Home Tweakers' Asylum

Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Tweakers' Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Some comments


Sorry but we don't always have the tools and models. We had THD measurements for a long time before we got an IMD measurement to help explain why some components which measured the same on the tests we had actually sounded different. We had digital devices and the same problem with measurements for a while before we got the jitter model and tests. Frankly, there is often a lag with models and tests which are often developed simply to help explain observed differences for which no explanation and test was previously available. No scientist would claim that we currently have a complete range of tests that will completely cover everything that we're interested in. Improvement and refinement of what we have is ongoing and there are occasional new discoveries in the process.

Well, as I've said in the past, at the end of the day all that we're ultimately left with are changes in air pressure over time. And we have the capability to measure that to vanishingly small levels.

Tests such as THD, IMD, jitter, etc. are intended to identify and quantify specific behaviors of equipment. If you simply want to determine the differences between two elements, all you ultimately need to do is compare the differences of the changes in air pressure over time between the two elements.


I think we have a very good range of tools and models but we're also still some way away from being able to put a product through a range of tests and accurately predict how a listener will experience the sound it produces, which is what correlating the measurements with what we hear would allow us to do. Just take a look at some of John Atkinson's comments about the lack of fit with his test measurements and the subjective reviewer's comments in Stereophile for frequent evidence to support this claim.

But that presumes that the reviewers' subjective perceptions are wholly the result of actual audible stimulus.

However we know that subjective perceptions are not unerring reflections of objective reality. That's because we don't hear with just our ears. Our ears are plugged into our brain and it's our brain that ultimately gives us our perception.

To assume that one's subjective perceptions not always fitting with objective measurement is only because we haven't refined our measurements is to completely ignore very real and well-established weaknesses with regard to human aural perception.

There in fact have been many good correlations made between subjective listening and objective measurement. But those who have done so haven't done so by ignoring known phenomena, putting the cart before the horse and taking leaps of faith based on assumptions.

Instead, they first establish that a certain thing is in fact actually audible and proceed from there.

Without at least that first step, all you're left with are assumptions and shots in the dark which ultimately leave us in the dark and do virtually nothing to advance our knowledge and understanding.

se






This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]