neutrality vs. realism

Oh, boy! Here we go again.

My take on this is that our ears are the ultimate judge, and I will grant that impressions may vary from person to person. If this makes me a "subjectivist" so be it.

Now, alot of the controversy and confusion come from the idea that psychological phenomena play a part in product auditioning, and that may very well be so. I do not discount that totally.

The other part of the controversy comes from the idea that bench measurements will tell us whether our listening impressions could be correct or not. Some people say that if an amp sounds right, then who cares what the bench measurements say. I am one of them. Other people say if the bench measurements are not "good" then the amp is no good no matter what it sounds like. The description given to them is "euphonic distortion"(pleasing distortion- whatever that might be). IMO the major fallacy with this latter method, is that it relies on electronic tests that have no direct bearing on the amplifier in "real world" use. It depends on largely test-tones, and and meters, in steady state conditions to make its tests. 20 years ago, this method was proved to be flawed, and thrown out the window, by anyone serious about audio, but it has kept "hanging around" ever since then. The classic foil for this is,"How come my Technics receiver has .0000000001% distortion, but that $10k amp has 1% distortion and sounds way better. My Technics has lower distortion, doesn't it? So the Technics should sound better." Now, granted, this is a simplified case, but the fact is that the measuring methods and equipment are simply not measuring the right things. They are measuring the things that they were designed to measure. Electrical characteristics. They were not designed to measure the listening quality of music. That is what ears are designed to do. And that is why ears should be the measuring instrument, and not meters. To think that meters can measure the complex interaction between the reproduced music, and the emotional reactions of the brain, by testing the function of a negative feedback circuit is quite humorous indeed. In fact, it appears that amp designers and measurement technicians do not even have a good grasp of how their products will interact with other components, like speakers, which is what they are supposed to drive. But they know all about how it will perform on an oscilloscope. Too bad we don't listen to oscilloscopes.
Ultimately the only measurement we need to know, is whether the product sounds good to us. All else is merely an attempt to quantify "why" it might sound good. I have read on these pages, that any experience in listening, which may contradict the measured numbers, is simply "explained away" by the red herrings of "self-delusion for the purpose of justifying expenditures", or "unverifiable subjective responses that could not withstand double-blind testing". Both cases calling into question, the abilities of the listener. I call into question the abilities and methods of the testers and equipment, and state categorically that they cannot withstand scrutiny, because they do not always conform with the actual real-world performance. The "psycological" argument is nothing more than a smoke-screen to mask the mis-application of the test methodologies that cause incorrect conclusions to be drawn about the actual listening performance of a product. These mis-applications, and the conclusions drawn, cause design changes to be done, that may actually detract from the listening performance of a product, as is the case with some high-negative-feedback designs.

I liken this to deep philosophical discussions, where there is great amount of study given to "why" or "what" is existence. But, ultimately, you have to live your existence, regardless of whether you can explain it or not. This is where the "rubber hits the road" and, so it is the case with listening impressions of audio gear. The measurements don't matter, if the gear sounds like crap, or if it sounds like heaven, for that matter.

I don't totally disregard measurements, but I don't let them tell me what I hear and what I don't hear. I would use measurements for what they are designed to do, and use my ears to do what they are designed to do.

If I may weigh-in here, I have the notion, that a good part of the reason for the measurement aspect of stereo gear is the fact that all components are designed to be interchangeable. Mix and match, if you will. Since the other gear that may be used with any one component is not known my the mfr., an attempt is made to have a "benchmark". This "benchmark" has resulted in a relatively arbitrary, but well meaning, set of measured standards that are meant to assure the user of conformity and usefulness with other units measured by the same standards. So, standards of measurement were adopted for various aspects of performance such as frequency response, total harmonic distortion, power output, etc.

The problem with this is that these processes assume a given idea that flat frequency response or low THD will allow accurate pass-thru to the next component with flat frequency response or low THD. While this may superficially seem to be the case, it is not. Little or no regard is given to the additive or interactive effects of the other components in the chain because the designer is unaware of what the other components will be. So this leads to the designing of equipment in a "vacuum", so to speak. Only the most basic "standards" like output level and impedance levels under static conditions are even considered. All of the other issues are left to the consumer to determine, regarding which items may work well together. And the consumer is ill-equipped to make these decisions, because there is little, if any, data provided for this, and most consumers would not know how to use such data anyway.

This is what leads to the mysterious "synergy" discussions, and the apparent "disconnect" between measurements and sound quality. It is not that the measurements are bad, it is the basic idea of what should be measured, and how to measure it,and provide useful data, that is at the root of the problem.

If a consumer knew that his amp exhibited a THD profile of primarily even-ordered harmonic distortion with a major part at the 2nd harmonic, he could choose a speaker that also had a major part of its THD in the 2nd harmonic,and wire them 180 degrees out of phase, thereby cancelling a significant portion of the distortions of the amp/speaker combination. But, nobody seems to be aware of this type of "system integration design" and none of the measurements really are geared to help anyone do this. Everybody just wants flat response and low distortion, but all components have some dips or rises, and all have some components of distortion. Failure to correctly match these, and other, characteristics will result in additive distortions or frequency anomalies. The consumer is frequently unaware that he is even making this mistake. Also, there is a big difference in having two-tenths of a percent of distortion at the 2nd harmonic, and having one-tenth of a percent at every harmonic point up the scale. In the first case there is a relatively small amount of distortion at one point on the curve. In the second case, there is a smaller maximum distortion rating, but the distortion is all over the place.

So, to sum up, I do believe, as Paulwp seems to, that things that are heard can be measured. But the things measured, and the ways they are measured, and the applications of those measurements leave much to be desired. Now, add that to the things that we haven't learned how to measure, or even realize that they need to be measured, and we end up with a reliance on a faulty set of measurements, and misunderstanding of same, that cannot accurately be used to select our equipment. Thus, many of us rely on our ears to measure what we do know, the sound.

Ultimately the ear is the judge. But I do not discount that certain measurements can lead one to an informed platform from which to begin auditioning, if one can adequately interpret the data that can be found, and apply it in a meaningful way, resulting in a happy combination of components(synergy). And although I personally am a proponent of listening as the final arbiter, I do use design data and measurement data when I can find ways to apply it.

Regarding the brain's interpretation of the sounds generated by the system, I am not in an informed position to comment on that. But I do find it interesting.

Perhaps it would be instructional for us to look at Buckminster Fuller's theories and constructs which stem from his foundational principals of the inherent "duality" of nature. He has derived an entire "science" which revolves around the basic assumptions of his philosophies.

As it seems, we have arrived at a premise here, which requires "inclusivity" of two superficially opposing points-of-view, which inherently must both be included together in some way, if a "universal truth" is to be derived from this study/discussion. Since both ends use empirical data, albeit with different methodologies, a link may be available.

The superficial "duality"is a dilemma, and the obvious "goal" would be to find an underlying "tie", which would link both approaches with a "unified theory" of sorts.

We must find a way to swim through the ether, that appears to separate these ideas, but ultimately binds them together in an shadowy interconnected-ness, that is not easily seen by superficial inspection.

A question would then arise, do we start from one end and work toward the other, or do we start from an intermediate point and pull both ends toward each other at the same time?
Or it is even possible to bring them together? Would there be a "quantum break", in which closing in on one observation would cause it's counterpart to be less observable, such as is the case with sub-atomic particle speeds and locations? Are we dealing with a Von Schroedinger dilemma, where all probabilities exist simultaneously on a wave-function until observation occurs? Can we quantify the probability curves of these occurences, to make some useful data?

Or do we simply accept this duality as "yin & yang", with both being equally required for equilibrium, never meeting but never apart? With a philosophical satisfaction that the twain shall never meet, and that they are just roads to journey on the way toward enlightenment?

Just a few thoughts to ponder on this subject.

Yes, yes, can we take a break now?