Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50
  1. #1
    Forum Regular phileserver39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    101

    How to translate qualitative terms to quantitative in the sport of home audio

    Howdy fellow audio addicts,

    My name is Bob and I have been uncontrollably immersed in audio for at least a year.

    But I shan't digress....

    I can understand how we can compare the claimed manufacturer specifications of an audio component versus the "real world" or "measured" specifications (as independently tested) of the same component.


    However, I have a hard time finding objective definitions for subjective terms such as sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...

    How does the human experience of these concepts translate into the their technical definition?

    Thanks for your time and expertise,

    Jason
    The round mound of rebound sound is profound and bound to pound the ground. OK, I got nuthin.....

  2. #2
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by phileserver39


    However, I have a hard time finding objective definitions for subjective terms such as sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...
    For sure hard to describe

    Sound Stage to me is the placement of the players as opposed to all mushed together

    Forward is when a particular instrument or many are sort of in your face as opposed to up on the stage or at least 15 feet away

  3. #3
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    It doesn't!
    AFAIK there is no objective measurement for "sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...". They are all subjective in that there is no way that I'm aware of to measure sound stage depth (for example) or any of those other things.

    Everything about audio can't be expressed in a technical manner. For instance, bloom is a term used to describe the sound of many tube amps. It's not dynamics, macro or micro but is somewhat related to both. SS amps generally don't have much if any. Once you hear it you will know exactly what it is.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  4. #4
    Forum Regular phileserver39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyfi
    For sure hard to describe

    Sound Stage to me is the placement of the players as opposed to all mushed together

    Forward is when a particular instrument or many are sort of in your face as opposed to up on the stage or at least 15 feet away
    And I, like you Hyfi, have the same "internalized, not-technically-defined, feeling" of those same concepts.

    However, where does the boundary of the mathematically describable performance of a set of loudspeakers boarder the ethereal and humanistic translations of the wave? Will that disconnect ever be bridged?

    I have my doubts.

    J
    The round mound of rebound sound is profound and bound to pound the ground. OK, I got nuthin.....

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538

    You can only relate a sound systems performance to a live recital

    If you go to headbanger concerts then that will be your live reference.

    If you go to chamber music recitals, then THAT will be your live reference.

    If your system matches your live reference, then don't you have what you want? If your live reference changes then perhaps your sound system will have to change. But trying to rely on the opinions of someone with a reference point very different from your own can be problematic.

    This is why people sometimes post conflicting opinions here. In the end you must have (your) live music "in your ears" to find what will please you. This is why there are so MANY different designs intended for solving the same problem. Some succeed and some fade away. One approach you might find useful is to evaluate items which satisfy many people irrespective of their diverse interests.......

  6. #6
    Forum Regular phileserver39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Mash
    If you go to headbanger concerts then that will be your live reference.

    If you go to chamber music recitals, then THAT will be your live reference.

    If your system matches your live reference, then don't you have what you want? If your live reference changes then perhaps your sound system will have to change. But trying to rely on the opinions of someone with a reference point very different from your own can be problematic.

    This is why people sometimes post conflicting opinions here. In the end you must have (your) live music "in your ears" to find what will please you. This is why there are so MANY different designs intended for solving the same problem. Some succeed and some fade away. One approach you might find useful is to evaluate items which satisfy many people irrespective of their diverse interests.......
    Soooo, I am guessing that your vote is a "nay" when the (my) question is: Do you think that science will be able to quantify every perceptible nuance in a recording? Can ideas like soundstage, depth of presence, instrument separation, etc be quantified in such a way that we can compare and contrast recordings and reproduction systems without human frailties and emotion mucking everything up?

    Thanks for staying with me,

    Jason
    The round mound of rebound sound is profound and bound to pound the ground. OK, I got nuthin.....

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538

    Pretty much a "nay".

    We can listen to the same live performance and yet not hear the same details. In spite of the forgoing, I think it likely that we might agree how well a reproduction matches the original overall if we are all familar with that original and we compare the same, or essentially the same, reproduction.

    So when you read or listen to another's comments you must read between the lines. The specific details may not be so important since it is unlikely that we can all hear exactly the same details at the "reference performance", and anyway communicating those differences accurately is a challenge.

  8. #8
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I use the ideas based in this essay http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm when it comes to the evaluation of being accurate to the recording from a listening perspective. Live references change from the venue to the seated position and I use this article http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398 to remind me of some of the artifices that audiophiles emphasize that are not emphasized with live music.

    The measurements no longer interest me beyond a "That's interesting" level. The don't influence, any more as they did at one time, my buying habits. Unfortunately there are some poor measuring gear (out of what is measured anyway) that sound considerably better than some rather terrific measuring stuff.

    But there are certain correlations that some have made through various testing - depends how much faith you put into the incomplete testing and corporate run "science."

  9. #9
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442
    what youre looking for cant be defined with numbers. only listening experience and reading the right magazines such as the absolute sound and stereophile, and correlating the two functions.

    add in some live music like jazz and possibly some classical and you will have some good references. it also helps to have a knowledgeable audio friend that has a decent high end playback system.

    by high end, i dont necessarily mean hugely expensive, i mean that it will have competent components.

    another activity would be the frequenting of a couple of high end audio shops and listen both to what you want and what others there are being demonstrated to.

    i learned a lot by keeping my mouth shut and listening to serious buyers and the sales personnel explaining the reasons for the resultant sound. after a while, you can differentiate a true expert from a BSer. after a long time of doing this, i became well versed in audio and could make intelligent decisions for myself.

    oh, i made some mistakes but a also made some very good improvements in my system and also learned to like music i hadnt heard before.

    audio listening is an acquired skill, i am glad i took the the time and effort to get there.
    ...regards...tr

  10. #10
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by phileserver39
    Howdy fellow audio addicts,

    My name is Bob and I have been uncontrollably immersed in audio for at least a year.

    But I shan't digress....

    I can understand how we can compare the claimed manufacturer specifications of an audio component versus the "real world" or "measured" specifications (as independently tested) of the same component.


    However, I have a hard time finding objective definitions for subjective terms such as sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...

    How does the human experience of these concepts translate into the their technical definition?

    Thanks for your time and expertise,

    Jason
    It does not...

    IMO, Audio basically falls into 2 categories; art and science... The artists (subjective) tend to disregard the science and the scientists (objective) often don't fully appreciate the art...

    So what that means is that there is not nearly enough effort made to quantify and measure subjective findings... Many scientists are more intent on using the measurements they know how to make, rather than trying to figure out how to measure all the other subjective areas (basically the attitude that if they don't know how to measure it, then it doesn't exist - which is not very scientific btw)... And many artists have no interest in furthering the science of the hobby - they'd be content to tune everything by ear and 'just listen'...

    The obvious truth is that we need less ridiculous warring among audio factions and more collective efforts to fully understand audio...
    Last edited by Ajani; 01-18-2011 at 08:58 AM.

  11. #11
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    How a persons system interprets and presents a recording is situational. As far as hard data regarding sound stage/depth, etc...yes it can be "scientifically" defined. These things are laid out in a studio, and if you source back to the master tracks, everything you hear on the recording has been purposefully placed there. Terrence can comment better on this.

    Digressing back to my opening point, since everyone's systems are different, we will all hear different takes on what's essentially the same thing.

    I think this point you are making is what makes our relationships in audio so special. When you find somone who is on your "wave", or who shares the same gear as you, a bond is formed in knowing you are both hearing the same thing.

    That's what's tough for me, since my system is the greatest in the world, I sit atop a lonely, lonely mountain.

  12. #12
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by hifitommy
    what youre looking for cant be defined with numbers. only listening experience and reading the right magazines such as the absolute sound and stereophile, and correlating the two functions.

    add in some live music like jazz and possibly some classical and you will have some good references. it also helps to have a knowledgeable audio friend that has a decent high end playback system.

    by high end, i dont necessarily mean hugely expensive, i mean that it will have competent components.

    another activity would be the frequenting of a couple of high end audio shops and listen both to what you want and what others there are being demonstrated to.

    i learned a lot by keeping my mouth shut and listening to serious buyers and the sales personnel explaining the reasons for the resultant sound. after a while, you can differentiate a true expert from a BSer. after a long time of doing this, i became well versed in audio and could make intelligent decisions for myself.

    oh, i made some mistakes but a also made some very good improvements in my system and also learned to like music i hadnt heard before.

    audio listening is an acquired skill, i am glad i took the the time and effort to get there.

    This is an excellent post. I couldn't agree more with you Tommy! I combined the knowledge of several experienced audiophiles, my local shop and finally, my own ears. Lots and lots of research, and lots of time spent listening.

    The reward? I have EXACTLY the system I set out to build. I no longer want to fiddle, exchange or upgrade.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    It does not...

    IMO, Audio basically falls into 2 categories; art and science... The artists (subjective) tend to disregard the science and the scientists (objective) often don't fully appreciate the art...

    So what that means is that there is not nearly enough effort made to quantify and measure subjective findings... Many scientists are more intent on using the measurements they know how to make, rather than trying to figure out how to measure all the other subjective areas (basically the attitude that if they don't know how to measure it, then it doesn't exist - which is not very scientific btw)... And many artists have no interest in furthering the science of the hobby - they'd be content to tune everything by ear and 'just listen'...

    The obvious truth is that we need less ridiculous warring among audio factions and more collective efforts to fully understand audio...
    THERE is only one "category " ...science.
    We had "art" for thousands of years and no audio equipment. THERE ARE some for whom
    their "feelings" are more important than the engineering. THESE types tend to sit around and stare at tubes for hours, imagining all kinds of delicious sound, which exists only
    between their ears. For these types what they "like" is more important than accurate
    sound reproduction, delusion more important than whats real. But its solid science that
    has been the real progress maker in this field, not the belly button contemplaters,
    although they are quite harmless, except to their own pocketbooks.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails How to translate qualitative terms to quantitative in the sport of home audio-dead-santa.jpg  
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    If you use blind listening tests, you ALWAYS end up with you prefer! (yes, use long term blind tests). If your ears prefer one piece of equipment over another, then, unless one is much more expensive, buy the one you like!

  15. #15
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363

    Another public service announcement...

    Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
    THERE is only one "category " ...science.
    We had "art" for thousands of years and no audio equipment. THERE ARE some for whom
    their "feelings" are more important than the engineering. THESE types tend to sit around and stare at tubes for hours, imagining all kinds of delicious sound, which exists only
    between their ears. For these types what they "like" is more important than accurate
    sound reproduction, delusion more important than whats real. But its solid science that
    has been the real progress maker in this field, not the belly button contemplaters,
    although they are quite harmless, except to their own pocketbooks.


  16. #16
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Another qualitative discussion, and another "pix bomb". When will it end!
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  17. #17
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Leaving idiosyncratic perferences behind, for the most part a better "spec'd" component will sound better than an inferior one. ie; If it has lower distortion, or a flatter response you should be able to pick it out as "better" just as the test equipment that doesn't have any preferences.

    As to "sound staging" "imaging" and all the rest of the goodies we all know and love, ALL of them are psyco-acoustic illusions. A "better" (higher resolution) system should be able to produce them with more resolving power, hence produce a better "image" or seperate the soundstage with more clarity.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  18. #18
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Another qualitative discussion, and another "pix bomb". When will it end!
    When the sentimentalists finally die off(no changing them).
    IT USUALLY takes a generation or two to change things, this is common in most areas of
    human knowledge. Doctors refused to use anesthesia for years after it was invented,
    for instance.
    BUT when BELL LABS invented the transistor in the forties I bet they never dreamed
    that a few holdouts would insist on using tubes well into the 21st century!
    Shoot your horse, cars are here to stay.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  19. #19
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Funny, but I didn't see "tubes vs transistor" at the subject. Post another off topic post and it gets deleted. You have been warned.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538

    What? me worry?

    Here we are in Mad Land............

    Simple answer, dude. You do your thing and let other people do their thing.

    I consider spending a lot of money on exotic wires and interconnects to be pure silliness. But many people DO spend a LOT of money on exotic wires and interconnects. This does not bother me, so I do not comment on it. And I had aircooled generators for "The Company" for a while 'cause I was the only ME candidate out of a pool of 20 who knew EE, so it is not that I know nothing about the subject........

    Live and let live.

  21. #21
    Forum Regular phileserver39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    101

    Thank you all

    Howdy All,

    Thanks to everybody for their input. And to think my gf claims that I never have any thought provoking questions when I am sipping on the gin and juice.

    You all have given me a lot to mull over.

    Best,

    j
    The round mound of rebound sound is profound and bound to pound the ground. OK, I got nuthin.....

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Leaving idiosyncratic perferences behind, for the most part a better "spec'd" component will sound better than an inferior one. ie; If it has lower distortion, or a flatter response you should be able to pick it out as "better" just as the test equipment that doesn't have any preferences.

    As to "sound staging" "imaging" and all the rest of the goodies we all know and love, ALL of them are psyco-acoustic illusions. A "better" (higher resolution) system should be able to produce them with more resolving power, hence produce a better "image" or seperate the soundstage with more clarity.

    Garbage in, garbage out! Most measurements do NOT correlate to the quality of sound. JA's meaningless measurements are constantly contradicted by other reviewers (at Stereophile). JA is constantly writing: "I don't know why AD, WP, or many others love the sound of this piece of equipment when it measures so poorly." JA's OWN subjective rating of components (at least one: the ARVSi60 integrated amp) contradicts his measurements.
    THOUSANDS of factors are at work, and, at this stage, human ears are MUCH more accurate than measurements. Those who praise recent advances in digital or ss sound, by and large, have ALWAYS praised digital and ss (pure crap, FOR SURE, when introduced!!!).

  23. #23
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Funny, but I didn't see "tubes vs transistor" at the subject. Post another off topic post and it gets deleted. You have been warned.
    Thats the way to go!
    SILENCE ALL DISSENT.
    Sorry to go against your preconceived notions.
    CARRY ON(what is this thread about? TITLE is a tad vague)
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  24. #24
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan
    Garbage in, garbage out! Most measurements do NOT correlate to the quality of sound. JA's meaningless measurements are constantly contradicted by other reviewers (at Stereophile). JA is constantly writing: "I don't know why AD, WP, or many others love the sound of this piece of equipment when it measures so poorly." JA's OWN subjective rating of components (at least one: the ARVSi60 integrated amp) contradicts his measurements.
    THOUSANDS of factors are at work, and, at this stage, human ears are MUCH more accurate than measurements. Those who praise recent advances in digital or ss sound, by and large, have ALWAYS praised digital and ss (pure crap, FOR SURE, when introduced!!!).
    As always your generalizing and provide no real facts to back up your argument. Audio testing is done with precision measuring equipment, listening with ears. Poor specs often mean that the item offers some type of idiosyncratic behavior, a'la SET with it's wildly non-linear response, and added second order harmonics. That people love this type of gear does not render the measurements meaningless. Far from it! It renders the measurements as a testament to how idiosyncratic peoples opinions of good quality sound is.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  25. #25
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    As always your generalizing and provide no real facts to back up your argument. Audio testing is done with precision measuring equipment, listening with ears. Poor specs often mean that the item offers some type of idiosyncratic behavior, a'la SET with it's wildly non-linear response, and added second order harmonics. That people love this type of gear does not render the measurements meaningless. Far from it! It renders the measurements as a testament to how idiosyncratic peoples opinions of good quality sound is.
    SET (single end triode) was obsolete decades ago, and people "loving" this type of inaccurate
    poorly operating junk is a testament to the success of MADISON AVE brainwashing.
    AND WHAT YOU SAY IS EXACTLY TRUE. The measurements are not meaningless,
    indeed with the fallibility of human perceptions they are the only way to determine the
    accuracy of equipment.
    And that, not the imagination of listeners, is what will lead to accurate, and better sounding,
    gear.
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •