[Daygloworange]

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

I don't think it's the "gear" that's the problem. It's the implementation of it that's the problem. Instruments are a far more sensitive, consistent and reliable barometer for quantifying things that we hear. They can be calibrated, our ears can't.

I suggested one test that I think could be done and with proper implemantation could go a long way to clear the air, and demistify a lot of subjective audio differences.

Cheers

[jules]

 , Dayglow, could you have become an objectivist through the course of this debate?

I'm not questioning measuring equipment, what I'm saying is that if some part of a live performance is lost in the chain between the performance and our ears, it can't be measured for the simple reason that it isn't there.

In that situation, a piece of measuring equipment isn't going to tell us what isn't there whereas our ears might tell us, for example, that what we are listening to is "sterile".

jules

[Daygloworange]

Dayglow, could you have become an objectivist through the course of this debate?

I honestly wouldn't know where to label me in that debate. I'm just a dude. 

I'm not questioning measuring equipment, what I'm saying is that if some part of a live performance is lost in the chain between the performance and our ears, it can't be measured for the simple reason that it isn't there.

I'll tell you right where it's lost. It's lost at the microphone. And yes, you could measure what the artifacts are that are being lost in the translation.

In that situation, a piece of measuring equipment isn't going to tell us what isn't there whereas our ears might tell us, for example, that what we are listening to is "sterile".

It'll tell us what's missing. It's our interpretation of the missing information that we simply label as "sterile". It's just a broad descriptive term. It can mean different things to different people.

Cheers

[jules]

It'll tell us what's missing.

you could measure what the artifacts are that are being lost in the translation.

I'd question that, but there's not going to be an answer here is there 

jules

[Daygloworange]

I'd question that, but there's not going to be an answer here is there

You'll find the answer in that, yes, the artifacts that are missing can be measured. But is someone going to do a comprehensive analysis for us and post it here? I wouldn't hold my breath. 

Cheers

[jules]

aaagh .. just picked up a little flaw

if the microphone is the problem, then how are we going to "measure" any differences [between performance and ear] when the tool used to pick up the meassage for analysis is ... A MICROPHONE!!

jules

[Daygloworange]

Measurement microphones are quite different than what's used to record music. Nobody records with a calibration mic. And nobody calibrates with a top notch vocal microphone either. They're designed to do different things. I don't remember what the differences are, as it's of little or no interest to me, I'm only concerned with ones that sound good while recording music. And anyone with experience with recording will tell you how much they color the sound.

It becomes paradoxical, I know, but that's the way it is.

Cheers

[WEEZ]

Michael,

MY point was, that most good designers DO measure their equipment. Many times. Then they listen. They have no obligation to share their measurements or secrets with the end user. Like I said, most of us technical novices wouldn't understand it. That doesn't mean that the science doesn't exist. And no,I didn't mean you, or anyone in particular....

There is engineering; and there is testing. In the case of audio, the testing is where the 'art' comes into play.

I think we are all trying to say the same thing..it's just difficult to type it.

 

WEEZ

[WEEZ]

but I've got a hard time believing that an orange dot on a Timex clock is very scientific. It goes against my possibly flawed logic...

 

[Dan Banquer]

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.

It's already known; but I strongly suspect that you wish to ignore what goes on in a recording studio.
             d.b.

[Ethan Winer]

John,

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

Where did I say that?! I said I use my brain to assess the quality of a music composition, as opposed to needing pristine playback fidelity which I thought was the point of this thread.

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

When we use test gear to measure the faithfulness of a preamp or whatever, the test gear doesn't do the interpreting! The engineer does that.

John, this thread has been going on for so long now I don't even know who is arguing what anymore. Do you really believe there is some as yet unknown audio parameter - other than frequency response, noise, and distortion - that affects the sound of an amplifier circuit? If so, why do you believe that?

--Ethan

[miklorsmith]

So, let's recap:

1)  "We" know all the dimensions of human hearing and can quantify it in graphs to be able to objectively capture all of what people hear.  This has all been known for a long time.

2)  "We" indeed use all these dimensions in the design of the gear you have to choose from when shopping for audio equipment.

3)  "We" choose to keep this information tightly under wraps, even though at least some of "you" could significantly benefit in making tough choices with your money.  Bear in mind, "you" wouldn't know what to do with the information/don't want to hear about it.  We know better.

4)  If "you" ever discover what "we've" been hiding from you, we'll just blame it on the recording studio because "you" are probably stupid enough to be distracted from 1 - 3, above.

I'm just recapping what I understand from the other side of this argument.  Frankly, I don't doubt for a minute that lots of testing AND listening occurs at most audio labs.  I do not believe science has utter command of the ear/brain interface, its relationship to reproduced signal, and design of the reproducers.  However, that is not my claim.

If 1 - 3 are true and I'm not misunderstanding the statements, that is an awfully elitist attitude.

[Ethan Winer]

Do the objectivists in the audience believe that sufficient measurements are made available to potential consumers for them to make educated decisions on purchases?

I agree with Dan that it's not in an audio vendor's interest to make public much of the test data. For example, this is why you never see distortion data for loudspeakers, and why you almost never see loudspeaker polar plots showing frequency versus angle. And when a speaker maker does show polar plots, they are smoothed in the same way on-axis response plots are smoothed. If consumers saw how terrible the distortion and frequency response really are for most speakers they'd lose their lunch. So instead of showing what really matters, you see graphs of loudspeaker impedance or phase response versus frequency which are both irrelevant from a consumer's perspective. But such graphs look nice and very official, even if it's only make-believe science.

> Speakers are known as being fast or not.  This has to do with transient risetime and ability of the transducers to track dynamics accurately. <

There's no need to invent new words like fast. Transient response is directly related to frequency response. If a loudspeaker is flat to 10 KHz, then it has a rise time sufficiently "fast" to move back and forth in 1/10,000th of a second.

> and the subjectivists reply "the measurements tell me nothing". <

Only because they don't understand how to interpret the data. This is not a slam against subjectivists! There's no shame in not understanding enough about electronics and physics to be able to form an opinion. Though it would be nice if more subjectivists took the attitude that they should learn more about this stuff, rather than denounce the very science they do not understand.

Some of the skeptical magazines have run articles about the rise of anti-science over the past 50 years or so. One article suggested that anti-science arose from people seeing so many movies where crackpot scientists try to take over the world or create Frankenstein monsters etc. Makes sense to me.

> 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". <

Are you really saying you believe in magic? By definition magic is equal to the supernatural, where things happen that cannot be explained like ghosts and goblins.

> We're trying to figure out what we want to buy <

And this is exactly why it's so important to make the real facts available to consumers! As I said earlier in this thread, to me this is at heart about consumerism, and getting one's money's worth, and not being taken in by charlatans. As long as the charlatans are able to convince people that their hearing is not as fragile as it really is, the power of suggestion and placebo effect will prevail every time.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

1)  "We" know all the dimensions of human hearing and can quantify it in graphs to be able to objectively capture all of what people hear.  This has all been known for a long time.

Again you are confusing the fascinating and complex world of human hearing and perception with the simple and mundane task of using distortion analyzers etc to evaluate audio amplifiers.

--Ethan

[miklorsmith]

So, there's no difference in transient response in speakers?  I think horn owners would disagree with this.  Also, single-driver owners, and hey, probably just about and high-efficiency speaker owner.  We put up with their idiosyncracies specifically for this reason.

The fact that a speaker can achieve a particular frequency does not equate to its being able to do so instantaneously.  A drumstick *thwack* on a Lowther does not sound like it does on a B&W.

On the one hand, you're telling me to go learn about "this stuff", and on the other that there's no reason to share the information with me.  It's like telling someone to learn Japanese but depriving them the right to try it out on another Japanese speaker (heh heh, they like hi-eff too, those um Japanese speakers).

At the end of the day, and I think we are to that sunset, the simple fact is that whether all the elements are understood is irrelevant.  The consumer will never have the information anyhow so we're just going to have to go listen to it to make up our own minds.  How novel.

And, it's awfully convenient that the measurement "cocktail" has never come to light for others to poke holes in.  Are we talking about Stereophile's measurements, you know, the ones that so frequently disagree with the professional reviewer's opinion?

[John Casler]

John,

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

Where did I say that?! I said I use my brain to assess the quality of a music composition, as opposed to needing pristine playback fidelity which I thought was the point of this thread.

Hi Ethan,

Your exact quote was in my response and said:

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

As I mentioned early on in this thread, it seems that everyone is "arguing past" each other.

I am not talking about anything except your ability to HEAR what is coming from the speakers or a live performance, as opposed to the ability to measure it and tell you what it is, as you can when you hear it.

Until it is released from the performer (live) or speaker (recorded) you cannot hear it, so that is why I don't make any contentions about electronics measurements.

Obviously any distortion of the original signal along the path can affect the sound and likely be measured.  That to me is a moot point, and a I don't suggest it has anything to do with the ability to hear and measure what is "released" from the speaker.

There is a lot of territory to argue about, if you are going to take each "step" of the chain from performance > miking > recording > engineering > manufacturing > then playback via front end/amp/speakers > Ear/brain.

To argue about any and all those links is too enormous a task.

John, this thread has been going on for so long now I don't even know who is arguing what anymore. Do you really believe there is some as yet unknown audio parameter - other than frequency response, noise, and distortion - that affects the sound of an amplifier circuit? If so, why do you believe that?

You are correct, there are multiple discussions within a discussion: I have made no statements about amps or their measurements.

I only contend that "hearing" is of the complexity and of an associative and comparative analysis, that there is no measuring and display instrument that will do what it does to the degree that it does.

Measuring devices are primitive in that they are "selective" and do no complete comparative assembly, so they cannot tell you what you are hearing.  They can only tell you some of the "component parts", of what makes up the sound/signal.

That is why, early on, I said there IS no argument, since many of the parties are arguing two different things.

[miklorsmith]

No argument?!  I've got 26 pages of terse communication that says otherwise.   

[John Casler]

No argument?!  I've got 26 pages of terse communication that says otherwise.   

 

[Dan Banquer]

So, let's recap:

1)  "We" know all the dimensions of human hearing and can quantify it in graphs to be able to objectively capture all of what people hear.  This has all been known for a long time.

2)  "We" indeed use all these dimensions in the design of the gear you have to choose from when shopping for audio equipment.

3)  "We" choose to keep this information tightly under wraps, even though at least some of "you" could significantly benefit in making tough choices with your money.  Bear in mind, "you" wouldn't know what to do with the information/don't want to hear about it.  We know better.

4)  If "you" ever discover what "we've" been hiding from you, we'll just blame it on the recording studio because "you" are probably stupid enough to be distracted from 1 - 3, above.

I'm just recapping what I understand from the other side of this argument.  Frankly, I don't doubt for a minute that lots of testing AND listening occurs at most audio labs.  I do not believe science has utter command of the ear/brain interface, its relationship to reproduced signal, and design of the reproducers.  However, that is not my claim.

If 1 - 3 are true and I'm not misunderstanding the statements, that is an awfully elitist attitude.

I consider the above to be a GROSS misinterpretation. There is no shortage of info on a number of subjects that Ethan and I brought up. Not only here on archived posts in audiocircle, but also numerous articles on the web, etc.etc.
If one chooses to ignore these, than there is no further point to discussion as far as I can tell.
                 d.b.

[miklorsmith]

OK, I want the whole dirt on the B&W 805 monitor, everything I need to know to be able to figure out whether I'll want it.  Where is it?

How about any other speakers?  Any amps?  CDP's?  Anything?  How about your stuff, Dan?