Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

@amir_asr

Once more: listening tests are the gold standard in audio research. No one is telling you to substitute measurements for it.

What we say is that don’t go believing marketing claims that have no verification with controlled testing, or make sense at engineering level. We prove the latter with measurements. Company claims the power conditioner lowers your audio system noise? Well, we measure that. If the result is that noise has not changed one bit, then you know the claim was wrong.

Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?
You say your local water is making you sick? Folks come out and measure to see what is in it. If it is pure and clean, then that is very important information.

Importantly, don’t confuse creation of art with replay of it. Our business is the latter. The two are completely different universes. Audio equipment should NOT be in the business of creating or modifying art. If it is, then it is not high fidelity. And will impart the same signature on every music you play -- something I dislike dearly.

As to what you think you are hearing, that is NOT in doubt. What is in doubt is what you say it means when you did not block all other senses than your ear.

 

Wouldn’t it be great if these words could be accepted as a starting point for all further discussions?

Unfortunately, it appears that some people do not, can not, will not agree with the above and subsequently any further discussions are a waste of time.

 

"Audio equipment should NOT be in the business of creating or modifying art. If it is, then it is not high fidelity. And will impart the same signature on every music you play -- something I dislike dearly."

 

A very good argument for the importance of the playback system to be as neutral and as uncoloured as possible.

 

"Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?"

 

Now there’s a question that must have been asked countless times around various negotiating tables worldwide.

Some foible of human nature?

Lack of cognitive ability to focus or listen?

Contrariness?

Vested conflicting financial/emotional interests?

Or just plain pig headedness?

"I don’t like you, so I’m not agreeing to anything you say."

 

Whatever it is, it’s something that’s eluded mankind since forever and I doubt we’ll find any solution here.

I'm not sure what is yours and what is quoted text. Use the quote function. 

"Once more: listening tests are the gold standard in audio research."

Amir repeated this a few times but he means controlled statistically valid listening tests, that are well beyond the individual listener (Since one reference point has no statistical validity).

"Importantly, don’t confuse creation of art with replay of it."

We don't have the science that will create a perfect playback system so there is some art in creating a pleasing system. It may not please you or your measurements but at long as it pleases the end user, the goal is accomplished. 

Very nice posts above.  

As to equipment or a system which imparts the same sonic signature on every piece of music statement, unfortunately, I’ve heard local high end/high cost systems that do just that and I get listeners fatigue and bored.

My two systems (and three friends systems) reproduce music whereby every recording is a surprise in sound. I get a jolt from well recorded music from the freshness of the sound. That’s why I am anxious to get to hear my system when I can. The sound and music captures me. I am addicted to music since before I could talk at 2 years old.

My choice of speakers after two decades of unsatisfying five sets of electrostat speakers came down to price and quality. I purchased used speakers which I saw used in two sound studios I was appraising, used by three friends and used to evaluate LPs for sale by Better Records. I’ve had them for 20 years. Only sounded better as the rest of the system and room improved. Well, it will cost $25K to $50K for me to replace my main speakers, so I’m not pulling the plug yet. Another major concern is that if I purchase a boutique speaker and the parts or manufacturer become unavailable for repair-then an I have very expensive boat anchors.

 

@cd318 said:

“What we say is that don’t go believing marketing claims that have no verification with controlled testing, or make sense at engineering level.”

and:

”Why is this so odd for the few of you to accept?”

Speaking for myself, I cannot accept the first statement because “make sense at an engineering level” is too limited. I firmly believe our current state of knowledge cannot fully describe the sound quality that will result from a given system/room. 

 

@axo1989

 

All of this stuff provides a wealth of information about speaker behaviour and performance and likely does tells us how they will sound. Except we as humans can’t integrate all of that meaningfully to get all the way there in terms of predictive sonics, so often we have surprises when we listen.

Yes, even very experienced people can be surprised. John Atkinson, as experienced as anyone, often enough notes things like "this measurement looks bad, but surprisingly it was not noticeable in most program material."

In terms of the usefulness of measurements for any particular individual, there are so many variables.

For instance, a real by-the-measurements buyer may be quite satisfied with his "blind" purchase for any number of reasons. Maybe there were subtle differences between that and another speaker, but he decides he doesn’t care that much. Or perhaps he is simply satisfied that the measurements show it to be an accurate speaker and "whatever the source sounds like, it sounds like." So it can be a sort of plug-and-play purchase.

Other people (like me) may be really focused on certain aspects we really are seeking and take notice of. I don’t mean by that being more of a Golden Ear, but simply slightly different taste and goals. If you ask some at the ASR forum "what does your system sound like?" I wouldn’t be surprised to be greeted by numerous shrugs. "Accurate. It doesn’t really sound like anything. I don’t want my system to sound like anything, I just want it to pass along the source accurately and that’s mostly what it does."

So there is at least a sense, in this approach, in which one’s system "doesn’t have a ’sound.’" But if you are someone like me, I will immediately notice the particular "sound" of that person’s system, because I tend to be "chasing a type of sound."

I’m comparing the sound of systems both to live voices and instruments and against different sound systems, and I’m nudging my sound to where I want it. So I’m always aware of "how a system sounds" and don’t just treat it as if "accurate to the signal" was the last word about a system. There will be some in the mostly-measurements crowd who’d dismiss some speakers because they clearly depart in certain ways from "The Goal Of Speaker Design" as they see it. They may even have heard the speaker and declared it "terrible, just like it measures!" Except they may not care that the speaker is doing something I and others might find to be very compelling because of (or in spite of) it’s wonky design. That’s why I can’t just go by the criteria and reports of measurements-or-bust audiophiles. It’s not that I have better ears, it’s just that I may be listening for something they care less about.

One also sees a form of justification at places like ASR that learning more about audio, and then seeking and obtaining "better/more accurate equipment" is a way off the "audiophile merry-go-round" where you are just throwing spaghetti at the wall, hoping to see what sticks, in a despairing viscous circle in which you don’t know how to make yourself happy. Some number of ASR members are sort of escapees from this previous audiophile life. And I completely understand that point of view.

But of course the satisfaction with gear is far more centered on the mindset of any individual than it is on the gear. What’s another way of "getting off the audiophile merry-go-round of dissatisfaction?" Well, you could just decide to be less picky. Like most of the world who are not obsessed with the gear. That too will get you off the merry-go-round. So it’s not the gear, it’s the individual. Some "subjectivist" audiophiles will get wrapped up in endless tweaks (which is fine!), some "objectivists" may be more compelled by measurements yet spend their time reading about SINAD measurements, or fiddling with all sorts of gear, measuring it etc. Just another way of obsessing :-)

Further, while the get-off-the-merry-go-round-using-accurate-gear folks may see the alternative as some form of despair and inevitable recipe for dissatisfaction,

if you look at the "subjectivist oriented" audiophiles most seem like they are having a ball, and plenty of them have actually owned speakers or gear they fell in love with, and kept it for long periods, decades even.

So there is some self-confirming rationalization going on at "both ends" of the conversation. It doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth, but good to always look beyond the rationalization to notice how the facts support it or not.