jkeny

Measurements without psychoacoustic relevance - how useful?

Recommended Posts

Super Wammer
2 minutes ago, SergeAuckland said:

Would I do that?

;)

S.

You would, but you must stop it immediately.

Appearances have to be maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chris217 said:

Re amplifier crossover distortion.

When I was at college studying electronics I decided to measure the crossover distortion of my power amplifier -  a Quad 303 - and borrowed a low distortion oscillator and a distortion meter. The signal level was set to be barely audible and the distortion meter showed no distortion at the fifth harmonic. As a check, I connected the oscillator directly to the meter, which gave a slightly higher reading, which I put down to lack of buffering provided by the amplifier. (From memory, the distortion meter had a 50 ohm input impedance against 47k ohms for the 303.)

So if an amplifier from the 1970s produces negligible crossover distortion, I would expect any competently designed modern amplifier to be at least as good.

Yep, that doesn't surprise me. I didn't mean to imply that the amplifier I cited in my example would be typical, or even sensible. It's an example to show that the conditions under which specifications were determined are important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article here but he misuses the word "neutral" https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-neutral

How I interpret "neutral" to mean is that, despite measurements, we use our auditory perception to judge whether a device (he talks about headphones here) interrupts the on-going auditory illusion that is the goal for most people's enjoyment of this hobby.

He also mentions Toole's results that I have referenced many times (Harmon), which shows that auditory perception is universal, not individual - given normal hearing for our age, we coalesce towards the same preference in the sound of speakers  

I also mentioned before about the flaw in the argument that electrical device distortion is so much lower than transducer distortion & therefore, that argument goes, that electrical device distortion is of no consequence i.e. it will be swamped by the speaker distortion, not to mention room effects. The counter to this argument is the fact that ear itself distorts (has very different frequency plots) far more than speakers do & different people have very different frequency plots when measured at the ear's tympanic membrane. Which leads to the question - how can we therefore all coalesce towards the same preference in speakers as Toole has shown? Obviously, you have to look at some other way of solving this conundrum    

Edited by jkeny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 hour ago, jkeny said:

Which leads to the question - how can we therefore all coalesce towards the same preference in speakers as Toole has shown?

“How can we?” implies this is a desirable or worthwhile goal which in turn implies a value judgement about, I don’t know, conformity: feels like a throwback to some communist or fascist non-utopia where we all enjoy the same “People’s Speakers”.

Who would gain if “we” achieved this? And what would the nature of that gain be? 

I’m struggling to see a problem which needs solving here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim was made by some that we all hear 'differently' - we don't as Toole's & others results demonstrate the flaw in this claim 

The claim was made by some that transducer distortions are far greater than electrical playback device distortions & therefore we can effectively ignore such electrical device distortions - with the above, I'm showing the flaw in this claim.

Your semi-political aside is nothing to do with these points but to answer your points directly:

It's not a question of conformity & "who would gain if we achieved this" - I'm stating how auditory perception works the same in every normal hearing person - I'm not stating some hoped for goal or wish - this is the reality of auditory perception whether you find it palatable or not, it's reality.  

- what Toole's results show (& remember we are in the tech corner so these results are a correlation of measurement to blind listening) is that our auditory perception works pretty identically in most people, irrespective of age, experience, etc - essentially it showed that smooth & flat frequency response on & off axis was the preferred sound when box speakers are used.

Do you accept this? If so you realise that we don't all perceive differently in regard to direct & reflected frequency perception.

And yet we all have a very individual frequency distortion spectrum (measured) in our ear canal & cochlea. So how do you reconcile these two facts? Surely the freq distortions of our ear canals, if large enough, will cause all sorts of varied preferences in this test?

I'll leave you to ponder this & make the connection between the thread title & these facts 

Edited by jkeny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
4 hours ago, jkeny said:

The claim was made by some that we all hear 'differently' - we don't as Toole's & others results demonstrate the flaw in this claim 

The claim was made by some that transducer distortions are far greater than electrical playback device distortions & therefore we can effectively ignore such electrical device distortions - with the above, I'm showing the flaw in this claim.

Your semi-political aside is nothing to do with these points but to answer your points directly:

It's not a question of conformity & "who would gain if we achieved this" - I'm stating how auditory perception works the same in every normal hearing person - I'm not stating some hoped for goal or wish - this is the reality of auditory perception whether you find it palatable or not, it's reality.  

- what Toole's results show (& remember we are in the tech corner so these results are a correlation of measurement to blind listening) is that our auditory perception works pretty identically in most people, irrespective of age, experience, etc - essentially it showed that smooth & flat frequency response on & off axis was the preferred sound when box speakers are used.

Do you accept this? If so you realise that we don't all perceive differently in regard to direct & reflected frequency perception.

And yet we all have a very individual frequency distortion spectrum (measured) in our ear canal & cochlea. So how do you reconcile these two facts? Surely the freq distortions of our ear canals, if large enough, will cause all sorts of varied preferences in this test?

I'll leave you to ponder this & make the connection between the thread title & these facts 

I find this deeply patronising.

It was you who said "how can we therefore all coalesce" which means you are indeed stating some hoped for goal or wish. Rephrase it by all means if that's not what you meant, but you did say "how can we" not "what if we".

I acknowledge Toole's work. Let's say I accept it as fact (I don't, but that is not relevant as you clearly do). You are still not making clear what you think we should DO about it if we do accept it, and to what end; put more prosaically, you are still not answering the "so what?" question. This is just so much academic nonsense unless you apply it to the hifi field in some way. Are you working on a cochlear transplant of some sort? Or Ear Hair Standardising Cream? If not then I simply cannot see the point of reflecting on this topic so I can't see why you've raised it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
2 minutes ago, jkeny said:

OK, if you can't understand my posts or the relevance of the thread title, why participate?

I do understand your posts. I understand the relevance of the thread title to the world of hifi. I'm intelligent and educated.

I was hoping to understand what the point of reflecting on it all might be: how it might affect imminent developments in hifi products, how we might all be about to start hearing or listening differently or buying or assembling our systems in different ways... or whatever else this apparently interesting insight might impact when applied to something. But 80 posts in, I'm none the wiser. I'll leave you to it for a while and pop back in next week to see if it is going anywhere.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

I do understand your posts. I understand the relevance of the thread title to the world of hifi. I'm intelligent and educated.

I was hoping to understand what the point of reflecting on it all might be: how it might affect imminent developments in hifi products, how we might all be about to start hearing or listening differently or buying or assembling our systems in different ways... or whatever else this apparently interesting insight might impact when applied to something. But 80 posts in, I'm none the wiser. I'll leave you to it for a while and pop back in next week to see if it is going anywhere.

From the get go you seemed focussed on presenting this thread as 'just another' subjective/objective debate but I believe that what I have presented is mostly objective information.

If you want to be told something practical then perhaps you don't understand the thread itself?

You present your unsatisfied desire as some failing of the thread so again, maybe you don't understand & it isn't for you!!

I'm sure there are many other threads which will satisfy your desire?

Edited by jkeny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Yawn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheFlash said:

I find this deeply patronising.

It was you who said "how can we therefore all coalesce" which means you are indeed stating some hoped for goal or wish. Rephrase it by all means if that's not what you meant, but you did say "how can we" not "what if we".

1

You reading your own skewed interpretation into what I posted - go back & read it again & you should see how wrong your interpretation is 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

To quote someone way more sensible, 'it's only a hi fi'.

Please can we stop this rubbish.

Both sides are both wrong and right. You are all quoting stuff that is mostly theoretical, mostly unproven and seldom if ever peer reviewed.

More to the point, does any of this actually matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rabski said:

Both sides are both wrong and right. You are all quoting stuff that is mostly theoretical, mostly unproven and seldom if ever peer reviewed.

Correction - nothing I have stated is unproven or is not peer-reviewed 

13 minutes ago, rabski said:

More to the point, does any of this actually matter?

 I wonder why you don't just ignore it rather than posting that it makes you uncomfortable & plead for the cessation of posts?

I would have thought that the role of & validity of measurements in this hobby might be worth discussing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

I don't recall saying anything makes me 'uncomfortable'. I am actually extremely comfortable, thank you. Nevertheless, what does make me 'uncomfortable' is this constant negativity and unpleasantness. It is not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.