This
True or False?
The following is a common sentiment from some who claim to be audiophiles.
If you hear something but can’t measure it, you only think you heard a difference.
This notion is also common among people who claim to possess an accomplished understanding of audio, especially when achieving a high level of performance for a minimal investment.
So who’s right? On the one hand we have Objectivists who claim if you can’t measure it, you can’t possibly hear it or if you do, its expectation bias and self delusion. Are these people correct? Do they get as good as a sound, or better for far less money by ignoring cables, power cords, mechanical isolation, basically any accessory that many have found to dramatically improve performance despite a lack measurements? Do those who dismiss expensive digital to analog converters as being no better than rather common digital components with decent measurements get just as high a performance level as those of us with MSB and DCS? Do people who claim it’s all about finding perfect speaker placement, do these people outperform those of us with systems that cost multiples more than what they pay (Who also pay close attention to speaker placement as well as everything else)? Or do those of us who pay attention to cables— digital, analog, and power, what we set our components on top of, how we place our speakers, acoustics, and tweaks, expensive DACs and the like, do we get better sound? Who’s right? And how do we ultimately determine sound quality?
106 responses
Exactly correct. Measurements will tell you if something can work, if it has the potential to work based on your system requirements. However when two or more competing widgets meet a basic threshold, measurements will not tell you which component will sound best in your system. For that we listen. Simple. |
” no, just snother thinly veiled advertorial platform.“ Absolutly +1 The latest in a series of naval gazing threads from the OP ( who just happens to manufacture highly subjective products aimed at the HiFi crowd whilst offering no credible empirical information to support the validity of said products ) Well Gow_Leeeee |
I hope I am not off the point. I do use many measurements to decide if I am interested in a product. For example: Speaker impedance, sensitivity. Amps- power rated into 4 ohm/ 8ohm. And cables I look to see what they consist of. How they are made. There is a thread going now on Audiogon that describes $5000 cables as the holy grail. Yet it is made from copper wire sleeved into cotton and finished off with cheaper connectors. Yet poster's claim it sounds fantastic. To me it is a nonstarter but if I could actually hear them then perhaps my impression would change. Is there new technology used? I admire those who think outside the box and come up with creative, innovative items. Once I zero in on those perimeters then I use my ears/ mind to decide. ozzy |
@raysmtb1 + 1. Agreed foolish to spend as much on a power cable as you did on a component. Like what was said in another thread maybe this one. Put Michelin Race Pilots on a Nissan Lief….what’s the point? |
“Than do you ignore power cords, digital cables, isolation platforms and the like? If so, you can’t possibly have a high-performance stereo by modern standards.” I ignore power cords, digital cables, high priced interconnects, high priced speaker cables, magic fuses,etc. I don’t believe that they would provide ANY audible improvements in my system. I don’t really care whether you think that means it isn’t “a high performance stereo”. You trust your ears, I’ll trust mine. |
Than do you ignore power cords, digital cables, isolation platforms and the like? If so, you can’t possibly have a high-performance stereo by modern standards. Modern high-performance audio take cables and other factors that affect sound into account, and this is the main reason why we have a significant increase in fidelity over the past 20 years. |
@ted-denny, regarding your question as framed above, audio reproduction is so complex that it makes sense to consider as many variables as possible. Personally, I draw the line at stuff for which I can see no scientific rationale - and which consequently can't be measurably quantified. Things for which there is an imperfect correlation between measurement and perception, I have no issue with at all. After all, measurements can only be as accurate as the inherent level of accuracy of the measuring device. |
@noske *G* I didn't 'see' it as a 'political' stance or statement, fortunately...;) The 'liberal arts' seem to connotate pot-smokers that wine and discuss art issues and whether or not there's a connection to the disruption of basic human response to blah blah ad nauseum.....whereas conservativism is an abalone that can't be pried off the rock of the industrial/defense establishment with anything short of a crowbar.....which is what one needs to do so in reality, but one still has to surprise the little mollusk to do so.....and that sort of thing....🤨🤪 Meanwhile, I'm on the highway wondering if the guy on his cell in the Beemer is really aware I'm next to him @ 73 in a 55....;) I don't, and won't, hold against Anyone that dropped more on his/her cart on the tonearm then what I've spent on my entire 'system', although the qualities and response of same we can 'discuss' into the next decade....and still not come to an agreement as to it's relevance vs. SOTA... I'm DIY'ing Walsh speakers....I don't expect Perfection beyond my own hopes and expectations.... The fact that they 'play' at all is a hit; that they respond reasonably well per the analysis means I've got to apply is better yet...*s* ...to my ears, and the grey gook between them. For the time being, that's a cheap form of nirvana, and not just the group. *G* For this mortal, that's 'what it's about'....Please Yourself First, defend if you must. Things 'audio, and the pursuits of' are so highly personal that the discussion of such is fraught with preference to one's own reference that unless one can experience the other's situation IRL... @jonwolfpell ...or one is trying to measure that which is not able to be quantifiable....? Exotic cables measured by means N/A to the average person but to the not so average 'phile, speaker cable 'lifts' I can 'spoof' with 2x4 'drops'...which I may or not be able to discern under my circumstances either... The esoterica gets a bit much to comprehend....where does the rabbit hole end, if at all.... |
@frogman I understand your point, however I think most people are missing or not reading my original post. They see measurements and immediately assume, this is pro-measurement versus anti-measurement. Nothing could be further from the point of this post. My question is straightforward, do audiophiles who pay attention to everything, measurements, and what they hear, as well as considering products like cables, isolation for mechanical vibration, expensive digital to analog converter‘s, lots of things for which we hear a difference, but for which there is not strong correlation to measurement, do such audiophiles get better sound than those who only pay attention to measurements, and disregard everything else? That’s the point of this conversation. |
This was my post in your thread “Objective vs Subjective”:
**** No disrespect intended and maybe I’m showing my age (in this hobby), but I am frankly surprised that the question has been posed. The question and answer are so rudimentary to this hobby and so frequently asked (in one way or another) that…. As much as I sometimes dislike using the word “audiophile”, I’ll use it to ask this simple question: are we “audiophiles”, or are we “measurementphiles”? ****
This thread is one of those “one way or another”. Again, no disrespect intended, but how many times do we have to rehash the same questions and issues? Questions and issues which have been beaten to death on this and just about all other audiophile forums. Frankly, I expect more from a manufacturer of audio products. I expect to learn something new; or, at least, to be caused to ponder a new possibility. Don’t get me wrong, I am in your camp as concerns the issue of reliance on measurements vs one’s ears, but……. For whatever it may be worth none of this inspires me to try your products, |
sometimes you don’t really need measurements. After a while building tube amps when you drawn a loadline through a set of plate curves, you have a pretty good feel for the distortion spectra you’re gonna end up with - it becomes almost intuitive. You measure to confirm. |
Wow. Thankyou. Isn't this a great example of how the meaning of a term or phrase can be flipped on its head over time.
|
Measurements are a very rational approach. The problem is that you can take measurements and be completely reliant on them to find your way. Then realize that you have lost considerable ground so someone who relies on measurements as only a starting point. A friend of mine mentioned that CDs have a greater dynamic range than LP records. I read the article where a scientist lays out the data. Well, records have always been known to be the noisiest of music media so no surprise there. The greater dynamic range is the result of CDs having a lower noise floor. The problem is that no one has a 0db listening room. Most of our rooms measure 10db-20db of ’silence’. Most of that dynamic range advantage is lost in the room. This is not to start a digital vs analog war (I love both)...just to point out that measurements are great...but the real world has its own idea about how much your measurements are worth. Learn to trust your senses. Use the force. |
Isn’t it odd that many focus on measurements of audio gear all related to what essentially is a creative process of musicians, recording and mastering engineers all working towards the common goal to entertain our sense of hearing. This is nothing new. Back in the 60s (yes, I’m that old) the chief engineer at a magazine called Stereo Review, i think his name was Julian Hirsch, took the stance that if it measured the same it sounded the same. He measured over 4000 pieces of gear for that magazine. A Measurementista will criticize a piece of gear because of a minor frequency response deviation while the guy in the recording booth is thinking " I think I will turn up the bass a bit on the mixing console..... there, that sounds better" A bit like those who focus on wine tasting (another sensory experience) on a 100 point scale. Standing joke. Q. What does a 95 point wine taste like? A. Better than a 94 point wine and not as good as a 96 point wine. |
Fine audio systems are like fine wine. The presentation, color, smell, lighting, and mood you are in all matter.
We are human and we perceive the same situation differently. We all have different likes and dislikes. Thats what makes this hobby fun. Ever notice how some days your system sounds better than others? |
my understanding of the term is that it refers to Chris Frankland and his band of merry cohorts who regard the ownership of anything outside the Linn/Naim/Mana axis as a capital offence. He published ‘The Flat Response’ for a while after being booted out of editorship for a mag the name of which I can’t recall, then fell off the radar totally. |
Maybe if something sounds “better” but doesn’t measure better, you’re measuring the wrong things???
Anyone with any experience with tube equipment knows this. A good 50 watt tube amp will very likely “measure” higher distortion in several parameters than a $1000 receiver but will also very likely sound MUCH better than it!
Why? There’s way more to musical reproduction than simple measurements. |
@ted_denney - I am skeptical about the “pure objectivist” measurement folks. While measurements obviously cover *a lot*, those assertions assume that we are measuring the right things, and that we’ve discovered everything worth measuring. Hearing, signal reproduction etc. seem like complicated topics to me, and that we will learn more over time (I have equal skepticism about a pure subjectivist approach - orthodoxy in any form just assumes too much knowledge, and I my bias is towards engineering, logic and measurable advances) I like the long-form videos done by Audioholics. They are mostly “objectivists”, and I enjoy their explanations of the principles at work behind what they see in measurements. And they do a lot of work to go beyond “basic measurements” to illuminate how those can have real shortcomings. They are also willing to acknowledge that sometimes things just sound good (or bad) no matter how they measure. A more thoughtful and humble approach, I think (and there is something to be learned even watching people from extreme ends of the range - just requires a bit of skepticism while doing so - and I like understanding what different people hear when they listen, as there is plenty to be learned from that) Have a great day, everyone! @asvjerry +1 @cat_doorman + 1 |
I’m totally opposite i only buy from a repeatable brand The equipments must looks gorgeous because my decision to buy any equipment is base on looks I have SimAudio moon Evolution W7 Parasound JC5, A21+ and Classé Audio CA-2300 all this amps almost sounds alike with my speakers just little tiny differences so the good looking ones will always stay I never ever care about measurements fancy cables fuses and more oh I buy my fancy cables from AliExpress just for looks I believe in 2022 any DAC/ preamp must have good looking screen 📺 at least 4 inches square to show album artwork 🖼 until then I’m going to stick with my cocktail audio x45/ Cambridge Azur 851N |
This term "flat earthers" I’ve seen here sometimes and it confuses me. I have questioned it in the past and received a less that satisfactory response from a @carolkong (??) shill who no longer seems to be registered. Supposed to refer to those who seek measurements and scientific observation? Explain this from a position of common sense. I will continue asking this until logic prevails. |
Say it ain’t so.
More like in the last ~100 years (0r a bit more) we got quantum mechanics, relativity, and Maxwell, Faraday and Volta in electronics.
Good point!
And also use our eyes to confirm that the Earth is flat? |
yes it uses a "highly sophisticated" choke input power supply all the way from a dog eared 1920's circuit diagram and hybrid ss/tube Graetz bridge type rectification 'cos they couldn't find a centre tapped power transformer. Doncha just love some of the high end marketing floss.. |
Haven't heard yours so I don't know but I have corner horns and they are perfectly placed... in the corners. My stereo's measurements are perfect. Width, depth and hight allow it to fit on its shelf. It sounds good to me what else is really important? |
After being here for some months now and reading and learning what esteemed audiophiles are supposed to believe, I'm discovering that I too am not worthy. Perhaps an objective euphonophile. |
Quite good and inexpensive resources are available to learn about and practice meditation that are designed by people with scientific and medical backgrounds. Choose wisely - a couple educational books and CDs/media of your choice.. The new-age business is notorious for snake-oil salespeople taking advantage of vulnerable folk, and extracting from them more hard currency than some small third world nations have. I'm getting vibes here dude. |
@asvjerry That makes two of us. In hindsight, best to not introduce politics. My bad. Anyway, what's the point of taking it seriously was my point. Really, when it is apparent to me that it is not asked in good faith, but rather as a "gotcha" fishing trip. |
@cat_doorman , +1. *L* I know I don't know enough about what I don't even know I don't know about..🤦♂️😏.. @noske ...well, I suppose... I've never been exposed to a 'conservative arts' exam, but will concede that such may exist.... Come to think of it....I've never had to take the version you mentioned, either.... *Zounds!* Sounds like a conspiracy of some weight....however light....;) |
There are the 4 classic categories of information: 1. The things you know you know 2. The things you know you don’t know 3. The things you don’t know you know 4. The things you don’t know you don’t know We can only construct devices to measure things we know about. Those devices typically have a much higher sensitivity, accuracy, and repeatability than an unaided human is capable of, including all types of outlier hyper acuity. By definition there is a category of things we just don’t know to measure. Maybe there are things we could measure if we thought of it. Or things we wouldn’t even know how to. That’s where subjectivity picks up. I’m not sure why I like it better and I can’t describe exactly what the difference is, but I like it better. Joy is a state of mind. If you tell me that objectively two things are the same and if I have a clear preference then it’s all in my mind, how is that any less valid? So I’ve fooled myself. Maybe someone will come up with a meditation program for better sound. If a breathing technique and guided visualization can get people to walk on hot coals, then why can’t it make your stereo sound better? Keep your ear on the prize. Better sound. By any means necessary. That doesn’t mean I’m going to spend money I don’t have though. I’m not signing up for a meditation retreat either. I’ll just keep muddling through doing the best I can with what I know and what I can learn. It’ll probably take the rest of my life. I’m okay with that. |
