That's generally good advice, but many speakers are technically "bad" especially when you measure them in-room. They can be fixed in many respects though now and more importantly fixed for the problems at your ears... Not in an anechoic chamber.
Once an alignment between what we hear and what is measured has taken place,we can work with the measurements that matter.It's definitely a case of doing both in order to understand which measurements are most important I feel. It's key to producing true improvements because expectation bias may mean we'll "hear" an improvement whether there is one or not. That can also work the other way where one may have a preconceived idea that something on a measured graph is too small to make a difference, so in that case won't "hear" any difference and won't even be prepared to listen.Blind tests are often criticised, but it can be too easy to convince ourselves one way or another before listening has even began if we don't want one to exist,just so we may be proven "right". Stubbornness and refusal to concede to the "other side" is prevalent both in politics and audio,but a willingness to eat humble pie and admit that we may be wrong about some things is all part of the journey.
Stephe from Skunkie Designs discussed this regulation last week and was really pleased. She has reviewed several budget Chinese tube amps and has been critical of most of them as they are advertised 10 watts but are only capable of 2 or 3 watts. She views it as a consumer protection measure rather than an audiophile thing.
Cool discussion. Specs and measurements are good for telling me if a piece of equipment is well designed, engineered and built. But it won’t tell me, or anyone, what it will sound like. I will make sure a piece of gear I am considering measures well to confirm quality and thoughtful design but then I forget about them and just focus on what it sounds like to me.
Yeah that's true for most specs and measurements made in a vacuum, but we also have measurements now that tell us exactly what's going on at our listening position and even our ears. Those can be used to tell you more about what you're going to hear versus the engineering side of things we traditionally use measurements for... as you correctly pointed out.
GM☕️ 50/50 ..specs to match performance parameters for speakers and amps. Human hearing yup,with age (and sonic abuse) will change (usual degrading over time) …so do YOU like the way it sounds and performs for you..that’s the big question. Great video. Have a great weekend..and I’ll we see your fashionable self in Toronto this October?
If you get the Bacch and get the impulse response for each ear at your listening position, it really helps with knowing exactly what reflections may be bad and where to find them to put treatments.
It takes a lot of variables out of the equation compared to other measurements. You still have variables such as hearing loss and whatever your brain does to process the sound waves different from a mic, but it's 100x better than what anechoic chamber measurements tell you about what you may hear.
Most conversations I have with audiophiles who are measurement purists suggest that the ultimate draw is to ensure that what is on the recording is exactly the same thing that reaches your ear at the listening position - absolutely nothing subtracted or added. Question: Do you think modern measurements (taken as a set) are actually capable of doing this?
Measurements are the only way to know that what you are hearing is close to what's on the recording. However, they can't just be one foot away measurements in an anechoic chamber or from AP tests. They need to be at your listening position and in your ears with psychoacoustic factors addressed as well to take into account the room, ear pinna and other things we've learned from science. Then, people can easily see the correlation between measurements and what they hear.
@@AudiophileJunkie My question is more theoretical: Do you think measurements as they exist today can tell us that what hits the ear at the listening position is IN EVERY RESPECT the same as what's on the recording or tell us that it matches what's on the recording ONLY IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. If the latter, I think that arguably calls into question the entire enterprise of measurements. Curious what you think.
It's a great question, but a complicated answer. In one sense...yes...we can measure the same sound waves that hit your ear drum with a mic that's in your ears. Both are "mics" turning that sound into electrical impulses. The difference is that the ear drum goes into the nervous system and brain where gigabytes of other data is being processed, whereas the measurement mic is just silo tasked to process the electrical impulses into objective data. Thus, in that sense, the answer is "no" because we aren't also measuring all the other stimuli in your brain and the complex nature of how we process it. Plus, we have "mics" (i.e. our ear drums) that fail over time and have limitations that a mic doesn't. Thus, we actually measure MORE than what our ears can hear and process. My recent video today with regard to amplifier measurements delves into this topic about measurements in general later in the video. You might find it interesting because I think the weakness in the hobby is correlating these measurements to what we hear...as your good question implies. There is still work to be done and lots of primitive conclusions being made with relying on only one or the other.
@@AudiophileJunkie Thanks for the response! That part makes sense. It has been asserted by some experienced audiophiles with technical knowledge of measurements that two systems can measure near-identically on all available measurements yet sound very differently in regards to subjective dimensions of sound we commonly speak about as audiophiles such as soundstage height, depth, width, layering, imaging, tonality, transient response, etc. Would you agree with that assertion? If this is the case, then it seems to me that measurements have an intractable problem in their inability to pick-out precisely what is actually on the recording and it then becomes arguable that an audio system optimized to measure the best might also produce unknown and un-measurable inaccuracies in the reproduction of other sound characteristics as a result of that optimization process leading it to potentially be less accurate than without the use of those measurements in the first place.
The problem with that assertion is that they really DON'T measure identically. It's impossible for two different systems as a whole to measure identically. They are likely focusing on just a few stats that are near identical, but not factoring in tons of others that weren't measured to ensure they are identical. Plus, where are they doing this identical A/B comparison of both gear and room? It's likely just a theoretical discussion or primitive conclusions versus a TRUE identically measuring system comparison in identical rooms, but different gear.
That's what's great about reviews from ASR, and Erin Audio's corner. No BS audio jargon. Can't stand watching, or reading subjective reviews anymore. So predictable. Can tell you what they will say before the review guaranteed. Great soundstage, detail retrieval, silky mids, bass definition blah blah blah.... Can't believe anyone falls for that crap anymore.
Yeah they provide a valuable service, but it's still based mainly on engineering prowess "review" and a lot of focus on stats that are inaudible (IE -130db SNR DAC compared to -120db). Thus, it's important to CORRELATE those measurements to what's audible and important to you. Many measurements are more important than others after you learn the correlations.
I agree also that standard Audiophile jargon reviews are pretty useless unless you really know them, their room, and there preferences. They should be required to at least provide in room measurements to know what standard they are basing their comments on.
@@AudiophileJunkie both sides are “audiophiles” but there are 2 basic camps. Just watch the RUclips channels. There are channels that talk mostly about the measurement and set up. Then there are channels that just describe the music experience and how the equipment sounded. There are the hybrids like your channel and Erin’s that do bridge the gap. But that’s not the norm. The reason there are basically 2 camps is because they are driven by the 2 types of viewers. And you can probably categorize them by vinyl and streaming and you wouldn’t too far off.
C'mon everybody knows that the best way to fix bad speakers is to continue to drink until they don't sound like carp [sic]. Ok, seriously, you need both. Look at Erin's reviews. He provides both subjective opinions and objective data and shows the correlation. Bottom line... its what sound best to you, in your home. That said, I've got these CNC carved man made Sapphire Crystal cable lifters that will magically improve the sound of any system for sale... 🤦♂
Both !!! 😊Each has their strengths and weaknesses!!!🎉🎉🎉
Trust measurements only.
A poorly measuring loudspeaker will always be a poorly measuring loudspeaker.
Only trust your ears in your room when you buy.
That's generally good advice, but many speakers are technically "bad" especially when you measure them in-room. They can be fixed in many respects though now and more importantly fixed for the problems at your ears... Not in an anechoic chamber.
Once an alignment between what we hear and what is measured has taken place,we can work with the measurements that matter.It's definitely a case of doing both in order to understand which measurements are most important I feel. It's key to producing true improvements because expectation bias may mean we'll "hear" an improvement whether there is one or not. That can also work the other way where one may have a preconceived idea that something on a measured graph is too small to make a difference, so in that case won't "hear" any difference and won't even be prepared to listen.Blind tests are often criticised, but it can be too easy to convince ourselves one way or another before listening has even began if we don't want one to exist,just so we may be proven "right". Stubbornness and refusal to concede to the "other side" is prevalent both in politics and audio,but a willingness to eat humble pie and admit that we may be wrong about some things is all part of the journey.
If you know what measurements your ears prefer you should trust both.
Stephe from Skunkie Designs discussed this regulation last week and was really pleased. She has reviewed several budget Chinese tube amps and has been critical of most of them as they are advertised 10 watts but are only capable of 2 or 3 watts. She views it as a consumer protection measure rather than an audiophile thing.
Audiophiles are consumers too 🤠
Excellent: intelligent, balanced, evidence based. Thanks!
Cool discussion. Specs and measurements are good for telling me if a piece of equipment is well designed, engineered and built. But it won’t tell me, or anyone, what it will sound like. I will make sure a piece of gear I am considering measures well to confirm quality and thoughtful design but then I forget about them and just focus on what it sounds like to me.
Yeah that's true for most specs and measurements made in a vacuum, but we also have measurements now that tell us exactly what's going on at our listening position and even our ears. Those can be used to tell you more about what you're going to hear versus the engineering side of things we traditionally use measurements for... as you correctly pointed out.
GM☕️
50/50 ..specs to match performance parameters for speakers and amps.
Human hearing yup,with age (and sonic abuse) will change (usual degrading over time) …so do YOU like the way it sounds and performs for you..that’s the big question.
Great video.
Have a great weekend..and I’ll we see your fashionable self in Toronto this October?
Yeah I'll be in Toronto 👍
@@AudiophileJunkie AWESOME 😎
Own dipoles, listen to room reflections.
Each upgrade has a sonic effect 😊
REW helped lower subwoofer volume
If you get the Bacch and get the impulse response for each ear at your listening position, it really helps with knowing exactly what reflections may be bad and where to find them to put treatments.
Measurements are important, but we are not at the point where we can map specific measurements to what we perceive in sound
Actually you can now with the Bacch and it even takes into account psychoacoustics, but you're right about it being heretofore a pipe dream.
Measurements are a guideline everyone hears and experiences individually. ❤ the idea of Bach seems like a marriage of both
It takes a lot of variables out of the equation compared to other measurements. You still have variables such as hearing loss and whatever your brain does to process the sound waves different from a mic, but it's 100x better than what anechoic chamber measurements tell you about what you may hear.
I trust my audio dealer and my mother, and great RUclips stars like you.
Lol
Ears. If you can't audition or get the opinion of a trusted source, don't buy.
Most conversations I have with audiophiles who are measurement purists suggest that the ultimate draw is to ensure that what is on the recording is exactly the same thing that reaches your ear at the listening position - absolutely nothing subtracted or added.
Question: Do you think modern measurements (taken as a set) are actually capable of doing this?
Measurements are the only way to know that what you are hearing is close to what's on the recording. However, they can't just be one foot away measurements in an anechoic chamber or from AP tests. They need to be at your listening position and in your ears with psychoacoustic factors addressed as well to take into account the room, ear pinna and other things we've learned from science.
Then, people can easily see the correlation between measurements and what they hear.
@@AudiophileJunkie My question is more theoretical: Do you think measurements as they exist today can tell us that what hits the ear at the listening position is IN EVERY RESPECT the same as what's on the recording or tell us that it matches what's on the recording ONLY IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. If the latter, I think that arguably calls into question the entire enterprise of measurements. Curious what you think.
It's a great question, but a complicated answer. In one sense...yes...we can measure the same sound waves that hit your ear drum with a mic that's in your ears. Both are "mics" turning that sound into electrical impulses. The difference is that the ear drum goes into the nervous system and brain where gigabytes of other data is being processed, whereas the measurement mic is just silo tasked to process the electrical impulses into objective data. Thus, in that sense, the answer is "no" because we aren't also measuring all the other stimuli in your brain and the complex nature of how we process it. Plus, we have "mics" (i.e. our ear drums) that fail over time and have limitations that a mic doesn't. Thus, we actually measure MORE than what our ears can hear and process.
My recent video today with regard to amplifier measurements delves into this topic about measurements in general later in the video. You might find it interesting because I think the weakness in the hobby is correlating these measurements to what we hear...as your good question implies. There is still work to be done and lots of primitive conclusions being made with relying on only one or the other.
@@AudiophileJunkie Thanks for the response! That part makes sense. It has been asserted by some experienced audiophiles with technical knowledge of measurements that two systems can measure near-identically on all available measurements yet sound very differently in regards to subjective dimensions of sound we commonly speak about as audiophiles such as soundstage height, depth, width, layering, imaging, tonality, transient response, etc. Would you agree with that assertion? If this is the case, then it seems to me that measurements have an intractable problem in their inability to pick-out precisely what is actually on the recording and it then becomes arguable that an audio system optimized to measure the best might also produce unknown and un-measurable inaccuracies in the reproduction of other sound characteristics as a result of that optimization process leading it to potentially be less accurate than without the use of those measurements in the first place.
The problem with that assertion is that they really DON'T measure identically. It's impossible for two different systems as a whole to measure identically. They are likely focusing on just a few stats that are near identical, but not factoring in tons of others that weren't measured to ensure they are identical. Plus, where are they doing this identical A/B comparison of both gear and room? It's likely just a theoretical discussion or primitive conclusions versus a TRUE identically measuring system comparison in identical rooms, but different gear.
That's what's great about reviews from ASR, and Erin Audio's corner. No BS audio jargon. Can't stand watching, or reading subjective reviews anymore. So predictable. Can tell you what they will say before the review guaranteed. Great soundstage, detail retrieval, silky mids, bass definition blah blah blah.... Can't believe anyone falls for that crap anymore.
Yeah they provide a valuable service, but it's still based mainly on engineering prowess "review" and a lot of focus on stats that are inaudible (IE -130db SNR DAC compared to -120db). Thus, it's important to CORRELATE those measurements to what's audible and important to you. Many measurements are more important than others after you learn the correlations.
I agree also that standard Audiophile jargon reviews are pretty useless unless you really know them, their room, and there preferences. They should be required to at least provide in room measurements to know what standard they are basing their comments on.
There’s people that listen to music and people that listen to measurements.
The two are more correlated than that trope implies... Assuming you're using the right measurements
@@AudiophileJunkie both sides are “audiophiles” but there are 2 basic camps. Just watch the RUclips channels. There are channels that talk mostly about the measurement and set up. Then there are channels that just describe the music experience and how the equipment sounded. There are the hybrids like your channel and Erin’s that do bridge the gap. But that’s not the norm. The reason there are basically 2 camps is because they are driven by the 2 types of viewers. And you can probably categorize them by vinyl and streaming and you wouldn’t too far off.
C'mon everybody knows that the best way to fix bad speakers is to continue to drink until they don't sound like carp [sic].
Ok, seriously, you need both. Look at Erin's reviews. He provides both subjective opinions and objective data and shows the correlation.
Bottom line... its what sound best to you, in your home.
That said, I've got these CNC carved man made Sapphire Crystal cable lifters that will magically improve the sound of any system for sale... 🤦♂