3 ms·

Some things are very hard to measure objectively, though, despite being real. (Anything subject to chaos theory, for sure.) I mix records. I use two different

by beat 7y ago

Some things are very hard to measure objectively, though, despite being real. (Anything subject to chaos theory, for sure.) I mix records. I use two different sets of monitors for mixing - a pair of Tannoy System 12 DMT monitors (equivalent would cost about $4000; they were very popular in hip-hop studios back in the '90s), and a more modern pair of Focal Alpha 50 powered monitors (about $800/pair new). Both monitors are quality professional gear. In terms of frequency response, they're both quite flat, although the big Tannoys have more bass extension. They don't sound anything alike. I find the Focals much more useful and predictable for the critical listening of mixing. They're also more tiring to listen to for extended periods. They're brutal, especially for transients and the very leading edge of sounds. I don't trust mixing on the Tannoys. But if I want to listen to music, rather than mix, I'll take the Tannoys any day. They treat transients more gently, and make for a much more pleasant, euphonic experience. Internet audiophile wannabes will then tell me I'm hearing distortion. Which is nonsense. Two speakers say the same thing in different ways, and the differences are very, very difficult to measure - but they are nonetheless quite real and plainly audible.

opencl 7y ago
What you're talking about absolutely is measurable. There has been tons and tons of research into various aspects of audio reproduction and how to measure different things and to what degree they're audible. Techniques for measuring transient response have been around since the 1940s. Unfortunately most places writing reviews of audio equipment don't bother to go much beyond frequency response and distortion. Audioxpress ran a really nice 2 part article a decade ago describing a bunch of different types of speaker measurements and summarizing some research into how audible each aspect is. https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-2 https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-whi... https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-1 https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-whi...
- beat 7y ago
  I did transient response measurement while studying recording in college (onto recording media). But when you start getting into things like frequency-dependent phase response, radiation patterns, reflections... there's a tremendous world of logically audible speaker behaviors that could maybe be measured in isolation, but you get so many of them that you can't assemble a meaningful picture of how a speaker is going to sound. And that's the goal, isn't it? Measurements provide expectations. And that's where the conversation breaks down - the "objective" mind gets so preoccupied with the measurement that they assume what isn't measured cannot exist. The map replaces the territory, and there are no hills because the map is obviously flat.
  - mbell 7y ago
    > But when you start getting into things like frequency-dependent phase response, radiation patterns, reflections... there's a tremendous world of logically audible speaker behaviors that could maybe be measured in isolation, but you get so many of them that you can't assemble a meaningful picture of how a speaker is going to sound. These things aren't particularly difficult to measure, we even have standard plots for them. Polar response, energy time curves, cumulative spectral decay, electrical phase and group delay are all standard measurements for a loudspeaker.
    - beat 7y ago
      Yes, but can consumers look at those and derive meaningful expectations for their subjective experience of using the speakers? And how many of those things are sensitive to dynamics, volume, signal complexity, etc? I think this stuff says a lot more about psychology than it says about technology. When I'm mixing music, my "final arbiter" for mix quality is the crappy stock speakers in my car. A mix may sound great on my studio monitors, but if it's not happening in that extremely inaccurate car system, it's not happening. A lot of professional mixers use "bad" speakers like Auracubes or Minimus-7s just to emulate that experience. And of course, this kind of experience is also inseparable from context. It's not just that they're car speakers... it's that they're in a car. They're in the door, not aimed at my ears. Their bass-reflex behavior is from the volume of the door and whatever venting it has, and reflections are completely crazy.

by beat 7y ago

opencl 7y ago

What you're talking about absolutely is measurable. There has been tons and tons of research into various aspects of audio reproduction and how to measure different things and to what degree they're audible. Techniques for measuring transient response have been around since the 1940s. Unfortunately most places writing reviews of audio equipment don't bother to go much beyond frequency response and distortion. Audioxpress ran a really nice 2 part article a decade ago describing a bunch of different types of speaker measurements and summarizing some research into how audible each aspect is. https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-2 https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-whi... https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-1 https://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-whi...

beat 7y ago
I did transient response measurement while studying recording in college (onto recording media). But when you start getting into things like frequency-dependent phase response, radiation patterns, reflections... there's a tremendous world of logically audible speaker behaviors that could maybe be measured in isolation, but you get so many of them that you can't assemble a meaningful picture of how a speaker is going to sound. And that's the goal, isn't it? Measurements provide expectations. And that's where the conversation breaks down - the "objective" mind gets so preoccupied with the measurement that they assume what isn't measured cannot exist. The map replaces the territory, and there are no hills because the map is obviously flat.
- mbell 7y ago
  > But when you start getting into things like frequency-dependent phase response, radiation patterns, reflections... there's a tremendous world of logically audible speaker behaviors that could maybe be measured in isolation, but you get so many of them that you can't assemble a meaningful picture of how a speaker is going to sound. These things aren't particularly difficult to measure, we even have standard plots for them. Polar response, energy time curves, cumulative spectral decay, electrical phase and group delay are all standard measurements for a loudspeaker.
  - beat 7y ago
    Yes, but can consumers look at those and derive meaningful expectations for their subjective experience of using the speakers? And how many of those things are sensitive to dynamics, volume, signal complexity, etc? I think this stuff says a lot more about psychology than it says about technology. When I'm mixing music, my "final arbiter" for mix quality is the crappy stock speakers in my car. A mix may sound great on my studio monitors, but if it's not happening in that extremely inaccurate car system, it's not happening. A lot of professional mixers use "bad" speakers like Auracubes or Minimus-7s just to emulate that experience. And of course, this kind of experience is also inseparable from context. It's not just that they're car speakers... it's that they're in a car. They're in the door, not aimed at my ears. Their bass-reflex behavior is from the volume of the door and whatever venting it has, and reflections are completely crazy.