Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[tvrgeek]

Doppler distortion is one reason why I advocate HP filters on one's woofers. The other is preventing excessive displacement below the pass band. Actually band pass on all drivers as I advocate LP on the tweeters to further prevent any harmonics making it to the breakup resonances which by the magic of IM, can cause distortion in the audible band. Not a complete fix of course, but every bit helps.

 

[tvrgeek]

Exactly. It’s like asking people using homeopathy if it works. Odds are in favor of a resounding “yes”. Is that evidence that it actually works?

Works for Budwiser as I think they pass the hops over the vat hoping it will have a memory of the flavor.

 

[Killingbeans]

The last paragraph is very interesting and the last sentence is only partially true, as it is the kind of approach that leads to incremental improvements/discoveries. This is ONE way to approach it, not THE way to approach it. We need more of that tolerance not only here, but in the whole world. No?

It's my version of the famous Christopher Hitchens quote: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

It's not designed to slow down progress, but to avoid wasting energy on nonsense. For every one person who was thought to be nuts, but proved the world wrong, there's millions who were actually just nuts. If you want to get some real discoveries going without the risk of ending up running around in circles, the best thing you can do is to make the steps necessary for making your hypothesis become a theory. The alternatives, you are refering to, are like shooting in the dark. IMO.

The discussion is that some people THINK all there is to know about sound IS measured and published. Others may not be very articulate to express it but basically think ALL is not measured and/or published, and think there is value in discussing and hearing people’s subjective opinions about audio gear. Some on the extreme dare to say measurements are basically shit and should be avoided because they are worthless.

In terms of audio as electrical signals, I have not yet experienced anybody proving audibility of something not seen in measurements. It all crumbles when subjected to proper controlled testing.

Many people seem to take that as an indication of controlled testing somehow "contaminating" their listening abilities, giving false negatives.

Personally I see it as a hint at humans not being as sophisticated as we'd like to think of ourselves. It's by far the most logical explanation, if you ask me.

Subjective opinions are a form of measurement. A measure is something that reduces uncertainty.

I made this thread to discuss that very thing: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...l-knowledge-be-gained-via-subjectivity.28203/

In my eyes you can't reduce the uncertainty from subjective opinions without both applying thorough controls and getting large data sets from tests done under those controlled conditions. Otherwise you'll just be flipping the same coin again and again.

the problem is: for those guys everything which is not measureable is placebo, thats the real problem here, they are in a massive deny about everything they cant "explain", i bet this has a way greater effect then placebo

Nobody is saying that everything not seen in specific measurements IS placebo. What is being pointed out is that there's a very high risk of it being placebo. Note the difference.

 

[tifune]

But I found something on Google to help you.

7 reading strategies you can use to improve your comprehension skills

1. Improve your vocabulary.
2. Come up with questions about the text you are reading.
3. Use context clues.
4. Look for the main idea.
5. Write a summary of what you read.
6. Break up the reading into smaller sections.
7. Pace yourself.

I'm glad you found that, let me put it to use. Here's what I read:

Some devices may have perfect specifications on paper, but end up sounding bad.

I'm pretty sure the main idea is "some devices may have perfect specifications, but end up sounding bad."

The context clue would be: it's literally what you said.

My Q about the text I read: Which device(s)?

It's only 1 sentence so breaking it apart doesn't help much, but my summary of it would be: you made a claim and you can't back it up with any objective evidence so instead you've opted to pontificate in hopes of winning some argument that only exists in your mind.

At first I was genuinely curious, because I've seen this claim dozens of times but only been presented with evidence once*. But now we're just being rude to our host, clogging his lovely site with meaningless banter. If you can name even 1 device that meets your assertion, I'd still love to read and learn about it. But, I'm quite confident that won't happen because you outed yourself immediately with this:

I do not need Youtube. I am 59 years old, and I have heard many different audio devices in my life, from consumer to Hi End.

There are dozens of lifelong engineers on here who love to engage, teach, and continue to learn well past 59. They don't scoff or evade, they offer what they do know and (usually) admit what they don't without hesitation because it's a passion and not a contest. There are people on here who literally researched, discovered, and built the technology that you claim to understand far better than I with your only "expertise" being [you're 59 and have heard a lot of stuff]. And when their schedule permits, they answer Q's with detail FAR beyond what was requested; not with goofy parables. On this site I have read 0 off-topic would-be zingers from Olive, Putzeys, Toole, Erin, Kars, Murphy, et al. Maybe a few from Amir and JohnYang They just want to spread good science instead of roleplay Old Man at the Pub or whatever this is.

So, one last try to salvage something useful from this because we've already ruined a good thread about a great device: please inform the group of just 1 device you know of that has perfect specifications but sounds bad. Pretty please?

*So as not to be a outright hypocrite, I'll come right out and say "I don't remember which one it was." I went back and looked through the reviews and couldn't find it, but I'm pretty sure it was a DAC and/or HPA where the input buffer was implemented in such a way to give lower measured distortion (inaudible) causing reduced output V (maybe audible). In the end I believe amir still gave it thumbs up, I just can't remember which it was

 

[infinitesymphony]

You will never convince recording and mastering engineers that all converters that measure more or less equally sound the same. Even ones who are electrical engineers as well, who use measurements themselves when building or modifying equipment will tell you that for instance the high end can sound different when changing components, even when there is nothing in the measurements to suggest the high frequency response has changed.

I don't know about that. I think the crop of young people who didn't grow up with access to expensive hardware or believing in mojo are less likely to drink that Kool-Aid, or they simply replicate it with plugins and rely on clean basic output from a device like the one in the OP.

I haven't looked at specifications on paper for many years (at least 30 or more). The only thing that interests me is how that device sounds. I have never read the specifications, nor do I know which ADC / DAC chips are inside my, eg, Lexicons PCM 70, 80, M300 and 224XL. The devices are great and it never occurs to me to think about their specifications. This is just one example.
If need be, here’s another little example. The tantalum capacitor is known to introduce certain distortions in the path of the audio signal, but in NEVE you will find just that, and that is another small part, along with their transformers, that gives a specific sound. So we can say that it was done against the rules, and yet it sounds superb. Again, although I have two NEVE preamps, I have never read their specifications.
When someone comes to your recording studio, do they ask you for papers with specifications from the complete equipment, or will they be interested in how they sound?

It's important not to conflate a playback setup with a recording setup, the latter of which you describe above. Yes, during the recording process there are creative reasons to add harmonic distortion and excitation using tubes, tape, transformers, "warm" mic preamps, et al. Whatever is recorded using colorful equipment will still be present on playback.

For most people here on ASR, the goal is to reproduce a recording as it is rather than adding more layers of noise. If you like those distortions, there are plenty of methods to add it after the fact.

 

[Spkrdctr]

No, just those who come here to make claims, then when asked to provide anything more than 'because I say so' as a response, basically admit they just can't be bothered because they are too lazy, and would rather just double down on more claims. It was a few posts later where you decided calling one of our members an imbecile was the appropriate way to bridge the divide (we delete that kind of garbage generally). THAT is EXACTLY what boggs us down. People who aren't here in good faith using up as much bandwidth as they can, but who are too lazy to provide any reason to take them seriously.

OK, I will come into this giant mess again. BDWoody has hit the nail on the head again! The problem is that people with no knowledge whatsoever of the science of audio and the last 60 years of hard dedicated research that has taken place, decide with their zero level of knowledge, they are going to disagree with many on here who do know what they are talking about and some are experts in the audio field.

For example, lets say a new member comes on and says things that are incorrect and a kind member tries to explain it to them. Then the new member says in effect, you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. The long time member then tries to explain a little further. The new member then says "I hear what I hear and you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about". Then other members rightly or wrongly jump in and try to educate (maybe not in the nicest way) the person who just says "I know what I know, you just can't hear it or have a crappy system that does not allow you to hear it". At this point, what else is there to say? A person with no audio knowledge other than they listen to music is telling the engineers and scientists they don't have clue. But think of this, not only are they stating that the current scientists and engineers are full of it, but all of the the last 60 years of engineers and audio science researchers are full of it too. That is a big, big position to take. So, all this is to say, that is why so many bring up science on this ASR web site because it is talking about a science field that has over 60 years of research to stand on today. Our current experts stand on the shoulders of giants from prior generations to further the science of today.

It is not that we are mean people who get off on telling people they are wrong. Generally (most of the time) people are pretty nice around here.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Of course, it has to be controlled if the data is to have value from a scientific perspective, but it would be interesting to see the relationship between what people think they hear when in an uncontrolled setting and what they think they hear in a controlled one. I think the relationship between the two may be tighter than some would imagine. Just speculation on my part.

This is what I have been trying to say and not getting across. There have been thousands of tests over the last 50 years. OK, tens of thousands. The science is settled. What people think they can hear versus what they hear in a blind test is radically different. The reason? Numerous reasons. Sight, the ear/brain interface and even the health condition of the person during the test. So much "stuff" affects our hearing. The problem for our great speaker designers is that they can't control any of it. Generally some of the good designers do a very good job with what they have to work with. Knowing that their speakers will go into hundreds of different designed rooms with and without any room treatments. Speaker designers know that they work in the great crap shoot of audio. They do pretty well (sometimes) working within a budget and time constraints. I say thank you to the good engineers out there designing good products for a good price. Thanks guys!

 

[Spkrdctr]

A blind test on the other hand removes all prior claims and makes them meaningless. In fact using people who made prior claims can yield highly specific results, IE can audiophiles who claim cables are audible reliably identify cables.

No, and I say again NO! They can't. Never has happened in the last 50 years.

 

[danadam]

There are people that say that a persons ears can deceive them; if you have 5 people who hear a similar thing, they have the same answer - likely they are being deceived; 50 people, the same answer.

If you stick those 50 people in a controlled, double blind test and the outcome is the same, 50 (or close to) heard what they claimed to have heard outside the test, suddenly this is considered valid and useful information?

Er... well, yes. I'm not sure what's so controversial about it. Maybe we just have radically different threshold of what useful information is.

I dunno, it seems to me the person who says that ears are easy to fool outside of a controlled background, might not have to high an opinion of using listeners within controlled test environments, although they'd rather not admit it.

Frankly I don't see any basis to draw such conclusion.

 

[ahofer]

“A product that does not measure well will never sound great. A product that does measure well may or may not sound great.”
—me

People love the sound of vinyl and MP3s. I’d say the product that measures poorly will never be high fidelity.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

People love the sound of vinyl and MP3s. I’d say the product that measures poorly will never be high fidelity.

A Hot Dog bought from a street vendor will never be fine dining yet if you’re in the mood can taste delicious.

 

[Spkrdctr]

A Hot Dog bought from a street vendor will never be fine dining yet if you’re in the mood can taste delicious.

OMG! That is so true. I love hot dogs from street vendors. The most amazing "magic" is if it is cool weather when you buy it and eat it, it tastes even better! Cool weather really brings the "magic" to those hot dogs.

 

[AdamG]

OMG! That is so true. I love hot dogs from street vendors. The most amazing "magic" is if it is cool weather when you buy it and eat it, it tastes even better! Cool weather really brings the "magic" to those hot dogs.

Or a Ballgame even better! Nostalgia bonus flavor. Like tasting a memory.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Or a Ballgame even better! Nostalgia bonus flavor. Like tasting a memory.

So what have a great Hot Dog and a great Ballgame have in common? They give you great pleasure and neither is HiFi.
When listening to music just sit back and enjoy it!

 

[Spkrdctr]

Or a Ballgame even better! Nostalgia bonus flavor. Like tasting a memory.

Adam, back in the dinosaur days when I was a young pup, I went to a Detroit Tigers game and if you picked up your hot dog from the bun, it left a reddish dye in the bun. I shudder to think how bad and damaging those were for peoples health. But, we ate them anyway. Back then if you didn't bake everything with the white Crisco in a can can you just didn't know how to bake. If I told a doctor I used the white Crisco today (which I don't) they would cancel me as a patient. Even thinking about the old white Crisco in the can gives me the willys. No wonder people were dropping dead from heart attacks all the time!

 

[tvrgeek]

Adam, back in the dinosaur days when I was a young pup, I went to a Detroit Tigers game and if you picked up your hot dog from the bun, it left a reddish dye in the bun. I shudder to think how bad and damaging those were for peoples health. But, we ate them anyway. Back then if you didn't bake everything with the white Crisco in a can can you just didn't know how to bake. If I told a doctor I used the white Crisco today (which I don't) they would cancel me as a patient. Even thinking about the old white Crisco in the can gives me the willys. No wonder people were dropping dead from heart attacks all the time!

Actually, as I understand it, cholesterol level is 99% heredity. Not the fat you eat. Carbs are the killer. But, to draw a parallel, it is easy to measure your cholesterol. Easy to measure DF. But what makes DACS or amplifiers that measure SNAID .000-x sound different? FR flat as a board. IM hard to measure. Modulation of the rails which does not show up in static tests? Better units do tend to have stiffer supplies and circuits with PSRR.

PS: I can't think of any thing more dull than watching a baseball game. An American hot dog I can do without*. A good brat, or kabasa on a bun, squirt of brown mustard, yea I'll take that.

* I could not eat one for years after reading The Jungle

 

[Killingbeans]

But what makes DACS or amplifiers that measure SNAID .000-x sound different?

Omission of volume matching?

 

[Pdxwayne]

Omission of volume matching?

And channel imbalance.

And something still not yet fully explained, as in one of my thread about DAC not sounding as clean.....

 

[voodooless]

But what makes DACS or amplifiers that measure SNAID .000-x sound different?

You asserting it. Still haven’t seen any evidence for it.

 

[audio2design]

And channel imbalance.

And something still not yet fully explained, as in one of my thread about DAC not sounding as clean.....

The level of diff indicated as you were using them they weren't 0.000x