Can sound quality be measured?

[sunnysal]

+1

Nice to see you in here Tony. How have you been?

I am doing great Dean, warm and sunny down here in El Salvador (as always). I am also glad to see you here and even gladder to see you are doing well, you gave us all a scare there! T

[babadono]

This reminds me of the Supreme Court justice (don't remember which one) that said and I am paraphrasing "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it." As in "I can't define(or measure) good sound but I know it when I hear it."

[:^)]

babadono

[Deang]

It's still like walking on eggshells Tony, but it has taught me to live minute to minute and how to appreciate the smallest pleasures. Almost a year now, with new scans and other evil tests on the horizon. The latest blood tests show me somewhat anemic, so now they want to check both ends and everything in between! I'm feeling pretty good though - I have an appetite and I'm holding my weight. Hey, I feel good enough to deal with this crazy place! It sure is nice when the old timers show up. Not to say I don't appreciate the new folk, some of the input is well thought out.

[Rhetor]

Much to the chagrin of numerous Audyssey audiophiles, resulting in a modicum of castigation and and forum shame upon myself, I have never found the results of the Audyssey runs to my liking.

That's been my experience using the basic version of Audyssey that came with my Onkyo PR-SC886 pre/pro, which doesn't allow tweaking of PEQs and dynamic PEQs after the fact. So I used other means: namely a Behringer DEQ2496 and REW with a Behringer calibrated microphone, the resultant GEQ filter settings of which I transformed into my active crossovers (EV Dx38s) via PEQ filters in order to later remove the DEQ2496 from my system entirely. The DEQ2496 allows you to input a desired "house curve" and a pink noise/calibrated microphone auto-EQ setting function. Then I tweaked these settings to my ear's delight and checked the results using REW.

I think that you might have some interest in the following thread based on your above comments:

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/112125/1127557.aspx

When it comes to EQ, I don't trust any machine to do it "automagically". However, these automated devices can get you closer to a good starting point in terms of EQing -- iff your room is heavily damped to start with (at least in my humble experience) and the software allows for tweaking after it runs, allowing the updating EQ, gain, and phase/delay filters by hand.

Chris

Thanks, Chris, for the info and link . . . I have some threads of persons enjoying the 2496. While no purist, I have been enjoying my new Heritage odyssey . . . Straight two channel in the HT off the Denon 4311 for music, and especially straight from vinyl, unfiltered by tone settings . . . hearing things I never heard before. Thinking about moving in to tubes on a two channel setup instead of the Denon. I do have a set of K-horns in my basement work shop that I will get around to making more sonically and visually appealing when time comes; but have been enjoying them on a bargain Pioneer SX-9000 I picked up on the cheap (with built-in reverb control knob, whatever that is) . I must confess, I have played with the bass and treble knobs often listening to the K-horns on the vintage SX-9000 . . . and it has been, well, fun in a non-purist, rebellious when nobody is looking kind of way--I can see the 2496 possibly in the future on my play-horns there in the basement. But, I think tubes first . . . If I figure out the right start for some . . . Thanks again. And, Dean, great to hear you are holding your own and to read your posts. Your pathway of recovery gives us all hope.

[NOSValves]

Where in the original post or anyones comments do you see a statement saying don't measure anything? In the end your friends job was eased by your by the ear adjustments... give yourself a bit more credit. You also have to realize the test equipment could have put a preconceived notion in your human brain that after his minor adjustments the system actually sounds better... the brain has a funny way of getting in the way with some folks...

I was answering the title of the post, "Can sound quality be measured?" Certainly with today's technology what we measure correlates more closely than ever with what we hear. As far as loudspeakers go, a Bode plot of frequency and phase coupled with spectrum analysis of distortion correlates quite well with what we hear. That was the point I was trying to make.

Sorry but your are dead wrong... what we measure our gear with or our room is not a musical piece. Music can not be accurately measured....

[NOSValves]

It's still like walking on eggshells Tony, but it has taught me to live minute to minute and how to appreciate the smallest pleasures. Almost a year now, with new scans and other evil tests on the horizon. The latest blood tests show me somewhat anemic, so now they want to check both ends and everything in between! I'm feeling pretty good though - I have an appetite and I'm holding my weight. Hey, I feel good enough to deal with this crazy place! It sure is nice when the old timers show up. Not to say I don't appreciate the new folk, some of the input is well thought out.

Well Dean this could be good.... if you live minute by minute rather then change minute by minute things can only get better [] Who love ya brother!

[Daddy Dee]

Dean,

That is well said. There is the old addage "live one day at a time." That's an idea about life that still has merit, of course. It is minute to minute and moment to moment pieces of time where we live in the present.

[Don Richard]

Sorry but your are dead wrong... what we measure our gear with or our room is not a musical piece. Music can not be accurately measured....

Sweeps, test tones, and measurements are used to detect system alignment problems and solve them, that's what they are designed to do. Music is not designed to be used as a test signal for system alignment, it is made to be listened to and enjoyed. After my system was properly aligned according to the measurements the music sounded better than it did before, clearer and more focused. The system is more accurate as a result of measuring and correcting and the music is more enjoyable for me to listen to.

[joshnich]

Sorry but your are dead wrong... what we measure our gear with or our room is not a musical piece. Music can not be accurately measured....

Sweeps, test tones, and measurements are used to detect system alignment problems and solve them, that's what they are designed to do. Music is not designed to be used as a test signal for system alignment, it is made to be listened to and enjoyed. After my system was properly aligned according to the measurements the music sounded better than it did before, clearer and more focused. The system is more accurate as a result of measuring and correcting and the music is more enjoyable for me to listen to.

Its probably not an accurate analogy /comparison – but Ill
make it anyway! I have a very nice
collection of acoustic guitars. I spent a lot of time and energy finding them.
I am sure that if you measured the thickness of the bracing and the finish on
the wood that they measure the same as other examples of the same models. But I
can tell you that they do not sound the same. The sustain, the attack, the
resonance is different between guitars of the same brand/model/wood/year. Some
are just more musical than others. Same is true with pianos – FWIW

Josh

BTW Dean it’s more than great to have
you back stirring it up!

[Fish]

I don't see any way sound quality ( other than the basics that operate in reproduction) can be measured. Measurement is very important in obtaining good sound. I am a firm believer that music sounded better before it was measured to death ( hifi from the 60"s and 70's).

[Don Richard]

I have a very nice
collection of acoustic guitars. I spent a lot of time and energy finding them.
I am sure that if you measured the thickness of the bracing and the finish on
the wood that they measure the same as other examples of the same models. But I
can tell you that they do not sound the same. The sustain, the attack, the
resonance is different between guitars of the same brand/model/wood/year. Some
are just more musical than others. Same is true with pianos – FWIW

There's no point in measuring the thickness of an instrument's wooden structure if you bought it to play, but it would be imperative to do so if you were building or repairing the instrument.

As far as their sounds go,if two instruments sound different it is possible to measure them and the measurements would be different between them. The measurements might indicate that one of the instrument's strings needed to be changed, for example, but they wouldn't tell exactly how the instruments sounded.

[joshnich]

I have a very nice
collection of acoustic guitars. I spent a lot of time and energy finding them.
I am sure that if you measured the thickness of the bracing and the finish on
the wood that they measure the same as other examples of the same models. But I
can tell you that they do not sound the same. The sustain, the attack, the
resonance is different between guitars of the same brand/model/wood/year. Some
are just more musical than others. Same is true with pianos – FWIW

There's no point in measuring the thickness of an instrument's wooden structure if you bought it to play, but it would be imperative to do so if you were building or repairing the instrument.

As far as their sounds go,if two instruments sound different it is possible to measure them and the measurements would be different between them. The measurements might indicate that one of the instrument's strings needed to be changed, for example, but they wouldn't tell exactly how the instruments sounded.

If you were building or repairing you would shave the braces to a point where the instrument sounded the way you wanted. You wouldnt measure it. Just so you know.

J

[Don Richard]

If you were building or repairing you would shave the braces to a point where the instrument sounded the way you wanted. You wouldnt measure it. Just so you know.

Huh? You're not going to disassemble an instrument during the manufacturing process to sand an internal brace. Amati probably did that centuries ago but in today's mass produced world those parts are pre made and sanded to fit as they go in before the instrument is ever played.

[sunnysal]

Sorry but your are dead wrong... what we measure our gear with or our room is not a musical piece. Music can not be accurately measured....

Sweeps, test tones, and measurements are used to detect system alignment problems and solve them, that's what they are designed to do. Music is not designed to be used as a test signal for system alignment, it is made to be listened to and enjoyed. After my system was properly aligned according to the measurements the music sounded better than it did before, clearer and more focused. The system is more accurate as a result of measuring and correcting and the music is more enjoyable for me to listen to.

Its probably not an accurate analogy /comparison but Ill

make it anyway! I have a very nice

collection of acoustic guitars. I spent a lot of time and energy finding them.

I am sure that if you measured the thickness of the bracing and the finish on

the wood that they measure the same as other examples of the same models. But I

can tell you that they do not sound the same. The sustain, the attack, the

resonance is different between guitars of the same brand/model/wood/year. Some

are just more musical than others. Same is true with pianos FWIW

Josh

BTW Dean its more than great to have

you back stirring it up!

I remember all the efforts people have made to reproduce the sound of the Stradivarius (the violin), while they seem to have not quite hit the mark yet they do get close and they do so by fanatically careful measurement, materials choices, recreation of glues and varnishes, etc. all compared with the original. others have tried, purely by ear ,with sometimes good results. As I mentioned this religious fervor for "my way or the highway" in the pursuit of audio nirvana seems mis-guided to me. we all, in the end, must rely on our ears, with our music, in our room, with our ancillary equipment to achieve music reproduction that pleases us. I have had the honor of visiting audiophile´s homes and been flabbergasted by the awful sound I heard produced. regardless of price or technology used. I discovered that my taste didn´t necessarily match others tastes and I can live with that without worrying about who is "right". IMHO, In the end if you enjoy the music, you are right. my equipment and tube rolling, my swapping of crossovers, drivers, my attempts to utilize active crossovers, etc. have helped me clarify what I like and I have slowed down my exploration as I have improved the sound from my system, to my taste. I respect the objectivists and appreciate their efforts to improve the state of the ART (ART is a key word here) but I remain inevitably a subjectivist, after all who should I believe a piece of paper or my ears? BTW dean I say us oldtimers should post more! warm regards, Tony

[joshnich]

If you were building or repairing you would shave the braces to a point where the instrument sounded the way you wanted. You wouldnt measure it. Just so you know.

Huh? You're not going to disassemble an instrument during the manufacturing process to sand an internal brace. Amati probably did that centuries ago but in today's mass produced world those parts are pre made and sanded to fit as they go in before the instrument is ever played.

Actually you fine tune a guitars' sound by shaving or sanding the braces through the sound hole. By the way not all acoustic guitars are mass produced.

[Deang]

This same thread is running over at audiokarma -- there's some pretty good discussion going on over there too.

Is being able to interpret and extrapolate the relevant data, and then applying it to create good sound -- more in the realm of science or art?

We hear differently, prefer different speaker set ups, have preferences in how close or how far we like to sit from our speakers, differences in how loud we normally like to listen, and finally -- have a definite preference in how we like the sonic signature tipped. Now, the science says the sound should be flat, because that is the only way you are going to get accurate reproduction. Now, I have rarely if ever, spoken or communicated with someone who thinks a flat sounding speaker "sounds good". I think most would agree that this kind of sound is boring, uninvolving, and in many cases, a little irritating. So, we need the measurements to give us a good baseline -- something we can trust. Everything after that is art. Science without the art is living in mediocrity. There was a time that I thought some pro gear and a $80 DVD player could get it done if you had a really great loudspeaker. I was wrong.

[oldtimer]

Does science really say sound should be flat? Is any great concert hall measured as flat? In the science/art of acoustical science is the optimum space considered one which is flat? I'm not up on the latest developments. If production is not flat under the best circumstances then why should reproduction be?

[Deang]

In the context of loudspeaker design, isn't the ideal loudspeaker supposed to have both a flat frequency response and a flat power response? To remove the effects of the room from the equation, design and testing is done using an anechoic chamber. It would seem the scientific, objective goal in the listening room should be to recreate or capture, to a large degree, what the loudspeaker was designed to do. So, any deviation from the intent of the design, whether intentional or not, is a departure from the scientific or objective goal - precise reproduction. Now, where did they put those tone controls?

[oldtimer]

So then perhaps science in this case is barking up the wrong tree?

[Deang]

No, not at all. We need the baseline. No meaningful or "artistic" work that we can trust gets done without it. Get the science right, and then as Roy would say, "add salt and pepper."