Are measurements really telling the whole story?

[PierreV]

Actually, if we wanted to have a real scientific assessment that includes the listener (whom, arguably is the centerpiece of the listening experience), we should measure neuro-transmitter releases (or possibly use fMRI, even though it has many issues).

If one notices that, for some users, the use of expensive cables triggers a more intense 5-HT (among others) response, we have scientifically established his listening experience is indeed improved.

Then, some researcher could make a comparative study of the brands, designs, speakers, whatever triggers such a release and develop a rating score.

 

[murraycamp]

"Audio Pros" will never be using the exact same "sounding" speakers/monitors to mix/master with, so unlike science "fact", there will always be a human element with audio production. As it is, mixing & mastering is 100% a human element in the audio chain anyway.

Straw man argument. Has nothing to do with non-linearities in a signal chain.

 

[whazzup]

A rather reverse example. A mono vinyl record from the fifties played with an SPU conical tip can sound absolutely stunning. When measuring, limited bandwidth, distortion, limited dynamics....

I would conclude that the microphone used for the recording in the fifties was very good? And the recording engineers then knew what they were doing?

 

[whazzup]

Straw man argument. Has nothing to do with non-linearities in a signal chain.

So sorry but I think you're wrong. It's just a confused argument. Can't see any straw man.

 

[Weeb Labs]

I'm thinking about the nature of the signal that's measured vs the music signal which to my simple thought process would be much more complex to reproduce (ever changing dynamics and frequencies).

To the DAC (or other source hardware), there is fundamentally no difference between music and a test tone but the latter is a more convenient tool for measurement purposes. If an amplifier is sufficiently linear to accurately reproduce the highest possible frequency within a band limited signal, then it is sufficiently linear to reproduce lower bandwidth transient content.

 

[raif71]

If you are here to learn, in which case maybe you are misunderstanding what the differences are between the two, maybe you might want to gain a better understanding of it. This is an objectivist forum. People are willing to help people better understand what objectivism is, not just how to read measurements.

I am trying to learn for example look at my setup on doing abx of 3 dacs : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...it-modi-3-review-stereo-dac.18480/post-603948 but nobody responded to it. Not blaming anyone though.

 

[Weeb Labs]

I am trying to learn for example look at my setup on doing abx of 3 dacs : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...it-modi-3-review-stereo-dac.18480/post-603948 but nobody responded to it. Not blaming anyone though.

I would want to scope all three outputs to verify alignment but it should be fine; the more pressing matter is a lack of level matching in this configuration. Again, this should ideally be done using a scope but a DMM will typically enable you to get "close enough".

 

[ZolaIII]

I am trying to learn for example look at my setup on doing abx of 3 dacs : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...it-modi-3-review-stereo-dac.18480/post-603948 but nobody responded to it. Not blaming anyone though.

We all are (learning). You didn't get an answer as you never defined what you meant by adequate synchronisation. Each & every interface & part of the equipment will add to latency but latency is important for capturing not reproduction and when syncing a reproduction with something like video. Visually I personally take a latency of up to 20 ms as a not perceptual (50 Hz/s or a blink of an eye).

 

[Weeb Labs]

We all are (learning). You didn't get an answer as you never defined what you meant by adequate synchronisation. Each & every interface & part of the equipment will add to latency but latency is important for capturing not reproduction and when syncing a reproduction with something like video. Visually I personally take a latency of up to 20 ms as a not perceptual (50 Hz/s or a blink of an eye).

He was referring to the fact that his configuration consists of chained DACs, making use of the D10's TOSLINK and coaxial SPDIF outputs to supply the E30 and D50s. This introduces the possibility of phase shift between the D10s and other DACs but as mentioned above, the USB-SPDIF interface will introduce no significant latency.

 

[ZolaIII]

He was referring to the fact that his configuration consists of chained DACs, making use of the D10's TOSLINK and coaxial SPDIF outputs to supply the E30 and D50s. This introduces the possibility of phase shift between the D10s and other DACs but as mentioned above, the USB-SPDIF interface will introduce no significant latency.

Well switch certainly isn't fast enough to show the latency in the first place so it's not relevant.

 

[drfous]

To the DAC (or other source hardware), there is fundamentally no difference between music and a test tone but the latter is a more convenient tool for measurement purposes. If an amplifier is sufficiently linear to accurately reproduce the highest possible frequency within a band limited signal, then it is sufficiently linear to reproduce lower bandwidth transient content.

That sounds reasonable to me.

But when it gets to speakers, that would seem to be more difficult to reproduce the music signal than the test tone.

 

[raistlin65]

I am trying to learn for example look at my setup on doing abx of 3 dacs : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...it-modi-3-review-stereo-dac.18480/post-603948 but nobody responded to it. Not blaming anyone though.

You are in a Schiit product review thread asking for feedback on how to set up an ABX test for Topping DACs. Seems a little top off topic to me.

I would suggest starting your own thread here so that you get more attention to what you're trying to do https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?forums/audio-newbie-beginner-technical-forum.46/

 

[raistlin65]

Scientifically objective is only a experiment which can be conducted again and which will give the same results (verification/rejection). Everything else is subjective including representation of results. Subject can't become a object in true sense of it only a object of experimental observation but that's Psychology and i really wouldn't want to extend it to Philosophy. There is no final answer just certain, certainly with which we could claim something. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stick to methodology even when their's little we can claim.
For your personal reading I recommend René Decares Cartesian doubt as a intro to the Epistemology. I had a great time during my formal studies regarding it and pretty much most things tied to theory of knowledge mostly because I had a good professor.

Best regards.

You're talking about objectivity in science and what it means.

I'm talking about the difference between objectivism and subjectivism in audio. Two different schools of thought. One relies on scientific knowledge for what is known about audio. And the other believes that human perception overrules science when it's convenient for the individual to disagree with science.

So do you look to science for understanding? Or do you believe that your individual anecdotal experience is more valid, despite what science teaches us about perceptual biases?

It's not a difficult conceptual difference to understand.

So you can certainly complicate the notion of what objectivity is. And point out that subjectivity is part of how science arrives at knowledge. But that doesn't change what I just said.

 

[Chromatischism]

You either have an entire faith in the person (and his opinion) or you don’t. Amir can easily fake his measurements too.

No...it is not that simple. All or nothing is a false dichotomy here.

 

[RayDunzl]

"Are measurements really telling the whole story?"

Not when The Whole Story includes stuff you can just make up on the fly.

 

[Robin L]

I don't want to get into a debate about what these two words mean. I'll simply suggest that a full understanding of them cannot come from reading a one sentence definition of each. And to point out that gaslighting in the last few couple of years has become more of a sound byte term that is misused synonymously with any instance of being mislead or conned, when it is actually a more specific, very insidious form of victimization. I would recommend reading some psychology sources for a more robust understanding.

That's all I have to say.

I wasn't intending to get into a debate. Perhaps I am seeking a more exact way to describe my experience of "knowing" that something sounded different/had improved sound when, if I was subject to a DBT to hear that difference, I would hear no difference. I'd say that perception is at the core of the OP's question. "Knowing" that the more expensive speaker wire sounds better than the 14 gauge zip cord it replaced. "Knowing" that a piece of electronic gear that measures worse sounds better. It's that "Knowing" part I'm pointing to. And if there's better language to describe that false "knowledge", I would be happy to find out what it is.

 

[ZolaIII]

@raistlin65 thing is objectivity ends with scientific experiment which single purpose is that it can be conducted again and again while resut can only be a verification or rejection. Everything else is subjective! So we can only tend to be objective which if it can be checked (experiment) can be either confirmed or rejected. Science doesn't go above that, scientific verification and doesn't care of what you think or imagine. It's there to show a difference between what you thought and what it is. You can't rule out subjective but you can say that's what you will get as an output from that device when you measure it like so & bourdon of proff shifts to one's you addressed originally to do the same measurements. You certainly remember some of the attacks on Amir we had here and when WolfX-700 & others jumped in with their own measurements confirming Amir's findings. I personally won't ever lay down a reasonable doubt or a system one simply as a tool of progress meaning I am a speculative subjectivist and I don't think anyone can be more objective.

 

[Blumlein 88]

"Are measurements really telling the whole story?"

Not when The Whole Story includes stuff you can just make up on the fly.

Sort of like those movies based upon real events?

 

[Chrispy]

Sort of like those movies based upon real events?

....or "based on a true story".....when I catalog my film collection I just abbreviate it as BOATS. Not a particularly high standard

 

[earlevel]

Just go to a non-measurement-oriented site to see some of the most highly respected names in professional audio claim to hear things that can’t possibly be heard. (Try gearslutz for instance.) I mean, we can argue about more of what the ear is capably of hearing, but some things come down to basic physics.

For example, some of the best known and respected mastering engineers have told me they can hear whether 24-bit is dithered versus truncated from more bits. Assuming properly applied TPDF, the difference (null) between dithered and non-dithered is a signal of white noise at the amplitude of plus/minus the least significant bit. Even if you listened to the null without the music getting in the way, it’s not possible to make a DAC (and the rest of the audio chain) with a noise level that isn’t far greater than that (there is an inescapable thermal noise floor).

I’ll get to the point:

• The electronics can’t come close to differentiating the difference.
• Even if it could, the ear doesn’t have the dynamic range (once you set the upper limit of loudness to be tolerable, the bottom bit won’t deflect your eardrum, you won’t detect sound).
• Still, people claim to hear this while music is playing loudly on top of it. Amazing—something that can't be reproduce electronically or detected by the ear physically can be hear with loud music playing over it...

That is the fundamental problem I have with accepting unverifiable audio claims. If the top experts “can absolutely hear” what can’t possibly be heard, how much faith can I put in someone else’s vague claims of transparency and sound stage?