What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, watercourse said:

So is it simply emphasizing certain frequencies in the case of the REL?

In this case, yes.

1 minute ago, watercourse said:

Would you say this is a universal way to define slam?

I don't know what others mean when they use the word, but it fits the way the REL sounds.

1 minute ago, watercourse said:

If so, when comparing two systems, the one whose frequency curves are more similar to REL's "slam" curve has more "slam"?

That's probably too much of a generelisation. I mentioned it as an example of the term used to describe something quite specific and measurable.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, watercourse said:

A characteristic that I've heard a lot of people use, and that I believe people can distinguish between two systems under comparison is: "slam".

 

Sure, it's the dynamics and transient handling abilities of a system, and damping factor in the amp has something to do with it, as well as speaker driver characteristics, and interactions between the amp and speakers, but I'm not sure how the differences in "slam" would be measured, as it is usually spread across multiple frequencies and is more than just a measure of spls at a given point in time. Waterfall plots may show differences between systems, but how do these differences translate to what the listener perceives as more slam?

 

Also agree with "soundstage depth," "more realistic timbre," ... and I'll raise you "image density" and "imaging specificity." I'm having a hard time visualizing how these sonic qualities can be measured with repeatability.

 

I think that these additional qualities are not controversial concepts, but who knows? A lot depends on listener interest, acuity, and sensitivity. I, for one, have a hard time understanding what PRaT means... "pace" "rhythm" and "timing" seem redundant to me, or at least circle around too similar concepts to really be distinct in my mind.

Well, you have raised the question of "slam", then you have defined it in clearly measurable ways.  I am comfortable with your definition in terms of those measurable parameters.  What is it if it is not how you defined it?  And, we cannot hope to have measurements of something if that something is not  defined.  So, I do not think slam qualifies as unmeasurable, because its underlying attributes are measurable.

 

We also run into a problem with "image density" and "image specificity". What in the hell are they exactly other than terms invented by some reviewer tying to be cute?  They make sense, maybe, in video, but not in audio.

 

PRAT is just plain controversial, reviewer- and marketer-speak. It is not about sound at all, but, rather, some concoction of perceived musical qualities.  I grant you, we cannot measure it, because it has no exact definition.  It is just another example of cool audio speak invented by a reviewer, a guy in TAS originally I believe, that is pretty useless.  However, if somebody says, hey , that speaker has great PRAT, there is a serious problem, because speakers cannot generally change the pace, rhythm or timing of the signal in the physics we know. So, what are they talking about?

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

Maybe we could list some uncontroversial audible differences or factors.

[watercourse]

15 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Well, you have raised the question of "slam", then you have defined it in clearly measurable ways.  I am comfortable with your definition in terms of those measurable parameters.  What is it if it is not how you defined it?  And, we cannot hope to have measurements of something if that something is not  defined.  So, I do not think slam qualifies as unmeasurable, because its underlying attributes are measurable.

 

I think I answered my own question by reading the linked article. According to the study, perceived "punch" is highly correlated with frequency curves, so this is likely a measurable characteristic that can be used to distinguish between systems or components.

 

16 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

We also run into a problem with "image density" and "image specificity". What in the hell are they exactly other than terms invented by some reviewer tying to be cute?  They make sense, maybe, in video, but not in audio.

 

"Image density" as I have heard it, can be described as giving the listener an impression of solid objects in the reproduced soundstage. In my experience, systems that have some leanness, e.g. lack midbass or have emphasized treble frequencies, will have less image density.

 

"Image specificity" means instrument(s) or voice(s) are more easily discerned and/or located in space (in the soundstage). This may have something to do with system self-noise and/or ambient noise levels, and likely treble reproduction characteristics.

 

I think I'm seeing these two as again likely based on spectral characteristics, and therefore likely measurable.

 

Good talk I'm having with myself!

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I think you would have clarify if you are talking about electro-acoustic measurements...or measurements of people.

 

I'm talking about electro-acoustic measurements.   

[ted_b]

5 minutes ago, watercourse said:

"Image density" as I have heard it, can be described as giving the listener an impression of solid objects in the reproduced soundstage. In my experience, systems that have some leanness, e.g. lack midbass or have emphasized treble frequencies, will have less image density.

 

"Image specificity" means instrument(s) or voice(s) are more easily discerned and/or located in space (in the soundstage). This may have something to do with system self-noise and/or ambient noise levels, and likely treble reproduction characteristics.

 

I think I'm seeing these two as again likely based on spectral characteristics, and therefore likely measurable.

I agree with these "reviewer" terms and use them myself occasionally.  At first I thought they were bs terms, as fitz implied, but as my system got more revealing and more involving I came to really rely on these aspects of the soundstage.  It's not enough that the drum kit is "there" but to have it well-defined in space and occupying at least 2 if not 3 dimensions, is required for better "believability".  Can these aspects be measured?  Not with anything I own, except my perverse brain.  To me it's likely quite psycho-acoustic.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

8 minutes ago, watercourse said:

 

I think I answered my own question by reading the linked article. According to the study, perceived "punch" is highly correlated with frequency curves, so this is likely a measurable characteristic that can be used to distinguish between systems or components.

 

 

"Image density" as I have heard it, can be described as giving the listener an impression of solid objects in the reproduced soundstage. In my experience, systems that have some leanness, e.g. lack midbass or have emphasized treble frequencies, will have less image density.

 

"Image specificity" means instrument(s) or voice(s) are more easily discerned and/or located in space (in the soundstage). This may have something to do with system self-noise and/or ambient noise levels, and likely treble reproduction characteristics.

 

I think I'm seeing these two as again likely based on spectral characteristics, and therefore likely measurable.

 

Good talk I'm having with myself!

Hey, you are getting there and we are all learning a few things.

 

But, we agree, there are layers here, sometimes even to bullshit ad-speak, which sometimes, if you drill down, translate to the good old measurable parameters of sound used in audio for a very long time.

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I'm talking about electro-acoustic measurements.   

One difficulty is that there is a substantial language barrier between natural language descriptions and electrical terminology. Even technical folks seem to have a hard time agreeing on how to measure things.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 minutes ago, ted_b said:

I agree with these "reviewer" terms and use them myself occasionally.  At first I thought they were bs terms, as fitz implied, but as my system got more revealing and more involving I came to really rely on these aspects of the soundstage.  It's not enough that the drum kit is "there" but to have it well-defined in space and occupying at least 2 if not 3 dimensions, is required for better "believability".  Can these aspects be measured?  Not with anything I own, except my perverse brain.  To me it's likely quite psycho-acoustic.

Ted - I do not disagree, and we both know that images can be rendered extraordinarily well, especially with Tom Caulfield's DSD256 Mch recordings from Budapest and other places.  Wink, wink.  I know we both have them.

 

I also agree that traditional measures have taken us a long way, but that we have to get much more sophisticated about understanding and, where possible,  finding ways to measure our psychoacoustic responses.  I think that is the new frontier for audio.  But, it needs better definition before measurement is possible.

[esldude]

I think a confounding issue is what can sound different.  As most gear crosses thresholds to wide flat bandwidth and low distortion/low noise it starts sounding the same or more the same. 

Some gear is designed to sound different with the idea it is better.  My prototypical example is triode sound.  A rich 3D dynamic sound which is fully an additive effect, and not more accurate reproduction.  This and similar effects are often thrown about as examples of measurements not telling us all with the assumption clean measuring devices would sound better than something like triodes, but they don't, therefore triodes are more capable amps yet measure worse.  You have actually just fooled yourself if you go down this route.  Not everything is recorded in a dynamic 3D way if properly reproduced.

 

I think the audiophile industry rails against the idea it is even possible to get all gear clean enough there are no differences.  That one can pick by specs and features alone.  That never is something so good it can't be better. Instead this diverges to some direction of sounds different so it is better.

 

And yes for the poster who asked, other than transducers I do pick gear based upon specs and needs.  Has worked out just fine.

 

So once you are into audible differences from coloration the various possible combinations multiply rapidly.  Using conventional measurements for that simply isn't feasible.  At this point in time objective conventional measures seem useful for finding clean gear that is pretty much interchangeable.  It isn't yet good for choosing among colored preferences accurately like which overblown additive soundstaging is best. The answer once we get into preference is none as people will prefer different things. 

 

So maybe I am just polluting Bill's thread. 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

One difficulty is that there is a substantial language barrier between natural language descriptions and electrical terminology. Even technical folks seem to have a hard time agreeing on how to measure things.

 

One, just one example is all I am asking for...

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

One, just one example is all I am asking for...

I am sure we agree. I firmly believe that everything I hear could me measured given sufficient time and resources.

 

Its just that when I recently threw out several ways to measure "jitter" it caused way more pushback than I expected. People are great at finding reasons why things won't work or aren't meaningful. Exactly like climate change: people will look at anything and chose not to believe it, or alternatively believe it no matter what, just depending on whatever their own preconceptions are.

 

Indeed most of these arguments are more about preconceptions and the need to prove one's own viewpoint.

[monteverdi]

Why restrict the discussion only to measurements of gear (i.e electro mechanical/acoustical). Psychoacoustic measurements would bring more objectivity into what we can hear and less subject to cultural bias.

[fas42]

A somewhat important one for me is the measuring of what qualities are sufficient for a system to have 100% invisible speakers; that is, it becomes impossible to audibly detect the drivers working, no matter where in the room you choose to listen. This is rarely experienced, because the level of audible anamalies has to be very low - but what numbers are applicable? Key types of distortion must be extremely low, all interference effects must be strongly attenuated, the speaker must be physically very stable within the listening area - these parameters should be measurable, but no-one has attempted to do so - I am also none the wiser as to how to put numbers to it.

[wgscott]

13 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

Why restrict the discussion only to measurements of gear (i.e electro mechanical/acoustical). Psychoacoustic measurements would bring more objectivity into what we can hear and less subject to cultural bias.

 

Because I am looking for a very simple, straightforward and uncontroversial example.  The existence of such examples gets invoked all the time in various discussions, so certainly this shouldn't be too much to ask for.

[patagent]

If it can be recorded in a medium and played back, it's measurable.  Whether or not people have figured out a way to measure it is another question.

[Superdad]

12 hours ago, wgscott said:

Anyway, if there are well-known, established examples of readily audible but unmeasurable differences (that stand up to various reality checks like blind testing, etc), please list them.

 

Tinnitus!

Anyone who has tinnitus very clearly hears the ringing in their ears.  It is real, very loud for some, and a very specific frequency.  But I don't know if a tiny microphone inserted into the ear canal would pick it up.

[GUTB]

One aspect that's interested me lately is audio imaging. I don't know if there any objective means to measure it. I know there is theory on the topic, but nothing as well documented / studied that would allow you to objectify it. I know that many of you reading this thread actually have no idea what I'm talking about, and think a stereo image is left, right and center. After spending close to 2k in room treatments and re-arranging things dozens of times, including a bunch of money on measurement equipment, I've finally arrived at the "next level" of imaging. Sometimes sounds come from several feet beyond the edge of speakers, and even looking directly at the speaker doesn't totally collapse the illusion. Speakers have literally disappeared from the center, cymbals will envelope as opposed to eminate. Instruments in high quality recordings exist as unique entities in space. 

 

Seperating the sound from the speakers and unfurling a sound stage turned out not be easy for inexpensive. If there was a way to objectively measure it, it would undoubtedly greatly improve the accesability of this hobby.

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Tinnitus!

Anyone who has tinnitus very clearly hears the ringing in their ears.  It is real, very loud for some, and a very specific frequency.  But I don't know if a tiny microphone inserted into the ear canal would pick it up.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9642350

 

Yes it shows up in various ways with otoacoustic emissions testing.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, watercourse said:

"Image density" as I have heard it, can be described as giving the listener an impression of solid objects in the reproduced soundstage. In my experience, systems that have some leanness, e.g. lack midbass or have emphasized treble frequencies, will have less image density.

 

"Image specificity" means instrument(s) or voice(s) are more easily discerned and/or located in space (in the soundstage). This may have something to do with system self-noise and/or ambient noise levels, and likely treble reproduction characteristics.

 

I think I'm seeing these two as again likely based on spectral characteristics, and therefore likely measurable.

 

 

Both of those terms relate to what I call competent playback, and IME have nothing to do with FR. One can say that system self-noise is an issue, in the sense that low level detail in the recording itself is masked by low level reproduction artifacts, making it impossible for the brain to decode the recording data fully, and then the potential "density" and "specificity" is compromised.

 

"Rich 3D dynamic" sound is actually the true nature of recordings, and this is quite often masked by non-optimal playback.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

One aspect that's interested me lately is audio imaging. I don't know if there any objective means to measure it. I know there is theory on the topic, but nothing as well documented / studied that would allow you to objectify it. I know that many of you reading this thread actually have no idea what I'm talking about, and think a stereo image is left, right and center. After spending close to 2k in room treatments and re-arranging things dozens of times, including a bunch of money on measurement equipment, I've finally arrived at the "next level" of imaging. Sometimes sounds come from several feet beyond the edge of speakers, and even looking directly at the speaker doesn't totally collapse the illusion. Speakers have literally disappeared from the center, cymbals will envelope as opposed to eminate. Instruments in high quality recordings exist as unique entities in space. 

 

Seperating the sound from the speakers and unfurling a sound stage turned out not be easy for inexpensive. If there was a way to objectively measure it, it would undoubtedly greatly improve the accesability of this hobby.

 

Count me in as one who understands! Yes, "seperating the sound from the speakers and unfurling a sound stage" is hard - but doesn't have to be expensive! I first experienced a full-blown version of this 30 years ago, through great attention to detail - but still find it very difficult to achieve in a particular, new situation.

 

Measuring such would be ideal - but I still haven't achieved that level of understanding.

[watercourse]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Both of those terms relate to what I call competent playback, and IME have nothing to do with FR. One can say that system self-noise is an issue, in the sense that low level detail in the recording itself is masked by low level reproduction artifacts, making it impossible for the brain to decode the recording data fully, and then the potential "density" and "specificity" is compromised.

 

"Rich 3D dynamic" sound is actually the true nature of recordings, and this is quite often masked by non-optimal playback.

 

So it sounds like there is some agreement that "image density" and "image specificity" are non-controversial.

 

@fas42I also agree that image density and image specificity are qualities of competent playback, and also increase listening enjoyment and suspension of disbelief depending on the recording. Some of this of course is fundamental speaker set up, controlling ground loops, and the influence (or control of influence) of the room (yes, I'm a big fan of Jim Smith's Get Better Sound).

 

I've heard some small monitors exhibit image specificity, so I agree that it is not necessary to have full range frequency reproduction to image well. Perhaps it is only due to lack of experience that I have not heard bass-shy or tipped-up speakers exhibit image density, but I haven't heard it (or at least I can't recall that I have). If it is the case that limited range speakers can and do exhibit image density, what would you say about this quality then that you can measure?

 

I will disagree with the second paragraph, for instance, some of my favorite punk, early jazz, and ethnic recordings will never have "rich" or "3-D sound", yet I love them just the same, and don't need to hear them on the best systems to enjoy them fully.

[Fokus]

9 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Part of the measurement problem here is the illusion of soundstage is entirely dependent on speakers, dispersion patterns, room reflections, etc. 

 

And listener.

 

It is largely a learned skill.

[sphinxsix]

11 hours ago, wgscott said:

or even learn something new

Thanks, I learn quite a lot, in fact as much as I want here. Recently mainly on music subforums.

 

11 hours ago, wgscott said:

it helps to dispense with the sophomoric and dismissive caricatures of those who have an opinion that happens to be at variance with your own. 

You are right - there was a moment, quite soon after I joined this forum when I decided(!) to be arrogant and even provocative on certain kind of threads. If you want to know the reason why think about two words - 'respect' (or rather lack of it) and 'mutual'. In objectivists vs subjectivists context. I'm not planning to change my attitude (some people attitude must change first and I'm afraid it won't happen any time soon). I'm comfortable with it And I don't care that much if someone isn't  That's all I want to say right now.

BTW just to make it 100% clear - I have lots of respect for you. And for many other objectivists.

 

10 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

As to your suggested questions, first soundstaging.  Good one!

I meant measuring soundstaging ability on gear level.

10 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

On comparative timbers like richness, that is easy.  I believe that is measurable by comparing traditional measurements, primarily just of frequency response

I don't think so - according to my knowledge and experience eg quite bad and cheap loudspeakers can have frequency rsponse almost as flat as expensive hi-end ones and the differences in timbral richness between them can be huge. Just like the differences between two different hi-end speakers both having (quite) flat FR.

 

9 hours ago, semente said:

As far as I know, both "timbral richness" and "soundstage" are properties of the recording

I'm quite suprised by your statement - I know you are a knowledgeable guy. In my experience gear, in particular loudspeakers (obviously room too) influences reproduction of soundstage and timbres a lot.

 

9 hours ago, semente said:

Which raises an interesting issue: are we trying to (capture and) reproduce space or music?

I like this one  The older I get the more important reproduction of realistic soundstage or 'air'  around the instruments becomes for me. I think it's in particular important in classical music. Unfortunatly quite often one has to pay a lot for 'air' (meaning hi-end gear reproduces much more of it than mid-fi or really cheap gear). There's no music without 'air', it has to 'breath'. Just like us Where there is sound - there is also reverb (maybe a bit less of it in the desert ).

[Bob Stern]

9 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I suspect most all our ears actually respond to aural stimuli in fairly similar ways.  But, when our much more diverse (or perverse) brains capture and process those similar stimuli, there is a huge difference in our individual response and what we think we perceive.

 

I vaguely recall reading that the brain is even more intimately involved than that, which would be consistent with my observations.  Even if you ask audiophiles to make a purely objective comparison of something like tonal balance, and ask them to put aside matters of personal preference or perceived "correctness", I find they often cannot even agree on differences in tonal balance.  I think our brains have learned over the years to perceive the same sounds differently.