Al, happy New Year. You make some great points. I agree but have a somewhat different perspective.
Take the primary tonearm cartridge resonance. So much ink gets spilled on that one it's not even funny. That resonance, unless there is a severe mismatch, does not even fall within the audio band.
Secondary resonances within the moving system absolutely fall within the audio band. Just gently tap your tonearm with the cartridge in a non-moving groove to see. Those resonances are harder to measure, though Hi-Fi News used to do a good job of it. In the end they really don't get discussed and that's a shame since they are a far greater deteminant of the final sound that one is going to get.
I guess it all goes back to if the sound does not agree with the measurements, one is measuring the wrong thing.
I also don't subscribe to the concept of accuracy as it applies to audio gear. Oh yes, there are gross colorations, but the rest of it is so subjective. What is more accurate 2% second harmonic distortion or .5% seventh harmonic distortion? Some will argue that the later is the more accurate, but really who cares if the ear finds the seventh harmonic less consonant with the fabric of the music?
Far and away, I believe that measurements have taken the hobby in the wrong direction, particularly as they apply to amplification components. A good example is the harmonic distortion wars of the 70s where manufacturers ladeled on the negative feedback in ever greater attempts to reduce HD at the expense of all other paramters. It's a good case of the tail wagging the dog.
Loudspeakers, IMHO, are a different case. Where would we be without the work of Heyser and Toole at the NRC? Loudspeaker measurements seem to correlate fairly well with what we actually hear. Though there is certainly still room for art in the design of speakers.
But even there, the design of the acoustic suspension loudspeaker was the worst thing that ever happened to the reproduction of music in the home, even if it did make loudspeakers more domestically acceptable and thus brought music in the home to a wider audience. But it was pretty much the MP3 of its day.
I agree, in theory, with your statement about colorations, that it makes sense to find the root problem in the system rather than compensating for them elsewhere through complemenatary colorations. However, practically speaking, my experience is that we don't have the ability to go back and re-record the source material and most compensating colorations in audio gear are compensating for deficiencies in source material due to issues in the recording, and mastering, chain rather than other issues within the system.
Take the primary tonearm cartridge resonance. So much ink gets spilled on that one it's not even funny. That resonance, unless there is a severe mismatch, does not even fall within the audio band.
Secondary resonances within the moving system absolutely fall within the audio band. Just gently tap your tonearm with the cartridge in a non-moving groove to see. Those resonances are harder to measure, though Hi-Fi News used to do a good job of it. In the end they really don't get discussed and that's a shame since they are a far greater deteminant of the final sound that one is going to get.
I guess it all goes back to if the sound does not agree with the measurements, one is measuring the wrong thing.
I also don't subscribe to the concept of accuracy as it applies to audio gear. Oh yes, there are gross colorations, but the rest of it is so subjective. What is more accurate 2% second harmonic distortion or .5% seventh harmonic distortion? Some will argue that the later is the more accurate, but really who cares if the ear finds the seventh harmonic less consonant with the fabric of the music?
Far and away, I believe that measurements have taken the hobby in the wrong direction, particularly as they apply to amplification components. A good example is the harmonic distortion wars of the 70s where manufacturers ladeled on the negative feedback in ever greater attempts to reduce HD at the expense of all other paramters. It's a good case of the tail wagging the dog.
Loudspeakers, IMHO, are a different case. Where would we be without the work of Heyser and Toole at the NRC? Loudspeaker measurements seem to correlate fairly well with what we actually hear. Though there is certainly still room for art in the design of speakers.
But even there, the design of the acoustic suspension loudspeaker was the worst thing that ever happened to the reproduction of music in the home, even if it did make loudspeakers more domestically acceptable and thus brought music in the home to a wider audience. But it was pretty much the MP3 of its day.
I agree, in theory, with your statement about colorations, that it makes sense to find the root problem in the system rather than compensating for them elsewhere through complemenatary colorations. However, practically speaking, my experience is that we don't have the ability to go back and re-record the source material and most compensating colorations in audio gear are compensating for deficiencies in source material due to issues in the recording, and mastering, chain rather than other issues within the system.
