philipreji
Member
He is known as the promulgator of snippet poems with a philosophical touch. There is no known evidence to indicate that he suffered terrific grief anytime in his life
Why We Measure Audio Equipment Performance
- Thread starter captrajesh
- Start date
He is known as the promulgator of snippet poems with a philosophical touch. There is no known evidence to indicate that he suffered terrific grief anytime in his life
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
Subjective vs objective is interesting.
The universe is governed by laws, not written but observed. As such it is all objective, everything that "exists" is objective.
"Life" is notional, virtual reality running on biological hardware, it processes the objective data and serves the signal inputs of all the sensors as a "subjective" input.
A lot of the basics have been covered, such as trying to reproduce signal input vs sounding good, so I won't cover that.
What I want to mention is subjectivity as it relates to the human mind and inevitably human and individual psychology. That is what determines what sounds good to an individual and there can be no universal consensus due to its nature. One might think this is good or bad, whether you'd prefer to have objective superiority to validate your equipment (and yourself) or be pleased that we are not assembly line products and that I am unique in either case you feed your self worth, the difference is how you do it.
Music,food,beauty its all the same, heavily influenced by our individual psyches and what has influenced us in our childhood.
In any case, the point of music is subjective in the end, objectively speaking one can analyze digital files to see spectral distribution of frequencies and in terms of objectivity it is just a bunch of random and/or patterned frequencies vs level vs time. It is irrelevant. Human voices sound different too because of various spectral distribution. For most people I imagine there are general distribution styles of frequency vs time vs level that appeal to them, you might know them as "genre". Certain other distributions do not appeal to them.
What makes this group of frequencies relevant? Our subjective perception.
But wait...to reproduce this subjective experience requires technology, understanding of universal laws and hence objectivity.
The problem lies that speakers are still often approached as an engineering problem. It is however not only an engineering problem but a psychological one as well on both levels, all of humanity as well as the individual.
The subjective and the objective must meet for there to be music in our homes that caters to individuals and for that individuals must involve themselves to understand what objective traits bring them subjective joy, be it a a sharp peak or dip or simply a ragged phase response or a lingering frequency somewhere that echos in time or a particular THD/IMD profile.
Of course most people do not want to involve themselves that much and simply don't grasp all these things. They have no interest in measuring and tweaking with DSP to achieve their personal flavor. Companies often take it upon themselves to impart flavor and the masses go along with it as they don't know any better. That brings me to the previous note that while speakers are not simply an engineering problem it is not practical for companies to individually tailor the sound for each speaker sold to each individual (discounting room and other equipment) so they choose a basic design philosophy in terms of subjective "sound" and use broad strokes to appeal to customers, make no mistake they are in it to make money, they couldn't care less whether you headbanged to Metallica or lost yourself to Beethoven or simply shook your head to the flat and flavorless appeal of your purchase as long as there is a purchase and you aren't returning it.
Most people in the world fit both subjective and objective categories, they want it to sound good to them with all the peaks,dips,distortions etc but yet they want to be able to claim to their peers that it is the "best" in terms of objectivity.
Since our world is now heavily rooted more in feeding one's self worth it becomes a question of do you show off the price tag, or the measurements/capabilities.
As to why we measure the audio? Most do it for self satisfaction that what we have is good. Because what we hear and enjoy is no longer enough, we need to be "right". Only those who know enough will measure it and only those who measure it will judge it, objectively. Ignorance was, is, and always will be bliss.
We are human, not machine.
Fortunate...or not, the tint of your shades will decide.
The universe is governed by laws, not written but observed. As such it is all objective, everything that "exists" is objective.
"Life" is notional, virtual reality running on biological hardware, it processes the objective data and serves the signal inputs of all the sensors as a "subjective" input.
A lot of the basics have been covered, such as trying to reproduce signal input vs sounding good, so I won't cover that.
What I want to mention is subjectivity as it relates to the human mind and inevitably human and individual psychology. That is what determines what sounds good to an individual and there can be no universal consensus due to its nature. One might think this is good or bad, whether you'd prefer to have objective superiority to validate your equipment (and yourself) or be pleased that we are not assembly line products and that I am unique in either case you feed your self worth, the difference is how you do it.
Music,food,beauty its all the same, heavily influenced by our individual psyches and what has influenced us in our childhood.
In any case, the point of music is subjective in the end, objectively speaking one can analyze digital files to see spectral distribution of frequencies and in terms of objectivity it is just a bunch of random and/or patterned frequencies vs level vs time. It is irrelevant. Human voices sound different too because of various spectral distribution. For most people I imagine there are general distribution styles of frequency vs time vs level that appeal to them, you might know them as "genre". Certain other distributions do not appeal to them.
What makes this group of frequencies relevant? Our subjective perception.
But wait...to reproduce this subjective experience requires technology, understanding of universal laws and hence objectivity.
The problem lies that speakers are still often approached as an engineering problem. It is however not only an engineering problem but a psychological one as well on both levels, all of humanity as well as the individual.
The subjective and the objective must meet for there to be music in our homes that caters to individuals and for that individuals must involve themselves to understand what objective traits bring them subjective joy, be it a a sharp peak or dip or simply a ragged phase response or a lingering frequency somewhere that echos in time or a particular THD/IMD profile.
Of course most people do not want to involve themselves that much and simply don't grasp all these things. They have no interest in measuring and tweaking with DSP to achieve their personal flavor. Companies often take it upon themselves to impart flavor and the masses go along with it as they don't know any better. That brings me to the previous note that while speakers are not simply an engineering problem it is not practical for companies to individually tailor the sound for each speaker sold to each individual (discounting room and other equipment) so they choose a basic design philosophy in terms of subjective "sound" and use broad strokes to appeal to customers, make no mistake they are in it to make money, they couldn't care less whether you headbanged to Metallica or lost yourself to Beethoven or simply shook your head to the flat and flavorless appeal of your purchase as long as there is a purchase and you aren't returning it.
Most people in the world fit both subjective and objective categories, they want it to sound good to them with all the peaks,dips,distortions etc but yet they want to be able to claim to their peers that it is the "best" in terms of objectivity.
Since our world is now heavily rooted more in feeding one's self worth it becomes a question of do you show off the price tag, or the measurements/capabilities.
As to why we measure the audio? Most do it for self satisfaction that what we have is good. Because what we hear and enjoy is no longer enough, we need to be "right". Only those who know enough will measure it and only those who measure it will judge it, objectively. Ignorance was, is, and always will be bliss.
We are human, not machine.
Fortunate...or not, the tint of your shades will decide.
As sound coming from a speaker are heard and not seen, the objective measurements allow us to see the sound that we are hearing imo. What you see and hear could be in sync or not is for each individual to decide. Atleast for those who cannot listen to the speakers, seeing the objective measurement can throw much light upon the overall design.
There are millions of reviews in the internet which explains the subjectivity of an amp or a speaker. Again this can be biased based on again 100s of parameters. But objective measurements still can be relied upon rather than subjective judgement of individuals. Also those who cant listen can atleast see the sound through the graphs.
There are millions of reviews in the internet which explains the subjectivity of an amp or a speaker. Again this can be biased based on again 100s of parameters. But objective measurements still can be relied upon rather than subjective judgement of individuals. Also those who cant listen can atleast see the sound through the graphs.
regeHA
Well-Known Member
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Agree with most of this. All well-made audio gear out there are a result of subjective as well as objective measurements.
If one knows how to mix and match high end design with dsp, one can tailor make the sound to suit ones preferences which can potentially satisfy the listener better. But bear in mind that we are not talking about tailoring sound using some dsp in an av receiver using some off the shelf speakers. This is a different game where the focus and design of a system is tailored sound using custom designed high end gear with dsp.
Coming back to normal people with no access to such gear or inability to install such custom gear in the domestic environments, well designed gear chosen after using audition as a tool ( without dsp ), also results in a satisfying system.
In consumer audio, there are some manufacturers making these active crossover / dsp and preamp combinations which can supposedly make your system sound much better.
TacT Audio RCS 2.2X Preamp | The Absolute Sound
Lyngdorf Audio
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
Did not dig too much but they seem like those may be automated correction, suitable for novices but not ideal and I'd choose Dirac in the case of automated correction. Stand alone professional DSP is what I think is best suited for the job IF the user knows how to use it. Even with automated correction systems the user needs to have knowledge about what they are doing to best achieve a desired flavor.
Don't agree about custom or high end, a speaker need not be custom/high end to be good, the purchase of a speaker suitable to taste needs some research and that would indicate what to buy, many off the shelf offerings may be suitable depending upon preference. DSP can be used further to help with the sound.
In all cases such DSP should be executed by the end user, having it set up to a predefined standard on commercial products will basically be the same as having passive speakers with their own sound signature, the only difference that now the manufacturer has used DSP to arrive at the final flavor instead of just passive networks.
Does / Wont DSP alter the phase of the signal? After all we are tinkering with the FR of the original signal by using the DSP? Are any phase coherent DSP available in the market? Does DSP preserve the Phase of the original recorded music? If yes, then i can consider them, else its a waste atleast for me.
sound_cycle
Well-Known Member
They can alter it. Parameteric equalization I've read does it badly
The one I use (dirac Live) implements a mixed phase correction.
(FAQ - Technical Dirac). I had read an interesting white paper on this (I think, not able to find the link just will do if required, I have a copy of the pdf in a backup somewhere)
ciao
gr
edit: added link http://www.homestudio.nl/media/wysiwyg/on-room-correction.pdf
Last edited:
Decadent_Spectre
Well-Known Member
FIR filters don't mess with phase, Dirac uses both types.
Best way to implement FIR is via PC using Acourate or Audiolense where you have the processing power for a lot of taps.
IMO FIR is overhyped, regular DSP does alter the phase but speakers are messing with the phase to begin with as is the room. IMO it is less important what the total phase shift is, rather the smoothness of the phase is more important. Phase is important but DSP can also be used to correct phase with the delays imparted by PEQ or using all pass filter or delays or just phase filters.
All that said, if it sounds good, it is good. Just IMO.
Best way to implement FIR is via PC using Acourate or Audiolense where you have the processing power for a lot of taps.
IMO FIR is overhyped, regular DSP does alter the phase but speakers are messing with the phase to begin with as is the room. IMO it is less important what the total phase shift is, rather the smoothness of the phase is more important. Phase is important but DSP can also be used to correct phase with the delays imparted by PEQ or using all pass filter or delays or just phase filters.
All that said, if it sounds good, it is good. Just IMO.
Check out our special offers on Stereo Package & Bundles for all budget types.
