Towards Objective Measurements of Sound

[Zilch]

Everybody knows it cannot be captured, but advancing technology provides better opportunities to render improved, an potentially more enjoyable, facsimiles.

One might certainly wonder why you would come to a classic speaker website for the apparent and sole purpose of informing the membership with a full measure of nihilistic fervor that it all sucks, and everyone's efforts to make it better are ill-conceived and thus, hopelessly doomed to fail....

[soundminded]

Everybody knows it cannot be captured, but advancing technology provides better opportunities to render improved, an potentially more enjoyable, facsimiles.

One might certainly wonder why you would come to a classic speaker website for the apparent and sole purpose of informing the membership with a full measure of nihilistic fervor that it all sucks, and everyone's efforts to make it better are ill-conceived and thus, hopelessly doomed to failure....

Zilch, it pains me terribly to see you giving free lessons to Howard Ferstler in speaker design. Don't you think you ought to charge him tuition at the very least? Who knows, you might just persauade him to get rid of all that old Allison equipment and go out and acquire some nice new JBL Titanium Ti whatchamacallits, the knockoffs they built of the Revel Salon in Northridge that sell for a few thousand bucks. So far, I don't think you have him convinced yet.

[Zilch]

The administrator has requested that we dial it down, Soundminded, until such time as he provides a more appropriate forum in which we might continue dispensing the technical spanking you fully deserve for the edification and entertainment of all who dare venture there....

[soundminded]

The administrator has requested that we dial it down, Soundminded, until such time as he provides a more appropriate forum in which we might continue dispensing the technical spanking you fully deserve for the edification and entertainment of all who dare venture there....

Zilch, I was just answering your question about why I come here. Mark said dial it down, not turn it off. Sheesh.

[Carlspeak]

There is an interesting parallel to this topic - wine tasting (a subjective, sensory experience) vs wine chemistry (the objective measurement of wine's makup and efforts to explain wine's taste)

https://www.chemheritage.org/pubs/magazine/...re_wine_p1.html

And, an interesting quote I clipped from near the end of the article:

"For all of the efforts toward systematic measurement methods, however, the structure of wine flavor hasn’t become any more lucid. New molecules are discovered in wine every year, but very few are shown to play a direct role in flavor or aroma. “Fifty years ago people believed there was a molecule that made Riesling or Pinot Noir unique, but now we realize it’s infinitely more complicated,” says Heymann. Even as future research correlates core aspects of wine back to flavor molecules, the synergistic interactions between key compounds will have to be analyzed."

[genek]

There is an interesting parallel to this topic - wine tasting (a subjective, sensory experience) vs wine chemistry (the objective measurement of wine's makup and efforts to explain wine's taste)

I think the key difference between wine and sound is that in wine there is wide consensus among professionals that objective measurement has not yet reached the point where a particular wine's characteristics can be objectively explained or duplicated. In double-blind tastings, many supposedly "educated palates" are found to be no more able to distinguish between Chateaus Margaux and Two Buck Chuck than the average person off the street.

[Carlspeak]

I think the key difference between wine and sound is that in wine there is wide consensus among professionals that objective measurement has not yet reached the point where a particular wine's characteristics can be objectively explained or duplicated. In double-blind tastings, many supposedly "educated palates" are found to be no more able to distinguish between Chateaus Margaux and Two Buck Chuck than the average person off the street.

I'm not convinced the difference is that great. IMO audio and wine are in somewhat similar stages of the respective technological evolutions as evidenced by the many dabates present in this kitchen.

[kkantor]

I'm not convinced the difference is that great. IMO audio and wine are in somewhat similar stages of the respective technological evolutions as evidenced by the many dabates present in this kitchen.

This is a classic and commonly made logical error.

1- Wines create sensation. They do not transmit signals. They must be evaluated as intrinsic and complex signal sources. They cannot be discussed in terms of accuracy.

(Musical instruments, too, cannot be measured in a very meaningful way.)

2- Audio components are reproducing signals, (which may later be used to create sensations.) They may be readily evaluated according to the distortions they add to the signal data. This is a profound and qualitative difference.

Again, in one case, the DUT is creating sensations. In the other, the DUT is storing or reproducing data. One COULD do an ABX test on a pair of >wine glasses<!!

If is a fallacy to suggest a relationship between audio component testing and wine tasting. If wine tasting has an analogy in audio, it is auditioning and describing songs.

-k

[genek]

I'm not convinced the difference is that great. IMO audio and wine are in somewhat similar stages of the respective technological evolutions as evidenced by the many dabates present in this kitchen.

The amount of questionable, hype-influenced subjective perception among nonprofessional consumers is definitely comparable, as is the existence of famed artisan professionals whose results can be head-and-shoulders above average. Where the two industries diverge is that even the most highly-lionized artisan vintners will freely acknowledge that the results of their labors are heavily impacted by factors they can't control and often don't fully understand (hence the need to identify and rank fine wines by vintage), and the best bleeding-edge scientists will freely acknowledge that they haven't found the magic bullet. You never hear of anyone in wine claiming to have made a revolutionary discovery that makes all previous knowledge in the field obsolete and disproven and enables them to do what high end audio designers often claim they can do on a repeatable basis.

[Steve F]

If wine tasting has an analogy in audio, it is auditioning and describing songs.

-k

Interesting viewpoint. Could there be an objective analysis of music that defines its emotional impact on listeners based on the mathematical/harmonic relationships of its structure? (Major/minor key, dynamics, tempo, etc.). What is it about a particular musical piece that evokes feelings of sadness or optimism or some other emotion?

Such an analysis would have to be culturally-specific, since different listeners will have widely-varying reactions to 'Eastern,' 'Western,' 'African,' etc. music.

Steve F.

[genek]

Wines create sensation. They do not transmit signals. They must be evaluated as intrinsic and complex signal sources. They cannot be discussed in terms of accuracy.

(Musical instruments, too, cannot be measured in a very meaningful way.)

2- Audio components are reproducing signals, (which may later be used to create sensations.) They may be readily evaluated according to the distortions they add to the signal data. This is a profound and qualitative difference.

I would agree that wine is probably more analogous to the sound that comes out of speakers and instruments than the devices themselves. However, if you put wine samples in a mass spectrometer you certainly can analyze them and discuss their chemical characteristics in terms of accuracy. It's just that there's a wide consensus among professionals in the field of enology that they can't fully explain which chemical characteristics are responsible for which sensations, or how to precisely duplicate either the characteristics or the sensations. This may be true of audio signals as well, the claims of those who maintain they can do just that notwithstanding.

[Carlspeak]

This is a classic and commonly made logical error.

1- Wines create sensation. They do not transmit signals. They must be evaluated as intrinsic and complex signal sources. They cannot be discussed in terms of accuracy.

(Musical instruments, too, cannot be measured in a very meaningful way.)

2- Audio components are reproducing signals, (which may later be used to create sensations.) They may be readily evaluated according to the distortions they add to the signal data. This is a profound and qualitative difference.

Again, in one case, the DUT is creating sensations. In the other, the DUT is storing or reproducing data. One COULD do an ABX test on a pair of >wine glasses<!!

If is a fallacy to suggest a relationship between audio component testing and wine tasting. If wine tasting has an analogy in audio, it is auditioning and describing songs.

-k

Youch Ken! I think you went way beyond the simple point I was trying to make. I certainly didn't refer in any way to a direct analogy between wine and audio.

SIMPLY put once again. Wine tasting is a sensory experience with subjective consequences. Wine analysis is a technology that is in an evolutionary state of trying to explain the inner workings of why wine tastes the way it does and why some folks like some and not others.

All the auditory research work you described in your second post here attests to the fact the audio technology community is also trying to develop ways to measure what we hear more accurately.

Poole's and Olive's work at Harmon is one of the more recent efforts where human factors were put together with the existing measurement technology. I strongly believe those measurement technologies will advance much further in the future and more work like Poole's will be published with even greater accuracy and predictability.

[Zilch]

It's Toole, actually, but here in The Kitchen, we know who you mean....

[soundminded]

This is a classic and commonly made logical error.

1- Wines create sensation. They do not transmit signals. They must be evaluated as intrinsic and complex signal sources. They cannot be discussed in terms of accuracy.

(Musical instruments, too, cannot be measured in a very meaningful way.)

2- Audio components are reproducing signals, (which may later be used to create sensations.) They may be readily evaluated according to the distortions they add to the signal data. This is a profound and qualitative difference.

Again, in one case, the DUT is creating sensations. In the other, the DUT is storing or reproducing data. One COULD do an ABX test on a pair of >wine glasses<!!

If is a fallacy to suggest a relationship between audio component testing and wine tasting. If wine tasting has an analogy in audio, it is auditioning and describing songs.

-k

While I may not know much about audio equipment or music, wine is something I do know a little bit about. Both wine and music create sensations by physical (chemical) stimuli. The analogy with wine would be if someone claimed to be able to exactly reproduce a particular wine, preferably one with desirable flavors, aromas, texture, and color. One method would be to analyze the wine chemically as completely as possible and to reassemble an identical mixture. This seems to me to be beyond the current state of the art. Another method would be to subjectively analyze those flavors, aromas, etc and to mix substances known to produce the same component sensations with the expectation that the composite result would be comparable. Yet another method would be to duplicate as exactly as possible the ingredient materials (clones of a particular genetic variant of a grape variety, find comparable soil, hope for comparable weather, and use comparable methods of vinting.

Like hearing music, the evaluation of the degree of success or failure is based on memory of the sensations of the authentic stimuli and the ability or inability of the test subject to correctly distinguish between the genuine and the immitation in a blind test. This is akin to a blind LvR experiment. Some people have greater sensory acuity than others, more experience, better memory. Robert M. Parker is acknowledged by many to be the greatest wine critic in the world, perhaps the greatest critic of anything. He claims to be able to distinguish and identify over 100,000 specific wines and their vintages blind. Quite a claim considering that wine is constantly evolving, that is changing its chemical composition and therefore the stimulus it produces. He is so highly regarded that his ratings literally make or break specific wines or even entire wineries. If Parker rates a wine 100 or in the upper 90s, it will be almost a sure bet as a good investment either for drinking or resale at auction.

Different grape varieties produce different characteristic flavors and aromas depending on many factors such as where they are grown. For example two red wine grapes grown in many parts of the world, cabernet sauvignon and merlot produce distinctive sensations when grown in the Bordeaux region of France that seem impossible to duplicate when grown elsewhere. The French have invented the concept of terroir to explain this. They claim the combination of the land, microclimate, etc. that is unique to each plot of land imparts its own unique stamp that can't be duiplicated. The disproof of this theory is demonstrated by a wine called Dominus produced in Napanook vinyard in Napa Valley California that Parker and other "experts" say is a dead ringer for a great Bordeaux. More astonishing is that Parker claims it tastes very much like Chateau Petrus, perhaps the most expensive and greatest of all red Bordeaux made entirely from Merlot grapes while Dominus is made entirely or almost entirely from cabernet sauvignon grapes. Interestingly many California wine critics claim that because this wine does not have the typical profile of a California cabernet, they consider it flawed.

[genek]

The disproof of this theory is demonstrated by a wine called Dominus produced in Napanook vinyard in Napa Valley California that Parker and other "experts" say is a dead ringer for a great Bordeaux. More astonishing is that Parker claims it tastes very much like Chateau Petrus, perhaps the most expensive and greatest of all red Bordeaux made entirely from Merlot grapes while Dominus is made entirely or almost entirely from cabernet sauvignon grapes. Interestingly many California wine critics claim that because this wine does not have the typical profile of a California cabernet, they consider it flawed.

CA wine makers have been handicapped for many years in their pursuit of parity with European wine by the peculiar preference they and their customers have had for pure varietals compared to the meritage method employed by the French and most other European wine makers, and by the characteristic impatience of their consumers. It's hard enough to come up with a wine that can compete with product made by people with generations of experience; add to it the fact that your customers all expect yours to be ready to drink in five years or less while the European wine makers' customers are willing to lay the good stuff down for their grandchildren. Hence the need for the Napanook label. Offhand I can't think of a situation that's remotely comparable in the design of loudspeakers.

[soundminded]

CA wine makers have been handicapped for many years in their pursuit of parity with European wine by the peculiar preference they and their customers have had for pure varietals compared to the meritage method employed by the French and most other European wine makers, and by the characteristic impatience of their consumers. It's hard enough to come up with a wine that can compete with product made by people with generations of experience; add to it the fact that your customers all expect yours to be ready to drink in five years or less while the European wine makers' customers are willing to lay the good stuff down for their grandchildren. Hence the need for the Napanook label. Offhand I can't think of a situation that's remotely comparable in the design of loudspeakers.

"Offhand I can't think of a situation that's remotely comparable in the design of loudspeakers."

That was not my point. The point was that duplicating a sensory perception by different means is possible. Rarely could it ever happen by chance. If it occurs at all, it is only by those with the greatest of understanding, skill, and uncompromising determination.

BTW Californians do make Bordeaux like blends called "meritage" wines, many of them in fact and have made them for a long time. I recall an excellent case of 1990 Mount Veeder Reserve Meritage I went through.

Many great red wines start out tannic. At first, the best of them are so fruity that the fruit overwhelms the tannins and they can be enjoyed young. Then as the favors fade, tannins can become more prominent. California wines are usually enjoyable at any age until they fade but classic Bordeaux made for aging often go into what is called a "dumb" stage where the tannins overwhelm everything. This can last for years, even decades. Then one day when the tanins fade (they combine to form biphenols that precipitate out as sediment), the strange and fascinating aromas and flavors that were hidden emerge, the sensations that make Bordeaux among the most highly prized of all wines. These run the gamut from flinty, smoky, earthy, leathery, mineral like, and many other adjectives you'd never guess were in grape juice. While the fruit is still in evidence, these unique flavors and aromas are what differentiates well aged great Bordeaux from other wines made from the same grapes. But one of Bordeaux's best winemakers Christian Moueix who makes Petrus, Trotanoy, and others in Bordeaux also makes Dominus in California. Premiere Grand Cru Classe' Americaine. It can be done and it is being done.

[genek]

That was not my point. The point was that duplicating a sensory perception by different means is possible. Rarely could it ever happen by chance. If it occurs at all, it is only by those with the greatest of understanding, skill, and uncompromising determination.

BTW Californians do make Bordeaux like blends called "meritage" wines, many of them in fact and have made them for a long time. I recall an excellent case of 1990 Mount Veeder Reserve Meritage I went through.

I was trying to avoid having someone think there was a speaker-related point.

There have been CA vintners turning out blends for some time, but it's been relatively unusual for one to make a blend its star product, much less its only product.

[soundminded]

I was trying to avoid having someone think there was a speaker-related point.

There have been CA vintners turning out blends for some time, but it's been relatively unusual for one to make a blend its star product, much less its only product.

"I was trying to avoid having someone think there was a speaker-related point"

Gettng back to the original comment;

"1- Wines create sensation. They do not transmit signals. They must be evaluated as intrinsic and complex signal sources. They cannot be discussed in terms of accuracy.

Wines create sensations. Trying to duplicate a wine creates another sensation that may be different or similar or indistinguishable to the memory of the original sensation. When the toughest critics are satisfied that they are very similar, most others would likely agree.

Musical instruments create sensations. Electronic sound recording/reproducing systems try to create the same sensations. Measurements only give clues to how they are trying to achieve their result. Whether they work or not is again a matter of memory of a human brain. If the similarity or difference of the measurement does not correlate to the similarity or difference of the memory, then it is time to question the measurement.

"(Musical instruments, too, cannot be measured in a very meaningful way.)"

This comment is so absurd it hardly justifies a response. If you could not mesure a musical instrument, why would you be able to measure a loudspeaker? I sometimes get the feeling some people think they can get away unchallenged no matter what they say.

[kkantor]

"(Musical instruments, too, cannot be measured in a very meaningful way.)"

This comment is so absurd it hardly justifies a response. If you could not mesure a musical instrument, why would you be able to measure a loudspeaker? I sometimes get the feeling some people think they can get away unchallenged no matter what they say.

I see, so speakers cannot be measured in a meaningful way, but musical instruments can. All I can do here is invoke the Mayo Clinic:

"Even the best-behaved children can be difficult and challenging at times. Teens are often moody and argumentative. But if your child or teen has a persistent pattern of tantrums, arguing, and angry or disruptive behaviors toward you and other authority figures, he or she may have oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). "

"While I may not know much about audio equipment or music..."

Yes, it's called a mirror. Look into it.

-k

[soundminded]

I see, so speakers cannot be measured in a meaningful way, but musical instruments can. All I can do here is invoke the Mayo Clinic:

"Even the best-behaved children can be difficult and challenging at times. Teens are often moody and argumentative. But if your child or teen has a persistent pattern of tantrums, arguing, and angry or disruptive behaviors toward you and other authority figures, he or she may have oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). "

"While I may not know much about audio equipment or music..."

Yes, it's called a mirror. Look into it.

-k

Your persistent use of personal rancor doesn't negate the fact that you are almost invariably wrong.

[Carlspeak]

Yes, indeed rancor is the fuel that stokes the stove here in the kitchen.

It would be refreshing if some of the audio guru's who visit here offer some meaningful contributions to the discusion beyond criticism. I laud Ken's posts (#1 & #3) here, and Speaker Dave's efforts with his AR4x in the AR area. Beyond those, it appears much digital ink has been wasted here with pompous blather.

[soundminded]

Yes, indeed rancor is the fuel that stokes the stove here in the kitchen.

It would be refreshing if some of the audio guru's who visit here offer some meaningful contributions to the discusion beyond criticism. I laud Ken's posts (#1 & #3) here, and Speaker Dave's efforts with his AR4x in the AR area. Beyond those, it appears much digital ink has been wasted here with pompous blather.

"I laud Ken's posts (#1 & #3) here, and Speaker Dave's efforts with his AR4x in the AR area. Beyond those, it appears much digital ink has been wasted here with pompous blather."

Then you missed the entire point of the discussion about wine and how the duplication of sensory perception correlates or doesn't correlate to measurements. Considering that for some people at least the entire object of high fidelity sound reproduction is the scientific investigation of successfully duplicating the sensory perception of the sound of actual live musical performances, that would seem to be an unfortunate oversight.

[Carlspeak]

"I laud Ken's posts (#1 & #3) here, and Speaker Dave's efforts with his AR4x in the AR area. Beyond those, it appears much digital ink has been wasted here with pompous blather."

Then you missed the entire point of the discussion about wine and how the duplication of sensory perception correlates or doesn't correlate to measurements. Considering that for some people at least the entire object of high fidelity sound reproduction is the scientific investigation of successfully duplicating the sensory perception of the sound of actual live musical performances, that would seem to be an unfortunate oversight.

I didn't expect much reaction to my original post on the subject. I thought it spoke for itself. What followed at the outset was a misunderstanding by KK of my point. What followed after that didn't contribute much of substance IMO.

[soundminded]

I didn't expect much reaction to my original post on the subject. I thought it spoke for itself. What followed at the outset was a misunderstanding by KK of my point. What followed after that didn't contribute much of substance IMO.

Then you also missed the point on another thread where it was acknowledged that Nikon lenses which measured as well as far more expensive Leica lenses produced pictures that are just as sharp, contrasty, and undistorted. In that case, objective measurements are sufficiently developed and reflective of the salient aspects of performance to give predictable correlation with subjective results. The same cannot be said for audio equipment at the current state of the art of measurement.

[Zilch]

No, huh?