[Dan Banquer]

Then there are those incorrigible types that just can't be broken of their bad habits no matter how many times they're called deaf and stupid - a sad state of affairs.

Are you by chance referring to me? I sincerely hope not. And I hope you are not referring to Ethan either.
         d.b.

[Steve Eddy]

Everyone is entitled to my opinion, is what I'm saying.....

Why thanks! That's mighty generous of you! Got one of those in Xtra Large?

se

 

[miklorsmith]

Are you by chance referring to me? I sincerely hope not. And I hope you are not referring to Ethan either.

Well, no, I guess I was referring to me.

[Daygloworange]

Why thanks! That's mighty generous of you! Got one of those in Xtra Large?

Cheers. 

Then there are those incorrigible types that just can't be broken of their bad habits no matter how many times they're called deaf and stupid - a sad state of affairs.

You can't reason with the unreasonable. 

Cheers

[jules]

Ethan,

can I ask you a question here?

If you had to "evaluate" [use whatever word you choose here  ] a piece of live music, forgetting the audio gear for a moment, what would you entrust to your ears and where do you think measuring equipment could do a better job?

jules

[Ethan Winer]

Jules,

> can I ask you a question here? <

Please, anything to get out of this silly loop!

> If you had to "evaluate" [use whatever word you choose here  ] a piece of live music, forgetting the audio gear for a moment, what would you entrust to your ears and where do you think measuring equipment could do a better job? <

When I evaluate music I use my brain. Hearing has little to do with that. As long as I can hear the melody and harmony and rhythm etc clearly enough, I could be listening with ear muffs on or standing out in the hallway and still be able to form an opinion of the music and how well the group is playing it.

That came up earlier in this thread - a confusion over assessing the audio quality of "gear" versus the musical content itself. At that point in this thread John Casler asked:

Can anyone look at these measurements and tell me what instruments and people are on the recording?

This has nothing at all to do with how accurately a device can reproduce a signal passing through it!

Further, in this context there's nothing to measure.

--Ethan

[John Casler]

When I evaluate music I use my brain. Hearing has little to do with that.

  Ethan, you have to be kidding.  Hearing has little to do with the brain?

Try hearing something without one.

That came up earlier in this thread - a confusion over assessing the audio quality of "gear" versus the musical content itself. At that point in this thread John Casler asked:

Can anyone look at these measurements and tell me what instruments and people are on the recording?

This has nothing at all to do with how accurately a device can reproduce a signal passing through it!

Further, in this context there's nothing to measure.

--Ethan

Stop me if I am wrong, but you have many times said, "if it can't be measured, you cannot hear it".

It makes no difference if what you heard is live, or recorded, hearing takes place in the brain. 

The ear and transfer mechanisms do not hear, they "gather" information "to hear"

That is like saying all you need is a microphone to measure sound.  That too is not true, you need "interpreting" devices like scopes, analyzers, and such.

Hearing "IS" the "gathering and interpretation" of the data.

That is where your measuring devices "fall down".  They have limited interpretation.

[macrojack]

This lately seems like the ancient debate concerning quality and quantity. Instruments are incredible at measuring minutiae and their ability to differentiate is astounding sometimes but the quality or essence of something is immeasureable. It completely eludes them. And it always will.

[miklorsmith]

My from way back was conveniently ignored.  Let's assume instruments are capable of measuring all dimensions of audibility.  I believe this to be untrue, but go with it for a minute.  Do the objectivists in the audience believe that sufficient measurements are made available to potential consumers for them to make educated decisions on purchases?

An easy example - Speakers are known as being fast or not.  This has to do with transient risetime and ability of the transducers to track dynamics accurately.  My experience is that "faster" speakers not only sound sharper and more honest with percussive sounds but also track minor nuances better than other speakers.

I consider this ability one of the Really Important elements of realism.

I can imagine someone executing a measurement protocol to determine a speaker's relative speed.  In fact, it shouldn't be too hard using Dayglow's system described earlier.  However, whether such a test is possible is irrelevant to the consumer because this dimension is not considered important enough for manufacturers to either consider or release the information to the consumer.  There are other examples but this illustrates the point.

To some degree I think we're talking past each other.  The objectivists are saying "we can measure anything" and the subjectivists reply "the measurements tell me nothing".

My take is that if indeed the measurements can tell the whole story, they need to try A LOT harder to quantify what we subjectivists term "the magic".  Telling us you could figure it out if you wanted is little more than intellectual masturbation.

We're trying to figure out what we want to buy, not what you might be able to do, maybe, if you tried.  And don't give me any of that "you need more ear training" crap - that's every bit as much garbage as the ridiculous initiation of this thread.

[Dan Banquer]

My from way back was conveniently ignored.  Let's assume instruments are capable of measuring all dimensions of audibility.  I believe this to be untrue, but go with it for a minute.  Do the objectivists in the audience believe that sufficient measurements are made available to potential consumers for them to make educated decisions on purchases?

An easy example - Speakers are known as being fast or not.  This has to do with transient risetime and ability of the transducers to track dynamics accurately.  My experience is that "faster" speakers not only sound sharper and more honest with percussive sounds but also track minor nuances better than other speakers.

I consider this ability one of the Really Important elements of realism.

I can imagine someone executing a measurement protocol to determine a speaker's relative speed.  In fact, it shouldn't be too hard using Dayglow's system described earlier.  However, whether such a test is possible is irrelevant to the consumer because this dimension is not considered important enough for manufacturers to either consider or release the information to the consumer.  There are other examples but this illustrates the point.

To some degree I think we're talking past each other.  The objectivists are saying "we can measure anything" and the subjectivists reply "the measurements tell me nothing".

My take is that if indeed the measurements can tell the whole story, they need to try A LOT harder to quantify what we subjectivists term "the magic".  Telling us you could figure it out if you wanted is little more than intellectual masturbation.

We're trying to figure out what we want to buy, not what you might be able to do, maybe, if you tried.  And don't give me any of that "you need more ear training" crap - that's every bit as much garbage as the ridiculous initiation of this thread.

No I don't think enough measurements are made available to the public, no I don't think the public is interested, and neither is the industry. Many engineers have come up with more meaningful measurements and the public and industry have ignored them. The latest is the Gedlees metric which has it basis close 50 years ago.
I should note that my experiences with audiophiles is that they are not interested in measurements, and they are not interested in learning what they mean and don't mean. Audio dealers aren't interested either as it interferes with their sales routines. In addition; audiophiles and dealers are not interested in what goes on in a recording studio either.
   Sad but true;
                d.b.

[TomW16]

I think that I am following the measurement vs. hearing debate:  We currently have measuring devices that are more sensitive than our ears at detecting sound frequencies.  I don't believe that this is in dispute. 

"Hearing", as people are referring to it, is the brain's interpretation of those frequencies into recognizable sounds and this is where the debate is primarily focused.  For those that interpret what sounds good to them without reference to any measurable parameters are typically referred to as subjectivists.  Trying to reach concensus on what sounds "good" to people is like trying to determine a single favorite color for everyone;  everyone is different and will have different perspectives and opinions. 

For those that only look at measurements and discount what they are hearing (ie. interpreting), which might be a placebo effect, are generally considered objectivists. 

I certainly lean (heavily) toward the objectivist camp, however, completely ignoring what sounds good would be a disservice to the science as this is where discoveries and advances will be made in audio.  I do not believe that we know everything about audio yet.  For example, if two amps measure identically but one seems to sound different, this should be investigated to determine what can be measured to explain the difference.

Maybe the next audio discovery will be made by a subjectivist and will be validated by an objectivist.

Cheers,
Tom

[Daygloworange]

No I don't think enough measurements are made available to the public, no I don't think the public is interested, and neither is the industry, and many engineers have come up with more meaningful measurements and the public and industry have ignored them. The latest is the Gedlees metric which has it basis close 50 years ago.
I should note that my experiences with audiophiles is that they are not interested in measurements, and they are not interested in learning what they mean and don't mean. Audio dealers aren't interested either as it interferes with their sales routines.
   Sad but true;
                d.b.

Well put. I totally agree. It could put a whole lot of noses out of joint.

But I agree with miklorsmith. The elements that we use to describe speed, soundstage, imagining and so forth, are what we feel are important. A lot of those are time domain and dispersion based. It wouldn't be that difficult to measure and analyze, and I think would give people a whole new set of parameters to judge audio system components with.

I just think that most manufacturers would be learly of having it mapped out so clearly. They would rather let it be more of a subjective thing. The mystic air of it alludes the same sort of awe that Steinway piano's and Stradivarius violins get. A lot of that is bull too. There's no hocus pocus in those instruments either. Some of them get clobbered by much more inexpensive instruments.

Cheers

[gitarretyp]

Ethan,

can I ask you a question here?

If you had to "evaluate" [use whatever word you choose here  ] a piece of live music, forgetting the audio gear for a moment, what would you entrust to your ears and where do you think measuring equipment could do a better job?

jules

I think a more interesting question (and this may have been Jules' intention) is: how do you evaluate the recording quality of a piece of music? Taken a bit further, what method do you (or would you) employ to mix music?

[miklorsmith]

If the "magic" measurements are known and reflective of what people hear, I assume manufacturers are using them in the design process.  Those measurements should be available at least to the manufacturers, correct?  It seems a builder could easily promote their "superior testing" methods as a marketing strategy.  Or even if the information isn't shoved in a customer's face, what would the harm be in making it available if requested?

If you build a better mousetrap and all that.  If we have the technology to build better stuff, we should be using and touting it.

[Daygloworange]

I think a more interesting question (and this may have been Jules' intention) is: how do you evaluate the recording quality of a piece of music? Taken a bit further, what method do you (or would you) employ to mix music?

It's mostly subjective. You do check for phase shifts occasionally on a scope, but for the most part, it's just tweaking done by ear. Some people have a real knack for it, others can't get it right to save their lives. It's an art form. A lot of the best guys, are guys who don't have a lot of technical knowledge, but more hands on experience. Most of the top guys would readily admit not having a whole lot of technical background.

I could name you a number of top guys that fall under that category.

And most ( if not all ) of those guys will choose a take based on it's feel over it being technically perfect. By a long shot.

So subjectivity rules supreme in that area.

Honestly, that's the truth.

Cheers

[WEEZ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be an 'implication' in some of the comments by the so-called 'subjectivists' that audio design engineers don't bother to listen to their equipment, 'cause the measurements are all they need. I have talked at length with one amplifier designer who insists that he does both. Exhaustively. And with many different speakers. And with many different source components. And he insists also, that most 'differences' are measureable.

I'll bet he's not the only one, either. And he's not about to 'give away' his knowledge. A 'subjectivist' wouldn't understand it anyway. I know I wouldn't.

WEEZ

[miklorsmith]

If you mean me, I didn't mean to imply such a thing.

My point was that if all the elements of hearing can be condensed onto paper, everyone should be doing it, and we as consumers should have access to it.  They might be, though I'd never know it - as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist.

[jules]

I'll agree with that one WEEZ 

I can't believe that any objectivist could be so "purist" as to put a piece of equipment on the market without having given it final approval from an ear [sorry, do I have to say ear/brain?] test.

I can believe that some designers just might put more weight on the judgement of their measuring equipment as against their ear/brain though.

Here's a thought .. It's probably debatable that we can measure everything but it's not debatable that we can't measure what isn't there. I'm of the strong opinion that a great deal of information can be lost between a live performance and an ear [brain] so in consequence, it's going to the ear/brain that can tell us that somethings missing and not a mindless piece of measuring gear.

jules

[Daygloworange]

it's going to the ear/brain that can tell us that somethings missing and not a mindless piece of measuring gear.

And visa versa.

Cheers

[jules]

hmm, I think you're missing my point maybe?

Yes, I quite agree that for a given sample of sound, measuring gear might be able to pick up something that out ears can't but what I'm saying above is that if something is lost on it's path from a live performance, through the recording process and our audio gear to our ear [or to some measuring gear], then the ear/mind is capable of saying such and such is missing where a mindless piece of measuring gear isn't

jules