Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?


Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.

Why is it so?
pedroeb
Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.
Actually it doesn't.


But science is rarely applied when doing measurements. If you want the measurements to show what you need to know in order to know how the equipment will sound, don't hold your breath because spec sheets are generally created as a sales tool.

Now it is a simple fact that we can measure and correlate what we measure to what we hear and that is entirely due to studies of how the ear works, mostly done in the last 50 years.
If you want to know what to look for, take a look at a post I made on another thread (sorry, its long):
Distortion is in all forms of amplification. Of course we want it to be as low as possible but the ear poses some real challenges.


It uses the higher ordered harmonics (5th and above) to sense sound pressure, and to do that it has to be keenly sensitive to them! The ear is more sensitive to the higher ordered harmonics than almost anything else. For this reason, a THD of 0.01% can be very audible if that’s mostly higher orders.

The ear assigns tonality to all forms of distortion! The higher orders get ’harsh and bright’. We’ve all been hearing this in most solid state amps made in the last 70 years. Its why tubes are still around!!

The lower orders (2nd, 3rd and 4th) are nearly inaudible and mostly contribute to ’bloom’ and ’warmth’ using audiophile terms. The ear has a masking principle where louder sounds mask the presence of quieter sounds; if the lower orders are in sufficient quantity, they will mask the presence of the higher orders. When this happens, the amp will sound smooth and because the lower orders are mostly inaudible it will appear to be relatively neutral. If the amp has such a distortion signature this will be the case whether tube or solid state. But for technical reasons (its very hard to build a zero feedback solid state amp), until recently this has mostly been describing tube amplifiers.


The problem has been up until fairly recently that the the devices (whether tube or semiconductor) didn’t exist to allow the amplifier design to have a sufficient amount of feedback (on an engineering basis, the devices didn’t exist to allow for sufficient gain bandwidth product). You have several hurdles to cross; first when adding a lot of feedback you can’t exceed the phase margin of the amp otherwise it becomes unstable and can oscillate. Phase margin is an engineering way of saying that there’s a certain high frequency above which the negative feedback applied is no longer negative due to phase shift in the circuit.

The second problem is you have to have an enormous amount of gain- and with gain you get phase shift- because you really need north of 35dB of feedback in order to allow the amplifier to clean up the distortion caused by the application of feedback itself (which tends to be almost entirely higher ordered harmonics, caused by the process of bifurcation occurring at the point where the feedback is combined with the input signal). These higher ordered harmonics are of course audible which is why feedback has gotten a bad rap in high end audio over the last 40 years.


So you have to blow off 35 db of gain with feedback and still have a good 25dB of gain left over- so this means that at a minimum any amplifier that uses feedback properly will have a total gain (called ’loop gain’) of at least 60dB! Most amps made have far less than that which is why solid state has garnered a reputation for harsh and bright. Between 12 and 20dB is the area where feedback generates the most distortion: its on a bell curve. Yes, it does suppress distortion but my point here is that its makes some of its own too.


Because this is such a tall order, most amps simply didn’t do it. To deal with this problem, the industry (sweeping this under the carpet) only tests harmonic distortion of amplifiers at 100 Hz. At this frequency almost any solid state amp has enough feedback which is why they can play bass so well. But if you measure the same amp at 1KHz or 10KHz you’ll find the distortion is much higher- and of course that is why the amp sounds bright and harsh (its not a frequency response error). This increase of distortion with frequency is a sign that the amp lacks Gain Bandwidth Product. GBP is to feedback what gas is to car. When you use it up by increasing frequency, at some point there’s no more feedback. At any rate distortion is increased!


Tubes avoid this for the most part by having a greater amount of the lower ordered harmonics. So they lack the harshness and brightness not because they are lower distortion but **because the higher orders are masked**.

There are a number of solutions. One way to get tubes to be much lower distortion is to design the circuit to be fully differential and balanced from input to output. In this way, even orders are cancelled not just at the output but throughout the circuit. This results in a 3rd harmonic as the primary distortion and since the 3rd is quite close to the fundamental is treated by the ear the same as the 2nd. But it can easily be at a level 1/10th that of an amp that does not employ this technique, and succeeding harmonics will fall off at a faster rate according to a cubic progression because distortion isn’t compounded from stage to stage. For this reason such an amp is said to have a ’cubic non-linearity’ and is considerably more neutral and transparent than amps that express the 2nd order as dominant (a ’quadratic non-linearity’), yet just as smooth. This is true whether the circuit is tube or solid state.

Feedback can be avoided altogether, thus avoiding the brightness that occurs with its application. SETs are an example of this as well as our OTLs (which are fully balanced and differential) and there are solid state examples as well, such as the Ayre.


Another solution is to simply have enough gain and bandwidth using newer semiconductors so enough feedback can be applied so that the amp has consistent distortion at 1KHz and 10KHz as it does at 100Hz, and won’t oscillate with +35dB of feedback. This is a bit of a trick but it is doable and there are a few solid state amps of traditional design that do this- the Benchmark and Soulution come to mind.


Finally, class D amps can be built that have so much feedback that their phase margin is grossly exceeded and they go into oscillation as soon as they are turned on. The oscillation is then used as the switching frequency. This type of class D amp is known as ’self oscillating’ and can have very low distortion. Because of non-linearities in the encoding scheme and also due to dead time, lower ordered harmonics might be generated. If this is the case, such an amp will sound every bit as smooth and transparent as the best tube amps (due to masking) but with greater neutrality and transparency due to vastly lower distortion overall (in case its not clear, distortion masks detail).

So the bottom line is the distortion signature is more important than how much distortion is actually present. That is what the spec sheets aren't showing and why there's often a disconnect between what you hear and what is measured. Its not that we *can't* measure it, its simple because most of the time we simple *don't* measure it.


Thank you Atmasphere. 

Listening is important only as it applies to the individual. I know what I like to hear but that might not be what you want to hear. 

An amplifier that measures beautifully in the lab might sound very different in different installations due to interaction with the speaker's impedance curve. These interactions result in frequency response changes that are easily measured.   My ESLs will change dramatically with different amplifiers and all of them measure well. The ESLs will go from 30 Ohms down low to 1 ohm if you are lucky at 20 kHz. There is no surprise here at all. You have to get an amp that matches your speakers. Some speaker will sound the same with practically any amp, a high impedance speaker with a steady impedance curve. 

Subtle changes are just as likely to be imagined as real. It takes careful AB comparison to be sure. You have to know the limitation of human hearing and proceed with caution. You can not just declare that one amp sounds better than another when the changes are subtle. When an audiophile makes a bombastic , declarative statement they are more likely wrong than right. Intelligent listeners do not make statements like this. Any obvious difference has a reason that can be measured and usually occurs in the realm of frequency response. 

There is always a reason a piece of equipment sounds better. If your ears can hear it than it can be measured. Measuring devices are quantitatively far more accurate than your ears. I did not say measuring equipment is more sensitive than your ears. I suspect it is but I do not know for sure.

Can anybody please tell me what Magister is talking about? He lost me several posts ago. Must be my dyslexia.
Can anybody please tell me what Magister is talking about? He lost me several posts ago. Must be my dyslexia.
Dont make  of a possible useful tool a UNIQUE solution for all acoustic problem and for all people....

Helmholtz mechanical equalization work differently than electronical equalization without the SAME limitations ...

Instead of a tone frequency response for  static walls and for a microphone feedback....
Imagine a large bandwith response (an instrument timbre) crossing different dynamic  pressure zones of the room FOR YOUR EARS feedback

Now instead of the buttons and dials of your E.E. imagine the tuning by mechanical modification of the ratio volume/neck lenght-diameter of each Helmoltz resonators....

 Instead of listening to the  electronically modified frequency response of the speakers

imagine you listen to the tweeters and bass driver of each speakers marked out by many resonators mechanically modified so  and localized so to  help each ear to compute the direction of the sound and the way each eraly and late reflections will constitute each firt wavefront for each ear....

Then instead of creating a sweet spot which have an accuracy in millimeter with total chaos and no more usefullness out of this narrow spot which become no more sweet at all,

Think about a modification of ALL the room resonances with  the introduction  in many well choosen spots of a set of different pressure engines (helmholtz resonators).

The results: acoustic controls at will of imaging,soundstage,listener envelopment and source width and more importantly a control of the timbre experience which is music itself and no more only "sounds"....



BUT nothing is perfect.... It may be not practical for a living room BUT it is acoustically superior to control the room for the speakers instead of changing the speakers in relation to the room... 

We can use the two for sure, but advising people about electronical equalization ONLY AND MAINLY without speaking about his limitations is not the way....

And human ears dont listen TONE, they listen TIMBRE.....In music for eaxample a "tone" is a pitch perceived by the ears listening to a singer voicing it with his unique timbre....

Electronic is not acoustic and cannot replace it and acoustic is not music experience and cannot replace it ....They can be only relatively translated in one another...

Also mechanical equalization is more natural and less costly....


Then instead of making fun of me instead of arguments try to think out of your user manual booklet....


- Listenings experiments is the ONLY way to tune and fine tune the quality we ask for and which qualities are IMPOSSIBLE to deduce only from any set of measurements nevermind how big it is and how precise...


Why ?

Because many dimensions are at play which no limited measuring tools in their range of application can take into account simultaneously when what is designed is designed FOR ANOTHER HUMAN EARS....
All humans use the same hearing perceptual rules. For example, to sense sound pressure all human’s ear use the higher ordered harmonics. All human’s ears have a masking principle and so on.


Because there are a good number of measurements that never make it onto a spec sheet, IMO/IME the above quoted statement is false. If you understand the human hearing perceptual rules and design for them rather than a spec sheet you can easily design a circuit that will sound good the human ear.


All humans use the same hearing perceptual rules. For example, to sense sound pressure all human’s ear use the higher ordered harmonics. All human’s ears have a masking principle and so on.
You are absolutely right....

And it is IMPOSSIBLE to contradict that...

But the way human ears INTERPRET and PERCEIVE the sound experience in a specific room with specific gear is different for each of us...

It is the reason why in the publicity of the marketing of electronical equalizer company recommend it to make any consumers free to use it for different kind of music, different room, different TASTES....


Then affirming that there is a precise CORRELATION between electronical design and human perceiving experience is one thing and very true, but true also that no ears/brain will interpret exactly in the same qualitative terms all the conditions of a sound and musical experience...

This is why there is so good choices between so many different types of gear...

In my post then i was speaking about ALL factors and parameters in an audio experience not about the correlation between gear measurements and sound experience ONLY which is a fact of engineering like you had explained it very well in another post about amplifiers....

Perception of a color is the same for all human by law of physical optic, but many other parameters are at play that make the experience transcending optical physical law.... Psychological and neurophysiological laws and personal histories add also their weight...

It is Goethe who created neurophysiology of perception arguing against some limititations of Newton approach...The 2 goals of these 2 geniuses were DIFFERENT more than contradictory....

This is the same here....We have physical acoustic and psychoacoustic and the listener personal history....My post was about all that and were not a negation of the correlation bewtween measures and perception which is the basis of all audio technology...

On the other end reducing human perception to electronic design is NOT possible for the time being....Correlating is not reducing....In a word all factors pertaining to the audio experience and interpretation cannot be put in the design...