Values do not equal measurements. You can average or subsummarize opinions or results of a poll or preferences or subjective verdicts. That is totally legitimate, but there is no reasoning for treating a subjective verdict of individuals as ´invalid´ but the average of many subjective verdicts like facts or result of a scientific process.
That was exactly my point. If you do such preference tests with a large group, you get an average curve which would no annoy the majority under given circumstances. But that does neither mean the same result would be applicable to different scenarios nor does it mean that achieving this ´majority does not get annoyed´ is the only legitimate goal for all other products on the market.
I have no doubts that there are models which can be distinguished from each other, but that does not correlate with a measurement like SNR or SINAD which are far from being audible as an artifact.
In principle I agree with you, but even in concert reality acoustic instruments and voices are usually recorded with microphones, electronically amplified, optimised and finally distributed to the audience via loudspeakers. Chamber concerts or symphonic works in special concert halls or opera houses are perhaps an exception, but even there the room and the individual placement influence the perception of the music, be it positively or negatively.
The extent to which various measurement methods can simulate human hearing and are therefore a reliable source has already been discussed in detail here.
Inspired by your post, I am currently listening to ‘Kuniko Plays Reich - Six Marimba Counterpoints’ in 24/192 FLAC from my music server. I downloaded the album from the Linn Records homepage in 2018 and I can’t complain about the recording and playback quality.
Average is merely a low-pass filter… You can have many different kinds of low-pass filter, thus there are many different ways of averaging. In mathematics too, arithmetical mean, geometric mean, etc…
Yepp! The comparison I did, is the unamplified completely analogue and acoustic music as perceived being there, when it happened. Everytime I do this I ruin my joy in played back music for some time … …the marimba sounds good recorded, but not real.
We had a very skilled but peculiar person i Sweden named Georg Bolin. He built giutars and he was the acoustic engineer behind the typical acoustic panels in the reknown Berwaldshallen in Stockholm. What he did when called upon, when the need for a louder acoustic guitar emerged, was to add a microphone, and amplifier, but he designed a speaker with the exact property of the guitar body and the voice coil coupling to the lid where the bridge attaches normally, to transmit the vibrations exactly as the guitar itself works. Further I understood it took some experiments to place the microphone exactly where he thought it would sound exactly as the guitar.
Every audio system I listen to, suffers from this feeling of not being able to depict the initial dynamic attack of an real instrument. Some are better, horn speakers are closer to that immediate low latency explosive attack, letting me as listener closer to each phrasing. Dynamic speakers are generally not there. Focal at least strive to.
This hobby is great with its underlaying challanges …
With the current state of the art, it’s at the very beginning and end of the chain from recording to reproducing sounds, where the principles of converting to and from an electrical signal cause losses, that by very far outweigh any intermediate stages’ deficiencies.
No use in trying to cure inaudible gremlins.
Even budget electronics and wires do suffice in this golden age of HiFi, so any further audible improvement can only be gained by innovating microphone and transducer technology.
Audiophile beware and don’t fall for all those so called experts, longing for publicity and cash…
It does not mean that it would NOT be applicable in other scenarios either, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is not.
That said, sure, it is not rhe only legitimate goal. No one claims that it is, and lots of vendors are making speakers with decidedly different FR that some people do like well enough.
Huh? That’s exactly what it correlates with.
I would think Toole & Co. did know how to use population statistics properly.
There are oppsite opinions in that aspect. Not that the price necessarily needs to be high, but the implementation of electronics and best practice. The group of hifi people I joined, have for years been DIY’ers and have modified electronics accordingly. The hifi devices is independent of the price, ever so often surprisingly sloppy crafted. Just a simple zobel net on the speaker terminals on the speakers and amps are in most gear left out. So much of the older findings is not implemented, like twisting cable pairs inside devices. XLR pin 1 soldered to the pcb. Check it out yourself, you’re in for a surprice. It seems good ingineering principles, is not used. And it is audible after corrective actions.
I have to say I’m very skeptical of DIY mods. Many of them are undertaken by those who do not fully understand what they’re doing. If it’s low cost and could make a significant improvement in sound quality, then the manufacturer would have already done it.
A Zobel network on an amplifier’s output is only necessary if the amplifier would otherwise have a tendency to oscillate. OK, some vintage Naim gear didn’t have it and the amps were prone to oscillation with certain speaker cables, but that’s the rare exception.
If needed, the network should be as close to the amplifier’s output as possible, and not on the speaker.
Speakers do sometimes incorporate Zobel networks, however these are connected to a particular driver where the rising voice coil impedance with frequency presents a problem in the crossover network.
Audibility of a given mod can only be truly tested in a double blind comparison between a modified and an modified unit which had identical measured performance before the modification. This is rarely ever the case, so the outcomes of modifications are entirely open to subjective bias.
And if you reread my post, you might notice me mentioning state of the art, and I mean the art of engineering, not some atrocious monstrosity, assembled by tinkering amateurs.
Yes, it does mean exactly that. And the fact that nearly every manufacturer is following a different strategy how to tune their headphones and loudspeakers, is evidence enough that an average curve meeting exactly the majority of listener´s taste does not exist.
Evidence or explanation, please, why noisefloor or distortion measurements correlate with listener preference in a subjective test constituting a ranking?
SNR and SINAD have been invented to define a threshold below which the measured artifacts (noisefloor, distortion or alike) are definitely inaudible. If this threshold is met, you can be sure there is no audible difference originating from the assigned artifact. If the values are higher than the threshold, no clear assumption is possible. It might be audible, but depending on the parameters might be inaudible as well.
So it is a ´trust-the-manufacturer-with-the-biggest-R&D-pocket´ kind of thing? No explanation, no example, no logic necessary?
Does not sound convincing to me. Do not understand why I should take the opinion of a number of individuals on a very subjective matter more as a given gold standard than the opinion of a limited number of experts who do not do any mass tests and come to a different conclusion.
I tend to believe the side with the best explanation and the most convincing practical demos matching my personal experience.
In my opinion a lot of people (if not all) blowing the relevance of the papers of Sean Olive completely out of proportion. These publiction(s) are interpreted as a “scientific law”, it is not, it is a publication about his findings, with his methodologies and all other boundaries/parameters in his study settings (studied population, used equipment etc.).
Yes, it is a scientific sound methodology and yes it is a reviewed publication but that does not necessarily make it “the truth” let alone the only truth. What the publication is lacking (at leat to my knowledge) is a validation of its findings by other scientists through experiments (not review), in best case through a different methodology. Most likely case is that other scientists will find different results and then a scientific discussion can start why they are different and from this discussions general accepted knowledge can be gained.
There are probably thousands of scientific sound and reviewed but completely contradicting publications about the topic climate change out there.
1 Like
AceRimmer
(Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!)
158
Gentlemen!
Yet again we have the same two members who just can’t seem to help themselves from trying to prove who is “right” over and over.
Please step back and stay on topic.
Thank you for your cooperation!
It appears that two notices from moderators isn’t sufficient for some. This is the final reminder about endless contrarianism.
We all know that the community is made up of opinions from purely subjective to entirely quantitative, with every shade in between. We don’t need this kind of discussion again–and if it continues I will shut down the thread, or, if I have the energy and time, remove those posts that engage in the same argument time and again.
I don’t intend to single anyone out as I think it is patently clear who I am flagging here. So, if you haven’t anything new to say, or are itching to get the last word in–walk away!
Thanks everyone, especially @jussi_laako, for your contributions to this thread. The discussion has veered wildly about, but I feel it still makes better sense left together than teased into separate threads. It has, however, run its course and can be closed up.
The comparison I did, is the unamplified completely analogue and acoustic music as perceived being there, when it happened. Everytime I do this I ruin my joy in played back music for some time … 