I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

@sns 

Touche!

Listening to music is an emotionally pleasurable experience. I'm very grateful  to be able to recognize and appreciate that it is truly a gift to mankind to enjoy. There is a music genre for every cultural and individual taste.

Charles

@sns 

At least some s also know why I and others like what they like. We're very aware of every issue o brings up, the difference between s and o is what we value. In the end whatever gets you off is fine with me.

Beautifully put in a nutshell.

This thread has generated interesting and thoughtful commentary. 

Charles 

@cd318 Now as to the reasons why some consumers would reject scientific data, perhaps it’s just a question of pigheadedness?

I haven’t noticed any participant on this thread rejecting scientific data, who’s doing that? I would acknowledge that there are posters (including myself) who believe reliance on measurement is no substitution for listening. Ralph has eloquently pointed out that relevant measurements are rarely utilized and presented even though they’re available.

Speaking of scientific data rejection, why are some so seemingly narrow minded and dismissive of the research and information regarding the fascinating study of ear-brain processing of interpreting sound? Too complex to bother with? Science demands curiosity, humbleness and an open mind. Probably a lot simpler and reassuring to just cite data from a sheet of paper.

The effort to delve into the science of human hearing may just be too daunting for some, so it’s easily ignored.

Charles

@atmasphere FWIW I fault the 'objectivist' camp as much as the 'subjectivists' in this debate. Many of them don't know about all the specs that make a difference and allow their expectation bias to color their perceptions. IOW guilty of exactly the same thing as the people they fault. That is no way to make progress! Put another way if one is in possession of the facts, then one knows there is no good reason for objectivists and subjectivists to be at odds.

Ralph,  this paragraph  succinctly nails the point I've tried to explain with numerous posts on this and other threads. The high level complete and "meaningful "  type of measuring audio electronics you are describing aren't being utilized .

The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious,  no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.

  Ralph what you are referring to in terms of measurements is far removed from what we are presently being provided from these sites and their advocates. I would sincerely welcome legitimate and predictive measurements.  Until this happens I'll just listen. BTW Thanks for your kind comments. 

Charles 

The more I read that measurements don’t matter, the more it makes me want to question whether the expert opinions from amp designers have merit.
Hence I bring it up.

Maybe a 2nd reading is in q. I haven’t read anyone proclaiming measurements don’t matter. Rather the point is that measurements aren’t reliably predictive of what a given audio product will sound like. They do not replace the act of listening. Good night to all.

Charles

• This is impossible with a proper measurement set.

If they measure so close, I personally would not trust user listening tests unless they don't know what they are listening to. The potential to fool ourselves is too high.

• I found this mindset short sighted and shallow  when advocated by the late Julian Hirsch decades ago and certainly even more so more so today. The distrust and dismissive mocking of  what a human being hears and yet pure allegiance to measurements. Two divergent camps, count me in with the listeners.
• Charles 

@holmz

I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.

Go solely by belief? What are you talking about?

I have bee very clear with my comments on this thread that I value the listening experience far more than a reliance on test acquired measurements. You seem to have taken a counter position (As you questioned some of my  'supportive stance of listening' replies in this thread). Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make. Your last post is strange. Anyway as I’ve previously stated, just do what works best for you.

Charles

@invalid I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.

That’s a valid point and therein lies the problem. You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints. So which one of them is accurate in reproducing music recordings? @sns comments are on the mark in regard to the concept of audio accuracy.

Charles

@atmasphere The problem here might be the terms used, since ’coloration’ is usually a bad thing in the context of getting as close to the musical event as is possible. But instruments have tone ’color’; one must be careful to not conflate the two ideas!

Live instruments do indeed have "tone color". Some audio components are much better at preserving this natural characteristic. Some components do not convey these essential qualities and instead present an alternative thinner, lean, bleached and sterile/lifeless presentation. False coloration can move in either direction of the spectrum.

In recent weeks I had the pleasure of hearing a live un-miked cello and a week later a baritone saxaphonist.  Pure full tone,richness and harmonics, just beautiful sound. Live and natural. I don’t want audio components that dilute and present a strip down low fat/calorie version. I’d like to get as natural a sound as is reasonably within my means. Live acoustic instruments have plenty of "tone" and "color", undeniably so.

Charles

@holmz  I do not have the Benchmarks, but would like to try them… Or the new Atmasphere Class D.

I believe that this move would please you very much.  Go for it. If I were to make a change ( Primarily to reduce box count but retain superb sound quality) it'd be either Aries Cerat Genus or the Viva Solista. Both are what I believe to be excellent SET integrated amplifiers. 

Charles 

@sns 

I've interpreted color from every single audio system I've ever heard, and that would range all the way from sterile to extremely romantic. Perhaps some believe accuracy lies somewhere outside this all encompassing bell curve. Please suggest to all us deluded audiophiles a single outlier system that is accurate and devoid of color, I really want to hear music reproduced with absolute accuracy. 

Astute observation/comment as is the norm from you.

@holmz 

I haven't heard Atma-sphere latest solid state amplifiers. I'm very familiar with his OTL amplifiers which I find really good. 

I've heard benchmark on several occasions and don't share the enthusiasm some listeners /owners have expressed,  if you like their sonic performance then good for you. Again I believe that you and I simply have different taste and preferences as to what sounds right.  Not unexpected in the realm of High End audio so neither you nor  I can be declared right or wrong,  just different. 

Charles 

@holmz

I don’t know who these "upper shelf designers" of amplifiers are that you’re referencing. Okay, you find your tube audio electronics "colored" (As though transistor audio electronics don’t have their own colorations, albeit different). If these are your conclusions based on your experiences, Then I accept them as "yours".

I’m in no position to challenge or refute what you’ve experienced. I can just simply say that you and I have had different experiences and as a result, different outcomes that shape and form our respective opinions. I hope that you are able to obtain an amplifier made by one of the upper shelf designers that you cite above.

I meant what I have written earlier, follow the pathway that suits you the best. My chosen pathway is to hear and do actual listening of audio products myself. If you are reassured by test measurements then continue with that method. For me it’s woefully inadequate.

Charles

 Would the issue be that you don't want accuracy?  You want artifacts?  I think that is the conclusion that can be drawn.  

Well, you're free to draw whatever conclusion that you would like.

My pursuit and objective  in home audio  has not changed in 30 years. I want to obtain the most natural and realistic music reproduction that I can hope to reasonably achieve. Actually listening to audio products and judging what I hear is the most effective and dependable process to achieve this goal. 

Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound,  so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components.  Do what suits you the best. 

Charles 

@atmasphere

I’ve no doubt that some of these measurements don’t occur because there isn’t the education out there to really understand the data! Plus- heaven forbid- you know how something sounds by looking at the measurements!

If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.

Currently used measuring techniques seemingly can’t hold a candle compared to the extraordinary capabilities of the human ear-brain axis processing pathways (Thank you @mahgister ).

You can use cheap off the shelf Op-amps to allow any mass produced entry level DAC to measure quite well and yet sound utterly underwhelming (Like crap).

Charles

@atmasphere 

Most amps fail them outright- and sound bright and harsh as a result, even though they ’measure well’ otherwise. The real problem isn’t that they measure well, its that the proper measurements aren’t made at all!

The absolute truth in my opinion. Current test bench measurements are inadequate. It makes no sense to measure good and yet sound poorly. What good are measurements such as these?

There are numerous audio components that don’t measure particularly well yet sound fabulous. Ralph is correct in that what really matters in determining good sound quality is not being done currently with measuring instruments. I do believe at some future point this dilemma will be properly solved. It sure is not the case now.

I guess for some there’s a degree of reassurance or peace of mind with current methods of audio component bench testing. As it stands presently the ears are far more reliable and trustworthy in judging audio product sound quality.

Charles

I think the implication is that some people like the sound of audible artifacts. I think I may have in the past. If you make them measure well you lose the artifacts.

Oy vey!

I guess I’m just not picking up the logic here. Oh well, nonetheless I do appreciate and respect everyone’s point of view on this topic.

Charles

Superior sound is subjective. What you like someone else may hate. Many roads to the same place.

Agreed and exactly my point. You have to hear and listen to make a final choice determination. If some folks prefer to downplay actual listening,  more power to you and enjoy your scrutiny of numbers. Listening has served me well so I'll stick with that.  

Charles 

Of course if you substitute the term reliability in place of measurement, that’s a fundamentally  different argument. Without question I would choose high reliability compared to low reliability. But that wasn’t the point of this topic thread. Tube audio components are notorious for yielding poorer measurements as opposed to transistor audio components. 
 

Yet well made tube components are wildly recognized for their Very long lifespan/years of service with reliability. This is accomplished with their relatively comparative poorer measurements. So even here there is no correlation with test bench measurement and reliability/longevity as it regards tube equipment.

In the example above you would choose product A over product B. That’s fine. My point is those measurement do not ensure superior sound quality nor reliability. So I’m trying to determine where/what is the intrinsic advantage of bestowed by the better measurement numbers.

Charles

@onhwy61 

But isn't there enough gear that measures reasonably well and sounds pretty good that we can move on from poorly measuring equipment regardless of how it sounds

Interesting conclusion. Why would one want to move away "regardless of how it sounds " . For example if an audio product sounds truly superb yet measured poorly why on earth would one be motivated to move on to something  else?

The mere fact that it sounds superb renders the "poor measurements " irrelevant. It would seem logical that the poor measurements have zero bearing on the superb sound quality outcome. So I don't see why subpar measurements have any meaningful consideration if the audio product sounds fantastic.  Perhaps it's just me but I don't follow the "move on" rationale. 

product A measures well and sounds well. 

Product B measures poorly and sounds well.

Same listening outcome.  What is the inherent advantage of the better measurements if they don't yield  superior sound?

Charles 

Didn’t you get the memo?

@rodman99999

Today, if you dare to believe what your eyes, ears, mind and bank account tell you; there MUST be something wrong with YOU!

Those, "authorities" are there to protect you from your faulty senses, broken/misguided mind and the dangers of things like facts, truth and whatever else they might find discomfiting, at the moment (their b_tch de jour).

Just get in line, do and believe what you’re told, like good little sheeple.

An excellent summation as to where we currently in many instances. Many other  terrific and on the bullseye comments here. There's hope after all. 

Charles