+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Do Measurements miss the inner detail absolutely needed ?

  1. #1
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,687
    I'm Chris.

    Default Do Measurements miss the inner detail absolutely needed ?

    Musical sound of some instruments- visually looks like this

    The equipment we use is supplied usually to behave in a linear fashion, but not based on music as we know it,
    rather is tested using at worst a square wave, but usually a sine wave to see that what is input remains the same,
    just larger in output, exampled if we are measuring a amplifier.

    The second image shows visually the worst scenario test manufacturers can presently throw at equipment, this is a
    square wave in this case being just 2 cycles per second. manufacturers would look at a square wave entering
    and observe any aberration following

    Could we say measurements cannot properly account at all for equipment designed for reproducing music, and should music be the
    actual test of the equipment we use ?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: South Wales

    Posts: 7,928
    I'm NotTakingLifeTooSeriouslyTheseDays.

    Default

    Test measurements and methods you describe are very useful in many respects, but as you say, do they tell you all you need to know where music is concerned ? my strong belief is no, but you have start with something, and sine and square waves are very good at indicating what's basically right or wrong with a design as far as slew rates, and frequency response, which are very important starting points!
    A...
    "Today scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
    Nikola Tesla


    When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole... and the instruments through which we shall be able to do this will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket. Nikola Tesla, 1926
    We Send our kids to school to be Educated, not Medicated!

  3. #3
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 27,627
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    Musical sound of some instruments- visually looks like this

    The equipment we use is supplied usually to behave in a linear fashion, but not based on music as we know it,


    Could we say measurements cannot properly account at all for equipment designed for reproducing music, and should music be the
    actual test of the equipment we use ?
    We aren't reproducing music though we are replaying a recording of music, that's not the same thing. The aim is to reproduce the recording accurately, not to reproduce the event that the recording captured. So I would say that is entirely quantifiable in measurements.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Oppo BDT-101CI* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  4. #4
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,687
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    We aren't reproducing music though we are replaying a recording of music, that's not the same thing. The aim is to reproduce the recording accurately, not to reproduce the event that the recording captured. So I would say that is entirely quantifiable in measurements.
    How would the reproduction of the recording, and reproduction of the event captured, become separated ? are they not the same.

  5. #5
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 27,627
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    How would the reproduction of the recording, and reproduction of the event captured, become separated ? are they not the same.
    Microphones are not perfect so don't capture everything plus you are reducing the real musical event to a series of voltage changes over time i.e a recording. When you play back that recording there isn't a 'music signal' travelling down the cables from source to amplifier and amplifier to speaker, its just an electrical current with varying voltage. I'd say that is completely quantifiable.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Oppo BDT-101CI* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  6. #6
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,687
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    I am still having difficulty with reproduction of reality of sound, being diminished/ relegated in your explanation to just voltage and current.
    Can you quantify as example how much electrical current and varying voltage is in Jacueline Du pre's playing ? , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptsZHqB22sg

    or is there something more ... that audio equipment attempts to provide ?

  7. #7
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,373
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    I am still having difficulty with reproduction of reality of sound, being diminished/ relegated in your explanation to just voltage and current.
    Can you quantify as example how much electrical current and varying voltage is in Jacueline Du pre's playing ? , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptsZHqB22sg

    or is there something more ... that audio equipment attempts to provide ?
    The application of the scientific principle attempts to understand phenomena, and by repeated testing it comes up with theses, which become established theories, when verified by many. Then a new discovery modifies the science giving a more comprehensive understanding.

    The criteria used in audio measurement have been arrived at in a century, and are illustrably valid as measurements of equipment performance, but they are limited only to what has been established, and do not say everything.

    It is fair to say that, in the main, any equipment which fails on the established tests; FR, Dist., noise, Transient response, decay response etc, will generally sound worse than other equipment which fairs better at these measurements, but they do not define all of the performance of it.

    Scientific knowledge is limited, and progresses with research, and so a greater understanding and more criteria are discovered.
    The science of the ear was well understood a long time ago.

  8. #8
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 27,627
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Light Dependant Resistor View Post
    I am still having difficulty with reproduction of reality of sound, being diminished/ relegated in your explanation to just voltage and current.
    Can you quantify as example how much electrical current and varying voltage is in Jacueline Du pre's playing ? , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptsZHqB22sg

    or is there something more ... that audio equipment attempts to provide ?
    I mean that a recording is just voltage changing with time. That's all it is. J D P playing live and you are there to hear it, whole different ballgame. But if you set up a microphone and record the performance you are reducing it to voltage change over time. Then when you play it back the voltage changes dictate how the drivers in the speakers move back and forth and move air. The ears pick up the movement of air and the brain turns it back into the performance.

    Maybe that last step is still to some extent an unknown. But a fair bit of research has been done there and that shows that the majority of people tend to prefer their music through systems that introduce a minimum of distortion to the playback. Not everyone though, you do get outliers. It's the human element that I think is where trying to quantify it gets difficult/impossible.

    Anyway accurate reproduction of the recording of an event is not the same thing as accurate reproduction of the event. In hi-fi we are working with the former.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Oppo BDT-101CI* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  9. #9
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,373
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    It's also important to accept that the mic is only 'looking' at a small proportion of the vibrating air through a limited angle, that of the mic's lobe of sensitivity.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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