0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4182 times.
Engineers have been doing this with audio for many years. Rob Watts of Chord used this method to generate and modify the algorithms to get them to sound as good (subjective) as possible. If one watches the YouTube video on the DAC Master Design class, he explains how adjusting the noise floor downwards throughout the spectrum improved the sound from the DAC setup. (Objective measurements validate subjective performance). This is just one example of correlating measurements to sound quality.
So he has tuned the sound to his personal preferences. There is no validation in the main and again, no true correlation.
Rob Watts used mathematics to construct the filters, not personal preferences. Based on the assertions above, then all designers used personal preferences for their designs. Virtually all white papers written by the engineers point out the sonic benefits of their designs, and support their arguments via use of both listening and measurements. Some are VERY obvious, while others are less so. Remember this: If it measured good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing.
You said: "Rob Watts of Chord used this method to generate and modify the algorithms to get them to sound as good (subjective) as possible."He used mathematics to generate the base filters and his own personal preferences to get them to "sound as good (subjective) as possible." So he tweaked the things to his own personal interpretation of what "sounded best". Doesn't mean his tweaks would "sound as good as possible" to me. I, or anyone else, might prefer something different. There might be a segment that would prefer he just go with what the math and measurements indicate has the lowest distortion added to the signal. If it measures good and sounds bad, it's not bad in any absolute sense, except for you. If it measures bad and sounds good, you just prefer the distortion spectrum to a clean signal.
Remember this: If it measured good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing.
This little quip has bothered me for a long time. It's always pulled out by the subjective crowd at some point to justify their opinion that a poor measuring piece of equipment "sounds good" to them. I think anyone truly paying attention realizes by now gear with poor measurements has a sound signature some prefer. Absolutely nothing wrong with this.
The person who came up with the saying was an accomplished engineer, not one from the subjective crowd. Measurements are important, and must be used as part of the design process. I believe the point here is that the measurements provided in reviews don't capture some aspects of reproduction. Distortion spectrum at various frequencies, along with high power distortion readings are two examples.
The person who came up with the saying may have been an accomplished engineer, but I've only seen it used by subjectivists to defend their position. I disagree with the statement either way. Like I say, there's nothing wrong with preferring the sound from poorly designed, built, or measuring equipment. There's also nothing wrong with not preferring well designed, built, or measuring equipment. People like what they like. You can measure the distortion spectrum at various frequencies, along with high power distortion, and they can measure perfectly into any load; it doesn't mean everyone will prefer the sound. And again, you can measure those aspects and get poor readings, and some will hear it as glorious sound. Measurements can tell you how true an amplifier is, they won't tell you how people will react to the it.
As Ralph, who is the head honcho at Atma-Sphere stated, there are additional measurements that are available which could be provided that would help with correlation of playback. This centers around distortion characteristics. I would argue that if one actually did make an amp that measures perfect at all frequencies and power levels, it would get near universal praise. We simply are not there yet.
Again, there isn't any unique one to one correlation of measurements with perceptions and taste. You could make an amp that measures perfectly in every regard and there will still be people who do not like it. We have amps already with distortion that measures below the threshold of human hearing and there are those who don't like them. Similarly, there are amps with load dependent frequency response and audible distortion that people love.
This.FWIW, I use a Benchmark AHB2 fronted by a Benchmark HPA4. Both of these pieces are state of the art measurement wise. I love their sound in my room. I have owned many amps along the way, including a Fisher KX90 which was built as a kit back around 65. After recapping the amp it sounded good to me, with lots of "tube magic." In the end though, I prefer the accuracy the Benchmark products provide. I'm sure there are many who prefer the sound from the old Fisher. The guy I sold it to loves it.
And no one on any internet forum, unless they have been in your home and listened to your system, has any clue about how "good" or "bad" the sound is, never mind how you hear and perceive said sound. This is why I put zero value on any subjective review with claims about how "good" or "bad" any component is...
But you should. In 350 BC Aristotle measured and declared the Earth was the center of the universe. The Ptolemy's geocentric model, developed in the 2nd century CE, served as the basis for preparing astrological and astronomical charts for over 1500 years that accurately predicted the movements of the planets around Earth.So much for perfect measuring.Nicolaus Copernicus' major (subjective) theory of a heliocentric model was published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), in 1543, the year of his death, though he had formulated the theory several decades earlier. Copernicus' ideas were not immediately accepted, but they did begin a paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic geocentric model to a heliocentric model. The Copernican revolution, as this paradigm shift would come to be called, would last until Isaac Newton’s work over a century later. 1And another example: Back in 2012 - 2013 the nCore NC400 was the perfectly measuring darling of the audio world, not a negative word could barely be spoken about the amp with risking the ire of believers. I was lucky to borrow the nCore amp for a summer and declared the King wore no clothes in a review. It did not go over well but history has proven I was right. Witness all the Class D manufacturers working hard to "improve" the sound of a perfectly measuring amp going so far as adding tubes as PS Audio has done in the Stellar M1200 monoblock amps I reviewed.An individual on an internet forum may not know what "good" or "bad" sound is but there is wisdom in the masses. The current consensuses is the original nCore is "bad" sound and it didn't even take 1500 years. At the opposite end, very few people get to listen to a Van Alstine amp before buying one which should be very risky because the company publishes very minimal specifications. It is certainly not an amp an objective person would consider buying (at their loss). The collected wisdom of the internet has agreed that AVA electronics are "good" even without measurements.It may take another 1500 years to discover why some perfectly measuring electronics are not pleasant to listen to.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
And another example: Back in 2012 - 2013 the nCore NC400 was the perfectly measuring darling of the audio world, not a negative word could barely be spoken about the amp with risking the ire of believers. I was lucky to borrow the nCore amp for a summer and declared the King wore no clothes in a review. It did not go over well but history has proven I was right. Witness all the Class D manufacturers working hard to "improve" the sound of a perfectly measuring amp going so far as adding tubes as PS Audio has done in the Stellar M1200 monoblock amps I reviewed.An individual on an internet forum may not know what "good" or "bad" sound is but there is wisdom in the masses. The current consensuses is the original nCore is "bad" sound and it didn't even take 1500 years. At the opposite end, very few people get to listen to a Van Alstine amp before buying one which should be very risky because the company publishes very minimal specifications. It is certainly not an amp an objective person would consider buying (at their loss). The collected wisdom of the internet has agreed that AVA electronics are "good" even without measurements.It may take another 1500 years to discover why some perfectly measuring electronics are not pleasant to listen to.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe
When he was asked if the subjective sound qualities could be measured, he said they could, based on distortion characteristics. I take him at his word.
I asked him if the sound qualities from GanFETs could be measured, and he responded yes. The answer centered around distortion characteristics.
All you can do is try to correlate objective measurements with perceptions of sound quality, as many have tried, with the shortcomings I have previously noted.
