Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[DonR]

Bless you and good luck with the rest of your life.

As expected. When asked for proof they disappear.

 

[sonitus mirus]

The creation of this thread is genius. Move it on over and continue the discussion without disrupting the rest of the place.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

I don't know if you smply lack knowledge or you are building a straw man. Obviously we can measure different output levels and most here often harp on level matching. Two dacs sounding different from mismatched volumes is hardly news or unmeasurable.

Your measurements do not predict the mismatched levels. So if they don't predict mismatched levels, how do we know if those mismatches are consistent across frequency. We don't.

The difference between us subjectivists and you objectivists, is that we'll put our money where our mouth is. When I mention that, I hear crickets, not, "you're on".

 

[pkane]

Your measurements do not predict the mismatched levels. So if they don't predict mismatched levels, how do we know if those mismatches are consistent across frequency. We don't.

What? You do realize that amplitude vs frequency response is not only easy to measure, but Amir does it in nearly every review?

 

[BDWoody]

Your measurements do not predict the mismatched levels. So if they don't predict mismatched levels, how do we know if those mismatches are consistent across frequency. We don't.

The difference between us subjectivists and you objectivists, is that we'll put our money where our mouth is. When I mention that, I hear crickets, not, "you're on".

It's hard to even know what to say when there are some fundamental gaps that preclude meaningful communication.

That's enough for this thread. Just trolling at this point.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Your measurements do not predict the mismatched levels. So if they don't predict mismatched levels, how do we know if those mismatches are consistent across frequency. We don't.

The difference between us subjectivists and you objectivists, is that we'll put our money where our mouth is. When I mention that, I hear crickets, not, "you're on".

I think the difference is you put your mouth and your money where your brain should be. I don't even know how you could believe what posted about levels and measurements. You must not understand the very simplest ideas about measurements you see or refuse to read them.

 

[Curvature]

I think the difference is you put your mouth and your money where your brain should be. I don't even know how you could believe what posted about levels and measurements. You must not understand the very simplest ideas about measurements you see or refuse to read them.

Judging from that poster's history he became slowly became more trolly until reaching what looks like the peak with that last message.

 

[Angsty]

Hey figure this out child.

If they measure the same, they should be level matched otherwise, you are wrong to say they sound the same because they measure the same.

Seriously if the objective tests cannot tell the dacs produce audibly different levels, which makes them sound different, then by definition, your measurements cannot tell the difference between two different sounding dacs.

Child? That’s a truly constructive way to engage in a conversation. /s

It appears from the responses to my posts that you have relatively little value for anything that approaches a scientific method. That’s your choice, but I have to agree with @DonR on this one.

I’m really wondering what value you have for being on ASR other than bomb throwing.

 

[Axo1989]

... It is a waste of time chasing measurements to identify imagined differences that disappear in controlled tests listening tests, because we can be certain that these differences do not really exist.

It is a waste of time generally, for sure, but both false negatives and false positives can occur. We've known for 50 years or so that ABX can give false negatives for non-categorical sonic differences, like certain speech phonemes (which is why the McGurk effect is a parlour trick) but I haven't seen research on how that translates to perception in music.

 

[Curvature]

We've known for 50 years or so that ABX can give false negatives for non-categorical sonic differences, like certain speech phonemes

Example, if you don't mind?

 

[Axo1989]

Example, if you don't mind?

Of course: Pisoni & Lazarus (1974) Categorical and noncategorical modes of speech perception along the voicing continuum concludes:

... We suggest that the 4IAX discrimination procedure employed in the present study provides listeners with access to auditory information which is obscured by the traditional ABX procedure. Differences in discrimination may be due to the relatively greater demands placed on short-term memory in the ABX procedure which requires that Ss respond to the absolute rather than comparative differences between stimuli. Thus, listeners may be forced to rely on a phonetic rather than auditory coding in order to respond in the ABX discrimination test.

... which is of interest because we are looking at acoustic/continuous rather than categorical differentiation when we compare/investigate audio reproduction.

There's a fair body of work relating to speech perception, but the avenues related to music reproduction are not fully explored therein, obviously. Some related material (I don't have free links to full papers) including the original Eimas (1963) paper The Relation between Identification and Discrimination along Speech and Non-Speech Continua is available, the Cross & Lane (1964) paper An analysis of the relations between identification and discrimination functions for speech and nonspeech continua that examines the former and compares ABX to pairwise 4AIX is unpublished but is described and further elaborated by Pisoni & Lazarus. As it's not my field I'm not across all the literature, so I don't know how this line of inquiry developed/concluded.

 

[solderdude]

50 to 60 year old research which has to do with speech (telephone ?) only.

Besides, one can also do blind level matched comparative testing spread over several days and as long as statistically valid attempts have been made do you reckon the results will be very different from AB(X) quick switching ?
The 2 times I did such long listening tests the results were very similar to that of quick AB.

 

[HuubFranssen]

Interesting that all these cheap Chinese dacs all must sound exactly the same, because the small differences are all far below the level we can hear. Why do you keep testing this? A race to the bottom to find the cheapest do-it-all dac? And then this forum will be closed?

Listen, I love to read every test report and even sometimes the comments. But someone must repeat that the truth out here is only a part of the lovely experience that hifi can be. The more expensive gear sometimes is tuned to the human ear. That can mean the test results are not as good as you would expect. That kind of gear is ridiculed here.

Has someone heard the difference between a Topping D90se and a RME ADI-2 fs? Think not. And everyone will jump on this statement because it is not triple-blind tested. Ofcourse not, because you can hear it easily yourself.

I love gear with excellent objective AND subjective test results. So I completely enjoy my Neumann KH420’s (relatively cheap in Europe). Problem is that you can hear everything you throw at it. So I prefer a warm sounding dac/pre. I bought the KH420’s after my experience with the K&H 300, good subjective reviews and the good objective review on this forum. But to find that warm sounding dac/pre-amplifier I had to look somewhere else.

 

[Tangband]

Interesting that all these cheap Chinese dacs all must sound exactly the same, because the small differences are all far below the level we can hear. Why do you keep testing this? A race to the bottom to find the cheapest do-it-all dac? And then this forum will be closed?

Listen, I love to read every test report and even sometimes the comments. But someone must repeat that the truth out here is only a part of the lovely experience that hifi can be. The more expensive gear sometimes is tuned to the human ear. That can mean the test results are not as good as you would expect. That kind of gear is ridiculed here.

Has someone heard the difference between a Topping D90se and a RME ADI-2 fs? Think not. And everyone will jump on this statement because it is not triple-blind tested. Ofcourse not, because you can hear it easily yourself.

I love gear with excellent objective AND subjective test results. So I completely enjoy my Neumann KH420’s (relatively cheap in Europe). Problem is that you can hear everything you throw at it. So I prefer a warm sounding dac/pre. I bought the KH420’s after my experience with the K&H 300, good subjective reviews and the good objective review on this forum. But to find that warm sounding dac/pre-amplifier I had to look somewhere else.

I think its wonderful that this dacs seems to be so good , for such a low price. I havent bought one though, because they still have lossy blutooth inputs which is something I dont understand - I would want a good implementation of AirPlay instead.

If such a unit below 150 dollar came out on the market with electrical digital outputs I would buy one. But the digital preamp quality have to be better than a Yamaha wxc50 .
It would be a very neat digital solution with Apple lossless , together with 83xx monitors from Genelec.

 

[Axo1989]

50 to 60 year old research ...

Fair point, that's newer than the music most ASR members enjoy, but it was the earliest stuff I could find.

... which has to do with speech (telephone ?) only.

Not telephony, much of the research is health and OH&S related (so medical and acoustic journals).

Besides, one can also do blind level matched comparative testing spread over several days and as long as statistically valid attempts have been made do you reckon the results will be very different from AB(X) quick switching ?
The 2 times I did such long listening tests the results were very similar to that of quick AB.

Long duration ABX is still ABX, so unlikely to reduce demand on short-term memory (but it might increase it).

 

[caught gesture]

The more expensive gear sometimes is tuned to the human ear. (post#3619)

Whose ear? What if someone has a “warmer“ ear? Maybe I like my heating at 23 degrees but you prefer 21. How will I know if only sometimes the expensive gear has been tuned? Is there a listing to find out?

 

[voodooless]

What has looking at a DAC to do with speech intelligibility

 

[holbob]

It's the "thicker" and "fuller" sound thing he's talking about. Just used flowery language. E. G. - distortion.

 

[Axo1989]

What has looking at a DAC to do with speech intelligibility

Nothing, that would require testing visual acuity.

 

[DonR]

Interesting that all these cheap Chinese dacs all must sound exactly the same, because the small differences are all far below the level we can hear. Why do you keep testing this? A race to the bottom to find the cheapest do-it-all dac? And then this forum will be closed?

Listen, I love to read every test report and even sometimes the comments. But someone must repeat that the truth out here is only a part of the lovely experience that hifi can be. The more expensive gear sometimes is tuned to the human ear. That can mean the test results are not as good as you would expect. That kind of gear is ridiculed here.

Has someone heard the difference between a Topping D90se and a RME ADI-2 fs? Think not. And everyone will jump on this statement because it is not triple-blind tested. Ofcourse not, because you can hear it easily yourself.

I love gear with excellent objective AND subjective test results. So I completely enjoy my Neumann KH420’s (relatively cheap in Europe). Problem is that you can hear everything you throw at it. So I prefer a warm sounding dac/pre. I bought the KH420’s after my experience with the K&H 300, good subjective reviews and the good objective review on this forum. But to find that warm sounding dac/pre-amplifier I had to look somewhere else.

So which DAC did you buy?