3D lifelike sound and impeccable measurements - mutually exclusive???

They aren’t mutually exclusive but I’d say measurements will get you closer than your ears alone.

It is the reverse... 😁😊



All piece of gear well designed sound good in principle... In reality they differ...For many reasons linked to many factors out of the narrow family of parameters used in the design creation, or linked to forgotten possible parameters,or unpredictible factors and the fact that this piece of gear so well designed it is, will be embed somewhere with something....And anyway any design is the result of a set of choices function of a trade-off....

Which part of your body will decide that this piece of audio gear is usable or good or bad or anything between all these and decide if the trade-off at the source of the designing process is good for you?

Not your brain alone reading schemas, but a brain coupled to your 2 ears in a particular set of acoustic condition called a room....

It is logical because the timing of actual waves event in your room to your ears is necessary for you to make a sound judgement about the resulting potential S.Q. coming from the timing bits coming from the recording process and translated through your dac...

Timing of bits is great but in reality equivalence is not equality, and timing of bits are not equal, even if equivalent, to timing of real events...There is a microphone separing the timing acoustical concrete events of the original lived event and the timing bits from the recording choices at beginning... And now there is a speakers/room/ears separating the timing of bits and the timing of events in the speaker/room and in your brain...

Because with a recording here we have 2 sets of timing concrete events : one recorded in bits in the dac itself, and one not recorded at all; but emerging in your room for your ears from the active room translating the timing bits through the amplifier/speakers in another timing sets of events...

I suppose you play with a dac, but using a turntable will not destroy my argument....



«Numbers on a dial never sing»-Groucho Marx listening to a radio set

«2 timing set of events called bodies must synchronize themselves in the act we call making love, and a piece of gear or the galaxy, nevermind which one, must synchronize and the synchronization is not a completely determined part of the initial timing events»-Anonymus Smith studying scaling design...

«Why not saying that more simply? A range of play between parts and scales»-Harpo Marx

«Are you an astrolog? »-G.Marx

They are not exclusive in fact the best components offer fantastic sound and measurement but they are not the components that the magazines write about but the components that stand the test of time because they are so good and always will be.

They are not exclusive in fact the best components offer fantastic sound and measurement but they are not the components that the magazines write about but the components that stand the test of time because they are so good and always will be.

Very well said....

Firstly, I am a scientist (in professional quality), so to me there is zero question about the objectivity and importance of measurements.
That being said, here we go:1. Industry does not measure all the parameters relevant to sound quality. We do not know what all those parameters are, and of those we know, some are just too hard to measure, or inconvenient. (Analogy: we are measuring blood pressure, weight, height, while we should be doing whole genome sequencing, transcriptome mapping and a metabolome report.)2. We fret greatly about hundredth of a percent of less distortion from an amplifier, and linearity range over a 20+ kilohertz, while the loudspeakers distortion is reaches the tens of percents and instead of a linear range we have a roller-coaster ride. So, if your amp is perfectly flat, you will hear every bump that your speakers add. You should have an amp that cancels out your loudspeakers distortion.
3. Equipment are considered without the effect of the room. The distortion of room + speakers + amp + source should be considered when talking about perceived sound quality, not that of a singled out component.4. Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability.

So, there is nothing wrong with measurements, but the applied methodology is lacking, or is just in its infancy to say the least. At the current state of measurement practices measured parameters are perfect predictors of whether the gear performs up to spec or requires maintenance. Also, we can infer many attributes when we know the equipment's topology plus measurements. (Eg the same set of measurements from a SET amp and a solid state amp will result in markedly different sound and loudspeaker compatibility.)As John Atkinson said, with measurement we can tell apart good speakers from bad speakers.
But the only way to tell a great speaker from a good speaker is by listening. (And that applies to other audio gear as well.)

As John Atkinson said, with measurement we can tell apart good speakers from bad speakers.
But the only way to tell a great speaker from a good speaker is by listening. (And that applies to other audio gear as well.)

Great post!

Your post add much to my main points and is clearer than mine...

But you are a scientist and you smell science...

So to speak!

My best to you.....