“Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability.” - realworldaudio
Thanks so much for this! It brings home the crucial point that anything in life generally, and in the audiophile world specifically, can only be critically discussed in consideration of the multiple complex relationships specific to the thing, or object, in question, and never as a singularity.
clarinetmonster2 - your post has raised very similar issues to that of another discussion that has now been deleted, unfortunately, regarding measurements and hearing. In that discussion, one of the primary contributors, and main proponents of measurements, ‘prof’, was asked if he had a beloved piece of equipment that he later discovered measured badly, if he would let go of the said piece of equipment. The reply was not quite conclusive, but a vital part of it drew my attention - prof has a Conrad Johnson tube amplifier which he said was so evident in better sound quality than ‘lesser’ amps, that he did not need to be reassured by tests regarding its performance. I wish the discussion had not been deleted, so that I could refer to it in verbatim here, but the gist accurately applies, and it was not ascertained if prof had indeed measured his Conrad Johnson for degree of distortion. But in the discussion, he was also quick to dismiss the hearers who said they could distinguish between differences of sound quality in various high end cables, and home tweaks, because he felt that those differences could not be measured.
The point is that even measurers ultimately rely on hearing to justify their choices - however important measurements may be to them, it still comes right back down to ‘hearing’ for the most intelligent measurers.
Subsequently, as hearing forms the basis of our decisions, and what we hear is the sum total of an entire chain of events that characterises a ‘system’, it is a touch moot to ask what specific piece of equipment measures well, and also sounds good, and the entirety of a system determines this.
A decent analogy would be the path a falling leaf takes from its branch to the ground, the leaf being the signal, the branch being its source and the ground being the ear the leaf finally falls on, to decay as sound. Everything in that signal’s path constitutes the equipment that the signal interacts with on its journey; another branch, a cluster of leaves, the bird flying past, the light breeze or sudden gust of wind that took the leaf on its erratic path. Now, audiophiles generally believe that the ‘correct’ and undistorted path the leaf should take, would be the one straight down, directly under the very spot of the very branch the leaf came from. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the ground itself is an entirely different surface or medium from the source itself, the branch. The only thing that is important, is that the leaf lands on a spot that is most conducive to its continuing the food cycle, of wonderful decay, and reconstitution as food for the ground to grow other trees. This in no way means that everything becomes subjective, as we can all agree that a leaf falling on a concrete pavement will not do as well as if it fell on a moist depression of shaded soil. But it does mean there are general places that the leaf will thrive, and under the most nuanced of circumstances, either thrive better, or not so well. Hearing is all about this. There are very very general agreements about what sounds ‘good’; what ground provides acceptable conditions for a dead leaf to decay and contribute, but within this realm is a huge degree of subtle difference. The best listeners I know, have learned the ground upon which the best sound comes, the smallest nuance and difference that generates the most positive impact. They are unable to tell which specific interference in the path of that leaf contributes to its final touchdown, because every single interference had a part, big or small, to play.
It does not mean that science becomes subjective hell, because if it were possible to ascertain every single subtle interference of the leaf or signal path, that it would be possible to mathematically determine where the leaf will fall, and how the signal will end. But this is truly beyond science as we currently know it - let’s just call it an objectivity that comes from the deepest known critically subjective observation.
But it does necessarily mean that the accurate selection of good equipment through their measurements does not help in the big picture - in the same way that it is virtually impossible to chart the path of a leaf through every single interference it passes on its journey to the ground, there are similarly too many nuanced interferences in the signal path to determine ultimate sound quality through the measurement of interference of a single piece of equipment.
The measurement of all the combined relationships are likewise too difficult to ascertain with numbers, because the final product of the entire journey cannot be determined until it emerges from the speakers as sound, and not a mere signal.
This final act of ‘measurement’ is what could be called critical hearing.
It is what hearers like millercarbon, magister, and many others try to cultivate and build deep foundations on.
In friendship.
