[geek707]

Human traits and perception are no undiscovered fields. There are different methods and approaches that have been created to quantify differences in humans.

I agree, however I think there is a larger degree of variability than you are implying. Some of which is not readily measurable.
Light for example. While most will agree a HeNe Laser is making red light (632.8nM) some may not. Some don't see color at all for example.
Which is, one of the issues in this discussion.

 

[hakunamakaka]

Again, how do you quantify this "accuracy" for application to human use? You run a few tests and do some measurements to prove that the device has certain quantifiable attributes but that won't tell you whether it will sound good to someone or not. You cannot use objectivity to quantify something as subjective as music, especially given the anatomic and biologic factors that I've mentioned above. Moreover, adding that "salt and pepper" basically does away with your measurements and the holy "accuracy" that you were after, so why chase it in the first place?

Also it is important to note that most objective tests can only quantify a few attributes that can be verified by human test subjects (if such a test were to be done). Most major indicators of "fidelity" such as resolution, timbre, dynamics, etc are still beyond the realm of audio measurements. There is a lot of subjectivity to audio that is not quantifiable.

My point is simply this: You cannot use empirical data obtained from objective tests to proclaim a device "is best sounding". Sorry. It might be "best measuring" or "best technically capable" but I won't crown it as"superior sounding" to other equipment.

I know that this sounds as if I'm defending the snake oils that many a manufacturers peddle in the name of audiophilia with the basic idea that objectivity is of no value and all those voodoo that they do makes their products "sound" better. No.

I'm just saying that instead of going by objective tests, subjective reviews and opinions, one must try to trust their own ears. Nothing more. Nothing less.

No chart will tell you how exactly certain pair of headphones or iems will sound. I had too many instances when gear measured nearly identical, but sounded so far off from each other.
Not to mention that it is easy to manipulate measurements in many cases. Perfect conditions and dummy loads rarely exists in home systems and site like ASR is not aiming towards objectivity, but is used as a smart marketing tool to hype certain products. Just reading through that forum makes it very obvious.

People tend to echo same stuff over and over again which feeds on itself no matter the subject. I totally agree that the best approach is to do your own research and test, I'm always been an advocate for independent thought.

 

[geek707]

It's not about inter-subject variance per say, as much as it is about the translation of most objective measurements to humans.

This is what I'm trying to emphasize here: we know how to measure a device's technical "performance" (quite accurately infact) but do these metrics "always" translate to the real world performance while listening to music? I don't think so. The simple reason is that there's a lot of subjectivity involved that we still can't "objectify" with currently existing methods.

An issue I see here, is your use of a couple of subjective terms. Both music and listening can be taken as different things by different people. So what is real world?

 

[Giru]

You’re not addressing the topic at hand. The first step and what is being discussed here is identifying any audible differences. If and only if audible differences are established, one can then start evaluating personal preference.

Okay I'm sensing a common theme here.

See I'm not referring to personal preferences at all. Those are psychological more than they are physical or biologic. I'm just saying that the perception of auditory stimuli is varied and dependant on a lot of factors.

OPs first post (and the video) is why audio measurements can't be relied on. What I'm trying to add is that there are so many variations in human perception (dependant on a lot of factors) that these tests are moot. Even if a device tests well, it might not sound great. Infact there's no universal "great", "well" or "good".

 

[Giru]

People tend to echo same stuff over and over again which feeds on itself no matter the subject. I totally agree that the best approach is to do your own research and test, I'm always been an advocate for independent thought.

Finally!
Amen brother!

 

[Giru]

An issue I see here, is your use of a couple of subjective terms. Both music and listening can be taken as different things by different people. So what is real world?

Again, I'm plainly referring to use of these devices for listening to music as the "real world" scenario here.

Proclamations that a device that tests well in "these" bechmarks would also "sound best" in the "real world" scenario is misguided and moronic. These metrics neither completely reflect (and are not intended to be) true reflectors of fidelity; no matter how much a person/forum/manufacturer might try to convince you otherwise.

Moreover as I've been asserting in the last few posts: human perception (and variations therein) make things far more complicated, rendering the idea of such "technical measurements" as surefire mark of "sound quality" rather unscientific. These may be good for establishing good manufacturing practices and help in internal R&D but that's that.

 

[bigshot]

Again, how do you quantify this "accuracy" for application to human use?

Very simple. You strive for your equipment to be completely transparent to human ears... the sound going in is the same as the sound going out. Nothing gets changed along the way. That is very simple for the chain from the source to the transducer. Most equipment should be able to perform transparently from the digital audio file through the amplifier. The wild card is the transducer stage. With speakers, the interaction of speakers and room can alter the accuracy of the sound. With headphones, the interaction of the cans and your ear canals and head shape can alter the accuracy. So we focus on getting that stage as accurate as we can by selecting transducers with a response that performs as close to accurate as possible in our particular circumstance, and by calibrating the response with equalization. With speakers, we can get timing even closer by doing room treatment.

Once we have the output of our system as accurate as possible, then we have the sound as close to what the original engineers and artists intended. We can listen to that and decide whether we like that or not. If we think we can please ourselves more, we can color the sound a little bit and listen to that to see whether we like it or not. If we don't, we can go back to the baseline accurate calibration and try again. Eventually, we settle on a sound that we like, and we can just listen to music from then on, and not worry about the equipment any more.

Accuracy is not an unattainable goal. The only people who say that are the ones who are too lazy or too inexperienced to bother pursuing it. If you really care about sound quality, you won't just randomly mix and match stuff, hoping for it to work. Random actions yield random results. If you want great sound, you work towards it by approaching it systematically and scientifically. Every step closer to the goal is a step better in sound quality. Get your system as accurate as you can, and then adjust to your taste. It isn't hard at all.

 

[bfreedma]

Okay I'm sensing a common theme here.

See I'm not referring to personal preferences at all. Those are psychological more than they are physical or biologic. I'm just saying that the perception of auditory stimuli is varied and dependant on a lot of factors.

OPs first post (and the video) is why audio measurements can't be relied on. What I'm trying to add is that there are so many variations in human perception (dependant on a lot of factors) that these tests are moot. Even if a device tests well, it might not sound great. Infact there's no universal "great", "well" or "good".

Again, perceptual based prefence of audio is an entirely different discussion then simply identifying that there is a difference in output from electronics. We’re looking strictly at device performance and the measurements of that device. What happens when various people with various preferences and various hearing abilities listen to the same device is only tangentially related to measurements.

Thats the advantage of machine based measurements. Measurement devices don’t have bad days, sinus infections, nutritional challenges, and hundreds of other variables that effect human audio perception.

Audio measurements (if done correctly) are absolutely trustworth. People’s interpretation of measurements is less trustworthy. Subjective opinions, for the reasons you list, are entirely untrustworthy as they are only valid for that individual at the particular time and place and are non transferable.

 

[bigshot]

Proclamations that a device that tests well in "these" bechmarks would also "sound best" in the "real world" scenario is misguided and moronic. These metrics neither completely reflect (and are not intended to be) true reflectors of fidelity; no matter how much a person/forum/manufacturer might try to convince you otherwise.

That isn't true. Sound fidelity and sound perception has been studied and understood since Bell Labs back in the 1920s. The science of sound isn't a mystery. Sound consists of three components, frequency, amplitude and time. We can measure all those things at levels far beyond the threshold of our perception. Just because you don't know how to read and interpret specs, that doesn't mean that they are meaningless. It takes intellectual curiosity and the dedication to devote the time to figure things out. People who give up and say, "We can't know anything because we don't know everything." never know anything by definition. Those who make an effort to know are the ones who know.

 

[Giru]

Very simple. You strive for your equipment to be completely transparent to human ears... the sound going in is the same as the sound going out. Nothing gets changed along the way. That is very simple for the chain from the source to the transducer. Most equipment should be able to perform transparently from the digital audio file through the amplifier. The wild card is the transducer stage. With speakers, the interaction of speakers and room can alter the accuracy of the sound. With headphones, the interaction of the cans and your ear canals and head shape can alter the accuracy. So we focus on getting that stage as accurate as we can by selecting transducers with a response that performs as close to accurate as possible in our particular circumstance, and by calibrating the response with equalization. With speakers, we can get timing even closer by doing room treatment.

Once we have the output of our system as accurate as possible, then we have the sound as close to what the original engineers and artists intended. We can listen to that and decide whether we like that or not. If we think we can please ourselves more, we can color the sound a little bit and listen to that to see whether we like it or not. If we don't, we can go back to the baseline accurate calibration and try again. Eventually, we settle on a sound that we like, and we can just listen to music from then on, and not worry about the equipment any more.

Accuracy is not an unattainable goal. The only people who say that are the ones who are too lazy or too inexperienced to bother pursuing it. If you really care about sound quality, you won't just randomly mix and match stuff, hoping for it to work. Random actions yield random results. If you want great sound, you work towards it by approaching it systematically and scientifically. Every step closer to the goal is a step better in sound quality. Get your system as accurate as you can, and then adjust to your taste. It isn't hard at all.

See this is what I'm talking about. The basic idea that "these" measurements means good sound (or as the artists intended and all that other noise) is flawed. It's just marketing BS.

Saying that subjective is somehow "unscientific" is just ignorant buddy. All I'm sayin is that just "these" benchmark tests alone are not sufficient descriptors of good sound.

 

[Giru]

Again, perceptual based prefence of audio is an entirely different discussion then simply identifying that there is a difference in output from electronics. We’re looking strictly at device performance and the measurements of that device. What happens when various people with various preferences and various hearing abilities listen to the same device is only tangentially related to measurements.

Thats the advantage of machine based measurements. Measurement devices don’t have bad days, sinus infections, nutritional challenges, and hundreds of other variables that effect human audio perception.

Audio measurements (if done correctly) are absolutely trustworth. People’s interpretation of measurements is less trustworthy. Subjective opinions, for the reasons you list, are entirely untrustworthy as they are only valid for that individual at the particular time and place and are non transferable.

So what you mean to say is that we should buy an equipment just because it measures well (or the best) on the bench?

Just because you don't know how to read and interpret specs, that doesn't mean that they are meaningless. It takes intellectual curiosity and the dedication to devote the time to figure things out. People who give up and say, "We can't know anything because we don't know everything." never know anything by definition. Those who make an effort to know are the ones who know.

Personal pot-shots at me ain't gonna bring anything productive to the debate buddy. Your "intellectual curiosity" and "dedication" will be far better serviced at informing us mere mortals as to why and how you think these proprietary benchmarking tests are true reflectors of sound quality.
Oh wait! You never argue with stupid people. My bad.

 

[bigshot]

See this is what I'm talking about. The basic idea that "these" measurements means good sound (or as the artists intended and all that other noise) is flawed. It's just marketing BS.
Saying that subjective is somehow "unscientific" is just ignorant buddy. All I'm sayin is that just "these" benchmark tests alone are not sufficient descriptors of good sound.

I didn't say either of those things. I said that accuracy is a goal to use as a baseline, so you can experiment to discover your subjective preferences in an organized way. I didn't say that subjective preferences aren't scientific. All sound is based on scientific principles. You just have to find the correction curve beyond accuracy that you prefer. Only you can do that.

Saying that you don't understand something isn't a pot shot. It is a fact. Mark Twain wrote, "We are all ignorant... just on different subjects." If you find people who know things you don't know yet and make an effort to learn from them you can grow. And hopefully you know something you can share with them. We are all here to help. Whether or not we can help you or not depends on you, not us. I try to surround myself with people who know more than me and hopefully some of it rubs off.

 

[castleofargh]

It started with "be careful, a measurement can have the same name but not be done following the same settings, conditions or use the same machine". Based on current progress, by next week we can expect to have reached "tell us where the bad measurement touched you".
Should we have a thread dealing with measurement PTSD for audiophiles?




Please pick your side and gain nothing:

VS

Notice how both are about number 6. This can't be a coincidence!

 

[bfreedma]

So what you mean to say is that we should buy an equipment just because it measures well (or the best) on the bench?


Personal pot-shots at me ain't gonna bring anything productive to the debate buddy. Your "intellectual curiosity" and "dedication" will be far better serviced at informing us mere mortals as to why and how you think these proprietary benchmarking tests are true reflectors of sound quality.
Oh wait! You never argue with stupid people. My bad.

No, what I actually said is that objective measurements, fortunately, don’t include minute to minute variations in perception driven by numerous reasons. And that the reason people frequently report differences between electronics that measure the same or have differences below audible level is that human variability.

The objective measurements are repeatable under the same conditions. People are not capable this. Not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp - it explains most of the audiophile “findings” - their human condition has changed (unless using a controlled testing methodology over short duration) and they can’t/won’t account for it

 

[bfreedma]

Okay I'm sensing a common theme here.

See I'm not referring to personal preferences at all. Those are psychological more than they are physical or biologic. I'm just saying that the perception of auditory stimuli is varied and dependant on a lot of factors.

OPs first post (and the video) is why audio measurements can't be relied on. What I'm trying to add is that there are so many variations in human perception (dependant on a lot of factors) that these tests are moot. Even if a device tests well, it might not sound great. Infact there's no universal "great", "well" or "good".

You do realize that you just made my point, don’t you? Unless you believe the output of electronics changes with the moods/health/time of day of the listener.

Humans are variable. Measurements are consistent.

The suggestion that their aren’t universally good or bad electronics misses the point entirely. Again, the issue is with individual perception, not our ability to produce transparent electronics. Unless you believe the mood of the listener alters the output of electronic…