If you cant measure it you cant hear it...

[mikehit]

That depends on one's definition of "good". "Good" to me isn't what it sounds like, but how little it distorts what it's reproducing. You may have a different definition of "good".

S.

Which brings us back to the age-old argument of how do you know what it is reproducing? How do you know it is accurate to something you haven't heard?

[zebra100]

As for things like Formula 1 cars, isn't the final measurement carried out by the test driver

So many external influences on an F1 car; Track temperature, humidity, air temperature, weather..... etc.

Amplifiers can be designed to give a specific predictable output (to produce a near perfect copy of the input signal) sign by careful component selection and circuit layout.

[pure sound]

I see the job of the HiFi system to render such variations in air pressure at the loudspeaker cones/diaphragms as accurately as possible.

I'd agree with that, but I'd probably disagree with how you'd appraise how well you'd achieved it. Have you been able to measure why your B&W's sound different to your previous Meridians or to a pair of ATC's or to a pair of Harbeths to pick 4 ostensibly similar designs. Ultimately, like it or not, the preference has to be a subjective one. FWIW I think all 4 are deeply flawed but that's just my opinion & everyone else has one too.

[Lokes]

MIB said it all in post 5
"We can measure the cues, but predicting what the brain will do with them is a diferent matter!"

after spending the larger part of my life dicking around with hifi systems and even recording the odd thing or two,
it all comes down to the fact that we all prefer a different sound to our partner, friends , colleagues etc much the same
that we all don't have the same favourite singer / band , colour or appreciation of art, so ultimately what matters is that we enjoy
the music we hear not worry about it's accuracy to a reference we can't access.
Serge's argument that he's trying to reproduce what is on the CD is a red herring, the CD will have been mixed and mastered by someone
with his own preferences and this is further compromised by the engineers monitoring system, in my experience , less than perfect.
Best to go with what makes listening enjoyable, you know it makes sense

[zebra100]

The point is, electrical measurements can be taken to a minute fraction of a Volt/Amp/dBW. Even real world measurements with a calibrated, linear frequency response microphone, many more times as sensitive as the human ear can be obtained and resolved. If we can hear it, then it should be measureable.

However, not all measureable perameters can be heared. You only have to study a 1kHz sine wave on a scope. Turn the resolution up enough, and you will see noise on the waveform (even with the cleanest power supply), but it would never be heared because it is so insignificant.

[wee tam]

my only problem with this is , if a piece was recoreded in a soundproof / damped to hell studio , where does the soundstage come from ? [QUOTE=tuga;1269876]Audio terms? That's subjective...

Soundstage: spatial cues (echoes, reverberations, etc.) from the original recording venue

[mmar]

[QUOTE=Lokes;1270349]MIB said it all in post 5
"We can measure the cues, but predicting what the brain will do with them is a diferent matter!"

after spending the larger part of my life dicking around with hifi systems and even recording the odd thing or two,
it all comes down to the fact that we all prefer a different sound to our partner, friends , colleagues etc much the same
that we all don't have the same favourite singer / band , colour or appreciation of art, so ultimately what matters is that we enjoy
the music we hear not worry about it's accuracy to a reference we can't access.
Serge's argument that he's trying to reproduce what is on the CD is a red herring, the CD will have been mixed and mastered by someone
with his own preferences and this is further compromised by the engineers monitoring system, in my experience , less than perfect.
Best to go with what makes listening enjoyable, you know it makes sense[/QUOT

too true , rep added !

[bencat]

What you say about measuring and listening applies very much to loudspeakers, as these are all currently imperfect and consequently, all designs are a matter of compromise and/or personal choice in what imperfections are acceptable. Electronics, on the other hand, I feel can be designed entirely by calculation and measurement, with listening being just as a final "reality check". This of course assumes that the object of the design is to minimise distortions of all sorts. If the object of the design is for it to have a sonic character, then as with loudspeakers, each designer will have a personal idea of what they're trying to achieve. Even if fashionable today, this second approach has no attraction for me although it may have for others.

S.

Serge there is just one problem with this Loudspeakers create a sound wave which can be measured and the measures are repeatable . What a person hears is not measurable because you can neverbe sure exactly what it is they hear only they know and they have to describe it to you. My point is that what is being sent to your brain is one thing what actually arrives there is completely different for each of us.So it really does not matter what you measure outside the head because you have no real way of measuring what that translates to inside. What you hear as an individual can be altered by what you see , what you drink and how you feel do you think anyone can measure any of that ? When we all can not agree what is a good voice , a good song ,a pleasing melody what chance have we ever got that we can agree what is good sound ?

[wee tam]

one other little experiment that involves zero cost , almost zero effort , try your favourite track , relax , then use 2 fingers one on each ear (back) push the back of your ear forward and outwards and the sound changes , explanations please , as once things are "perfect" how can a simple movement like this change things ?

[zebra100]

Serge there is just one problem with this Loudspeakers create a sound wave which can be measured and themeasures are repeatable . What a person hears is not measurable becauseyou canneverbe sure exactly what itis they hear only they know and they have to describe it to you. My point is that what is being sent to your brain is onething what actually arrives there is completely different for each of us.So it really doesnotmatter what you measure outsidethe head becauseyou have no real way of measuring what that translates to inside. What you hear as anindividual can be altered by what you see , what you drink and how you feel do you think anyone can measure any of that ?

Doesn't matter how people make sence of the sound pressure waves hitting their ear drums. Absolutely irelevent. Audible changes are measureable. The auditory system isn't any more sensitive than the available test equipment.

[ncdrawl]

Actually my main point was about defining measurement. But anyway, would you seriously prefer an unpleasant but objectively accurate sound? At home? And it seems you define HiFi as Peter Walker did, not my preferred definition, " the closest approach to the original MAGIC", which is wholly subjective. Remember we (most of us) are not working in a recording studio, but looking for pleasure. Sorry, listening.
I feel that our various definitions, and desires, make it hard to find common ground, but the attempts are fascinating, and hopefully good natured.

it is only unpleasant if the recording is..

and since there is no intelligent DSP that can adjust frequency abnormalities in each recording to suit tastes, it is far better to have accurate. anything that makes all recordings "pleasant" is no doubt removing some part of the spectrum(normally HF) or removing something.

[ncdrawl]

Which brings us back to the age-old argument of how do you know what it is reproducing? How do you know it is accurate to something you haven't heard?

I do it through many years of experience as a recording engineer and musician. Ive done a lot of jumping back and forth between the live and control room feeds, comping takes, mixing, mastering, moving mics..

I chose my speakers *solely* through that process. Band in the live room. Hear what it sounds like. Go back into the control room, hear what is coming off the speakers(several pairs were set up). I ended up with KH 0300Ds and Yammy HS80/HS10 and my Link k100s this way. The worst ones were Von Schweikerts (VR 4 AND 33 and Klipsch Heresy). My audio kinesis didnt fare to well either using that criteria. (Jazz Modules)

Its why I stay away from hifi brands..they seem, many of them , to veer towards rolled off/"warm" and "euphonic". rather than absolute fidelity. HiFidelity should be High FIDELITY..

criteria for fidelity is well established.

[cjr]

Personally I think if you cannot detect a difference between 2 components/cables under blind conditions....then there is a very good chance that there is no difference there at all. That is how I live my audiophile life these days.

[pure sound]

I do it through many years of experience as a recording engineer and musician. Ive done a lot of jumping back and forth between the live and control room feeds, comping takes, mixing, mastering, moving mics..

I chose my speakers *solely* through that process. Band in the live room. Hear what it sounds like. Go back into the control room, hear what is coming off the speakers(several pairs were set up). I ended up with KH 0300Ds and Yammy HS80/HS10 and my Link k100s this way.

So, an entirely subjective judgement then. No different to most of us

[Werner]

use 2 fingers one on each ear (back) push the back of your ear forward and outwards and the sound changes , explanations please ,

What exactly would you like to have explained?

[tkimages]

Cracking thread, loads of 'bollocks' from all viewpoints - just what the 'wam' is all about.

The number of different viewpoints says it all - in the end it is about subjectivity (Serge excluded of course !)

[Werner]

I ended up with KH 0300Ds and Yammy HS80/HS10 and my Link k100s [/COLOR]

But how the 'ell does an American end up with Links, a brand not even known outside its hamlet of origin?

[crimsondonkey]

Already covered to some extents earlier but this is largely a debate about philosophy and value. What got me into hifi (used generically) is my enjoyment of music, so I spend time listening to just that - the music, and am completely unconcerned with listening to the kit itself or worrying about achieving the nth degree of faithfulness to the original recording (which in differing degrees is a manufactured 'construct' in any case).

I recognise there are other value systems operating here as well, so others quite obviously place a very high premium on a strict adherence to the idea of 'high fidleity' in its narrowest sense. That's fine, its all good, we all take enjoyment from different aspects of this hobby/ obssession.

[bencat]

Doesn't matter how people make sence of the sound pressure waves hitting their ear drums. Absolutely irelevent. Audible changes are measureable. The auditory system isn't any more sensitive than the available test equipment.

Chris how do you know this ? Do you know what I hear what anyone hears ? Current thinking is that we do not in a similar way to that we all think differently . If this is the case and I know we can not be sure on this then it is the most important thing not the least. I am buying the equipment , I am buying the music , I am listening to it and mostly choosing what will play . If what I hear and how this makes me feel is not important then what is the point of the rest of the chain ?

[wee tam]

why the sound percieves to change ?, and it does change , so therefore your facial features are responsible for us all hearing different sounds from the same pieces of kit

What exactly would you like to have explained?