What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Bob Stern]

Regarding spatial effects, several experimenters have demonstrated that boosting or cutting certain frequency bands makes the apparent location move both vertically and front-to-back.

[esldude]

36 minutes ago, Bob Stern said:

 

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.

I don't know. The work by Harman at one point used people form different cultures and native languages yet they preferred most highly the same attributes of sound quality. 

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

snippage...........

 

I meant measuring soundstaging ability on gear level.

 It has been pointed out before that Q sound can manipulate soundstaging predictably and quite dramatically.  In order to do that they had to know what changes in the signal cause it.  Though proprietary that shows soundstaging is a measurable definable quality. The current varieties of multi-channel object oriented sound formats are additional evidence to that.  So while magazines may not have a measured soundstaging spec, such is doable by at least some people

44 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

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.

I would point out there are no loudspeakers with flat response in the sense that electronics are flat.  Much less a pair of different loudspeakers with nearly the same spectral balance and directivity.  Those together are plenty to make two speakers have very different overall character in a given space. 

 

So I think Bill is still waiting for his one, just one good example.

 

[Norton]

6 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

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

 

There is a futility in asking for a proven fact in what is simply an Internet discussion of opinion.  For every such example someone suggests, someone else will claim that it is measurable.  But whether it is readily measurable and whether there will always be such a measurable difference between any two products that are perceived as sounding different in that way is a different  matter.

 

Mostly cited already, but  I would suggest that it is likely that there will be at least one case where two products differ in perceived  sound in one of the following examples, but where no readily measurable difference occurs:

 

1.speed (I never understood the term, until  I heard my current amps)

2. PRaT (I'm thinking more  Garrad 301 rather than the usual  cliche examples here)

3.Transparency

4.sound staging/imaging

5.fullness/solidity/texture of sound (that "reach out and touch" sense of realism)

6. Slam (which I define as 1+5)

 

There is also the much used characteristic  "Musicality" which I personally find meaningless but maybe for others has some bearing on your quest for examples.

 

ps I'm not anti measurement, I'm very happy that manufacturers use measurements to help develop and test products, it's just not information that I would use to choose between audio products as a consumer.  In terms of actual consumer behaviour, even amongst self-identified audiophiles, I suspect I'm in the majority in that respect.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, watercourse said:

 

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.

 

Possibly because the amplication chain was not sufficient, regarding getting density. It appears to be a psychoacoustic factor, because a bass-shy speaker will deliver a subjective impression of deep, intense bass if driven with a high quality signal - the harmonics convey the information which the brain then reconstructs as the "correct note" - I have yet to hear a recording I have of the Sydney Opera House pipe organ being played on a system which has all the bass drivers necessary to get the job done, belonging to someone else, being delivered with the majesty and sheer 'grunt' that I have heard on my own systems, using only modest bookshelf sized speakers. I put this down to the quality of the sound, which allows a correct interpretation of the sound field to be made - IOW, very low levels of audible anomalies; how to precisely measure this I have yet to determine.

 

"Rich" and "3D" again comes from adequate quality; it may take quite a bit of effort to get the necessary performance to deliver on the sort of recordings you mention - but, it is possible. True mono recordings won't have left/right, but will be highly layered in the depth sense - subjectively, there will be plenty of apparent space with them.

 

It's one of the criteria I use to evaluate systems - how well can they recover "rich 3D" from "unpromising" recordings ...

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

There is a futility in asking for a proven fact in what is simply an Internet discussion of opinion.  For every such example someone suggests, someone else will claim that it is measurable.  But whether it is readily measurable and whether there will always be such a measurable difference between any two products that are perceived as sounding different in that way is a different  matter.

 

Mostly cited already, but  I would suggest that it is likely that there will be at least one case where two products differ in perceived  sound in one of the following examples, but where no readily measurable difference occurs:

 

1.speed (I never understood the term, until  I heard my current amps)

2. PRaT

3.Transparency

4.sound staging/imaging

5.fullness/solidity/texture of sound (that "reach out and touch" sense of realism)

6. Slam (which I define as 1+5)

 

There is also the much used characteristic  "Musicality" which I personally find meaningless but maybe for others has some bearing on your quest for examples.

 

ps I'm not anti measurement, I'm very happy that manufacturers use measurements to develop and test products, it's just not information that I would use to choose between audio products as a consumer.  I suspect I'm in the majority in that respect.

From the OP in this thread:

 

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.

 

I have tested most on your list in some way.  They don't stand up to the reality checks except when there are measurable differences like FR most of the time.  I say this as someone who has heard all the things you have on your list and believed them.  Results seem to keep hammering home the idea that hifi is 85% frequency response when differences do pass reality checks. 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Possibly because the amplication chain was not sufficient, regarding getting density. It appears to be a psychoacoustic factor, because a bass-shy speaker will deliver a subjective impression of deep, intense bass if driven with a high quality signal - the harmonics convey the information which the brain then reconstructs as the "correct note" - I have yet to hear a recording I have of the Sydney Opera House pipe organ being played on a system which has all the bass drivers necessary to get the job done, belonging to someone else, being delivered with the majesty and sheer 'grunt' that I have heard on my own systems, using only modest bookshelf sized speakers. I put this down to the quality of the sound, which allows a correct interpretation of the sound field to be made - IOW, very low levels of audible anomalies; how to precisely measure this I have yet to determine.

 

"Rich" and "3D" again comes from adequate quality; it may take quite a bit of effort to get the necessary performance to deliver on the sort of recordings you mention - but, it is possible. True mono recordings won't have left/right, but will be highly layered in the depth sense - subjectively, there will be plenty of apparent space with them.

 

It's one of the criteria I use to evaluate systems - how well can they recover "rich 3D" from "unpromising" recordings ...

And you don't do reality checks do you?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Fokus said:

 

And listener.

 

It is largely a learned skill.

 

I find that pretty bizarre ... I hear the qualities that matter in live, acoustic sound; and I look for the same in reproduced sound - I can't see where "learning" comes into this ...

 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

And you don't do reality checks do you?

 

Meaning?

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Meaning?

See the original post in this thread.  All your conclusions are from sighted evaluations.

[mansr]

Most of you people are completely missing the point. More precisely, you are missing the distinction between measuring a signal and predicting how the human perception will interpret that signal.

 

Since we're talking about recorded music here, we implicitly assume that the recording equipment is capable of capturing all the aspects being discussed for later reproduction. With this in mind, suppose we place a good pair of microphones (or a binaural head) at the normal listening position in front of a playback system and record the sound it makes. Then we swap out, say, the amplifier and play/record the same signal again. If there was any audible difference, the two recordings should also be different. If a human listener can reliably identify a change in the playback system while the recordings are indistinguishable (differences are at the level of background noise), then we have found something that can be heard but not measured.

[STC]

17 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.

 

 

Let's accept that you cannot measure what others claim to hear. 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

See the original post in this thread.  All your conclusions are from sighted evaluations.

 

Quote

(that stand up to various reality checks like blind testing, etc)

 

Various? Do we have anything other than blind testing?

 

Achieving completely invisible speakers is quite easy to test "blind" - simply close your eyes, move around a bit, at random, and then see if you can locate the speakers using your ears only. This is something I did instinctively when I first experienced this behaviour, to confirm what was happening - it's a very straightforward sensory experience; it either happens or it doesn't, there's no "I want it to happen" or "I'm not really sure".

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

Let's accept that you cannot measure what others claim to hear. 

Not entirely true 

[AJ Soundfield]

13 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

I'm talking about electro-acoustic measurements.   

Then the answer is no, there are no unmeasurable properties of soundwaves reproducing mic sampled and/or electronically constructed soundfields. Obviously, that form of measurement is unsuitable for psychogenic effects.

 

cheers,

 

AJ

[AJ Soundfield]

14 hours ago, watercourse said:

It seems like the first article ("Modeling Perceptual Characteristics of Loudspeaker Reproduction in a Stereo Setup") may get at "slam" measurements (termed "punch"), and in the study, is highly correlated with spectral characteristics as suggested by @mansr... thanks for that @jabbr

There are temporal characteristics as well. I can ask the authors for their specifics when referencing.

Interestingly there are discussions in the thread about certain perceptual aspects being mysterious when it's in the posted paper ;-).

[semente]

3 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

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.

 

But this is what I meant with "transparency" - the less distortion added to the signal (from source to speakers/room), the more of the recorded sound you'll be able to listen to (i.e. decay).

 

I agree with @Fitzcaraldo215 that frequency response has an important part in "effects" such as "air" (an exaggeration of the top octave), "recessed soundstage" (a relaxation in the presence region), bass "speed" and "dryness" (a depression in the midbass), etc.

You can learn a bit about it here (see bottom of chart) and here.

Playing around with an EQ can be very instructive in this regard.

 

But frequency response should be flattish if you wish to get a better chance at reproducing the correct timbres - as long as the recording is well balanced.

 

 

So, the way I see it, in a way 3D "effects" and "timbre" correctness are inversely proportional.

 

3 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

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 ).

 

As far as I know, there's only so much "ambience" that an adequately positioned mic setup can pick up from a live unamplified performance with vocals and acoustic instruments.

If that is not enough for you then you'll need to add your own "spices".

[jabbr]

9 hours 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.

https://www.accessscience.com/content/acoustical-holography/006800

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7621/full/nature19755.html

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-30441-0_59

http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0102hald.pdf

 

Perhaps nothing has been done to your specific desires but you could pay someone if it is that important.

[STC]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Not entirely true 

 

How are you going to measurement imagination?  Unless they submit themselves to be scrutinized, which we all know that's not going to happen, you cannot dismiss their subjectivity and perception . So the unknown elements will continue to exist in audiophile world. 

 

Being different is part of our behavior. 

[semente]

8 hours ago, watercourse said:

 

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.

 

Small monitors and other wide dispersion narrow baffle speakers will "disappear" more because they will produce more sidewall and ceiling reflections in the upper mids and treble.

To my knowledge this means 3D-ness will increase but imaging will be less focused.

[jabbr]

Just now, STC said:

 

How are you going to measurement imagination?  Unless they submit themselves to be scrutinized, which we all know that's not going to happen, you cannot dismiss their subjectivity and perception . So the unknown elements will continue to exist in audiophile world. 

 

Being different is part of our behavior. 

 

Of course. The question is whether "x" can be measured, and OP is excluding "psychoacoustics". That said there are measurements of perception IIRC, in people with perfect pitch, there is a measurable "wave" when an in tune note is perceived. There are also numerous reports of electrodes that record perceptions. Stuff like that.

[watercourse]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

There are temporal characteristics as well. I can ask the authors for their specifics when referencing.

Interestingly there are discussions in the thread about certain perceptual aspects being mysterious when it's in the posted paper ;-).

 

@AJ Soundfield Of course, temporal aspects should be a factor, at least the way I have described "slam". Since you are a loudspeaker designer, I'm curious if you agree with the paper's conclusions generally?

 

And I apologize for earlier misattributing the source of this paper - I see now that you originally posted the links! Much appreciated, I for one am learning a lot. I'm a scientist, but not in the field of audio, so I appreciate reading these types of studies.

[Snowmonkey]

21 hours ago, wgscott said:

Just to clarify, I fully understand that there are differences that cannot be reduced to measurement, like an emotionally-charged vs. bland rendition -- you can measure these differences, presumably, but there is little if any indication how to interpret such measurements in terms of how emotionally compelling a rendition might be.  (The differences are objectively measurable, even if the interpretation of them in this manner is not possible.)

 

Aren't you begging the question here? 

On what basis are you making the assumption that the differences between an emotionally charged and a bland rendition are objectively measurable?

[AJ Soundfield]

43 minutes ago, watercourse said:

 I'm curious if you agree with the paper's conclusions generally?

 

And I apologize for earlier misattributing the source of this paper

The paper is a bit of a probe, they are clearly saying more research in this direction is intended, but I don't disagree with too much, as I don't think they have quite concluded yet ;-).

I do have questions/concerns for them about the test setup,which I intend to ask.

No apology needed thanks, these threads move fast here!

Good to know there are other science driven types here. We seem to live in the age of strong anti-science now.

Not quite creatures of the wheel...yet ;-).

[christopher3393]

Can musical meaning be measured? Can the relationship(s) between sound quality and musical meaning be measured?