This is aimed more at JA (et al) than AK (et al), but both should read and
consider.

Last Saturday morning around 8AM I was cleaning up my CD collection. I
decided to turn on the system and play some background music. (I chose an
unheard disc of Thomas Hampson singing artsy-schmartsy settings of various
Whitman poems. Whitman would have derided most of them as "frou-frou".
Absolutely /not/ recommended.)

Anyhow, the sound was absolutely exquisite -- simply in terms of "beauty",
the best I'd ever heard from my system.

Do I need to add that, a few hours later, the system still sounded "good",
but nowhere nearly as "pretty"?

Subjective reviewers rarely, if ever, acknowledge that the time of day,
ambient noise, their mood, etc, affects both what they perceive and how they
perceive it. (When I wrote for Stereophile, I did my most-critical listening
Saturday morning, when ambient sound was at a minimum and my hearing was
most acute.)

The same is true, to a lesser extent, of AB testing. If your mind and
hearing are not at their most acute, you might miss legitimate differences.

You raise an interesting and valid point. However, the only way to
remove listener variability (with respect to time of day, mood,
internal chemistry, etc.) is to average it over many sessions under
all variants of those parameters. And, of course, to try to be
self-aware of them.

Kal

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 06:35:21 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

This is aimed more at JA (et al) than AK (et al), but both should read and
consider.

Last Saturday morning around 8AM I was cleaning up my CD collection. I
decided to turn on the system and play some background music. (I chose an
unheard disc of Thomas Hampson singing artsy-schmartsy settings of various
Whitman poems. Whitman would have derided most of them as "frou-frou".
Absolutely /not/ recommended.)

Anyhow, the sound was absolutely exquisite -- simply in terms of "beauty",
the best I'd ever heard from my system.

Do I need to add that, a few hours later, the system still sounded "good",
but nowhere nearly as "pretty"?

Subjective reviewers rarely, if ever, acknowledge that the time of day,
ambient noise, their mood, etc, affects both what they perceive and how they
perceive it. (When I wrote for Stereophile, I did my most-critical listening
Saturday morning, when ambient sound was at a minimum and my hearing was
most acute.)

The same is true, to a lesser extent, of AB testing. If your mind and
hearing are not at their most acute, you might miss legitimate differences.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
You raise an interesting and valid point. However, the only way to
remove listener variability (with respect to time of day, mood,
internal chemistry, etc.) is to average it over many sessions under
all variants of those parameters. And, of course, to try to be
self-aware of them.

Right.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
You raise an interesting and valid point. However, the only way to
remove listener variability (with respect to time of day, mood,
internal chemistry, etc.) is to average it over many sessions under
all variants of those parameters. And, of course, to try to be
self-aware of them.

Right.

Or make an objective measurment.

Mark

On 25 Jun 2005 18:47:53 -0700, "Mark" wrote:

Or make an objective measurment.

An objective and relevant measurement.

Chris Hornbeck
"I can build you a test that will show either one. Which would you prefer
me to demonstrate?
--scott

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 25 Jun 2005 18:47:53 -0700, "Mark"
wrote:

Or make an objective measurment.

An objective and relevant measurement.

There's the rub, the relevance part. Interpreting objective
measurements is at once difficult and easy. On the one hand,
nonlinear distortion that measures below 0.05% over the
entire audible range +/- an octave or so is pretty well
guaranteed to be inaudible. However, loudspeakers still
commonly have far more than 0.05% nonlinear distortion in
typical use. So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?

Arny Krueger wrote:


Interpreting objective measurements is at once difficult and easy.

Now there's a decisive statement. Can't dispute those findings.

So, how do you characterize the way that loudspeaker sounds?

Well you could start by taking the pencils out of your ears and
LISTENING?

But that might confuse you Arny, so nevermind.

VB

Vinyl_Believer wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Interpreting objective measurements is at once difficult
and easy.

Now there's a decisive statement. Can't dispute those
findings.

So, how do you characterize the way that loudspeaker
sounds?

Well you could start by taking the pencils out of your
ears and
LISTENING?

That's quite an insult there, VB. Can you prove that:

(1) I ever listen with pencils in my ears
(2) That I don't evaluate loudspeakers by listening tests?

But that might confuse you Arny, so nevermind.

Where's the confusion VB? I'm doing small volume production
and distribution of recordings all of the time. By noon
today I will have pulled 7 live sound gigs in 7 days. If I
don't listen, how is it that I do that?

Oh, I get it, VB. On your planet people do audio production
and live sound without listening. Must be horrible!

Well your question Arny..... "So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?" ...... Is ridiculous.

You listen and describe the sound ..... Measurements are nice but they
usually stay in the bottom of the box.

Glad you're working but you'd better hit the hay if you're gonna make
that noon show at the school for the deaf..... Doh!!! g

VB

Vinyl_Believer wrote:



Well your question Arny..... "So, how do you characterize
the way that
loudspeaker sounds?" ...... Is ridiculous.

Where did I ask that question in the post you are pretending
to replyt to, VB?

Are you as delusional as Harry Lavo, who finds all sorts of
things in my posts that I never said and even vociferously
deny?

You listen and describe the sound .....

You said I don't, now you say this VB? Are you a little
confused or a lot confused?

Measurements are nice but they usually stay in the bottom
of the box.

What does that mean?

Glad you're working but you'd better hit the hay if you're
gonna make
that noon show at the school for the deaf..... Doh!!! g

As usual VB you are making it up as you go along. There
ain't no noon show, and this ain't no school for the deaf.
Sorry to disappoint you, VB.

Arny Krueger wrote:

There's the rub, the relevance part. Interpreting objective
measurements is at once difficult and easy. On the one hand,
nonlinear distortion that measures below 0.05% over the
entire audible range +/- an octave or so is pretty well
guaranteed to be inaudible. However, loudspeakers still
commonly have far more than 0.05% nonlinear distortion in
typical use. So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?

This just shows why using a single scalar number for distortion is
misleading. It doesn't tell the whole story.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

So, how do you characterize the way that loudspeaker sounds?

Well you could start by taking the pencils out of your ears
and LISTENING?
But that might confuse you Arny, so nevermind.

Forgive me for defending Arny, but Mr. Krueger was talking about finding a
relationship between what we hear and what we measure. Simply listening does
not produce a correlation.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Vinyl_Believer wrote:



Well your question Arny..... "So, how do you characterize
the way that
loudspeaker sounds?" ...... Is ridiculous.

Where did I ask that question in the post you are pretending
to replyt to, VB?

Are you as delusional as Harry Lavo, who finds all sorts of
things in my posts that I never said and even vociferously
deny?


snip


Since you dragged me into this Arny, you said:

"So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?"

in post:

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:55:50 -0500
From: "Arny Krueger"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
References:


. com

Subject: subjectivity versus objectivity


I rest my case.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

There's the rub, the relevance part. Interpreting
objective
measurements is at once difficult and easy. On the one
hand,
nonlinear distortion that measures below 0.05% over the
entire audible range +/- an octave or so is pretty well
guaranteed to be inaudible. However, loudspeakers still
commonly have far more than 0.05% nonlinear distortion in
typical use. So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?

This just shows why using a single scalar number for
distortion is
misleading. It doesn't tell the whole story.

To clarify, a scalar number for distortion is definitive if
that number is an upper limit, below which all
equipment-generated distortions lie, and if that upper limit
is suitably low.

OTOH, a single scalar number is not definitive if that
number is too high, or not an upper limit.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Vinyl_Believer wrote:



Well your question Arny..... "So, how do you
characterize the way
that loudspeaker sounds?" ...... Is ridiculous.

Where did I ask that question in the post you are
pretending
to replyt to, VB?

Are you as delusional as Harry Lavo, who finds all sorts
of
things in my posts that I never said and even
vociferously
deny?


snip


Since you dragged me into this Arny, you said:

"So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?"

in post:

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:55:50 -0500
From: "Arny Krueger"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
References:


. com

Subject: subjectivity versus objectivity


I rest my case.

Harry, I'm quite sure that you don't realize that your post
muct be absolutely meaningless to me. But it is, because the
purported quote from me has been stripped of all context.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

So, how do you characterize the way that loudspeaker
sounds?

Vinyl Posture-Matic spewed:

Well you could start by taking the pencils out of your
ears
and LISTENING?

But that might confuse you Arny, so nevermind.

OK VB, so you have a pathological fear of measurements.

Forgive me for defending Arny, but Mr. Krueger was talking
about
finding a relationship between what we hear and what we
measure.

That would probably be way over VB's head.

Simply listening does not produce a correlation.

Exactly.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Vinyl_Believer wrote:

...snip..

Measurements are nice but they usually stay in the bottom
of the box.

What does that mean?
..snip...

I'd guess at an implied education gap. Most folks (perhaps V.B.
included)
don't know how to read AND interpret tech specs and measurements.
[ YMMV ]

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

Ron Capik wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Vinyl_Believer wrote:

...snip..

Measurements are nice but they usually stay in the bottom

of the box.

What does that mean?
..snip...


I'd guess at an implied education gap. Most folks (perhaps V.B.
included)
don't know how to read AND interpret tech specs and measurements.
[ YMMV ]

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training

Sure they do. They just understand that it doesn't end there. The AKG
C1000 specs out pretty good, doesn't it?

Joe Sensor wrote:

Ron Capik wrote:

...snip..
I'd guess at an implied education gap. Most folks (perhaps V.B.
included)
don't know how to read AND interpret tech specs and measurements.
[ YMMV ]

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training

Sure they do. They just understand that it doesn't end there. The AKG
C1000 specs out pretty good, doesn't it?

Don't know, I left the specs in the bottom of the box. ;-)

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training
--

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Vinyl_Believer wrote:



Well your question Arny..... "So, how do you
characterize the way
that loudspeaker sounds?" ...... Is ridiculous.

Where did I ask that question in the post you are
pretending
to replyt to, VB?

Are you as delusional as Harry Lavo, who finds all sorts
of
things in my posts that I never said and even
vociferously
deny?


snip


Since you dragged me into this Arny, you said:

"So, how do you characterize the way that
loudspeaker sounds?"

in post:

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:55:50 -0500
From: "Arny Krueger"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
References:


. com

Subject: subjectivity versus objectivity


I rest my case.

Harry, I'm quite sure that you don't realize that your post
muct be absolutely meaningless to me. But it is, because the
purported quote from me has been stripped of all context.



It serves its purpose. It shows that you said what you just denied above
you said.

Joe Sensor wrote:
Ron Capik wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Vinyl_Believer wrote:

...snip..

Measurements are nice but they usually stay in the
bottom

of the box.

What does that mean?
..snip...


I'd guess at an implied education gap. Most folks
(perhaps V.B.
included)
don't know how to read AND interpret tech specs and
measurements.
[ YMMV ]

Later...

Ron Capik cynic in training

Sure they do. They just understand that it doesn't end
there. The AKG
C1000 specs out pretty good, doesn't it?

Based on specs, it looks like a mic with a rough, bright
mid-high end, quite a bit of proximity effect, and a thin
low end for sources at some distance. Based on specs, it
could easily sound pretty ugly.

Measuring sound is of limited use and numbers can and are manipulated.
A graph is only 2D, and we listen in a 3D world with other senses and
cues at play (feeling for example).

You can measure volume, time, distortion, S/N, but what else? ......
You can't measure depth of sound, dimension or even naturalness of
sound, prescence, or many other complex sonic experiences.

Although Arny seems to have invented a technique to measure 'glare'.

VB

Vinyl_Believer wrote:

Measuring sound is of limited use and numbers can and are
manipulated.

The same applies to listening evaluations.

Listening tests are of limited use because they are or can
be profoundly affected by the state of body and the state of
mind of the listener. It is quite easy to manipulate the
outcome of listening tests by a number of well-known means:

(1) Don't match the levels well enough, or intentionally
increase or decrease the level of one of them.

(2) Displace the sonic alternatives in time so far that
small real differences can't be reliably detected. A common
means for implementing this scam is called "The Single
Presentation Mode".

(3) Before the listening evaluation, convince the listener
that he's going to hear an improvement during one or more
phases of the test. If the listener is already a True
Believer in some form of technology such as SETs or vinyl,
so much the better.

A graph is only 2D, and we listen in a 3D world with other
senses and
cues at play (feeling for example).

Actually, a lot of technical tests involve what amount to be
graphs of 3D (or more) functions. The 2D graphs are just
generally-accepted approximations of them.

You can measure volume, time, distortion, S/N, but what
else? ..

In fact what other parameters does an audio signal have?

You can't measure depth of sound,

Sure you can. There are some very specific technical
operations that we perform or situations we contrive in
order to increase the perception of depth in sound. One
well-known example is stereo. These technical operations and
situations leave measurable technical artifacts. Their
results can be easily measured.

dimension or even naturalness of sound,

This is known as an absence of audible distortion and noise.

prescence,

Those of us who know how to spell presence mostly know that
it is due to a certain kind of spectral balance, Joe.

or many other complex sonic experiences.

They are all technical effects or the results of preserving
certain technical properties of signals.

Although Arny seems to have invented a technique to
measure 'glare'.

Glare is usually a combination of a certain spectral balance
and certain kinds of nonlinear distortion. I can create a
range of kinds of glare with my DAW. Certain mics in certain
situations can also create this perception.

It's real obvious to me Joe that a lot of your problem is
that you don't know enough about audio production, and/or
don't have enough experience doing audio production. Get
thee into a control room!

Arny Krueger wrote:

Listening tests are of limited use ....

That's about the most asinine statement I've ever heard coming from
someone in the audio field.

It's real obvious to me Joe.....

You're talking to your 'voices' Arnie....... This is VB you're
responding too.

VB

Vinyl_Believer wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Listening tests are of limited use ....

That's about the most asinine statement I've ever heard
coming from
someone in the audio field.

Why don't you deal with the critical points I raised, VB?

Here they are again:

Listening tests are of limited use because they are or can
be profoundly affected by the state of body and the state of
mind of the listener. It is quite easy to manipulate the
outcome of listening tests by a number of well-known means:

(1) Don't match the levels well enough, or intentionally
increase or decrease the level of one of them.

(2) Displace the sonic alternatives in time so far that
small real differences can't be reliably detected. A common
means for implementing this scam is called "The Single
Presentation Mode".

(3) Before the listening evaluation, convince the listener
that he's going to hear an improvement during one or more
phases of the test. If the listener is already a True
Believer in some form of technology such as SETs or vinyl,
so much the better.

Arny Krueger wrote:

To clarify, a scalar number for distortion is definitive if
that number is an upper limit, below which all
equipment-generated distortions lie, and if that upper limit
is suitably low.

If we could all agree on what "suitably low" is, I'd agree with that.
But we cannot. It would have to be very, very low.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

To clarify, a scalar number for distortion is definitive
if
that number is an upper limit, below which all
equipment-generated distortions lie, and if that upper
limit
is suitably low.

If we could all agree on what "suitably low" is, I'd agree
with that.
But we cannot. It would have to be very, very low.

Nahh, and a few good clean DBTs can make that quite clear.
Just get all forms of nonlinear distortion below 0.05%...
Easy for electronics and digital, mission impossible for
speakers.

Who uses pencils now anyway?

studiorat wrote:

Who uses pencils now anyway?

Analog bigots and other Luddites?

Had the OP listened to something half decent, he might have not have
had to write his post.
I often notice that something sounds must better when you are not
actually critically listening to it. I noticed this recently when I
remarked on how a piano sounded beautiful on a vocal mic I was using at
the time, I then read endless posts about mic placement etc. when I was
really just pointing out that if you are not listening for problems you
won't notice them.
It means a difference between work listening and listening for
preasure. I've never had an 'entuastiasts' hifi, and anyone who would
consider owning one I believe deserves to hear every % of distortion
the thing makes. Paying $4000 or whatever for a bloody cd player! What
the ****?
And Walt Whitman, would kick his ass for listening to that ****e in the
first place.
So there.
It's about the message and not the medium, surley the proliferation of
Mp3 has shown that by this stage.

"I've never had an 'entuastiasts' hifi, and anyone who would
consider owning one I believe deserves to hear every % of distortion
the thing makes. Paying $4000 or whatever for a bloody cd player! What
the ****?
And Walt Whitman, would kick his ass for listening to that ****e in the
first place.
So there.
It's about the message and not the medium, surley the proliferation of
Mp3 has shown that by this stage. "

very subjective reactionary statement.

now how about something objective and visionary....

the OP closed with this
"If your mind and hearing are not at their most acute,
you might miss legitimate differences. "

in your case you missed it !

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:28:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

To clarify, a scalar number for distortion is definitive if
that number is an upper limit, below which all
equipment-generated distortions lie, and if that upper limit
is suitably low.

OTOH, a single scalar number is not definitive if that
number is too high, or not an upper limit.

This might ultimately prove to be true, but I'm still
unconvinced by current number crunching. Easy enough
to foresee a brighter day soon when believable thresholds
have been tested and a single number could be calculated
as the sum of various error probabilities.

Maybe something along the lines of: the probability of
the average trained observer detecting error A plus(?)
the probability of t.a.t.o. detecting error B, plus, etc.

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
"I can build you a test that will show either one. Which would you prefer
me to demonstrate?
--scott

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:28:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"

wrote:

To clarify, a scalar number for distortion is definitive
if
that number is an upper limit, below which all
equipment-generated distortions lie, and if that upper
limit
is suitably low.

OTOH, a single scalar number is not definitive if that
number is too high, or not an upper limit.

This might ultimately prove to be true, but I'm still
unconvinced by current number crunching.

It's not the number crunching that proves it, its the
listening.

We know from listening that the ear's sensitivity peaks
around 4 KHz. We know that the ear is vastly less sensitive
at 20 Hz and 20 KHz, than it is at 4 KHz.

Nonlinear distortion is most audible when the consequences
of the nonlinear distortion end up at frequencies where the
ear is more sensitive to the distortion than it is sensitive
to the signal that caused the distortion.

There are two cases where this happens - harmonics created
by a low frequency signal, and intermodulation difference
tones created by a high frequency signal.

We also know that in general, modern equipment is generally
free of distortion due to steps or sharp discontinuities in
its input/output amplitude response. Distortion of that kind
in digital convertors died when sigma-delta converters
became the rule. Distortion of that kind in analog equipment
was almost always due to biasing errors in push-pull
amplifiers, but the art of properly biasing power amps
became well-understood some decades ago.

The major exception to this is clipping, but modern
equipment has enough dynamic range that there is really no
excuse to clip it.

Nevertheless, audio gear still has distortion due to
curvature of its input-output amplitude response. This
distortion generally generates more low-order distortion
than high-order distortion. Because the most likely form of
distortion in equipment is of a lower order, we can conclude
that generation of distortion products in the 4 KHz range by
a lower frequency signal is far less likely than the
generation of distortion products in that same range by
means of intermodulation of higher frequency signals.

I spent quite a bit of time listening to music whose basic
nature would tend to generate a lot of this kind of
distortion, with and without added distortion of various
kinds. I also looked at masking curves of the human ear to
see exactly how sensitive the ear could be reasonably be
expected to be in these kinds of scenarios.

The results of both of these kinds of investigations gave
similar results - distortion that is much below 0.1% just
can't be heard, even under the most ideal conditions for
hearing distortion.

now how about something objective and visionary....

the OP closed with this
"If your mind and hearing are not at their most acute,
you might miss legitimate differences. "

in your case you missed it !

I think you missed the fact that he was talking about A/B testing there
Dale. Are we listening to the equipment or the music here?

" Are we listening to the equipment or the music here? "

both.
for neither can exist for this discussion without the other.
and most music today has musicians who can not play without the
equipment!
and cannot judge the equipment as good or bad!

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:56:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

carefully considered, well presented and completely correct
analysis clipped 'cause ya already read it

Yes. And yet...

Competent profession observers still report hearing differences
between very competent and expensive A/D and D/A converter boxes,
meaning those with 80 dB performance above artifacts.

It's this dichotomy that interests me in the topic. There's
something interesting here; not yet sure what it means.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"I can build you a test that will show either one. Which
would you prefer me to demonstrate?"
--scott