Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Newman]

Please explain how I am a hypocrite, in light of my post above.

 

[BDWoody]

Some of you guys really need to ignore each other...

 

[Newman]

Tempting...

 

[Robbo99999]

(No-one cares)

 

[tmtomh]

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.

Of course @Jim Taylor can speak for himself (edit: and it looks like he did while I was typing this!), but from my perspective you ask a very reasonable and important, practical question.

Were I building a crossover for my end-game speakers - or for any speakers that I intended to use as my main listening speakers and not just for experimentation - I most certainly would not use the the cheapest possible components that offer the correct values.

The issue, though, is why I would make that decision, and on what basis I would choose the more expensive components:

1. I would be concerned about the cheapest components mainly because I would not feel secure that every individual sample I would buy would actually measure to spec, and I would be concerned that even the ones that did might not retain the correct values/operating integrity over time, in-circuit, with the stresses of use, heat, wear and tear, different power/current conditions, and so on.

2. I would choose better components based on the best information I could glean about likely reliability - in other words the likelihood that they would be to spec when received, and stay in spec for as long as possible when installed and put into regular use over a period of years.

The crucial points that follow from this are, as I see them:

1. For point #1, individual components can be measured, both in and out of circuit, both upon receipt and over time. Of course, I would not want to have to go through the hassle of taking apart my speakers every few months to see of the crossover (and its components) was still performing to spec. And even moreso, I would not want to have to worry - or even give it a second thought - that when I was listening to music, it was coming through a crossover network that was inferior to the one I'd designed and built. The crucial thing here is that such problems would be measurable, and therefore as Jim says they would be "external" to my own personal perception or impression. But as a practical matter it would be highly inconvenient, and undermine my daily listening enjoyment, to have to take those measurements once the speaker was built and in use.

2. For point #2, the issue is similar: it's not about sonics that somehow elude our ability to measure them. Rather, it's about the fact that as an individual I have limited knowledge (some of us here have less limited knowledge than others when it comes to real-world knowledge of the long-term operational qualities of different electrical components). So I would do my best to pick quality components with likely long-term stability and reliability. But again, the issue is not that I know those components will sound better than the cheaper ones - the issue is the converse: I can only hypothesize, or make a somewhat confident prediction, about how components will perform into the future, and so I will spend a bit more to get ones with a higher probability of being trouble-free over time.

3. Finally, if these are my end-game speakers, and if I am building them myself, then I clearly have a lot invested in them: a good deal of money, a tremendous amount of time, and a lot of emotion - emotion because I'm putting in so much labor, because I aim to feel pride at having done it myself, because listening and looking at them once they are done will give me an extra level of pleasure knowing I built them, and a certain level of "high-stakes" anxiety because these are my end-game. This is supposed to be "it" and so I would likely want to make 100% sure I got them right. For these reasons I might very well buy some more expensive components, even if on a rational level I felt confident that there were some less-expensive components that measured the same and would be just as reliable over time.

But again, the crucial thing there is that I would do this as an emotional insurance policy, not because I felt confident that the more expensive stuff would actually produce better sound than the "good quality but one notch down" stuff. I would never think I could claim that the more expensive stuff sounded better - or rather, I could easily claim that it sounded better to me, but I would not claim that my individual experience meant there must be an objective improvement that is somehow impervious to all measurement.

So that's my $.02 on your question, for what it's worth.

 

[Waxx]

There is one consideration that is not routinely addressed in reviews .... either reviews here or subjective reviews. That is long-term reliability. If there was a question of long-term reliability in the bracket of "cheapest" components, then I'd move up a notch. Otherwise yes, I'd use the cheapest components that would do the job, and not look back. Jim

that is why i never use elco's in crossover builds, only in repairs where they had them before and i can't redo the crossover fully (Elco's have a higher ESR, that need to be compensated when using filmcaps). Elco's dry out and get out of spec over (a relative long) time. Filmcaps don't, even the very cheap ones stay on value over decades.

 

[Inner Space]

Please explain how I am a hypocrite, in light of my post above.

I didn't call you a hypocrite. That was someone else. I said that by your own standards, per your own expressed beliefs, you are deluded about the sound waves reaching your ears. You confirmed it, by confirming you eschew controlled testing for the very things that produce the sound waves. You denigrated other people's "endless assertions that sighted listening is the way to assess the sound waves from speakers," while doing that exact thing. That's how you assess the sound waves from speakers. You just told us. It's right there in your post. I didn't put a label on it. (But ... if the shoe fits, wear it.)

What I did was ask a question: if you were to blind test speakers, why do you think your preference would change when the curtain was pulled back? For you, is subsequent visual bias so overwhelming it can't survive contradiction by prior blinded experience? If so, and assuming you're not unique, then we need to revise how we do things - we need to tell people that there's no point in controlled testing, because their visual bias afterward will inevitably render the whole process moot.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

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?

I rebuilt and retuned my 15-year-old Sonus Faber crossovers, with great results, using upgraded components.
- Change of capacitors resulted in the greatest change to the sound, even though factory capacitors were decent PP caps (Sonus Faber own brand?).
- Change of inductors to those flat ribbon air-cored inductors, resulted in reasonable improvements on midrange and tweeter drivers only.
- on bass driver, the ferrite cored inductor proved best (factory standard)
- Change of resistors from factory (cheap square white ceramic) to good quality wire wound 1% resistors, only made a tiny difference in tweeter section.
Moral of the story, not anything Quality component improves everything, it is horses for courses scenario.
Throwing money at things, willy-nilly, is not smart.

 

[Newman]

I didn't call you a hypocrite. That was someone else.

Don’t be disingenuous.

You made a point-scoring, out-of-context, misleading, negative summary of my posts’ consistency over time, that Matt Hooper (who so hates being ‘alluded to’ like you did above, that your post above is sure to attract his name-calling spiteful retorts, if he is not being hypocritical), quite reasonably saw as you calling me a hypocrite, and on the basis of your post, in fact in reference to your post, proceeded to call me a hypocrite. You took no issue with his roping you into his name-calling rant.

Not fooled. Nobody’s fooled.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Don’t be disingenuous.

You made a point-scoring, out-of-context, misleading, negative summary of my posts’ consistency over time, that Matt Hooper (who so hates being ‘alluded to’ like you did above, that your post above is sure to attract his name-calling spiteful retorts, if he is not being hypocritical), quite reasonably saw as you calling me a hypocrite, and on the basis of your post, in fact in reference to your post, proceeded to call me a hypocrite. You took no issue with his roping you into his name-calling rant.

Not fooled. Nobody’s fooled.

Come on please, give it some rest for people to absorb what has been said, for some it takes a little time, I know! I have been married for 35 years!
I have learnt, specially on a hostile forum such as ASR, one needs to grow a thicker skin.
Bottle of beer (cold one), bit of music . . . . aah . . .. calms the nerves down, try it.

 

[Newman]

Will do… if we are both happy to leave trash on the footpath, unattended.

 

[Sal1950]

He repeatedly makes the point that opinions based on sighted listening are per se delusions.

Not delusions, simply revealing of person preferences, if the differences really existed.
But sighted listening has no value beyond that.

The fact I follow that ethos very carefully is why

Really? Aren't you running tube gear and use vinyl as your main listening source?

 

[Newman]

That's a good question! However, thinking about it, I can see a fault: SOME people have visual bias so overwhelming that it can't survive contradiction by blinded experience. Just some. I think (my opinion) that they are in the minority, and that some of them can overcome this limitation by training. That will leave an even smaller minority.

Hope springs eternal! Jim

Hope….and bias!

The same perceptual mechanisms are at work here:

If you have seen this before, you will know that squares A and B on the left are the same shade of grey, as demonstrated on the right. And yet, every time the figure on the left is come across, the illusion is still there.

And before the usual suspects jump in with “oh what if that only applies to visual, and audio perception is completely different, so now you have to prove it applies to audio too”, this is actually about how human perception works universally.

The lesson is this: we can’t stop context from dominating perception. Even with full intellectual awareness of the truth, when the data returns and in the same context, the illusions return.

cheers

 

[Sal1950]

I can vouch that an OTL amp, in a proper setup can sound wonderful.

Wonderful can be miles away from a accurate or SOTA. And any shortcomings will always be revealed in the measurements.

I have learnt, specially on a hostile forum such as ASR, one needs to grow a thicker skin.

I don't find this site hostile in the least.
Yes we do get a lot of the "believer" sort who answer Amir's or others science based posts with the list of things in post #1,
and then will continue to argue on the subject. In the greatest majority of cases it's folks coming here to tell us we don't know
a rodents behind about from where we speak.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Hope….and bias!

The same perceptual mechanisms are at work here:
View attachment 218166

If you have seen this before, you will know that squares A and B on the left are the same shade of grey, as demonstrated on the right. And yet, every time the figure on the left is come across, the illusion is still there.

And before the usual suspects jump in with “oh what if that only applies to visual, and audio perception is completely different, so now you have to prove it applies to audio too”, this is actually about how human perception works universally.

The lesson is this: we can’t stop context from dominating perception. Even with full intellectual awareness of the truth, when the data returns and in the same context, the illusions return.

cheers

The pictures, translated into audio, for me means this:
Say the same measured level of tone, can sound louder or softer depending on neighbouring tones level.
This is the basis of psychoacoustics , if I am not mistaken. This is how smart audio compression algorithms work.
This, is not a mistake of the ears! Ears do not make a mistake, they just don't work as presumed/expected by some (i.e. a calibrated microphone).
How ear/brain works, should be the fundamental baseline for audio manufacturers, they can not blame it as being faulty!
Billions of compressed-music enjoying members of the public, have put their stamp of approval on that.
Add noise-cancelling headphone lovers to same group.
Go tell them they should not trust their ears, because they are unreliable.
A waste of hot air.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Wonderful can be miles away from a accurate or SOTA. And any shortcomings will always be revealed in the measurements.

And then I said, I glanced at the circuit ..... what does SOTA mean any way?

I don't find this site hostile in the least.
Yes we do get a lot of the "believer" sort who answer Amir's or others science based posts with the list of things in post #1,
and then will continue to argue on the subject. In the greatest majority of cases it's folks coming here to tell us we don't know
a rodents behind about from where we speak.

- A lot of believers ...
- Folks coming here to tell us ..... ( who is US pale-face )
- Rodents arse (sorry behind) about what WE speak ....(again who is WE pale-face?)
Us and them ???
You see, you can not see the forest for the trees!

 

[Sal1950]

You see, you can not see the forest for the trees!

I see very clearly my friend.
It is you who is very happy wearing colored glasses and insisting you can see untainted.

 

[Doodski]

I see very clearly my friend.
It is you who is very happy wearing colored glasses and insisting you can see untainted.

I wore Harley Davidson red/rose tinted sun shades on my Harley Davidson prescription frames and lenses for years and it was wonderful. Expensive frames and shades but they lasted about 2x the usual frames' lifetime. Good looking frames too. Made in Italy. Highly recommended!

 

[Sal1950]

I wore Harley Davidson red/rose tinted sun shades on my Harley Davidson prescription frames and lenses for years and it was wonderful. Expensive frames and shades but they lasted about 2x the usual frames' lifetime. Good looking frames too. Made in Italy. Highly recommended!

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I see very clearly my friend.
It is you who is very happy wearing colored glasses and insisting you can see untainted.

Are we still on hostility on the forum, or has the subject changed?
my Friend!