An observation of measurement....

inspiredsports

In a nutshell, we don't really know sh1# about measuring what makes a great system sound great. We know how to measure a few things which don't tell the whole story. Our ears, however, tell it all. That was exactly my point. Science is always evolving, but our ears are already evolved.

Face

That's why I said generally.

I've heard speakers that measured "ok" and they imaged like a SOB. But there are measurement which will lead you in the right direction for all those things you desire.

Tom, don't assume, I have no complains with my main system, only the room it's in. :biggrin: At least until I build a better pair of speakers.

I do agree about your last comment though, that could be taken as name brand or price has no direct correlation with sound quality.

DarqueKnight

treitz3 wrote: »

"There are no taste test machines that I know of and why we rely on test equipment to tell us an amp is good is beyond me."

Some people don't want to go through the trouble of listening and critically evaluating. They want to read a list of specifications and be able to tell how something sounds. This is as ludicrous as wanting to be able to tell how something tastes by simply reading a recipe.

mhardy6647 wrote: »

...(from whence come the directional cues, etc. that get these nebulous "audiophile" terms like "soundstage" attached to them),...

Many common "audiophile" terms actually originated with the research engineers who were involved in the early development of home stereophonic audio systems:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The term "sound stage" was introduced into the technical literature in 1959 in a paper presented to the I.E.E.** Convention on Stereophonic Sound Recording, Reproduction and Broadcasting by British Broadcasting Corporation engineer T. Somerville:

"Sound Stage-It is proposed to use this term to describe the region between the loudspeakers in which the stereophonic images appear. The term "sound field" is deprecated because "field" has other connotations."

__________________________________________________________
** British Institute of Electrical Engineers (not affiliated with the American I.E.E.E.)

treitz3

Face wrote: »

Tom, don't assume, I have no complains with my main system, only the room it's in. :biggrin: At least until I build a better pair of speakers.

You're a trip, man. No complaints, yet you want to build a better pair of speakers?

Things that make you go HMMMmmmmm........

Everybody has a gripe. Everybody.

inspiredsports

Take particle physics for instance. It was electrons, neutrons and protons that were used to explain the basic construction of the entire universe when I was in grade school.

Then somewhere around 1964 quarks were theorized. Particle physicists have discovered six types and three colors of them since. Plus leptons, anti-quarks, baryons, mesons, pentaquarks and hadrons; the new basic building blocks of the entire universe.

But let me ask you this, do you think quarks are the smallest particles yet to be discovered over the next 50 years ??

What will we discover about measuring sound quality over the next 5 decades?

In the meantime, our ears will evolve by about 0%. They simply keep on explaining what sounds good, when science cannot.

Post #1 says it all, perfectly.

mhardy6647

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Some people don't want to go through the trouble of listening and critically evaluating. They want to read a list of specifications and be able to tell how something sounds. This is as ludicrous as wanting to be able to tell how something tastes by simply reading a recipe.



Many common "audiophile" terms actually originated with the research engineers who were involved in the early development of home stereophonic audio systems:

Heh, I'll give you sound stage (and I didn't know that)...
engineers come up with "PRaT"? I am thinking "no".

I agree with you about specifications per se; the spatial stuff isn't going to boil down to one dimensional (or dimensionless) numbers. The linear specifications of an Altec 604 Duplex will not give too much insight into the magic of which they're capable. Doesn't mean it cannot be quantified, though.

Face

treitz3 wrote: »

You're a trip, man. No complaints, yet you want to build a better pair of speakers?

Things that make you go HMMMmmmmm........

Everybody has a gripe. Everybody.

I don't. But I want to see how much better lower distortion drivers and a vastly superior cabinet will sound.

treitz3

Face wrote: »

I don't. But I want to see how much better lower distortion drivers and a vastly superior cabinet will sound.

Come on man, be real. It's just you and me here on this thread. [No one's watching] :biggrin:

You have a gripe, you are wanting to conceal that gripe. I respect that. It's all good. From what I'm gathering, you want to experience a lower register of frequencies at a louder volume to portray a more realistic reproduction of the sound your ears are trained and experienced to intake as to a representative sound of the real thing.

cfrizz

treitz3 wrote: »

Cathy, I don't know you that well but I think I just fell in love with you.

Awww shucks, thanks.:redface::biggrin:

DarqueKnight

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Heh, I'll give you sound stage (and I didn't know that)...
engineers come up with "PRaT"? I am thinking "no".

No. "PRaT" (Pace, Rhythm and Timing) came from another closely related field: professional musicians.

mdaudioguy

treitz3 wrote: »

BTW, I apologize to those who expected perfect grammar, flowing sentences and perfect English. All of that goes to the wayside when I'm on the beer.

That said, when I'm on the beer this is what you get. Pure, unadulterated Tom.

treitz3 wrote: »

You have a gripe, you are wanting to conceal that gripe. I respect that. It's all good. From what I'm gathering, you want to experience a lower register of frequencies at a louder volume to portray a more realistic reproduction of the sound your ears are trained and experienced to intake as to a representative sound of the real thing.

Idk, you still seem pretty lucid.

BlueFox

Measurements, assuming they are done to standards (RMS power, freq response, etc.) of amps, pre-amps, etc. provide a baseline. However, they only represent our current knowledge of what to measure, and how to measure. As those with experience on this site have pointed out to us, the same measurements do not mean the end sound is the same. I have no problem with that concept, and find it odd others fight it. Only a fool would think our knowledge has reached the point where we know everything.

As we gain more experience there will be new areas discovered that can be measured. In the future perhaps we will be able to say if an amp measures A, B, C, and D then it will sound very close to, if not the same as, another amp with the same measurments. But we are a long way from reaching that point.

I recently added a Shunyata Python CX power cable to each amp, and was amazed at how much the sound improved. I suspect an AC voltmeter would read the same between the stock power cable, and the Shunyata. Yet, they sound different.

Interestingly, Shunyata has developed an entirely new piece of test equipment that can measure areas not even thought of earlier, and these measurements show a clear difference between stock power cables, and their power cables. Of course, the Luddites will say the new measurements are a scam, but I prefer to think of it as just part learning process.


“Though there are many sound and visual professionals who report experiencing dramatic differences when replacing stock power cords, there are still skeptics who point to a lack of measurements as proof that no real difference can exist.

Shunyata Research scientist, Caelin Gabriel, has put an end to the debate by revealing not only one -- but three dramatic measured differences between stock power cords and an inexpensive audio-grade power cord.

DTCD (Dynamic Transient Current Delivery) Analyzer

DTCD is a method of current analysis that measures instantaneous current delivery in the context of a pulsed current draw. In layman's terms, it is a way of measuring current performance into typical electronic component power supplies.

The DTCD Analyzer allows the measurement of pulsed transient current through a variety of AC power products, including power cords.

The measurements represent three critical performance criteria:

The quantity of instantaneous current available through a specified power device or circuit. Measured in amperes.

The amount of voltage drop across the device during the conduction period.

The stored residual noise component rate of dissipation after the current conduction period.”

http://www.shunyata.com/Content/DTCD.html

treitz3

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Idk, you still seem pretty lucid.

Don't tell anybody. They may get the wrong impression.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

In the future perhaps we will be able to say if an amp measures A, B, C, and D then it will sound very close to, if not the same as, another amp with the same measurments. But we are a long way from reaching that point.

We would also need to measure and derive an accurate general model for human hearing perception to the point that we can say "if an amp measures this way, it will sound like ______________ to people with _____________ hearing characteristics.

Going further, we would also need to model the characteristics of rooms, cables, preamps, source components and musical software. Eventually we will end up in the very place that the measurement cultists crave:

Everything is measured, quantified and modeled to the point that no thinking whatsoever is required to know exactly how something will sound before it is even listened to.

Systems

DarqueKnight wrote: »

We would also need to measure and derive an accurate general model for human hearing perception to the point that we can say "if an amp measures this way, it will sound like ______________ to people with _____________ hearing characteristics.

Going further, we would also need to model the characteristics of rooms, cables, preamps, source components and musical software. Eventually we will end up in the very place that the measurement cultists crave:

Everything is measured, quantified and modeled to the point that no thinking whatsoever is required to know exactly how something will sound before it is even listened to.

I like cake!:biggrin:

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

We would also need to measure and derive an accurate general model for human hearing perception to the point that we can say "if an amp measures this way, it will sound like ______________ to people with _____________ hearing characteristics.

Going further, we would also need to model the characteristics of rooms, cables, preamps, source components and musical software. Eventually we will end up in the very place that the measurement cultists crave:

Everything is measured, quantified and modeled to the point that no thinking whatsoever is required to know exactly how something will sound before it is even listened to.

True. There are beaucoup variables.

As an engineer, I prefer knowledge to ignorance, but that’s just me. Anyway, the point is not that at some time in the future we will reach a sterile existence where our every thought and action is predicted by some algorithm, but, rather, current measurements do not even come close to allowing us to make an honest assumption that two amps will sound even closely similar.


TGIF. Time for another beer. :biggrin:

markmarc

treitz3 wrote: »

I have talked to many a designer and builder. I just got off the phone with one about 20 minutes ago. The #1 thing they tell me is that cost-vs-profit is the biggest factor in the decision.

Without getting into detail, I have heard this many times. It's frustrating to tell these guys what is expected and how to achieve it......and learning that they ultimately agreed with me. AAAAARGH!!! Cost.......I'm tired of hearing it.

Just build the damned thing then figure out what it will ultimately cost the consumer after the sound has been perfected to the degree that humans are capable of with today's technology. If they build it, they will come......ever hear of that before????

I agree with hearing the line they give you. But I recognize that they have a base formula that factors in price of parts, design process hours, and necessary profit. Whether we like it or not, costs are a factor that must be considered. I've managed to get quickly past that point by starting with asking, "for X dollars retail what is the best design product you can create?" The answers can get pretty fascinating.

Conradicles

That is why DIY is such a good deal...

cristo

inspiredsports wrote: »

What will we discover about measuring sound quality over the next 5 decades?

If most of the people on this forum lead the way, nothing,
and those who strive to do so will be poo-pooed and shooed away.

treitz3

What in the hell kind of post was that? I think someone needs to be shown the way back to his play pin.

DarqueKnight

cristo wrote: »

If most of the people on this forum lead the way, nothing,
and those who strive to do so will be poo-pooed and shooed away.

Why stick around if you are so unhappy here?

cristo

Just making an observation about the general anti-science sentiment that seems prevalant on this site.
Not unanimous by any stretch, especially on this thread, but certainly prevalant.

treitz3

How about talking about what the thread is about and not what's on your own personal agenda? I'm not anti-science but had you actually read this thread before you went spewing diarrhea out of your mouth, you would have leaned that there is no measurement or scientific data for the things I described in the first post.

Go mess up your own thread and leave this one alone.

DarqueKnight

cristo wrote: »

Just making an observation about the general anti-science sentiment that seems prevalant on this site.
Not unanimous by any stretch, especially on this thread, but certainly prevalant.

I have been a member of this forum for nearly 10 years and I have never observed a prevalence of anti-science sentiment. On the contrary, most of the members here seem to be appreciative when scientific evidence is presented that enhances understanding, particularly with regard to misconceptions and myths in audio.

ShinAce

I have to say that both views have their merits.

I was never trained to be a singer or musician. I trained my ear by listening to different speakers. You learn to ignore the noise and focus on what's important at that time. I could never be happy going into a big box store, sitting in the listening room with only one movie playing, and doing a straight A/B between two systems then go "I'll take that one!". Sure, if forced to choose like an A/B taste test, I will pick one, but that doesn't make it better. I need to compare them with music, movies, and most importantly with speech.

However, some people are naturally trained. My buddy grew up playing piano, and he always manages to find the same flaws in a system that I do. He just words it differently. Instead of saying the bass is boomy, he'll call it slow. However, if the sound is there but not right, he'll notice it. But if the sound is entirely missing, he wouldn't know the difference. If you're not aware, you're not aware.

A harmony of both is required. I'd be the kind of guy who would tune a piano with tuning forks and then tweak it once it's done. My friend would simply tune it by ear. His relative tuning trumps mine, but overall it may be an iota flat and he wouldn't know it. At least not until he tried to play along with a good recording.

It is entirely true that cost is the biggest factor. I design, build, and test speakers. For most people, it's not worth the cost. For me, it is. I see it as an investment in the experience of life.

The baseline to test a speaker, for me at least, is to take a recording of a known voice(my sister, father, or nephew). When it sounds right, my work is done. I let alcohol fix all the blemishes.

My job is to reproduce, not to convince people what's best.

BlueFox

cristo wrote: »

Just making an observation about the general anti-science sentiment that seems prevalant on this site.
Not unanimous by any stretch, especially on this thread, but certainly prevalant.

I realize you think you are being clever, but you aren't. The only "anti-science sentiment" I have seen is exhibited by those whose closed minds make them say things such as amps sound the same, cables make no difference, etc.

However, there is an "anti-stupidity sentiment" on this site, and that appears to rub "The Stupid People" the wrong way.

There certainly is nothing wrong with having an opinion, even if it makes no sense, but having a closed mind is unacceptable.

VR3

Measurements smeasurements

Thats all I have to say about it

quadzilla

BlueFox wrote: »

Measurements, assuming they are done to standards (RMS power, freq response, etc.) of amps, pre-amps, etc. provide a baseline. However, they only represent our current knowledge of what to measure, and how to measure. As those with experience on this site have pointed out to us, the same measurements do not mean the end sound is the same. I have no problem with that concept, and find it odd others fight it. Only a fool would think our knowledge has reached the point where we know everything.

This is exactly the point nearly every conversation I have on other sites ends up devolving to. I tend to hang out on science/tech sites, but they usually have a section for audio/video stuff too. I'm fairly unpopular, which I think is just fine.

cristo

I apologize for the comments - this thread was not the proper place to bring them up.


I'm just a bit tired of hearing (mostly elsewhere) people say that measurements are useless or worse,
and if you look around,there is a bit of negativism about trying to quantitate psychoacoustics
(what people hear) based on what science we currently have figured out, and hopefully what we can
figure out more accurately in the future.
I think that somewhere, there must be a defineable scientific basis for some of the things that currently
defy measurement, even if no one has that knowledge yet.
I think it's worthwhile trying to find more valid concepts that explain why and how something sounds
good, rather than say stuff like:
ignore the science / measurements, smeasurements / take all the equations and numbers away, my ears are all that matters / etc.
and my reaction to that kind of thinking in general prompted my negative comments.

treitz3

Fair enough. The thing is, most all measurements I have ever paid attention too when it comes to audio meant absolutely nothing to the end result. This is contrary to popular belief.

I've had 8 watts, I currently have 80 watts and I've had up to 3400 watts running my rig. While this is only one measurement, the 80 watts sounds the best to my ears. Taking just that one measurement, the thinking of more watts will sound better goes out the wayside.

BTW, apology accepted. Thank you.