There's Too Much Subjectivity in Audio

Yashu

Early, I agree mostly, yes there should be a standard. I think the only thing that would test th entire spectrum in every way possible would be pink noise. Play it long enough and, theoretically, you will have played most every possible combination of waveform.

So... if you have a baseline of 12 hours of random pink noise, I think that would get you 99% there. That same 12 hours, bit for bit, played through any speaker, would certainly give you enough data to pour over and compare via computer, to the original waveform. The longer you play the random pink noise, the more accurate the testing would be, but in the end the source must be something that can be repeated, so the pink noise would have to be generated into an actual file format and stored, to be used again and again.

Early B.

Yashu wrote: »

Early, I agree mostly, yes there should be a standard. I think the only thing that would test th entire spectrum in every way possible would be pink noise.

That's cool. But on a related issue, I'd like to see something else more practical that can be used in the field.

Here's the deal -- every reviewer evaluates music on his/her system and plays his/her music. About 99% of the time, I don't have a single piece of gear in his system, nor do I have any of the CDs used in the review. I would at least like to share one thing in common with the reviewer -- his "2008 Stereophile Reference CD" or whatever it is. The CD can change every year, I don't care. But at least give me one thing I can relate to, 'cause if I have nothing at all, then the professional reviews aren't terribly meaningful.

shack

I disagree 100% that what what you are wanting could even be accomplished. You can keep working on your quest to nowhere if you like...but it won't happen. Who sets the "standard"? You...a committee of audiophiles...audio rag writers...manufacturers...heaven forbid...engineers? Just because "someone" comes up with something...who enforces it? Not all of the mfgs will buy into it...some will claim it is inaccurate...other will embrace it (maybe) and in the end you still have nothing...no standard that everyone agrees on.

Viva la subjectivity!

phipiper10

He's not talking about what people prefer or which is "better" he is talking about what "is".

Early, I hear what you are saying and it would be a great experiment to get manufacturers to submit to having their equipment measured from a baseline that had been previously agreed upon by all.

Unfortunately it wouldn't happen but it sure would be interesting.

So equipment would be better if it reproduced exactly like the baseline original for better for worse.

So if you like a piece of gear 10 points of the baseline then go for it just know it isn't what was originally produced.

Is anyone hearing me?

Early B.

shack wrote: »

I disagree 100% that what what you are wanting could even be accomplished. You can keep working on your quest to nowhere if you like...but it won't happen. Who sets the "standard"? You...a committee of audiophiles...audio rag writers...manufacturers...heaven forbid...engineers?

Shack -- the standard audio tracks can be a series of well mastered nursery rhymes. Or it can be "Shack's Favorite Hits from the Seventies." It can be Wingnut singing in the shower. Or pink noise. Who the f*ck cares?

Early B.

phipiper10 wrote: »

Early, I hear what you are saying and it would be a great experiment to get manufacturers to submit to having their equipment measured from a baseline that had been previously agreed upon by all.

Unfortunately it wouldn't happen but it sure would be interesting.

I agree it would never happen because it's not in the best marketing interest of most manufacturers. It's better for them to allow us to remain suspended in the "music is 100% subjective" cloud because they can make more money that way.

heiney9

It really comes down to the recording. The recording of real music isn't perfect in the sense that it can't be exactly documented and reproduced as we hear it live. Technology today is great and we've had many years to experiment with recording techniques, gear, venues, etc. But when listening to recorded music we will ALWAYS be at the mercy of the recording process and that will always color the way the music is played back on even the most natural/neutral system and listening environment.

Another person early on stated that if we can measure it then we should be able to discern a difference. I say there isn't always a correlation that can be determined. Sure we know that something measures differently but do we know how we hear that difference and how our brain processes it?

We all can agree that .05% THD is less than 1.0% THD, but what we don't know is how our ears hear it and how our brain process the difference. Is it better, the same, more accurate, more pleasing, etc.

Just because we can measure a difference with equipment doesn't mean we know how our auditory system interprets that change and wether or not it's interpreted the exact same way by all human beings.

That's why it's such a subjective hobby.

H9

Early B.

heiney9 wrote: »

It really comes down to the recording. The recording of real music isn't perfect in the sense that it can't be exactly documented and reproduced as we hear it live. Technology today is great and we've had many years to experiment with recording techniques, gear, venues, etc. But when listening to recorded music we will ALWAYS be at the mercy of the recording process and that will always color the way the music is played back on even the most natural/neutral system and listening environment.

Another person early on stated that if we can measure it then we should be able to discern a difference. I say there isn't always a correlation that can be determined. Sure we know that something measures differently but do we know how we hear that difference and how our brain processes it?

We all can agree that .05% THD is less than 1.0% THD, but what we don't know is how our ears hear it and how our brain process the difference. Is it better, the same, more accurate, more pleasing, etc.

Just because we can measure a difference with equipment doesn't mean we know how our auditory system interprets that change and wether or not it's interpreted the exact same way by all human beings.

That's why it's such a subjective hobby.

H9

Good points.

Using your example with THD, again, we don't have to agree on the issues related to how our ears hear THD or not. However, I'm sure we can generally agree that a high THD [a measure of distortion] can potentially be detrimental to the sound.


BTW -- here's a nice read on audio specs...

hypertone

heiney9 wrote: »

It really comes down to the recording. The recording of real music isn't perfect in the sense that it can't be exactly documented and reproduced as we hear it live. Technology today is great and we've had many years to experiment with recording techniques, gear, venues, etc. But when listening to recorded music we will ALWAYS be at the mercy of the recording process and that will always color the way the music is played back on even the most natural/neutral system and listening environment.



H9

I Couldn't agree more. No matter how accurate your system is, it can only reproduce as accurately as the sound was originally recorded. Yeah you can get very close, but you have to realize that it is a recording of the instrument, not the actual instrument. The best you can do is reproduce the sound without coloration as it was recorded to whatever media you are playing, you can never get more realistic than that.

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

I'd like to take it a step further and have manufacturers voluntarily ship their products to a special testing facility to get analyzed by a standard process, not much different than the way you do at home. The major difference is -- the testing facility generates objective measures for each piece of gear. Let's take speakers, for instance. It would be nice to know how two different speakers compare objectively in the same room and under the same conditions. The objective measures are based on how well the speaker accurately reproduced notes relative to a standard baseline. So as long as every piece of equipment is compared to the same standard baseline, not everyone needs to agree on precisely what the standard is, as long as there's a standard.

That would increase the cost of gear by leaps and bounds. Besides isn't that kind of what they are doing when they submit a piece of gear to John Atkinson of Stereophile?

Early B.

hearingimpared wrote: »

That would increase the cost of gear by leaps and bounds. Besides isn't that kind of what they are doing when they submit a piece of gear to John Atkinson of Stereophile?

Why would it increase the cost of our gear by leaps and bounds?

Of course, sending gear to Stereophile for testing is clearly a conflict of interest because many of these manufacturers purchase ads. That's why we need a "Consumer Reports of High End Audio." No ads. No conflict of interest. Just the facts, ma'am.

markmarc

Early:
If I was independently wealthy I would have made A$$A ad free, but I'm not, so I need at least a little ad money coming in just to support my bandwidth costs, etc.. My ad space is ridiculously inexpensive compared to Stereophile. I did have a very highly regarded independent person in audio willing to test the speakers I reviewed, the problem once again was the sheer cost of shipping them across the country.

I admire your desire to have independent scientific tests done, but in reality, the goal of any manufacturer in sending review sample(s) is to create a positive buzz that will lead to buyers checking out that particular piece of equipment. They may like JA measurements, but they'd much rather have the subjective words of praise of a reviewer.

Some of what you speak of is already available in canada with their nation audio testing lab. Several manufacturers use the facilities already. maybe that is the place to start.

To me, some of the most enjoyable moments in audio comes from the hunt. Searching and trying to find that piece of gear that causes me to go silent and just nod my head.

mrbigbluelight

cfrizz wrote: »

You guys get more hysterically funny as the night wears on!:D WAAAAAAAA:D

If I had a dime for every time I heard that .....

wingnut4772

Early B. wrote: »

Hey cfrizz --

I'm just trying to get a clue so I can be more like you -- too disciplined to give a damn.;)

Amen! I wouldn't have half the problems I do now if I had Cathy's discipline.

mrbigbluelight

Early B. wrote: »

Shack -- the standard audio tracks can be a series of well mastered nursery rhymes. Or it can be "Shack's Favorite Hits from the Seventies." It can be Wingnut singing in the shower. Or pink noise. Who the f*ck cares?

Same thing, isn't it ?

Early B.

markmarc wrote: »

Some of what you speak of is already available in canada with their nation audio testing lab. Several manufacturers use the facilities already. maybe that is the place to start.

Really?

Very interesting. Do you have a link? Tried googling, got nuthin'.

Thanks.

Dennis Gardner

With subjectivity gone from music, will all those Country Western stars have to go back to the car washes and diner jobs? This assumption is based on the fact that objectively they don't belong in music.

Early B.

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

With subjectivity gone from music, will all those Country Western stars have to go back to the car washes and diner jobs? This assumption is based on the fact that objectively they don't belong in music.

:D:D Hmmm, let me guess -- not a country & western fanboy, are ya?

You're not alone. I don't care for 99% of it. I have one C&W CD in my collection -- the Best of Wynona Judd. She can sing her **** off.

wingnut4772

Early B. wrote: »

:D:D Hmmm, let me guess -- not a country & western fanboy, are ya?

You're not alone. I don't care for 99% of it. I have one C&W CD in my collection -- the Best of Wynona Judd. She can sing her **** off.

..but she obviously hasn't.:D

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

Why would it increase the cost of our gear by leaps and bounds?

Early B. wrote: »

I'd like to take it a step further and have manufacturers voluntarily ship their products to a special testing facility to get analyzed by a standard process, not much different than the way you do at home.

You don't think this ^^^ step would be cost intensive?

Early B. wrote: »

Of course, sending gear to Stereophile for testing is clearly a conflict of interest because many of these manufacturers purchase ads. That's why we need a "Consumer Reports of High End Audio." No ads. No conflict of interest. Just the facts, ma'am.

I've seen both Stereophile and TAS reviewers pan gear from several different manufacturers. I'm not naive enough to think that it (conflict of interest) can't happen but in my book they both serve their purposes.

heiney9

Early B. wrote: »

Good points.

Using your example with THD, again, we don't have to agree on the issues related to how our ears hear THD or not. However, I'm sure we can generally agree that a high THD [a measure of distortion] can potentially be detrimental to the sound.


BTW -- here's a nice read on audio specs...

I just through THD out there off the top of my head and, yes, anything in excess could be considered bad by all parties. I was thinking more along the lines of those who believe a SS amp and it's associated low THD is supposedly better than a tube amp which in general has a higher THD. Again just as an example of a particular commonly measured spec.

H9

Early B.

HI -- I'm not talking about shipping every speaker to a test facility. Hell, in the auto world, not every car coming off the assembly line undergoes a crash test.

How much of the R&D budget would it cost audio manufacturers to ship a sample of each of their products a a central testing facility? Less than one percent, maybe?

hearingimpared

Early B. wrote: »

HI -- I'm not talking about shipping every speaker to a test facility. Hell, in the auto world, not every car coming off the assembly line undergoes a crash test.

How much of the R&D budget would it cost audio manufacturers to ship a sample of each of their products a a central testing facility? Less than one percent, maybe?

I understood that from the initial statement. I don't know how much it would cost. I just know that the overall cost would be passed onto the consumer. Whose to say it is a valid spec or even one that I or you would agree with or could even hear?

phipiper10

While we argue about subjectivity anyone with a bit of experience care to respond to my thread on making some changes to my pre/amp?

Sorry for derail.......or am I!?!?!?! MWUHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!:)

markmarc

National Research Council (NRC) of Canada

reeltrouble1

I would rather go to a Polkfest or hang out with a club member and hear stuff. Really never put alot of stock in tests, specs, and so on. That is where I found the Amazing's sound, at a Polkfest.

So I guess I will pass on this idea, as I already can already find specs on the pieces that interest me.

RT1

PolkThug

TroyD

Even if you came up with a 'standard' (which you can't, I mean audio has been a serious hobby for what, 50 years?)...no one would ever agree on what the 'standard' actually means in terms of quality.

BDT

Yashu

Standards won't happen simply because manufacturers have too much to hide. How could they convince you to pay their exorborant prices if they measure the same as something a quarter of the price. Why do you think bose does not publish ANY measurements?

I would love SOME standard... a song, a CD, a tone, noise, whatever... but then the makers would actually have to man up and justify their cost.

heiney9

Yashu wrote: »

Standards won't happen simply because manufacturers have too much to hide. How could they convince you to pay their exorborant prices if they measure the same as something a quarter of the price. Why do you think bose does not publish ANY measurements?

I would love SOME standard... a song, a CD, a tone, noise, whatever... but then the makers would actually have to man up and justify their cost.

Please refer to post #100, there is no conspiracy. One standard would be impossible to establish and even if we did, who cares. It won't sound the same (or measure the same) once you get it home in your room with your gear with your music with your ears and your brain processing the information.

H9