Are measurements really telling the whole story?

[Killingbeans]

I think I'll clarify my original question: are the measurements fully describing all the aspects of the physical waveform?

Even the most complex and dynamic music is nothing but a sum of sine waves. Literally nothing. You only need an oscilloscope to see everything the physical waveform has to offer. And maybe a spectrum analyser just to make the variations more visible.

I think what you are really asking is whether the measurements shows us every single difference between an input and an output.

I wouldn't worry about it. If you play a digital file through a chain of gear and capture the output with an ADC (just to ad salt to injury), chances are that when you do a null test on the two files, the difference will equate to hearing an ant fart on the opposite side of the planet.

So no, they don't tell us everything. But they tell us all we need to know, if we don't want to waste our time

The real question is at what point do these errors matter?

When they become significantly louder than the ambient noise floor. Probably a pretty rare occurrence.

 

[battopi]

The OP told a story according to which he subjectively preferred a worse measuring dac. There is no great mystery there, necessitating wholly fresh approaches to scientific understanding of audio as the OP seemed to suggest.

Worldwide (as opposed to this website), I think the OP's position is the majority position and yours the minority, so I'm not sure whether it's you or the OP that requires a "wholly fresh approach to scientific understanding", but in any event, this was the question being posed.

 

[Leporello]

Worldwide (as opposed to this website), I think the OP's position is the majority position and yours the minority, so I'm not sure whether it's you or the OP that requires a "wholly fresh approach to scientific understanding", but in any event, this was the question being posed.

How is this relevant? We already know it is perfectly possible to prefer a less transparent sound. This is a trivial fact, not a counterexample to anything.

 

[battopi]

We already know it is perfectly possible to prefer a less transparent sound.

Well I guess we finally agree.

 

[Arno Fennix]

How is this relevant? We already know it is perfectly possible to prefer a less transparent sound. This is a trivial fact, not a counterexample to anything.

What is the actual definition of "Transparant Sound" anyhow, transparant in what? Like a window that is clean enough to see what is on the other side? And then again, how would you know its transparant enough without having the option to walk to the other side and have a look at the original ? ;-)

 

[Killingbeans]

Worldwide (as opposed to this website), I think the OP's position is the majority position and yours the minority

Worldwide people also bless others when they sneeze to prevent demons from taking the place of the expelled bodily fluids. (To be fair, most people have no idea that's the original meaning of their gesture.)

History is riddled with misguided majority positions.

 

[battopi]

Worldwide people also bless others when they sneeze to prevent demons from taking the place of the expelled bodily fluids. Most people have no idea that that's the original meaning of their gesture.

History is riddled with misguided majority positions.

Very true. But the question was about who had "required a wholly fresh approach to scientific understanding" and the majority in this case is represented by fellow audiophiles and manufacturers, not laymen. I was suggesting that given those considerations, consequently, the majority is better suited to reflect the current scientific understanding than the minority.

 

[Robin L]

What is the actual definition of "Transparant Sound" anyhow, transparant in what? Like a window that is clean enough to see what is on the other side? And then again, how would you know its transparant enough without having the option to walk to the other side and have a look at the original ? ;-)

. . . in which case, we would find out that there's no such thing as "transparent". If you've ever recorded [I have, lots], you'll note that the sound when you walk towards the stage is never the same as the sound in the earphones. Forget about "transparent", you'll never get past the microphones. Yes, the world is all the case there is, there is no microphone that magically picks up every single nuance, live acoustic sound will always be more complex than recorded sound, energy goes downhill, inertia is real, transducers are all lossy, "you can't get there from here", even if all you're looking for is the same old place.

 

[Leporello]

I was suggesting that given those considerations, consequently, the majority is better suited to reflect the current scientific understanding than the minority.

This is a wonderfully peculiar conclusion. How does it follow from a single poster's simple preference?

 

[battopi]

This is a wonderfully peculiar conclusion. How does it follow from a single poster's simple preference?

A single poster's preference? Nearly the entire world is under the impression that individual components color sound and they accept it as THE main product differentiator, clueless they may be or not. The OP's position is the majority position. I'm certainly not saying that the majority position is correct, I'm simply saying that there are probably more audiophiles who believe in coloration than those looking solely for transparency.

 

[Leporello]

A single poster's preference? Nearly the entire world is under the impression that individual components color sound and they accept it as THE main product differentiator, clueless they may be or not. The OP's position is the majority position. I'm certainly not saying that the majority position is correct, I'm simply saying that there are probably more audiophiles who believe in coloration than those looking solely for transparency.

You actually said: "the majority is better suited to reflect the current scientific understanding than the minority". How does one arrive at this from a single poster's simple preference?

 

[Killingbeans]

Very true. But the question was about who had "required a wholly fresh approach to scientific understanding" and the majority in this case is represented by fellow audiophiles and manufacturers, not laymen. I was suggesting that given those considerations, consequently, the majority is better suited to reflect the current scientific understanding than the minority.

The problem is that both audiophiles and manufacturers are usually heavily invested either emotionally, financially or both in having a specific position. I'll take any impartial minority over the biggest majority

 

[battopi]

How does one arrive at this from a single poster's simple preference?

It isn't ONE person's preference. His preference is the preference of the majority of audiophiles and manufacturers. Maybe I'm missing something here. Let's try it another way: perhaps you can explain why _he_ is the one requiring the fresh scientific understanding rather than you?

 

[battopi]

I'll take any impartial minority over the biggest majority

Nice touch adding the word "impartial"

 

[Leporello]

Let's try it another way: perhaps you can explain why _he_ is the one requiring the fresh scientific understanding rather than you?

I certainly find it perplexing since there is nothing in his story that needs explaining or deeper understanding.

 

[Killingbeans]

Nice touch adding the word "impartial"

I mean it. I have zero interest in getting a specific result. I just want to know how things work.

I don't care who gives me the evidence, as long as it's solid. And I have a feeling that most people in here think that way too.

 

[sq225917]

Disagree entirely. If they did, all electronics would sound the same to everyone.

Not really. They do tell the whole story as regards absolute measured performance. How each individual experiences the sound is however unique. Thats just semantics though, the reference has to be the measurement, how each of us hears is an aberration.

 

[battopi]

They do tell the whole story as regards absolute measured performance.

What value is that story if it has no bearing tendency on subjective sound quality?

 

[sq225917]

Some people don't care about maximising individuial subjective quality, they simply want the unvarnished truth.

I place myself in that category I'll learn to love measured perfection, warts and all.

 

[Leporello]

What value is that story if it has no bearing tendency on subjective sound quality?

The real question should be: what value has subjective sound quality? Very little, I am afraid.