably achieve. Actually listening to audio products and judging what I hear is the most effective and dependable process to achieve this goal. 

Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound,  so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components.  Do what suits you the best. 

Charles 

Nobody sounds like Ella Fitzgerald if it could be measured and reproduced then everyone could sound like her.

An A note sung by Ella compared to the same note sung by anyone else can be measured but don’t sound the same. Or you can use a tone generator to produce that same A note so if you could measure everything you could make that tone generated sound like Ella so if that’s artifacts I’m for it!

I want the equipment that produces the most believable Ella in my living room and will use any method to get there but ultimately it's whether she sounds real or less real.  

Would the issue be that you don’t want accuracy? You want artifacts? I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn. I don’t think Mahgister is remotely accurate in this regard, not regarding electrical signals. Those we can measure with extreme confidence fortunately, or my job would be impossible. If you do not want accurate, I doubt there is 100% correlation from human to human, so the only way to know what artifacts you like is for you to listen.

I can run pure 2-channel, or through the AV processor. Depending on my mood, I will listen using the AV processor and ambience surround settings. It is not accurate, but often is a more pleasant listening experience. It is more alive, with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.

FIRST:

What is accuracy?

What is an acoustical artefacts ?

There is accuracy in the engineering sense of : input----->output measured linearly correlated electrical signals factors and noise ratio...

There is accuracy in acoustic and psycho-acoustic sense of the world, where timbre perception for example cannot be reduced to linearly analysed spectrum...The cochlea/brain analysis tool are highly non linear...

You confuse the two meaning of the word accurate the physical one and the acoustic one .... Then it is easy to accuse audiophiles to be deluded after this confusion ...You are not right or wrong here...You dont even see the problem if i read yourt posts...

Read the two articles i posted above...And debunk them... 😁😊

SECOND: you said.

«with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.»

Here you really are wrong, calling acoustical cues and factors that are ALL OF THEM under objective controls in any audio laboratory studying acoustic perception, calling them "articicial" like in deceiving illusion compared to accurate electrical signals...Acoustic factors are OBJECTIVE, even if they are subjectively interpreted,  like electrical signals are   and are subject to controls method like electrical signals are...

Read the two articles above if you want a clue about why you are completely wrong by calling acoustic factors like LEV/ASW ratio for example, artificial in the sense of illusory, and suggesting that they are fancy illusions in the head of "deluded audiophile".... Sorry but acoustic is a science like electrical engineering not a fancy...

In my room by the way i learned to control these "illusions" at will with mechanical Helmholtz method among other things...

In the two articles above which i can resume by this sentence is the explanation why the ears/brain cannot be studied by linear Fourier method ONLY :

«The Fourier transform cannot, therefore, fully explain the machinations of the human brain. "The actual algorithm employed by our brains is still shrouded in mystery," says Magnasco.»

@russ69 

I share your frustration and appreciate how you framed the question but I don't believe this is a gulf that can be bridged. 

The horse has been beaten to a fine powder by now.

@djones51 

I've yet to listen to a component that measured well and sounded bad,

Measurements, presumably, are objective.

How "good" something sounds is highly subjective and furthermore, susceptible to a host of variables.

@sns @charles1dad 

Would the issue be that you don't want accuracy?  You want artifacts?  I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn.  I don't think Mahgister is remotely accurate in this regard, not regarding electrical signals. Those we can measure with extreme confidence fortunately, or my job would be impossible.  If you do not want accurate, I doubt there is 100% correlation from human to human, so the only way to know what artifacts you like is for you to listen.

I can run pure 2-channel, or through the AV processor. Depending on my mood, I will listen using the AV processor and ambience surround settings. It is not accurate, but often is a more pleasant listening experience. It is more alive, with all those buzz words that audiophiles like; wide sound-stage, presence and sounds more like a live performance. It is obviously artificial though.

@atmasphere

I’ve no doubt that some of these measurements don’t occur because there isn’t the education out there to really understand the data! Plus- heaven forbid- you know how something sounds by looking at the measurements!

If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.

Currently used measuring techniques seemingly can’t hold a candle compared to the extraordinary capabilities of the human ear-brain axis processing pathways (Thank you @mahgister ).

You can use cheap off the shelf Op-amps to allow any mass produced entry level DAC to measure quite well and yet sound utterly underwhelming (Like crap).

Charles

Perhaps some day they'll innovate a robot that replicates my sensory perceptions and attaches a measurement regime conforming to those preferences. The robot can make the rounds. listening and measuring  every component existent in the world and report back. I could then objectively put together components best conforming to that measurement regime and build the best possible system for my listening preferences.