Why the Obsession With Measurements Is Leading to Worse-Sounding Gear


I don't think this is a well written article. The author paints with a broad brush and hauls out the usual talking points about how measurements don't capture everything we hear.

Since I could care less about listening to music through headphones, maybe his headphone measurements bashing rings true for those that are forced to listen to their stereo system through headphones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPP
Didn't we learn our lesson in the 70's and 80's? Most of those amps were spec driven only, they were 20-20,000hz at +/- 0.1 db, with something like .001 THD. Even the Conrad Johnson solid state amps were crappy at the time. Audiophiles are funny in a few ways. One of the ways is they can be happy with the gear they have but as soon as someone comes out with crappy measurements, they are no longer happy. Oh, and the MK 2 and/or "upgraded" version always sounds better. Yea, right.
 
One could also say that some consider the price is a measure of how good gear sounds...

Everyone has personal taste built on prior experience (listening history, emotions tied to certain music) As well emotional state, location, room setup, and changes in hearing can alter whether we "like" one piece of gear over another.

Objectively, the price, looks, and manufacturer reputation can also affect how we perceive a product.
 
Great article. I totally agree with this that if it measures great it does not mean it sounds good. If that was the case I was on audio science review and not on audioshark.

A statement I posted before and that is now explained. It is musicality that counts, not numbers.

Personally I have found that equipment that measures extremely well also sounds great to my ear. That is, I believe there is a correlation between good measurements and subjectively good sound.

But that's just me. It is still true that some folks aren't interested in the accurate sound that extremely well-measuring equipment delivers. They may prefer less well-measuring equipment for its "musicality". The fact is that that so-called musicality is most often the result of high 2nd / 3rd order harmonic distortion.

IMHO, those distortions are benign or pleasant and mask higher-order distortions and defects on the source recordings to some extent. However they cause lack of detail, transparency, and micro-dynamics. Choose your poison.
 
There was a great point made above to the lessons learned from the "specs wars" of the 70s and 80s; those specs wars were also typified by many games being played by some regarding how the measurements were taken, framed, etc. to get the numbers to be attractive and compelling to make their point. Some gear in that timeframe that "had great measurements" and did not sound good at all may very well have had measurements that were rigged to look better than the component (or speaker) actually performed.

While I agree that musical attributes of playback matter most, I don't think measurements can/should be totally ignored and if a component measures very poorly (very high THD, bad S/N numbers, etc.) it will in some way manifest in what we are hearing. Measurements (reliable and comprehensive ones) are just one data point that some find valuable.
 
There was a great point made above to the lessons learned from the "specs wars" of the 70s and 80s; those specs wars were also typified by many games being played by some regarding how the measurements were taken, framed, etc. to get the numbers to be attractive and compelling to make their point. Some gear in that timeframe that "had great measurements" and did not sound good at all may very well have had measurements that were rigged to look better than the component (or speaker) actually performed.

While I agree that musical attributes of playback matter most, I don't think measurements can/should be totally ignored and if a component measures very poorly (very high THD, bad S/N numbers, etc.) it will in some way manifest in what we are hearing. Measurements (reliable and comprehensive ones) are just one data point that some find valuable.
As for the '70s and '80s that was the era of the single, says-it-all, THD (total harmonic distortion). However there are components of harmonic distortion, a spectrum of various distortions that comprise the whole. The error of the era was to ignore those distortion components in favor of THD solely.

But many of the solid-state amp of the era that had great THD didn't sound so great, (I owned on myself for quite a few years). Their THD was, in fact, composed of higher-order components, (4th order and high), meanwhile having relatively little 2nd/3rd order harmonics. That was unlike tube amps which had high 2nd/3rd order harmonics and often also much higher-order harmonics -- but those latter were MASKED by the 2nd/3rd resulting in more pleasant sounding amps overall.

21st century amps, notably but not exclusively the better class D amps, have vanishingly little harmonic distortion of any orders. Simplistically speaking, you don't need the 2nd/3rd order to mask the higher orders.
 
I gave up on paying any attention to specs decades ago when I realized receivers I was selling had better specs on paper than gear I knew sounded better I was exposed to at the time like Carver and McIntosh.

Specs & measurements like love & marriage you can't have one without the other. If anyone has listened to Nelson Pass or the interview with some of the ARC engineers it takes both. Pass first measures then listens. One of the guys at ARC talked about how they had different capacitors that measured the same, same spec, yet sounded different when implemented. I'm sure there are hundreds of similar examples.

You have to have experience with hearing live music. Even if it's your kid's school orchestra. Drums don't sound like a baby fart in a diaper, strings actually are not all warm and lush, and cymbals crash etc.

We hear differently and have different perspectives which leads us to our own system selections within our means.
 
For me it was learning that my brand new state of art Denon Dolby Digital receiver was unable to drive my Infinity RS IIA speakers. It was rated at 120wpc x 5 channels.

It sounded nothing like the McIntosh five channel amp that I connected which was 100WPC X 6.

Pretty similar specs but 1000% different sound. The McAmp killed the Denon.

That taught me there was something else more important than WPC and THD because it was obvious they didn’t tell the complete story in SQ.
 
Early on, having an electronics background, I just assumed that specs meant everything. It didn't take me long to realize my best test equipment components were my ears! Couldn't begin to tell you all the specs of my current system, I just know I love what I hear!!
 
For you headphone heads out there, the article highlights variation in test rigs. That’s true - anything over 4 kHz can be totally ignored. A 1/4” movement of the headphone on the rest rig will get you a completely different response.

The 70’s distortion wars and Stereo Review’s Julian “I never met a component I didn’t like” Hirsch have been replaced by something much worse: the ASR Amir ‘SINAD’ 1 kHz test that appears to me to be negatively correlated to listening pleasure.

I do think measurements when properly executed to published AES industry standards are a worthwhile endeavor.

For example I can tell from JA’s Stereophile speaker measurements if I will like a speaker or not. I tend not to like stuff (Wilson) he loves but that’s ok.

Proper audio measurement is a multidimensional affair involving a lot of time and knowledge to execute properly. The results take expertise to evaluate. So almost no one does it.
 
Objective measurements of audio equipment serve as a fundamental baseline for evaluating performance.

Why, then, do so many older audiophiles resist objective measurements? They insist on trusting only their ears—which is fair—yet many, if not most, experience age-related hearing decline.

Let the objectivists be. At least they have data to support what they perceive.
 
The reason most older audiophiles resist measurements is because we don't care about them. Our decades of listening experience allows us to evaluate components because we trust what we hear, not how it measures. Listening and evaluating hi-fi (believe it or not) takes a lot of experience to master. It's like anything else you do, experience is king. For instance, I don't evaluate the highs, mids and lows when I first listen to stuff. First, I just listen for the boogie, if it doesn't boogie, it's gone. It takes me less than 5 minutes to figure that part out. I don't go back and forth and keep putting components in and out of the system. One will almost always have more boogie (which, to me, sounds more like music). I had a very highly respected preamplifier in my system about 7 years ago. I liked my system, but I didn't listen to it a whole lot, well because it didn't have a high boogie factor. So, I bought an xxxx preamp with a generous return policy with the guaranty that it would be "30% better" than the one I had (yea, right). I listened to the system for a minute or two, then installed the xxxx. It took 10 seconds to figure out that the xxxx had boogie like a mf. I never put the original one back in the system. I would like to hear Mike's thoughts on how owning a shop has refined his listening skills....Mike? Or anyone else for that matter. Cheers. P.S. I know that my hearing at 70 is not as good as it was when I was 20. But hearing and listening are 2 different things, yes?
 
Objective measurements of audio equipment serve as a fundamental baseline for evaluating performance.

Why, then, do so many older audiophiles resist objective measurements? They insist on trusting only their ears—which is fair—yet many, if not most, experience age-related hearing decline.

Let the objectivists be. At least they have data to support what they perceive.
Data is meaningless without a framework in which to interpret it. In science, one generates a hypothesis and then gathers data to support or refute that hypothesis (or often neither), using an experimental model and statistical analysis to reach a conclusion. As far as I can determine none of that takes place at ASR or similar sites, so calling it “science” is inaccurate.

JA’s measurements and conclusions at Stereophile have always made that clear; he often wonders about the lack of correlation between some of his measurements and the perceived sound
 
The reason most older audiophiles resist measurements is because we don't care about them. Our decades of listening experience allows us to evaluate components because we trust what we hear, not how it measures. Listening and evaluating hi-fi (believe it or not) takes a lot of experience to master. It's like anything else you do, experience is king. For instance, I don't evaluate the highs, mids and lows when I first listen to stuff. First, I just listen for the boogie, if it doesn't boogie, it's gone. It takes me less than 5 minutes to figure that part out. I don't go back and forth and keep putting components in and out of the system. One will almost always have more boogie (which, to me, sounds more like music). I had a very highly respected preamplifier in my system about 7 years ago. I liked my system, but I didn't listen to it a whole lot, well because it didn't have a high boogie factor. So, I bought an xxxx preamp with a generous return policy with the guaranty that it would be "30% better" than the one I had (yea, right). I listened to the system for a minute or two, then installed the xxxx. It took 10 seconds to figure out that the xxxx had boogie like a mf. I never put the original one back in the system. I would like to hear Mike's thoughts on how owning a shop has refined his listening skills....Mike? Or anyone else for that matter. Cheers. P.S. I know that my hearing at 70 is not as good as it was when I was 20. But hearing and listening are 2 different things, yes?

You brought up a very important point. I remember my first trip to an actual high end shop I had them play my Great White CD, I remember leaving thinking my system has more mid-bass etc. Point is it takes some listening to understand differences. I missed all the detail and nuances of the higher end system because at the time it was all about the bass, treble or whatever. It took more occasions for those differences to be learned.

At one point I had some Krell gear and people talked about tubes I got interested in hearing what it was about. I brought in some Conrad Johnson gear and what an ear opener and education as to what gear can do and how different it can be. Both brands are good at what they do but quite different strengths.

Your main goal is "boogie" others may be something else. It takes exposure to a variety of gear to gain some experience. With that being said their are friends who have had the experience that still don't quite grasp. I personally am at the point where I can enjoy a song yet still notice if it's a good recording or not or if a system renders it well. Like you I also am aware of what I like and gravitate to.
 
The reason most older audiophiles resist measurements is because we don't care about them.
….
Precisely. Spoken like a 70-plus years old audiophile who acknowledges hearing loss and yet still only trust his ears. It is all good.
 
….
Precisely. Spoken like a 70-plus years old audiophile who acknowledges hearing loss and yet still only trust his ears. It is all good.
In order to compensate I revoiced my Volti's with different resistors I got from Greg Roberts at Volti. I hate a bright top end so they are only 1/2 step hotter (the minimum) than stock. A few audiophile buddies have been over, and they assure me it is nowhere near bright (not yet, anyway). I mentioned the boogie factor earlier, boogie=musical. The music HAS to draw you in, not make you sit there and analyze the system. We do too much equipment listening and not enough boogying.
 
Back
Top