Audiophile fight

It’s according to me. I’ve heard plenty of products that measure well, but don’t sound great. Measurements only tell half the story. Designers who do more listening than measuring are more successful IMO. We buy based on listening, not measurements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
It’s according to me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. then it's mere personal preference of "bad", not absolute. IOW, another person may think its "good".

Mike said:
I’ve heard plenty of products that measure well, but don’t sound great. Measurements only tell half the story. Designers who do more listening than measuring are more successful IMO. We buy based on listening, not measurements.
Click to expand...
Well, IIRC, I think it was one of the BBC guys who designed the LS3a (?) who thought listening was the devils work and did none.
And yet....:)
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Fair enough. then it's mere personal preference of "bad", not absolute. IOW, another person may think its "good".


Well, IIRC, I think it was one of the BBC guys who designed the LS3a (?) who thought listening was the devils work and did none.
And yet....:)
Click to expand...

On the history of the LS3a:

“The speaker had to be voiced by ear an octave at a time, because scale test results were inapplicable to a model of this size.”

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/pics/HFC3_LS3.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
On the history of the LS3a:

“The speaker had to be voiced by ear an octave at a time, because scale test results were inapplicable to a model of this size.”

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/pics/HFC3_LS3.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Hahah .... :)


Hey Jay is covered in slick 50 oil this will be interesting at the very least ...

Most Neophyte designers today are basically AI designers clueless to audio and as you have rightfully ascertained , the product sounds like it and very much so why the “old stuff “ cant seem to die ..
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Sure they can, otherwise you wouldn't hear the "direction of instruments" playing back what the microphones captured. This is a very fundamental part of "stereo" that stereophiles seem to know little about.
The fact is, microphones captured all soundwaves you heard in a recording, unless it's post processed, added distortions, electronic effects, etc,etc.
Similarly, microphones can capture soundwaves reproduced by your speakers, with those added distortions/effects/etc.
It's that simple. Now, humans interpreting what is what is another story.
But that doesn't mean captured, then reproduced soundwaves can't be measured, as always claimed. Nor does it mean that it must be the soundwaves that need to be wild goose chased, rather than measuring the person making the claim, which is not an electro-acoustic measurement at all.

For some. But that isn't evidence for the "unmeasurable" either, just a means and method.

According to whom? That sounds absolute, rather than anything subjective.
No examples of that exist, other than old tropes about Crown amps or something equally silly. There are overwhelming examples of the exact opposite, poor measuring sounds "bad" to those who trust ears/just listen. Zero examples of the opposite.
That fact is, soundwaves can be measured, humans reacting to light/sound/memory/belief/etc/etc....not so much.
Two different things entirely, no need for them to be conflated, or in conflict.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

crown amps sound bad and measure bad too ...!
 
Mike said:
On the history of the LS3a:
“The speaker had to be voiced by ear an octave at a time, because scale test results were inapplicable to a model of this size.”
http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/pics/HFC3_LS3.pdf
Click to expand...
Full quote context from Wiki
They were able to answer a request for a prototype in under a week because it resembled an experimental loudspeaker that the department had already developed for some preliminary acoustic scaling tests.[6] The speaker had to be voiced by ear an octave at a time, because scale test results were inapplicable to a model of this size.[3] Engineers took measurements; comparisons were performed against the LS5/8 – a large "Grade I monitor" already in use at the time – and with live sources.[12]
Click to expand...

Well, they were in the dark ages of measurements in those day, but obviously they measured as well. Can't recall the article that mentioned the very religious engineer that wouldn't listen to music.
That still isn't a shred of evidence that we (non-audiophiles) can't measure soundwaves. Captured by microphones and reproduced. Blumlein wasn't an audiophile witchdoctor. He was an EE. He knew exactly what he was creating and how.
 
a.wayne said:
Most Neophyte designers today are basically AI designers clueless to audio and as you have rightfully ascertained , the product sounds like it and very much so why the “old stuff “ cant seem to die ..
Click to expand...
I can see how it appears this way to those devoid of science educations. Yes, we get how for some old timers the still running Model Ts are the greatest car ever made. In their minds. :)
 
AJ Soundfield said:
What artist and album with square waves?
Lets see what happens when you run then through your Wonder woman speakers
Click to expand...

Found it...

a03a293700d112839ee5c40166b046f2.jpg


Wireless too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AJ Soundfield said:
No examples of that exist, other than old tropes about Crown amps or something equally silly. There are overwhelming examples of the exact opposite, poor measuring sounds "bad" to those who trust ears/just listen. Zero examples of the opposite.
Click to expand...

If, by 'opposite' as appears in the quote above, you mean a product that measures poorly but sounds good, that phenomena has been documented by Stereophile on a number of occasions. Seems to me that Harley at one point commented (after he left Stereophile, so in TAS, in an article about different amplifier types) that (paraphrasing) 'no one knows why SETs can measure so poorly and yet sound so good'. If he had asked an amplifier designer he might have found out why.
 
atmasphere said:
If, by 'opposite' as appears in the quote above, you mean a product that measures poorly but sounds good, that phenomena has been documented by Stereophile on a number of occasions. Seems to me that Harley at one point commented (after he left Stereophile, so in TAS, in an article about different amplifier types) that (paraphrasing) 'no one knows why SETs can measure so poorly and yet sound so good'. If he had asked an amplifier designer he might have found out why.
Click to expand...

Experienced this very much with Dennis Had’s SET monoblocs , was shocked after seeing John’s measurements ...
 
atmasphere said:
If, by 'opposite' as appears in the quote above, you mean a product that measures poorly but sounds good
Click to expand...
Nope, meant sounds just like it measured...bad. Please keep in mind the caveats Ralph, this is in trust ears/just listen scenario. Not the opposite.
Regardless Ralph, do you think there are these mysterious N-Rays being emitted by speakers playing back mic recorded music?
Or do you think maybe alternate explanations exist, namely, human measurements needed, not electro-acoustic/soundfields wild goose chase ones?
I think that's the gist of the argument. I lean toward the latter and mountainous evidence, fyi

p.s. Wonder Womans system/speakers are invisible!!! Like the plane. Lasso too IIRC.
 
a.wayne said:
Experienced this very much with Dennis Had’s SET monoblocs , was shocked after seeing John’s measurements ...
Click to expand...
I wasn't because I'm knowledgeable of perception as well as the electro-acoustic part. Only someone not knowledgeable would equate the coloration shown by the measurements with "bad". That's not how perception works. It's also why I own tube amps.;)
Some with zero feedback EQ and lots of "distortion".
 
"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." - Daniel von Recklinghausen, Scott's chief engineer, a major force in the development and popularization of FM radio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mike said:
"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." - Daniel von Recklinghausen, Scott's chief engineer, a major force in the development and popularization of FM radio.
Click to expand...
Then Scotty needed better measurement gear there captain. Maybe a Tricorder, who knows...
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Nope, meant sounds just like it measured...bad. Please keep in mind the caveats Ralph, this is in trust ears/just listen scenario. Not the opposite.
Regardless Ralph, do you think there are these mysterious N-Rays being emitted by speakers playing back mic recorded music?
Or do you think maybe alternate explanations exist, namely, human measurements needed, not electro-acoustic/soundfields wild goose chase ones?
I think that's the gist of the argument. I lean toward the latter and mountainous evidence, fyi

p.s. Wonder Womans system/speakers are invisible!!! Like the plane. Lasso too IIRC.
Click to expand...

OK- so I did not interpret your use of the word 'opposite'.

Uh, really don't know what you're talking about in this post- But if I got what you are getting at and if you want to know where my head is at with all this, I think we can measure what we need to know if we had the will, which collectively the industry does not have. One problem is that amps can measure 'poorly' in the THD department simply because they have a lot of 2nd harmonic. But its been shown that the ear is relatively insensitive to the 2nd order, while being keenly sensitive to higher orders. On this account I've felt that rather than ignore human perceptual rules, the industry should apply a weighting system to harmonics (which it could easily do- weal ready know what the spectra looks like,,,); weighting the 7th much more than it does the 2nd or 3rd. But if we did that, it might actually be possible to tell how an amplifier sounded simply by looking at the spec sheet, which might be unacceptable to the industry. God Forbid we know how an amp will sound before we buy it :) So I'm not holding my breath.

There's more to it than that- the above explanation is a gross oversimplification.

I rely heavily on measurements to know I'm headed in the right direction, but because test equipment isn't good at sussing out lower level higher ordered harmonic distortions so well I still have to listen to it to make sure it sounds right (IOW its not getting off the test bench if the voltages and waveforms aren't right). The ear is more sensitive than good test equipment when it comes to detecting troubles with higher ordered harmonics. This is simply because the ear uses those harmonics to sense sound pressure, and so must be able to respond over a 120dB range. Regarding Nrays, Wonder Woman's speaker and such obvious nonsense, you could stand to ratchet down the sarcasm a bit; it comes off as caustic rather than funny.
 
atmasphere said:
I think we can measure what we need to know if we had the will, which collectively the industry does not have. One problem is that amps can measure 'poorly' in the THD department simply because they have a lot of 2nd harmonic. But its been shown that the ear is relatively insensitive to the 2nd order, while being keenly sensitive to higher orders. On this account I've felt that rather than ignore human perceptual rules, the industry should apply a weighting system to harmonics (which it could easily do- weal ready know what the spectra looks like,,,); weighting the 7th much more than it does the 2nd or 3rd. But if we did that, it might actually be possible to tell how an amplifier sounded simply by looking at the spec sheet, which might be unacceptable to the industry. God Forbid we know how an amp will sound before we buy it :) So I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
Well, there is also the possibility that "we" in the AES type science circles know about GedLee metrics etc, etc, etc. since early 2000s, whereas the we's in the Audiophile industry don't. Different spheres, different requirements.
It's good to know you rely on measurements as well as listening though. As do I. The critical part is correlation.

atmasphere said:
but because test equipment isn't good at sussing out lower level higher ordered harmonic distortions so well I still have to listen to it to make sure it sounds right (IOW its not getting off the test bench if the voltages and waveforms aren't right). The ear is more sensitive than good test equipment when it comes to detecting troubles with higher ordered harmonics. This is simply because the ear uses those harmonics to sense sound pressure, and so must be able to respond over a 120dB range.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but what test equipment are you using that can't measure well below human hearing thresholds?

atmasphere said:
Regarding Nrays, Wonder Woman's speaker and such obvious nonsense, you could stand to ratchet down the sarcasm a bit; it comes off as caustic rather than funny.
Click to expand...
What do you call a speaker designer/amp expert with no speakers, amp or expertise?;)

p,s you do know Wonder Womans plane was invisible too, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top