"Things that cannot be measured"

[Spkrdctr]

Incidentally, you will find another thread where I am OP called “Catalogue of Blind Tests”. If you have gated papers or other links to blind tests please drop them there. A lot of the public lists of such things have severe link rot. So I could link you to only 5-10 blind studies of wire.

Thanks!

 

[CMOT]

Key point here, once again: If there is a difference detected in 1) so that we may safely assume the signal has actually changed then this can more or less easily be measured and the difference in the signal exposed. It is important that the complete setup must not change between listening test and measurements, otherwise one might introduce unknown variables. A preamp in a complete system may behave very different (in what exacly the power amp sees at its inputs) than when tested on the bench in isolation, for example.

The harder part is to correlate what changes seen in the difference are actually dominant for the perception change but with experience this can be mastered and control tests can be made that probe the hypothesis.

The sad part, in my experience so far, is that the Golden Ears have always refused to take part in such a test (I've offered my technical assistance to such efforts, but to no avail), even when discussed privately with the option that if 1) fails, the whole incident would be declared as "it never happened" (and would not be published) so nobody would loose their face.

As what what miniscule differences in audio signals can actually be isolated, take a look here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dible-with-music-signals-some-examples.20886/
This is dealing with stuff that is many orders of magnitude below any reasonable thresholds of hearing... and this makes me very confident to put forth the bold statement that really everything that can heard in controlled listening tests always can be measured/identified. No exceptions.

It definitely can all be measured. How confident are we are measuring all the correct things (just playing devils advocate here - most likely we are measuring the right things)? But these sorts of experiments might be interesting in that maybe there are some things measurable that we have missed. Maybe....

 

[Blumlein 88]

Maybe the approach from the opposite direction in regards to human hearing what needs to be measured?

What we want to know in the music reproduction biz is what is the envelope of human hearing. If you look at the 'hardware' some things are apparent. The basilar membrane would appear made to respond to sound in the 30 hz to 15,000 hz range. The very ends respond very weakly to 20 hz and up to 20 khz (in young listeners). We know how loud we can go and physics limits the quiet end. If our electronics exceed or equal those limits we are good. From all sorts of directions the envelope is well laid out.

Now what kind of signal processing and interpretation the brain is able to do within that envelope is a much more complex issue though not beyond knowing. With the reproduction gear able to exceed the human envelope we really don't care for music reproduction. We have what we need. Most of the rest of conjecture is just silliness.

Transducers, microphones and speakers still limit us from full physical fidelity.

 

[CMOT]

Someone just pointed me to this: Stereo Review amp test from January 1987 - https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf ) - Although there are some details missing and more observations would be nice, there is a good deal of validity here - it looks like the kind of thing I was alluding to. So maybe no audible differences between amplifiers (again, I have always gone for low cost, good measurement amplifiers with roughly this belief).

 

[CMOT]

Maybe the approach from the opposite direction in regards to human hearing what needs to be measured?

What we want to know in the music reproduction biz is what is the envelope of human hearing. If you look at the 'hardware' some things are apparent. The basilar membrane would appear made to respond to sound in the 30 hz to 15,000 hz range. The very ends respond very weakly to 20 hz and up to 20 khz (in young listeners). We know how loud we can go and physics limits the quiet end. If our electronics exceed or equal those limits we are good. From all sorts of directions the envelope is well laid out.

Now what kind of signal processing and interpretation the brain is able to do within that envelope is a much more complex issue though not beyond knowing. With the reproduction gear able to exceed the human envelope we really don't care for music reproduction. We have what we need. Most of the rest of conjecture is just silliness.

Transducers, microphones and speakers still limit us from full physical fidelity.

Exactly. We shouldn't need to worry about anything outside of the physical limits of the transducer (the eardrum/basilar membrane). And the basilar membrane is a really interesting device that is already doing all sorts of things to the signal (like critical bands), so it gets "messy" pretty quickly.

 

[j_j]

I have not seen thousands upon thousands of blind tests done over the last 35 years. If you have citations, please post them.

I have seen dozens of blind tests, not all of which are really tests.

The lack of blind tests is the fly in the ointment.

Well, you can check out the various MPEG Audio tests, the hundreds of reports from the Canadian Labs from Floyd and Sean from long ago, some reports from Harman, AT&T, other places.

Many tests do not make it to the press because they are part of internal research. But they happen.

 

[j_j]

The sad part, in my experience so far, is that the Golden Ears have always refused to take part in such a test (I've offered my technical assistance to such efforts, but to no avail), even when discussed privately with the option that if 1) fails, the whole incident would be declared as "it never happened" (and would not be published) so nobody would loose their face.

Likewise. The last time I tried to get somebody to actually try a well-run DBT (automated everything including blinding), one of the individuals who was invited did his best to get me fired, arrested, and sued. He failed in all of those, but the fact is, many people are not interested in anything involving science, in fact, they would appear to rabidly hate both science and actual research scientists.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Likewise. The last time I tried to get somebody to actually try a well-run DBT (automated everything including blinding), one of the individuals who was invited did his best to get me fired, arrested, and sued. He failed in all of those, but the fact is, many people are not interested in anything involving science, in fact, they would appear to rabidly hate both science and actual research scientists.

I seem to recall reading about an incident similar to this, though perhaps not the same one. About 15 or so years ago, IIRC.

 

[KSTR]

It definitely can all be measured. How confident are we are measuring all the correct things (just playing devils advocate here - most likely we are measuring the right things)? But these sorts of experiments might be interesting in that maybe there are some things measurable that we have missed. Maybe....

The 1x1 here is simple. Subtractive technique by design measures the right thing... the difference in the signal that must have led to the heard difference when everything else has been factored out.

It can be a simple as a 0.2dB level mismatch or a +-0.3dB frequency response ripple but it also can be things like signal instantaneous-amplitude-depenent excess noise (that's one of my favorites as it bsaically escapes all the typical "standard" measurements but can clearly be seen in the analysis of the differential signal -- analysis is a bit more complex in this case).

 

[solderdude]

Can gullibility of individuals be measured accurately and repeatable ?

There you go... something that can't be measured yet is also audio related.

 

[Sal1950]

Honestly gents. It's a spectrum, some people want a system that measures perfectly, regardless of whether they like how it sounds. At the other end people just want a system that for whatever reason they enjoy, that might be because it looks good, was diy built, their other half finds it visually acceptable or maybe it fits with their sound preferences on a given day.

There's no point arguing which is right, because that's a movable feast, sounds good and measures perfectly have different overlap for every different person. Just celebrate the music.

I'm sorry but I hear this so often and so many people just seem to miss the whole point, it's called High Fidelity.
Back in the 50-60s when I started on this journey, it was all about the music and trying to hear it in a way that best reproduced what was on the record. It wasn't such an easy thing to do then, every component in the chain had minor to major failings in it's ability to be transparent. As time went by and the technology improved in all areas, most every component in the chain can now be obtained that is fully transparent with the sole exception of transducers, (microphones, turntable group, speakers).
So now we have this mantra that nothing really matters or is important as long as it "sounds good" to particular listener.
Is it any wonder why the whole industry has gone to hell? From the web and print media, to the manufacturers of snake-oil cables, magic dots, grounding boxes and all the rest. You can tell any lie, pull any scam, write so called "white papers" that are full of twisted technobabble, nothing really matters any more. There is no longer any respect for the thing known as High Fidelity because that is a identifiable and measurable quality against which lesser objects can be compared.
And you know you can't have that!
See my signature for a quote by Peter Aczel.

 

[kristiansen]

What sets us apart is that someone goes for minimum measurable errors and the goal is zero measurable errors which is not possible.

Others go more after there is music on the recording, and then it should also sound as such when reproducing.
Myself and many others go for both.

Both groups move more or less away from zero errors from the original source file, they add something that is measurable, something that is often defined differently by the two groups.

Objectivists think it is bad because error by definition is bad / wrong and it can be measured.
Subjectivists may think the same mistake is good (vinyl Tube).
That meaning can not be measured by anything other than ear and brain. A measurement will not make sense.

Measuring instruments can only measure 'errors' do not interpret them as positive or negative, it can only ear and brain.

No one makes a hifi chain with zero errors, It's about adding the right "mistakes" with the right structure. We all stand with our unique version of a recording. I think our ear and brain are best at judging whether that copy is good or bad.
I actually mean that measurement today tell as little as data on a car tells about how it drives when you sides behind the wheel.

 

[Sal1950]

I think our ear and brain are best at judging whether that copy is good or bad.

Sorry but you are totally wrong, your ear/brain is the worlds worst judge of good and bad, it can only define your preferences. Hear the guys driving down the street with 4x24" woofers in their car with every panel buzzing and rattling so loud you can hear it 2 blocks away, they think that sounds just wonderful.
Only science can tell you if your amp is a straight wire with gain, your ear/brain is the easiest thing in the world to fool or bias and in no way can be an accurate judge of it's true performance. If you believe that you are only fooling yourself once more.

 

[Sal1950]

He failed in all of those, but the fact is, many people are not interested in anything involving science, in fact, they would appear to rabidly hate both science and actual research scientists.

They can't have any of that ugly science coming into their belief system J_J, It would only show them up to be the complete fools they and their $8k power cords are.

 

[kristiansen]

Sorry but you are totally wrong, your ear/brain is the worlds worst judge of good and bad,

I agree, our ear and brain are an unstable measuring instrument, but in many cases it is the best we have and sometimes the only one because measurements say nothing.

 

[BluesDaddy]

What sets us apart is that someone goes for minimum measurable errors and the goal is zero measurable errors which is not possible.

Others go more after there is music on the recording, and then it should also sound as such when reproducing.
Myself and many others go for both.

Both groups move more or less away from zero errors from the original source file, they add something that is measurable, something that is often defined differently by the two groups.

Objectivists think it is bad because error by definition is bad / wrong and it can be measured.
Subjectivists may think the same mistake is good (vinyl Tube).
That meaning can not be measured by anything other than ear and brain. A measurement will not make sense.

Measuring instruments can only measure 'errors' do not interpret them as positive or negative, it can only ear and brain.

No one makes a hifi chain with zero errors, It's about adding the right "mistakes" with the right structure. We all stand with our unique version of a recording. I think our ear and brain are best at judging whether that copy is good or bad.
I actually mean that measurement today tell as little as data on a car tells about how it drives when you sides behind the wheel.

You're whole post illustrated Sal' point. What you want is NOT "high fidelity" but merely euphoniousness. Also, consider there are not innumerable elements in a sound reproduction chain but, perhaps, 3 to 5 (discounting cables which, if functioning properly, not designed to induce distortion, and being used according to sound electrical principles, inject little measurable, and no audible, distortion into the chain). IF one chain measures "errors" in the signal below the threshold of audibility, they're irrelevant.

Also, the brain can't differentiate whether what it is interpreting is from the system itself or the interaction with the room, or the particular mood one is in when listening. Given the propensity of people to post photos of their systems on social media, I can't tell you how many systems I've seen with obviously tens of thousands of dollars of equipment in absolutely horrible rooms while they chase the next cable upgrade that will "lift a veil". <shudders> Your brain doesn't think your system sounds the same from one day to the next, it is so easily affected by things.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I agree, our ear and brain are an unstable measuring instrument, but in many cases it is the best we have and sometimes the only one because measurements do not say anything.

Of course they do. They tell us whether the system we have is capable of reproducing the original source material without any audible distortion. To use your car analogy, the data will tell you whether the car will transport a specific number of people over a given distance at a particular rate of speed - i.e. will it get me (us) from Point A to Point B and how long will that take.

 

[David Harper]

It used to amaze me in the past how my system could sound so great one day and the next day sound like utter sh!t. Without my changing anything.
But when I started listening to my current system this seems to have stopped happening. Not sure why.
Maybe it was something about humidity? Or magnetic fields? Or space aliens? Maybe it was my brain. In any case there were days the system sounded so bad I just shut it off.

 

[pkane]

It used to amaze me in the past how my system could sound so great one day and the next day sound like utter sh!t. Without my changing anything.
But when I started listening to my current system this seems to have stopped happening. Not sure why.
Maybe it was something about humidity? Or magnetic fields? Or space aliens? Maybe it was my brain. In any case there were days the system sounded so bad I just shut it off.

There is a solution! Helps with alien interference, too:

https://www.amazon.com/Archie-McPhee-Tin-Foil-Humans/dp/B07CXZBRW5

 

[kristiansen]

You're whole post illustrated Sal' point. What you want is NOT "high fidelity" but merely euphoniousness.

.

No but I have accepted at least two things about hi-fi.
1. That even the simplest circuit never becomes fully transparent / completely flawless.
2. even very small insignificant measurable errors can have great significance for what is heard, and very large measurable errors can have little significance for what is heard.

Due to 1, I have given up the zero error theory and am looking for the solutions that give me lifelike sound/fidelity even if they should introduce slightly larger measurement errors.
Characterized by this form of work is that a large part of my choices are made via listening test, and with the measuring instrument as control, and no it is not blind test, no one hears sound differences in blind test except Michael Fremer.