Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Inner Space]

-- or you've simply not been following along.

Yes, I expect that's it.

 

[krabapple]

And yet despite the fact I follow precisely that ethos in my own claims, Newman never tires of telling everyone I'm anti-science and a science denier.

The fact I follow that ethos very carefully is why Newman has never backed up his claims with any evidence I'm anti-science or a science denier with regard to audio or anything else. He simply throws it out as a rant, usually when he's losing an argument.

Innerspace is right, no need to mince words: he's being a hypocrite.

You claim to agree that choosing gear 'sighted' while advocating that claims be based on science, isn't hypocrisy. So your claim that Newman is a hypocrite comes from a different angle than Innerspace's. So if he's 'right' it's for a different reason.

Since we're not mincing words: Your oft-published views on the 'value' of subjective reports are squishy and above all prolix to the point that I could care less precisely what they are now.

I'm glad Newman reposted Amir's #1. It illustrates what an empty pinata this thread became...across 149 pages. The topic question was answered reasonably long ago.

 

[pkane]

The problem isn't concerned with not learning. The issue is when someone who thinks he is in such possession of The Truth that if you don't agree with HIS arguments, you must be anti-science or not willing to "learn." This, I believe, was also Ken's point in objecting. It's that silly imperious wielding of I Have The Truth so to argue against me is to be a science denialist!

Of course there are those with strong opinions, and those with the desire to prove others wrong at any cost. It is the internet, after all.

What I find amusing is when those with no expertise or knowledge, in a technical area like audio and electronics, telling those who do that they must admit that they might be completely wrong or else they are closed-minded. This, based on nothing but a gut feeling that what they hear must be The Truth and can't possibly be wrong.

 

[MattHooper]

You claim to agree that choosing gear 'sighted' while advocating that claims be based on science, isn't hypocrisy. So your claim that Newman is a hypocrite comes from a different angle than Innerspace's. So if he's 'right' it's for a different reason.

Fair enough. If Newman's position is as you've described it, then he's hypocritical in the sense I pointed out. I have continually argued that practically speaking we can't put many (most) of our daily decisions, including what toys/gear we buy, to strict scientific tests. So it can be reasonable to "do one's best" with sighted listening when available, so long as we are not making claims to some scientific reliability of our conclusions. (Or coming to beliefs that are in conflict with science). And yet...I am continually cast as some sort of stealth Subjectivist by some, and called anti-science by Newman.

Since we're not mincing words: Your oft-published views on the 'value' of subjective reports are squishy and above all prolix to the point that I could care less precisely what they are now.

No problem. No one need care about someone else's view on the forum. I will approach your replies or disagreements with me, with that context in mind.

I'm glad Newman reposted Amir's #1. It illustrates what an empty pinata this thread became...across 149 pages. The topic question was answered reasonably long ago.

Amir wrote in the OP: "You all are free to discuss this topic, provide answers, argue, whatever, in this thread."

It was a thread with a very general topic - in fact not one topic. Amir listed 12 questions that spanned all sorts of types of discussions, from the worth of measurements, to the subjective vs objective/ASR approach, to the nature of ASR ("it's a cult?"), as well as alluding to more topics people might bring in (and "on and on") leaving it clearly open-ended.

I'm not sure why one wouldn't expect an open ended thread to become long and winding in discussion...that's the nature of such threads.

Even so: The general discussion we've had going in the recent pages concern the nature of what we are trying to reproduce in high end audio, an obviously on topic discussion.

If you are annoyed feeling the topic was answered long ago, why bother with this thread? You've been contributing to this thread recently too on various topics (even the 3D movie momentary diversion - which please note I don't begrudge any of your contributions. I've enjoyed a number of them!)

 

[pma]

I believe that every sound difference is measurable. The problem is a correlation of measurements with listening impression and I am sure that we are still at the very beginning. The correlation of measurements and listening is still poor, if not unexistent.

 

[pkane]

I believe that every sound difference is measurable.

Except for the ones that only exist in one's head. These are measurable, also, but with different tools, like MRI machines, neurology and psychiatry.

 

[MattHooper]

Of course there are those with strong opinions, and those with the desire to prove others wrong at any cost. It is the internet, after all.

Exactly.

What I find amusing is when those with no expertise or knowledge, in a technical area like audio and electronics, telling those who do that they must admit that they might be completely wrong or else they are closed-minded. This, based on nothing but a gut feeling that what they hear must be The Truth and can't possibly be wrong.

I certainly agree, as I've argued in favor of what you just wrote, many times.

That said, this discussion arose initially from Newman's rant about the infestation of this thread by "science-denying believers" and "denialists."
Since Newman tends to see anti-science subjectivists under every rock, and even puts me in that category, I don't see his appraisal of the situation as very reliable.

Has this thread, in fact, seen a significant number of people actually defending the "subjectivist" stance of holding subjective impressions as inviolable, and rejecting the relevance of measurements to their claims?

It's a long thread, I've dipped in and out of it as it went on, but I don't remember such views being a significant presence in this thread.

(Unless someone could point me to various posts expressing that view).

Some problems can be exaggerated.

 

[Plcamp]

I don’t know what all this fuss is about, when clearly Pioneer solved SINAD eons ago…(it was banished using direct coupling!)

 

[Mart68]

I don’t know what all this fuss is about, when clearly Pioneer solved SINAD eons ago…(it was banished using direct coupling!)View attachment 217956

'Fukuin Electric', that cracked me up.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I don’t know what all this fuss is about, when clearly Pioneer solved SINAD eons ago…(it was banished using direct coupling!)View attachment 217956

I can vouch that an OTL amp, in a proper setup can sound wonderful.
But maintaining it, is a pain in the neck.

Edit: just glanced at the circuit for this Pioneer , this is crap!

 

[Mark84]

I am not asking this question to be “Smart” or because I want to “stir the pot”, so to speak
, but out of pure curiosity and interest. I have been making diy speakers for the most of my listening life and have made a number of different designs. On an old speaker I built, I used low quality crossover components and later upgraded them to high quality parts. This made a big difference to a number of aspects of the sound. Mainly the detail and transparency but also just that the instruments sounded more realistic. Are these differences measurable? if so, are the measurements that can detect these differences used to test a speakers performance?

 

[Newman]

All I will say is that referencing my name 12 times on one page, laced with name-calling and vitriol and accusations, is way OTT and had better stop.

That’s not about facts any more, that is about somebody getting personal.

 

[Mark84]

O

Maybe, but probably not.
Science is all about quantification. In other words, run an experiment and publish it. Any other person ... anywhere ... can read what you did, go through the same process you did, and come up with the same quantifiable results; numbers, values and parameters. So those quantities are EXTERNAL; they are not "personal" to the experimenter. That's necessary for them to be shared accurately across time and distance without bias or ambiguity.

The words you used (detail, transparency and realistic) are INTERNAL. They mean something to you, but not to anyone else.

Not only that, but if you do a double-blind test for accuracy, the meaning of those words may disappear. Confirmation bias is a powerful force, and sometimes humans don't really know what they think they know. Jim

Ok I work in the medical field and follow evidence based science so I know how it works. I get what you are saying. Let me ask you this out of interest… If you were building a crossover for your speakers that you considered your end game speakers, as I did, would you just use the cheapest of components available that offer the correct value? If you know that none of the commonly used speaker measurements would not find a difference.

 

[Waxx]

O

Ok I work in the medical field and follow evidence based science so I know how it works. I get what you are saying. Let me ask you this out of interest… If you were building a crossover for your speakers that you considered your end game speakers, as I did, would you just use the cheapest of components available that offer the correct value? If you know that none of the commonly used speaker measurements would not find a difference.

I do build speakers also, and just use quality (metalised) polyster or polypropylen filmcaps (Dayton PMPC is good enough) with low tollerances, aircoils of copper that are or the right size of wire for the current, and non inductive (or low inductive) resistors. All the rest is overkill or straight bullshit. And even elco's can be used in crossover but they are not reliable on long term. Laminated steelcore inductors can be used in stead of aircoils but make sure they are rated for way more current than they will see as they saturate when pushed and distort the sound.

I mostly use jantzen crosscap, jantzen aircoils and cement resistors because they are the easiest to find for relative cheap down here. But Dayton are also good and used when availeble (harder in Europe), just like generic Wima or Kemet filmcaps other industrial parts.

It's way more important to measure your drivers in the box like it should, and build your crossover on that measurements that is phase aligned, than to use this or that parts for it.

 

[Mark84]

I went for the top shelfers in my last speaker. I’m happy with paying the extra though. I can certainly respect your methods but I feel the components do make a difference through repeated experience. Although I don’t want to get into an argument about it. Also mine was a very low order crossover so many fewer parts to buy.

 

[MattHooper]

All I will say is that referencing my name 12 times on one page, laced with name-calling and vitriol and accusations, is way OTT and had better stop.

That’s not about facts any more, that is about somebody getting personal.

You weren't being called names. The nature (and arguments) in your posts and the attitude they exude were being critiqued. Just like you do with other people (especially me). I have had my posts critiqued by many people.

Would you prefer I replace your name with a disingenuous "You know you you are"?

If I am criticizing someone's specific posts, I believe it is more honest to indicate precisely who I'm talking about, so they can defend themselves if they believe the critique is off base. This is more honest than dropping in to say stuff like some people are kool-aid drinking science deniers and "you know who you are."

Would you like to retract your claims (which you tell others both indirectly and directly) that I'm a "science denier" and anti-science? I'm sure you are aware that you can't really back that up, and a show of intellectual honesty would be most welcome. Time for a re-set? I have always appreciated some of your more informative posts.

 

[MattHooper]

Back to this:

4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music.

5. You all must not listen to music at all.

#5 really gets under my skin. It's such a pervasive misunderstanding, conflating the art with audio engineering. Of course they are related, but this idea that to discuss the engineering and science behind audio gear is to do so in place of the love of music. Just ludicrous. It's like inferring that car enthusiasts who are conversant with the mechanics, must never drive cars.

In fact, one of my biggest pet peeves in the subjective reviewing crowd is when the reviews of equipment become larded with album reviews. Like the person has to continually show his music-loving bona fides. I don't need a speaker review to act as a music review. I've got a million ways of discovering new music, and if I want a music review I'll look to a music review publication (or exchange notes with other music lovers). Just tell me about the product and don't waste pages acting the music critic, or music muse for the reader. (IMO).

 

[PatF]

Back to this:


#5 really gets under my skin. It's such a pervasive misunderstanding, conflating the art with audio engineering. Of course they are related, but this idea that to discuss the engineering and science behind audio gear is to do so in place of the love of music. Just ludicrous. It's like inferring that car enthusiasts who are conversant with the mechanics, must never drive cars.

In fact, one of my biggest pet peeves in the subjective reviewing crowd is when the reviews of equipment become larded with album reviews. Like the person has to continually show his music-loving bona fides. I don't need a speaker review to act as a music review. I've got a million ways of discovering new music, and if I want a music review I'll look to a music review publication (or exchange notes with other music lovers). Just tell me about the product and don't waste pages acting the music critic, or music muse for the reader. (IMO).

I think it is necessary to tell reader what music was used for subjective listening in a review. Of course paying more attention and discussing music itself is only page filler but if giving examples is used to show performance of equipment, why not list them ? How much it helps reader to chose and how accurate it can be it is another story ... at least you know if recording used is flawed or suitable for review audio gear.

 

[Newman]

To third-party readers: in the following quotes full of accusations, “he”, is me.

But not much self-awareness. Consider:

He repeatedly makes the point that opinions based on sighted listening are per se delusions. E.g., from a very recent post: "It's just a false concept that people get, even about themselves, from making the massive mistake of "trusting their ears" in sighted listening, and trusting that sighted listening reveals qualities in the sound waves. Big mistake." (Point of clarification [by InnerSpace] - is the mistake massive, or merely big?) And from today: " ... blatant myths born of sighted listening." And so on, endlessly.

Only as ‘endlessly’ as necessary to reply to endless assertions that sighted listening is the way to assess the sound waves from speakers, amplifiers, interconnects, power cables, ethernet cables, green lines drawn on CDs, plastic dots on the walls….you name it.

So why aren’t you marching side by side with me in challenging those ‘endless’ assertions by believers in myths? Why do you fail to mention that their assertions are ‘endless’, but quick to describe my corrections of their assertions as ‘endless’, hmmm?

PS does your “point of clarification”, above, represent your level of thinking? If not, why embarrass yourself?

Yet not long ago he conceded he established his preference for multichannel over two-channel via sighted listening.

Not, to the best of my memory, have I ever said that. But my memory is not perfect.

And chose his speakers via sighted listening.

Quite right. I have said that. But your gloating attempt to paint that as hypocrisy is naive. See below.

Thus by his own standards, he has no idea what's really in the sound waves. He's wallowing in his own delusions. Why pay attention?

OK that’s enough nonsense. What I have actually said, numerous times (link to one example), about choosing gear via sighted listening, is this: despite the fact that controlled listening situations are the only way to know what our own thoughts are on the sound waves themselves, nobody listens at home that way. We listen in sighted listening situations, dominated by non-sonic factors forming our impressions. So, if someone's cognitive biases/etc just happen to, for example, make it impossible for them to listen sighted to any box speaker without 'impressioning' a disliked, closed-in boxy sound, then why punish oneself by buying it, just because in a blind listening situation he wouldn't hear that boxiness? He would take it home and constantly experience boxy claustrophobia!

And in light of the above, what I have said about how I choose my speakers, is that I shortlist via objective high-performance attributes (as a surrogate for blind listening which is not practical), then pick from that list by sighted listening (to prevent the above scenario). The exact opposite of hypocrisy, it is rationality personified.

…so, my self-awareness score is 100%. Your awareness-of-me score: 0%

And yet you felt cocky enough to go there. Your shame.

 

[Inner Space]

To third-party readers: in the following quotes full of accusations, “he”, is me.

If you're explaining, you're losing.

But along the way, you make a genuinely interesting point:

We listen in sighted listening situations, dominated by non-sonic factors forming our impressions. So, if someone's cognitive biases/etc just happen to, for example, make it impossible for them to listen sighted to any box speaker without 'impressioning' a disliked, closed-in boxy sound, then why punish oneself by buying it, just because in a blind listening situation he wouldn't hear that boxiness? He would take it home and constantly experience boxy claustrophobia!

Is it your experience that if a component has proved itself superior under blind conditions, that impression can retroactively reverse itself to negative, due to subsequent sighted listening? In other words, is sighted delusion always stronger than blinded truth? In which case, what is the point of blind testing? Is there anything in the literature about this?