2. misc-audio
  3. 157436-20253

In Defense of Audiophiles, Bose, Pass, Toole and Science

I don’t know why I look at Audio Science Reviews equipment reviews, they usually make me bang my head against my desk. The claims they make of being scientific is pretty half-baked. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate measurements, and the time it takes to conduct them, along with insights into the causes, but judging all electronics based on 40+ year old measurements which have not really become closer to explaining human perception and enjoyment, they claim to be objective scientists. They are not. Let me tell you some of the people who are:

  1. Bose
  2. Harman
  3. Nelson Pass
  4. Floyd Toole


This may look like a weird list, but here is what all these have in common: They strive to link together human perception and enjoyment of a product to measurements. Each have taken a decidedly different, but very successful approach. They’ve each asked the question differently. I don’t always agree with the resulting products, but I can’t deny that their approach is market based and scientific.


Floyd Toole’s writing on room tuning, frequency response and EQ combines exact measurements with human perception, and as big a scientist as he is he remains skeptical of measurements, and with good reasons.


The process Nelson Pass uses is exactly right. His hypothesis is that a certain type of distortion, along with other important qualities, are what make for a great sounding amp, and lets face it, the process, and his effectiveness cannot be denied as not being scientific or financially successful. Far more scientific than designing or buying an amp based on THD% at 1 watt alone.


Bose is also very very scientific, but they come at the problem differently. Their question is: What is the least expensive to manufacture product we can make given what most consumers actually want to hear?" Does it work? They have 8,000 employees and approximately $4B in sales per Forbes:


https://www.forbes.com/companies/bose/#1926b3a81c46


Honestly, I don’t know how your average Bose product would measure, but you don’t get to these numbers without science. Assuming they measure poorly, doesn’t that mean measurements are all wrong?


The work Harman has done in getting listening panels together, and trying out different prototypes while adhering to previous science is also noteworthy. Most notably and recently with their testing of speaker dispersion which has resulted in the tweeter wave guides in the latest Revel speakers. They move science forward with each experiment, and then put that out into their products.


Regardless of the camp you fall into, crusty old measurements, perception measurements or individual iconoclast, we also must account for person to person variability. It’s been shown for instance that most people have poor sensitivity to phase shifts in speakers (like me), but if you are THAT person who has severe sensitivity to it, then all those studies don’t mean a thing.


My point is, let’s not define science as being purely in the domain of an oscilloscope. Science is defined by those who push the boundaries forward, and add to our understanding of human perception as well as electron behavior through a semi-conductor and air pressure in a room. If it’s frozen in 40 year old measurements, it’s not science, it's the worship of a dead icon.


Best,


E

erik_squires
minorl
1,016 posts
 
To  be clear, this is all science. Try designing an amplifier, DAC, filter, etc. without incorporating serious science.  You can't.  Some of you are talking like things just appear on shelves for your enjoyment without any science behind it.

Make a transistor or a vacuum tube without science.  Go ahead I dare you.

People dismiss science and measurements as if they don't  or shouldn't exists.  They do.  The issue with audio equipment and measurement is that is wasn't that important to the general well being.  Who cares?  just do it.  But, if you put enough importance behind the why science, it would be done.  Right  now, it just isn't that important.  Of course it can be measured.  It's just not that important to spend serious scientific time and expense to do it. 

Getting planes to fly correctly with the advanced circuitry involved without crashing and killing people.  That is important. Getting autonomous cars to operate correctly without driving off a cliff, that takes serious measurements and is important.

Put enough time and money behind finding the why and it will be done.  It is all science.  This is not subjective.

Many can build an amp from off the shelf parts.  But, can you actually design and build the amp from scratch understanding the math and science behind it?  Can you show the equations and calculations behind why you are getting the input impedance or output impedance you desired, the gain, the frequency response?  can you actually calculate and show the circuit's transfer function?  do you even know what that is?

The science behind the why.  What effects room characteristics have on sound, different types of transformers constructions, resistors, capacitors, coils.  boy oh boy.  We are talking serious science.

why does this 100 wpc amp sound great and this other 100 wpc amp sound like crap?  all amps are the same right?  Wrong!  look at the transfer function response.

All caps are the same right?  Wrong!. So the question is, what do you want to measure and is that important enough to spend tons of money and invest lots of time and effort to do it?  Most cases in the audio world the answer is no.  That does not mean it can't be done.

  Go listen to and record a band playing in a certain venue (outside or inside) good seats.  What do you hear?  now if the recording is done correctly (not always the case), play it back on pretty decent equipment.  Tube or solid state or both.  Does it sound anywhere close to what you originally heard?  Probably not.

Well since most people won't be at the original venue to hear the original performance and then hear it again recorded, some audio manufacturers "tune" their equipment to "sound good".  Very subjective.  Not necessary accurate technologically.  An amplifier is suppose to amplify the signal exactly with no alterations other than gain.  But, that is typically not the case not is it?  The amp adds something(s).  Typically distortion.  Some "sound good" others don't.   so tune the amp's distortion characteristics so that it sounds better.  Doesn't mean it is accurate.  From a scientific view, you would never try to add characteristics to an amp.  But from a sound perspective, maybe you want to.

Anyway, stop dissing science and measurements.  If it was important enough to do it, it could be and would be done.

enjoy
erik_squires OP
16,416 posts
 
I'll throw in a measurement which may go the wrong way.  Linearity of a DAC.  The linearity is basically that as the signal level changes (and this can be sample to sample) is the output correctly matching the input?  Much like the linearity of a transistor or tube. 

The measurements would indicate that a more linear DAC is a better DAC, right?  Well, what if a little compression actually sounds better?  For instance, as the notes decay, and we are left with the acoustics of the room, it's quite possible we prefer these ambient cues to be exaggerated so we can better hear them.  I think I do, though I've not confirmed this via measurements. 

It is merely engineering or QA to ascribe value based purely on best linearity.  It is science to compare different linearity DAC's or signals and see which is preferred by listeners. 

Does this help others see the gap I'm talking about?

Best,
E
wormtosser
13 posts
 
Erik,

I own and enjoy a DAC/headphone amp by Pro-Ject Audio that has taken a unique approach to the "science vs. art," or "measurements vs. sound" conundrum.  Unlike the great designers/teams you mentioned, they chose not to decide, sort of.  Cue Rush "Freewill." 

The Pre Box S2 Digital (awful name) offers an option to choose a "Test" configuration.  This is the configuration in which the DAC measures best on the O-scope, and includes "Distortion Compensation," whatever that is. 

But Pro-Ject acknowledges that this mode doesn't actually sound great, and that they included this "Test" option in the menu strictly for the consumption of measurement buffs (like ASR):
 https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-pro-ject-pre-box-s2-digital.2370/

The alternative is "Best" mode, which turns off the Distortion Compensation, and possibly does more.  They say despite the testing data, it just sounds better.  So I suppose they really did decide, at least for themselves, and then left implementation for the end user to decide. 

At first I disagreed with their recommendation for both best/test mode, and their recommendation for their proprietary reconstruction filter (for non-MQA files).  As so often happens over time, I tired of the "snappy" sound and eventually embraced their implementation thoughts - smoother thoughts - to my current delight.   

I'm not aware of other manufacturers attempting to offer both sides of the measurements/sound quality coin, so thought you might find this approach interesting.  

Thanks, Erik, I enjoy your posts - 

JG

glupson
7,842 posts
 
geoffkait,

"...no, no, I don’t think they wanted me to talk really, I don’t think they wanted me to say anything."
So you think all of us here are Japanese?
djones51
4,947 posts
 
 Wormtosser, Did you read through that thread? The "test" mode had more distortion, when the distortion compensation was turned off some of the numbers were better than the test mode. They couldn't figure out what was going on since it looked like distortion compensation was doing the opposite of what it was suppose to do. 
More to discover