True or False?
The following is a common sentiment from some who claim to be audiophiles.
If you hear something but can’t measure it, you only think you heard a difference.
This notion is also common among people who claim to possess an accomplished understanding of audio, especially when achieving a high level of performance for a minimal investment.
So who’s right? On the one hand we have Objectivists who claim if you can’t measure it, you can’t possibly hear it or if you do, its expectation bias and self delusion. Are these people correct? Do they get as good as a sound, or better for far less money by ignoring cables, power cords, mechanical isolation, basically any accessory that many have found to dramatically improve performance despite a lack measurements? Do those who dismiss expensive digital to analog converters as being no better than rather common digital components with decent measurements get just as high a performance level as those of us with MSB and DCS? Do people who claim it’s all about finding perfect speaker placement, do these people outperform those of us with systems that cost multiples more than what they pay (Who also pay close attention to speaker placement as well as everything else)? Or do those of us who pay attention to cables— digital, analog, and power, what we set our components on top of, how we place our speakers, acoustics, and tweaks, expensive DACs and the like, do we get better sound? Who’s right? And how do we ultimately determine sound quality?
Fine audio systems are like fine wine. The presentation, color, smell, lighting, and mood you are in all matter.
We are human and we perceive the same situation differently. We all have different likes and dislikes. Thats what makes this hobby fun. Ever notice how some days your system sounds better than others? |
Isn’t it odd that many focus on measurements of audio gear all related to what essentially is a creative process of musicians, recording and mastering engineers all working towards the common goal to entertain our sense of hearing. This is nothing new. Back in the 60s (yes, I’m that old) the chief engineer at a magazine called Stereo Review, i think his name was Julian Hirsch, took the stance that if it measured the same it sounded the same. He measured over 4000 pieces of gear for that magazine. A Measurementista will criticize a piece of gear because of a minor frequency response deviation while the guy in the recording booth is thinking " I think I will turn up the bass a bit on the mixing console..... there, that sounds better" A bit like those who focus on wine tasting (another sensory experience) on a 100 point scale. Standing joke. Q. What does a 95 point wine taste like? A. Better than a 94 point wine and not as good as a 96 point wine. |
Measurements are a very rational approach. The problem is that you can take measurements and be completely reliant on them to find your way. Then realize that you have lost considerable ground so someone who relies on measurements as only a starting point. A friend of mine mentioned that CDs have a greater dynamic range than LP records. I read the article where a scientist lays out the data. Well, records have always been known to be the noisiest of music media so no surprise there. The greater dynamic range is the result of CDs having a lower noise floor. The problem is that no one has a 0db listening room. Most of our rooms measure 10db-20db of ’silence’. Most of that dynamic range advantage is lost in the room. This is not to start a digital vs analog war (I love both)...just to point out that measurements are great...but the real world has its own idea about how much your measurements are worth. Learn to trust your senses. Use the force. |
Wow. Thankyou. Isn't this a great example of how the meaning of a term or phrase can be flipped on its head over time.
|
