Mastering legend Bernie Grundman explains why the measurement crowd has it all wrong!
There's a great new interview with Bernie Grundman about the AJA UHQR where he relates that a component that a measures perfectly, but uses a lot of electronics in the signal path to get that result, sounds inferior to electronics that don't even measure flat, but have less in the pathway.
I recently read one of these "reviews'' where they admit they mostly don't even listen, but just rely on measurements. It was one of the most amateur reviews I had ever read, and now the we have one of the top trusted golden ears (one who actually creates the content) state that measurements don't indicate what something is going to sound like.
I'll take Bernie's perspective over an idiot with an analyzer touting cheap gear that measures well, just to make people feel superior about their (sometimes) midfi gear.
« 4. Some remarks about the non-linear properties of human hearing.
Although it is outside the scope of this paper, it should be noted that human hearing is likely to
be neither linear nor time-invariant, which can explain the findings of refs. 6 and 7. Another
clear indication is that human hearing is able to circumvent the uncertainty relations (ref. 8).
(N.B. Note that the uncertainty relations are a direct consequence of the linear Fourier
Transformation). The findings of ref. 8 correspond to the findings of refs. 4 and 5. This could
be the gateway to understand the discrepancy between the results, based on linear theory and
the perceptual findings as described above. The often-remarkable properties of human hearing
are the subject of a paper by Kunchur (to be published).
The temporal resolution of human hearing is at least an order of magnitude better than derived
from its frequency response, so it is very likely that especially metal percussion instruments
show a clear difference between ‘live’ and recorded sound. Alas, most microphones and
tweeters are insufficiently at par with the temporal resolution of human hearing, so the
perceived reproduction is clearly inferior to the ‘live’ sound. The ‘high resolution audio’ does
improve the situation, but a major improvement of the microphones and tweeters is required
to bring this to full fruition. More information on this subject can be found in several papers,
which can be downloaded from www.temporalcoherence.nl
Although the Fourier theory has been well established since the second half of the 19th century,
it is surprising that so little attention is given nowadays to the conditions, required to apply the
linear theory. It has been applied unreluctantly to electronics and human hearing, even though
neither fulfil either of these requirements. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the
results are inconsistent with listening experiences. We have encountered that also in the paper
on Feedback Flaws
5. Consequences of non-compliance with the conditions of Fourier theory.
It should be clear that when the conditions of linearity and time-invariance are not fulfilled,
results, based on the Fourier theory, can be thrown straight into the wastepaper basket.
Regretfully, these conditions are rarely respected and without hesitation, the frequency
response, determined with continuous sinewaves, is interpreted as if it were from a linear and
time-invariant system. Which explains why the behaviour of the amplifier with dynamic signals
(like music) differs from the (expected) behaviour, based on results obtained with steady,
continuous signals. To reproduce complex and dynamic signals like music well, the amplifier
needs to be -next to a large number of other conditions- also as much as possible time-
invariant and all its amplification stages should be as linear as possible. If not, artefacts will
show up which manifest themselves mostly in the time domain and lead to a degradation of the sound stage and thus of the perceived quality. It is banging on an open door that the less
an amplifier (also internally!) fulfils the requirements for a linear and time invariant system, the
larger the contribution of artefacts to its output signal will be. As several of these cannot be
detected using continuous sine waves, these differences may not show up in the specifications.
This can explain why amplifiers with similar specifications give significant differences in the
perceived quality.
“Measurements aren’t taken in the real world and the way the equipment is used, it’s usually taken in isolation, not the system as a whole with music.”
Music is mathematics + art, mind+heart = spiritual transformative healing experience and often more than a distraction ...
I discovered recently that it is not so much that music is mathematical but more it is mathematics which is in its core musical and rythmical ...
The heart and the spirit guide us all ...music is the audible manifestation of this guidance ... Mathematic is art and contemplation of new concepts and new worlds way more than mere logic...It is why mathematics in his essence is musical ...
See Alain Connes " the music of shapes" on youtube ...
Music (art), math and science indeed may intersect, but they are not the same thing. They are all different things (again, it is true, especially math and music, that they often intersect).
If someone wants to listen to music after they've undertaken rigorous scientific and mathematical processes and/or determined they've achieved maximized fidelity by citing measurements on a page (irrespective of how the music actually makes them feel - of course, confirmation bias is always a hazard when one claims their music makes them 'feel better' because they've cited measurements on a page, but that's a whole other ball of wax), that is their prerogative.
“Measurements aren't taken in the real world and the way the equipment is used, it's usually taken in isolation, not the system as a whole with music.”
I only submitted that objectivist and subjectivist quarrels are meaningless.. And are like twin enemy brothers focussed on gear with or without tools oblivious of acoustics ... Most people here place themselves in one side or the other ... This is why i insisted among others things on acoustics ..
Because sound experience is the result at last and first from psycho-acoustics basic ...Even good gear design must be grounded in acoustics knowledge ...
Then dont put in my mouth what i never said for the sake of debunking what i never claim : i am not an acoustician and never pretend to be one .. I am someone able to read text and who use that to design his own room ...And by the way no one understand hearing conmpletely on earth right now ...
My point here is basic concepts in acoustics are the only way to improve audio , not purchasing costly upgrade so better they could be ...And by acoustics concepts i dont means panels on a wall ...
How many person here insisted on that point for the last decade since i came here ?
i dont means room acoustics speaking of acoustics...If we dont know what is "timbre" in science how can we act to improve it in our room by experiments ? etc
No purchasing a 10,000 bucks costlier amplifier is not the best solution especially with a limited budget ... even if it improve the timbre experience it will not be enough anyway because nothing can replace room acoustics ... Thats my point ...
It is astounding to see people lacking any psycho-acoustics concepts quarelling about subjectivity OR objectivity as children divided in two groups
Quarelling - really? Debating would be the right word. Anyway, you also probably lack the complete knowledge on this topic and yet you are putting out your point in the debate. I do acknowledge that human hearing is far complex beyond current science and I do not understand it. But like to read and discuss about it - because that is the most FUNdaMENTAL thing about this wonderful passion/hobby.
It is astounding to see people lacking any psycho-acoustics concepts quarelling about subjectivity OR objectivity as children divided in two groups
Quarelling - really? Debating would be the right word. Anyway, you also probably lack the complete knowledge on this topic and yet you are putting out your point in the debate. I do acknowledge that human hearing is far complex beyond current science and I do not understand it. But like to read and discuss about it - because that is the most FUNdaMENTAL thing about this wonderful passion/hobby.
That’s one of the differences between you and Bernie.
So true. Besides he did not even address the question - why 2 people hear differently, as proved by science.
If that is what he is saying then he is simply incorrect.
Bernie Grundman’s knowledge, experience, and expertise speaks for itself. If you want to challenge that, you’ll need to do a whole lot better than "he is simply incorrect" because there is a mountain of evidence that he’s not.
I honestly have no idea what “accuracy of the music” means.
That’s one of the differences between you and Bernie.
Qualia can be reproduced yes with any accuracy levels , they cannot be interpreted and perceived as meanings without a brain/consciousness...
Music is not sound... Music is sound+meanings...
This fact escape the objectivist crowd as escape the subjectivist crowd that audio is not based on mere arbitrary taste but on psycho-acoustics multi-disciplinaries understandings with multiple concepts and many kind of measures ...
There is no singular place in the brain where is stored musical memory , it is distributed on many levels and many location zones all connected in the brain ...
The brain dont create consciousness but it is like a radio receiver it tune consciouness and the ground of meanings which come from a non located universal memory ... The brain dont create meanings no more than the prime numbers distribution is created and existed because of the brain ... The prime numbers distribution is a non conventional object existing absolutely, it is discovered as when we discovered a new sun or a new galaxy ...We create as human species the symbolic form associated with a numerical basis, ten or the basis 60 or 20 or two etc yes , this is relative choices ... But the prime numbers cannot be understood as a relative conventional objects as with a numerical basis ... They are highly specified infinite non conventional object... Any spirit, angels or extra terestrials , even God, know them as their own "body" ... They are ultimately music and rythm in a non commutative space as described by mathematician Alain Connes ...The founder of non commutative geometry ...
And as claimed by the mathematician Shai Haran in his astounding book " the real prime" , P-adic numbers based on primes are more natural and more fundamental than real numbers ...
You cannot put primes aside no more than you can put God in a bag ... 😁
“Interesting. Does the measuring device hear the same as you or I do? Do you and I hear the same? What if you have lost some hearing and still think you hear accurately?
You can measure an audio signal accurately, but accuracy of the music cannot be measured. We can try to hear it and decide. It depends on what the listener perceives as accurate to them. And you are right about audio signal.”
If we are talking about electrical measurements of an audio signal it can be measured with precise accuracy down to the molecular thermal noise. If we are talking about measuring sound with microphones it becomes a bit more complicated but with modern techniques we can get very accurate measurements. I’m not sure how one would even ask the question of human hearing and perception. Audio recording and playback exists in service of human perception. If you are asking if human hearing is accurate in comparison to a test microphone and digital recorder the answer would be no. We have limited bandwidth, limited dynamic range and frequency response that looks like a roller coaster. But that is what our ears receive and what our brains process and turn into aural perception.
I honestly have no idea what “accuracy of the music” means. We can measure a dip signals with accuracy that goes way beyond human thresholds of hearing. We can measure acoustic sound with a great deal of accuracy. We can, based on the right measurements predict the objective performance of a stereo system. But we can’t tell someone how they will respond to what they hear quite as reliably. As for humans being able to hear things that can’t be objectively measured that is a myth. If a human can hear it it can be measured.
--First there is more than one set of measures : electrical, mechanical, and acoustical and neurophysiological in any psycho-acoustics experiments ...
--Second, accuracy in these different set of measures can be set at various levels in many experiments ...Quantitative accuracy must be CORRELATED here to subjective qualitative accuracy ( perception) ...
--Third "accuracy" in electrical and mechanical design must be correlated to hearing proper accuracy in psycho-acoustic varying parameters in a CYCLE of experiments which at the end will improve the " musical experience" for all listeners , nevermind their prefered blinders , be it an objectivist or a subjectivist blinders ,...
We hear with our ears/brain but we use electrical tools and design to optimize our experience guided by acoustics principles which always CORRELATE the perceiving subject with objective parameters in a controlled environment ( our dedicated room or a laboratory )..
It is astounding to see people lacking any psycho-acoustics concepts quarelling about subjectivity OR objectivity as children divided in two groups ...
Then the measurement crowd and the subjectivist crowd are wrong in the same way, by ignorance in acoustics concepts ... They focus on a common core : the gear and/or the electrical tool and they forgot acoustics concepts ...
My two cents...
You can measure an audio signal accurately, but accuracy of the music cannot be measured.
Interesting. Does the measuring device hear the same as you or I do? Do you and I hear the same? What if you have lost some hearing and still think you hear accurately?
You can measure an audio signal accurately, but accuracy of the music cannot be measured. We can try to hear it and decide. It depends on what the listener perceives as accurate to them. And you are right about audio signal.
If that is what he is saying then he is simply incorrect. Accuracy is objective and easy to measure. There’s nothing hidden in an audio signal that can be heard but not measured. If one prefers certain inaccuracies that is an inarguable subjective preference.
I already make a thread about my own experience ...
It is better to go there if you want to discuss it ...
Thanks ...
@mahgister: Hello. I am interested to hear more about what you are describing. In terms of using a room that is shared between “living”, and “listening”, what are your suggestions, or methods to get closer to the music with what you call “embedding”? Actually, maybe this should be another thread.
@mahgister: Hello. I am interested to hear more about what you are describing. In terms of using a room that is shared between “living”, and “listening”, what are your suggestions, or methods to get closer to the music with what you call “embedding”? Actually, maybe this should be another thread. My apologies to the OP. I love Bernie Grundman’s work, and this thread caught my attention, but I have read what Maghister has written in the past and felt compelled to comment. @emailists: Thank you for the link, and thank you for this thread. It is my belief also that measurements tell us relatively little about the value of a component, and its ability to reproduce music naturally.
In every crowd there is exception... I should have write most people in these two crowds instead of suggesting "all" ...
But this does not change the basic fact i pointed to : they focus on the gear branded name price or measurements ...
This is so true that if you read audio thread all is about this measurement crowd obsession and audiophile branded name upgrading price tag obsession ...
They dont focus on the fundamental rightfull 3 embedding controls especially the acoustical one as the main core of the resulting experience ...
A system not well embedded at any price will not deliver his potential nevermind his measurements specs...
The fact that people as Mike Lavigne and others own pro designed acoustic room prove my point about the importance of the acoustic embeddings ... Now think about tha«t , there is also the electrical and mechanical embeddings too which are very powerful impediment or improvement ...
A great system is not great because of his measured specs or because of his price tag , but is great if it is well embedded to begin with if there is also synergy for sure ... If not, forget it, price tag or specs will not make it great and will not tell the tale ...
This is not True, a lot of people with very expensive gear have professionally set up rooms.
The measurements only crowds is on par with the high-end price tag gear bragging crowd...
The two crowds ignore all embeddings controls and ignore especially acoustics which they reduce not even to room acoustic but to the purchase of few acoustic panels at best ...
😁
This is not True, a lot of people with very expensive gear have professionally set up rooms.
The !measurements only crowd" is on par with the "high-end price tag gear bragging crowd"...
The two crowds ignore all embeddings controls and ignore especially acoustics which they reduce not even to room acoustic but to the purchase of few acoustic panels at best ...
Psycho-ascoustic rule the gear not the reverse ...
Measuring needed to be at least DOZEN of times before cutting ONCE. That's the golden rule of measures.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that the measurements must be taken multiple times? I know a certain somebody that measures many devices a week and I don't think he takes enough time to get proper measurements.
Iam Bernie’s fan.He is into music than measurement, Chad Kassem is blessed to have Him doing projects for Him.His wife is just involved collecting good music.
I’ll take Bernie’s perspective over an idiot with an analyzer touting cheap gear that measures well, just to make people feel superior about their (sometimes) midfi gear.
But i will take any good mid-fi system in a dedicated room acoustic designed for it over any costly high end in the usual living room ...
Will watch interview in future. Bernie has for decades been my go to mastering guru. I've blindly picked off his mastering from new to me recordings. I will scramble through the liner notes to confirm. They just sound right.
He is proceeded by Rudy who had less sophisticated tools, yet maximized what he had producing his own legendary catalogue.
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.
