Specifications VS Sound Quality

Specs will be a guide for the consumer to have a basic understanding of how one component will work with another.

Surely, I am normally aware of some specs like power output, THD and, maybe some other basics.
But by knowing specs of a component do you really have an understanding of what a piece sounds like?

No, not really. Specifications are really meant to ensure you aren’t being ripped off. The amplifier measurements are a great example of this. Established by the federal trade commission, I believe, not the NIST.

These ratings are meant to ensure a 100 Watt amplifier really has more output than a 20 Watt amplifier and it’s not just a matter of being supremely optimistic. It also helps you figure out if a speaker is going to be too difficult to drive when you match a speaker's minimum impedance to the amp's.

I know of almost no speaker measurement commonly sold that offers any better. In this case though the minimum impedance and sensitivity ratings can be quite helpful in getting you into the ballpark of being loud enough with your amplifier.

With cartridges and preamplifier impedance ratings it can help you match up one to the other.

The character of a piece of equipment however is very complex.

But by knowing specs of a component do you really have an understanding of what a piece sounds like?
Maybe that is an obvious no.

Technically, there is a level of analysis where the answer is yes. In terms of finding musically satisfying components however the answer is a big fat no.

The problem is it can often times take a great deal of understanding technical specifications combined with real world experience to get to where you understand just how unimportant specs really are. Much more common are those who have memorized a whole lot of technojargon and throw it back at you. Ask a few questions, almost always turns out they don’t really understand what they said in the first place.

Even something as simple as measuring speaker sensitivity. This is by the way one of the very few specs it is helpful to know. But not because it tells you anything about how the speaker will sound, but because it can help you get a speaker instead of a headache.

But like I said, even something as seemingly simple as sensitivity. We had someone complaining he wasn’t measuring as good a number as the manufacturer claimed. Five thousand words later the guy was still trying to figure out at what distance does he measure what frequency and where relative to the speaker and where relative to the room or does it need to be a pulse and if so how fast to avoid room reflections affecting the result, on and on and fricken on endlessly and all to measure this one elementary seemingly easy to understand simple cut and dried thing.

So try and guess how we are gonna spec out something not so cut and dried. Where is the spec for sound stage depth? We pretend to be able to measure Total Harmonic Distortion. So where is the measurement for Total Harmonic Truth of Timbre? If you can’t measure one how can you pretend to be measuring the other? Anyone? Beuller?

Fact of the matter is there’s about a million sonic attributes we can sense, and some of us fabulously well in any room any time any system. Compared to about a dozen things we can measure, sort of, under laboratory conditions, almost always that have nothing to do with any room you ever saw in your life. Anechoic chamber, what a joke. Yet just look how much guys have invested in it.

All of the above by the way applies to audiophiles. Not builders, and certainly not designers. Whole different thing. Dumbest thing in the world for an audiophile to invoke scientific statistically significant double blind testing. Even though it can be a really good approach for a manufacturer. Horses for courses.

Specs are for comparing similar components or for narrowing down your selections but in the end the only way to tell is to listen and compare the pieces side by side on the speakers you will be using in your room before you will truly know how the specific piece will perform on your music with your system in your room.

millercarbon:

As someone whose eyes start to glaze over whenever technical specs become the topic of discussion, I'm reassured by your post, given your  knowledge and experience  I've always depended upon my ears and so far, they've served me well. . . 

Specs are mostly useless but with years of experience you can sort of read between the lines. A 100wpc $300 Sony receiver is not going to be equal to a 100 wpc Musical Fidelity integrated even if ALL the specs are comparable. . 

I was prompted to start this thread by a friend who is as extremely knowledgeable Audio manufacturer and audiophile who looked at the specs of my new amp and said that it was one of the best amps of its class available. He also heard my rave comments. I liked the encouragement but wonder what the basis of his remarks.

The main value  of specifications to someone who knows how to interpret them properly  is objectively deciding which components to try ie which components are likely to work best in a specific system with others.   You will get to a better place faster if you learn to assess and use specs properly.  Otherwise deciding what to buy is a total gamble with nothing concrete to validate buying decisions other than hearsay or pure guessing. 

In most of the cases specs are just the last part in the page. You read those you are interested in as to have a better picture.

mapman:

"The main value  of specifications to someone who knows how to interpret them properly  is objectively deciding which components to try ie which components are likely to work best in a specific system with others"

The above makes sense to me but this next part of your post I find confusing:

"Otherwise deciding what to buy is a total gamble with nothing concrete to validate buying decisions other than hearsay or pure guessing"

Seems to me that listening is very "concrete". And it's not unusual for reviewers to state that a component sounds really good even though it does not measure ideally in some regard. 

What is it I'm not understanding about your post?  

@stuartk You can of course listen to hear other places before buying and you should listen to as much as you can both live and otherwise to train your ears. Listening is always the best evidence. But it’s the system making the music and in that room not any single part alone. You can hear what each piece is capable of but that does not tell you what things will sound like at home in your room. So either replicate the system exactly and hope it works as well at home or understand what makes each piece work and work well together including in the room you heard. That’s where specs help to achieve your goals faster and more cost effectively. Only then can you can possibly compare apples and apples correctly when making buying decisions.  

mapman:

Sorry-- I naively assumed no-one would buy gear they couldn't try out first in their room, either borrowed or bought with a return policy! ! !  

Limiting my choices to only those brands I can demo at home (and return if need be) does cut down on my options but I haven't found that a barrier to assembling a system I very much enjoy. 

Thanks for your very patient response. 

Sure well you still have to decide what to try so same  story of course.  Specs help. 

I use many reviews to analyse for some older design that help way more than specs if someone cannot listen to the gear before buying...

I dont regret any of my choices....

"Real"  specs are useful to create standards not so much  for picking  the gear we will love....

Sorry-- I naively assumed no-one would buy gear they couldn't try out first in their room, either borrowed or bought with a return policy! ! !  

Please see: https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367#89829
First off, every single item was bought sight unheard. Been so long since I did a home audition I don't even remember any more. 16-20 years I bet.

Subs, amp, conditioner, cartridge, arm, turntable, crossovers, whole bunch of stuff bought with no return. Phono stage, whole bunch of other stuff I never asked or even considered asking. If I even thought of sending something back that's not buying, that's trying. Don't confuse the two.

I am currently in the process of ordering a Raven Reflection MkIII. These are made to order. There are no returns. This concerns me not even in the least.

As you can probably figure out there was a time 16-20 years ago when I thought home auditioning was important, even essential. Probably still is, at least within a certain range of buyer skill and equipment performance. Above that level though, whole different ballgame. In that case then yes, you are naive to assume.

No one put cost of the product as a factor? I guarantee you, that might be one of the most important factors. If the specs are the same, and one product costs five times more than the other, which do you buy?

Since there is no way you can audition equipment, you have to go by what you read. Presently, I'm making some important and expensive for me upgrades, and partially, I'm going by "history" of the name, and is it currently in production.

"Herron Phono" is no longer in production, so that's been scratched off, but I have yet to find a replacement.

If the specs of two different amps are the same, and your hearing is not as good as it once was, you probably couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.

Even if a CJ amp and an ARC amp had the same specs, they would sound different, but not everyone can hear the difference.

Before I spend any money, I'm going to an "audiologist"; one must begin at the beginning.

mapman:

Understood. In fact, I'm fairly obsessive when it comes to researching when I feel an upgrade cycle approaching.

orpheus:

Price is the first thing I look at, because I don't have huge amounts of cash to spend.  This has the effect of dramatically shrinking the pool of potential purchases from the onset. Furthermore, as mentioned, I only purchase gear I can demo at home and return, if need be, minimizes options still further. Haven't found this to be a problem, though.  

millercarbon:

You are light-years beyond me in knowledge and experience.
I hope you'll indulge my naivete a little further...

Earlier in the post, you state:

"Technically, there is a level of analysis where the answer is yes. In terms of finding musically satisfying components however the answer is a big fat no.

The problem is it can often times take a great deal of understanding technical specifications combined with real world experience to get to where you understand just how unimportant specs really are".

So, how, exactly do you leverage your understanding when it comes to buying components? What does your buying process look like, if specs and listening are not involved?  This seems quite mysterious to me. 

Ages ago I relied heavily on specifications; that was when I was into SS. Once I discovered how much better tubes sounded, even when SS had better specs, I quit relying so heavily on specs.

Impedance is a very important spec for apparent reasons. Presently, I have plans on the drawing board that I don't think will include auditions. In the past, auditioning would have been the first step. Now that high end salons are no longer an option, I'll be relying heavily on past knowledge of "sonic signatures"; such as the difference between CJ and ARC, instead of auditioning; also the "Stereophile" reviews will mean a lot; preferably only "A" ranked equipment. All of that of course will depend on an "A" ranked bankroll, which is pending.

Since auditioning is absolutely out of the question, I will rely heavily on past knowledge, plus reviews, and only the most important specs. I've noticed that within a certain price range, specs are very close.

Fortunately, if the pending bankroll does not materialize, I'll remain comfortably in place. As a footnote, I noticed everything I own costs over twice as much now.

Speakers are the riskiest purchase without an audition, and specs will not tell you what a speaker sounds like. I've heard many of the best speakers that are discussed here, and they are all over the place when it comes to how they sound. Since I like the speakers I got, and I have back problems which makes wrestling with heavy speakers out of the question (setting them up and sending them back) The only option I have is to buy and keep, or leave them alone.

orpheus:

Looks like you've answered the question I'd posed to millercarbon.
The "crux of the biscuit", as F. Zappa might say, appears to be this: 

"Now that high end salons are no longer an option, I'll be relying heavily on past knowledge of "sonic signatures"; such as the difference between CJ and ARC, instead of auditioning..."

I'll assume you've gained this "knowledge of sonic signatures" by listening. 

Speakers are like acoustic guitars, I guess. Last fall, I spent nearly $1000 for shipping a handful of boutique acoustic guitars out here (CA) from various shops back east. Didn't like any of 'em. Got fed up and decided to just keep my mid-level Martin. If I ever upgrade my Silverlines, it will be to the current version. At least I know what sort of sonic signature to expect. 

Thanks for your helpful posts.

This thread has made me aware of the fact that these are some "strange times"; I was considering a Herron phono, but they're no longer being manufactured.

Since I can't audition speakers, and I'm familiar with "Thiel" speakers, I was considering them, but they are no more.

Recently, I received a DAC that was DOA, and they charged me a restocking fee when I sent it back. Maybe my best bet is to just be content with what I have.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with both CJ and ARC; I like CJ pre amps, but I like ARC power amps better.

The best audio I've ever heard in my life was quite simple, it was all top of the line ARC electronics including ARC "CD" player, with top of the line Theil speakers.

This was in a "high end salon" where they had a small theater that was professionally treated for the best acoustics. (who knows how much that had to do with the sound)

This was in 91 or 92, it was before the vinyl craze. I chose the CD, Santana's "Abraxas". I bought that LP in 1970, and wore out many copies since that time, so to say that I was familiar with the music is an understatement.

On this occasion, I heard sounds and music that I've never heard before nor since; it was like being on the set while it was being recorded and being in the same space with the musicians.

Since this was in 91 or 92, that shouldn't be too hard to recreate now, but I got a feeling that the room set up and the people required to do it might cost more than the equipment.

This was in a "high end salon" where they had a small theater that was professionally treated for the best acoustics. (who knows how much that had to do with the sound)

More than half of the  % of S.Q.

In my experience.... And this is true for all system at any cost...

Speakers cannot replace the room controls and  dac and amplifiers cannot replace speakers quality, nevermind their cost....

For me they is 2 groups in audio: electronical  piece of gear fetichist and people who know that what is essential is controls of the environment in the 3 dimansions: vibrations, electrical noise floor and especially acoustic...

More than half of the % of S.Q.

In my experience.... And this is true for all system at any cost...

Speakers cannot replace the room controls and dac and amplifiers cannot replace speakers quality, nevermind their cost....

For me they is 2 groups in audio: electronical piece of gear fetishist and people who know that what is essential is controls of the environment in the 3 dimensions: vibrations, electrical noise floor and especially acoustic...

It’s important to understand that sound quality comes from the quality of the noise floor of a room or space and the isolation and quality of isolation for the equipment and the parts therein. The dynamic range and the intricate subtleties in it are available for humans to peruse via the quality of the noise floor, not from how loud the equipment can inherently play vs it’s given native noise floor (pre noise isolation vs after isolation) and and listing space acoustic qualities, and so on.

"This speaker goes to 125db peaks!" is a meaningless specification if they can’t also improve the dynamic range that occurs without the rise of masking noise/distortion.

Dropping a set of klipschorns in a noisy and untreated room that had, lets say.. a set of simple two ways prior... will not give any more audio quality. It will just make the peaks louder and saturated with more untamed follow-up interfering noise -past the initial transients.

This may (and does) create a different human realized distortion and noise pattern for the listener... but it will not fix or improve anything.

Removing masking noise via improving acoustics is the most critical thing a person can do to improve the observed sound quality of an audio system.

And that requires research, lots of research and work and thoughtful application to the specific case at hand - as acoustics is not a simple problem. Otherwise we’d all have it down to a fine science and all be observing it’s correct effective use in our own systems. Note that we are not.

The next problem is that the sonic character realized in the listening space will then change.. and one might then realize that some or many of the equipment choices were wrong, as their focus, design, and overall aims in creating signal, are literally backwards (screechy over emphasized/distorted highs and transients, to try and outshout the noise!) as they were designed for poorly treated and realized acoustical spaces.

Places where, in the final analysis, people were and are listing almost backward from where they should be. Listening for sharp exaggerated peaks (with inherent long noise tails--which mask fine detail) instead of listening into the noise floor. Like trying to locate the origin and expressive character of a sharp transient gunshot and it's envelope of decay and echo.. over the din of noise from a crowd. If the crowd shut the heck up this would be quite easy. Instead it is difficult and takes time to discern just the peak alone over all the noise going on. never mind the decay and echo tail.

the data shows this to be true in that that one can gather any given 5 or so out of hundreds of various advertised ’revealing’ pieces of audio gear... and the resulting sytem will inherently screech in a very unlikable and unlistenable manner.

Yet this specification of being ’revealing’, in some ways, notably defines a goodly portion the aim of mainstream high end audio.

Correct acoustics is key in properly done high end audio rooms. then one can set about chasing the right gear to couple to that space. As the proper fidelity can finally be heard and realized in the correct acoustical space.

It’s generally a case of half steps in each direction, over and over until it is zeroed in. Everyone learns at a different pace and in their own personal ways, so it’s not a one size fits all equation in the getting there even if the aim is a 100% definable singular real thing.

All roads lead to Rome... but everyone gets their own road, if they can realize the road exists and needs be traveled. 

Importantly, the pressure loading pattern in the human ear also affects how the cila bend back and recognize signal. The pressure distortion of noise patterns in the ear retards the act of detail recognition right in the actual signal loading in the ear. this involves the noise floor of the room and how it decays and removes that noise before it reaches the ear. Remove the disturbance and recognize nuance in the signal.

Removing masking noise via improving acoustics is the most critical thing a person can do to improve the observed sound quality of an audio system.

And that requires research, lots of research and work and thoughtful application to the specific case at hand - as acoustics is not a simple problem. Otherwise we’d all have it down to a fine science and all be observing it’s correct effective use in our own systems. Note that we are not.

My own solution work for me:

Passive material treatment with a balance between reflection and diffusion and absorption...

But the Activation of the zone pressures of my room by adding a grid of Helmholtz homemade resonators, which i called a mechanical equalizer gives me the real improvement ( located at some critical ponts in my room )....Tuned by ears with a method to "mark out" the first frontwaves coming from each speaker for each ears....

For vibrations controls of my speakers i use a sandwih of different materials under my speakers.... But it is not enough, i added a 4 springs sets under the speakers, and i added 4 others springs boxes under a fine tuned load on top of my speakers.... This worked at peanits costs...

For my electrical noise floor i used a edevice i created the "golden plate" a piece of shungite +copper tape on external side.... I have them all along my electrical grid...


The results make my ratio S.Q./price very interestesting.... My 500 bucks system is not better than many system here but i am not so far behind them.... People would be astonished....


My best and regards...

teo_audio, I know a lot about high end audio, but I know very little about "room acoustics". At this late date I'm not going to try to learn; what professional services would I need to treat my listening room, and what do you think would be the cost?

By your post, I have assumed that you might know the answer to these questions?

Upgrade obsession is born fron acoustical ignorance and marketing ploys to sell new electronical design, which may be better BUT which will never  replace acoustic  controls....

I think it’s best to consider technical specs to be an indicator of the quality of the item rather than how it will sound. Harmonic distortion describes how linear the amplifier is (how closely the output resembles the input) which is important, however the difference between 0.001 and 0.0001% is unlikely to be heard... but it is an indicator of the quality of the overall design. The method of measuring THD uses a simple sine wave as input which causes some to say that it’s not representative of music. Intermodulation distortion measures the reproduction of multiple frequencies and so is often considered to be a more relevant spec.
Noise measurements are pretty indisputable (THD+N, Noise Floor, Signal to Noise Ratio). The greater the SNR the less noise there will be, but again, the difference between 115dB and 120dB is unlikely to be audible.
In general, if you know how to read them then graphs are much more informative than numeric values (0.1%, 100dB etc.).
In terms of putting a system together the least used tech specs (in my experience) are the most important ones... gain (or output level), impedance, power and loudspeaker sensitivity. They don’t tell you how good a component is but they do tell you whether it will play nicely with the rest of your equipment.
One last point... if you’re comparing different specs be sure to read the small print e.g. the conditions measured. Was THD measured at 1W or full output power, was loudspeaker sensitivity measured with a 1W or 2.83V signal, these things matter. Also if you’re trying to compare a % measurement with decibels there are plenty of online tools that will convert between the two.
I think the problem with specifications is that you need to understand what they’re telling you to make use of them and that takes a bit of effort to learn.
Nothing beats listening as long as you get a decent amount of time to figure out whether you like how something sounds.

Great post! thanks...

Regards...

****
I think it’s best to consider technical specs to be an indicator of the quality of the item rather than how it will sound. ****

Personally, I would put the word “technical” in front of “quality”. After all, is not the most relevant indicator of quality how it actually sounds? How close it sounds to actual music? I think there are still some things we don’t understand about electronics and how their specifications relate to the sound of music.  

This is a very important conversation, and the reason it's so important is because there are few, if any "High end salons".

So many different sounds with the same specifications, and even similar high prices; especially speakers.

There are so many things I would like to hear and try, but since I can't audition, I'm forced to stick with the tried and proven, but even that's not guaranteed. With so many wild cards in the deck, you have to read yourself silly before making a decision.

Specs are great for those unsure of their own ears. Do you want the micro biological description of the food you plan to eat? Maybe you do...

I still don’t understand the relationship between specifications and sound. Other then the bottom line that one really is not able to know the quality of a component without actually hearing.

There is a much closer relationship with money and sound than there is with specs and sound.

A mid level solid state amp could have the same specs as a more expensive tube amp, but the more expensive amp would sound much better.

When you get to extremes in specifications, you will also get to extremes in the quality of the audio, as well as the price. (so far, this has been my experience)

If you can audition the equipment, you don't have to know anything about specifications, just go with what ever sounds the best, and google for quality of the product; but if that's not possible it will be necessary for you to learn something about specifications. Now, you have to hear what you read.

people who want you to buy their stuff write the numbers... there is little standardization, even less honesty... people who know numbers can lie with numbers as well as people who know words lie with words

the only numbers i trust would from be top notch makers with immaculate reputations, and comparing gear WITHIN their line - then the specs would presumably be on the same basis, and MAY tell you something useful about a vs b...

nothing substitutes for testing in home, in system