Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[pablolie]

I just think different people make choices differently.

Some like an Apple watch, some an Audemars Piguet Tourbillion. Both may be equally obsessed about watches (I think the AP more so, since you can easily pay $1M .

Some of us like to check audio equipment data sheets to establish some basic parameters that set our mind at ease. Some prefer to simply sit back and establish what makes them enjoy the music.

I fall into the former camp. But I also see many measurement obsessed people in this forum that claim they must "upgrade" as soon as something with marginally better measurements comes down the road, claiming to hear a difference to justify their chronic measurement-induced upgradeititis syndrome

There clearly is completely nonsenical stuff out there especially when people become stuck in discussing exclusively equipment rather than music enjoyment. Let's exclude that corner case (even though it is very relevant to this discussion).

IMO, between genuine music lovers, I respect opinions even when I think the equipment is flawed for *my* personal priorities. I have mentioned the example of my tube loving, Devore speaker friend before. He exclusively listens to classical, with a priority on Chopin and classical Adagios. Oh and classical guitar. I must say - I love it. It gives me totally different insights into recordings we both love. I wouldn't buy the stuff, but it makes me think "vive le difference!". Needless to say, I don't think the equipment would measure neutrally at all, in any way.

I myself have suffered from biases before. I am over them. I personally want solid measurements. But once I enjoy something a lot, I will not be persuaded to listen to something else if it comes along with a marginal -and honestly that's all we get these days- improvement in measurements. I want a combination of engineering competence sprinkled with my perception of what's more fun to listen to.

I picked a NAD M22 over a Benchmark AHB2 after being tortured trying to listen to a single difference for weeks. I kept them both long enough to not be able to return either. I shall never subject myself to such a silly comparison exercise again. Both were superb, can't go wrong with either, over. And while I kept one of them, it's not in my current listening chain today. And I love listening to music.

 

[Mark84]

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.

I like this… it’s like an ASR survival clause.

This is a very interesting forum. I have only been reading it recently and it’s really….. well, I don’t really have any words for it other than some kind of testosterone fuelled cauldron of militant opinions (from both sides of the fence). I’m not referencing your reply at all there. Thank you for your reasoned response. It just looks like you have to be really careful of the language in your posts or you get shot down like a dog in the street with a barrage of broad assumptions about one’s knowledge and character. It’s a shame because there is clearly a lot of knowledge here, but the negative side of it kind of taints the whole forum with an aggressive nature when looking at it from an outsiders perspective.

 

[Sal1950]

I picked a NAD M22 over a Benchmark AHB2 after being tortured trying to listen to a single difference for weeks.

I do feel sorry for you, all that work comparing 2 totally transparent amps.
That's enough to make anyone's head spin.

But I also see many measurement obsessed people in this forum that claim they must "upgrade" as soon as something with marginally better measurements comes down the road, claiming to hear a difference to justify their chronic measurement-induced upgradeititis syndrome

Really? I spend a bit of time on this forum and have been here since about day 3 of it's existence. I know I'm 72 and my memory isn't what it used to be, but I don't think I've ever read a post like mentioned above?
Feel free to educate me.

 

[Mark84]

Really? I spend a bit of time on this forum and have been here since about day 3 of it's existence. I know I'm 72 and my memory isn't what it used to be, but I don't think I've ever read a post like mentioned above?

I’ve only been looking around a few days and I’ve seen many in the reviews threads. Have a look at the topping d90se review and following thread. The measurement folks are no different. They just go about it a different way.

My feeling is that the subjective method at least ensure that I like what I hear. Even if, as you guys say, that is somehow based on my feelings, emotions, or the looks of a product or whatever. If so, then that is obviously an important part in the process too. It is also stated many times, as far as I can see, is that we aren’t much good at picking up differences in distortion anyway. So what’s the point in that being such an important factor? You could make an argument that emotions should be part of your choice if it affects our experience so much as to impact sound. It strikes me that this argument can just go round and round forever. Especially when newcomers such as myself keep dragging it back up. Jeez it must get tiring.

Please take what I said there with a pinch of salt. I’m not trying to rock the boat. I shouldn’t have said anything just wanted to throw out a quick 2c. No need for a barrage of teachings.. I’m really happy with my system and don’t intend on changing anything in the pursuit of perfection. I am quite happy with my ignorant objective bliss.

 

[MattHooper]

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.

Strictly speaking I don't think it's even necessary to mention specific music tracks. But more generally speaking, I agree that it can certainly be worthwhile to mention the music used for making some observation of the sound. My beef is more about the emphasis on the music taking over in an unneeded, unhelpful way. I've read some reviews that are paragraphs of descriptions of an album, ending with "and the speakers availed themselves well."
Like..er...thanks for that.

But of course it can make sense for someone to reference, say, certain music that has very demanding, heavy, deep bass to describe the performance of the speakers. I just want to see particular music referenced directly in service of describing the product, rather than as some adjunct music review.

 

[pablolie]

I do feel sorry for you, all that work comparing 2 totally transparent amps.
That's enough to make anyone's head spin.

Really? I spend a bit of time on this forum and have been here since about day 3 of it's existence. I know I'm 72 and my memory isn't what it used to be, but I don't think I've ever read a post like mentioned above?
Feel free to educate me.

I do not want to quote any instances because it'd be construed as a personal attack, which is the furthest on my mind.

But let's just say when two nearly identical versions/iterations of universally acclaimed speakers for both measurements and listening tests were reviewed here. despite the sub 1-percentile differences, some here declared the old version as "unlistenable" despite the fact they admitted to own them for 10 years. The nonsenical arguments go both ways. The measurement minions can be just as irrational as the esoterical claim slaves with deep pockets.

There are more rational levels of irrationality. But when anyone claims they hear a discernible difference between a SINAD of 100 and 120... or even 112 and 114... (both are there in the discussion forums) I just go... OK, buy the new stuff. Same with speakers that are literally 0.5% away in measurements, and Amir's wrap-up is just different and inconsistent (it happens, but just look at the measurements).

 

[MattHooper]

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.

This has come up before.

There's an interesting Elephant-Shaped Conundrum lurking in the room behind the blind-testing preference research. And it arises due to the fact that most of the research cited (e.g. Toole, HK etc) concerns studying preference.

Not accuracy per se, but preferences.

If were we ONLY adjudicating accuracy in speakers it could be a purely technical, objective evaluation. The measurements don't have "biased preferences."

But when you are measuring peoples subjective impressions, then things get tangled.

If you have people do sighted tests rating their preference between speakers A, B C and you get a relative rating score, it's an interesting and valid question to ask "How would those preference ratings hold up in blind tests, where we remove the variable of sighted bias?"

And from that interesting question we get lots of great research often cited here.

But it's also a relevant, interesting question to ask the reverse. Let's say you START with results from blind ratings of some speakers. Then you can ask: How would the preference ratings of 3 speakers derived from blind testing hold up under sighted conditions?"

After all: it's actually sighted conditions that is more consonant with how people audition, choose and listen to speakers!

Of course whenever research has specifically focused on comparing sighted to blinded speaker evaluations, the above comparison is essentially made. Though it's still limited in it's scope as far as I know, and I also don't think much if any research has been done to track actual consumer satisfaction over time with speakers that test well blind vs sighted. (If anyone has citations I'm curious).

So let's say you start from the blind test ratings, then have people rate the speakers in sighted listening conditions. Let's say that under blind conditions
people preferred speaker A as sounding best, but under sighted conditions people now significantly prefer speaker B.

That seems to be a problem if your blind tests are supposed to help predict what speakers people will like in the real world of sighted listening! Why bother with the blind testing, if people are just going to hear-with-their-eyes to some degree anyway, in terms of altering their perception of the sound.

Ok, let's say that the discrepancy between the blind and sighted tests actually wasn't very big. The sighted preference ratings, while not exact, generally track the relative preferences (e.g. speaker A still preferred as best).

Well, one reaction is to say "See, the blind tests tracked how people perceive the sound in more real world situations, that makes the blind tests relevant!"

But...if the blind tests essentially recapitulated the preference ratings in sighted tests....why bother with blind tests? People can just use sighted listening for what they prefer.

Either way you turn, the relevance of blind testing to the "sighted" scenarios in which people actually listen seems to come in to question to some degree.

Again, this wouldn't be such an issue if speakers were only being evaluated strictly on the basis of technical accuracy, where measurements can replace
the messiness of human biased perception. But so long as we are talking about evaluating preferences...things get squishy. (And, yes it turned out people generally preferred neutral speakers in blind testing...but that doesn't get us out of the conundrum above).

As I've also said many times, none of that is "anti-speaker research." Nor anti-accuracy etc. Rather, it's just to point out that it can feel like we are standing on firm ground at times, but if you drill down further you can start to feel some quick-sand.

BTW, the last time I looked closely at the sighted vs blind speaker ratings (Toole or cited by S. Olive I think), I seem to remember noting that while there were clear differences (e.g. the ratings of some speakers going significantly up or down), it seems certain relationships seemed to hold over from the sighted to blind ratings, e.g. certain speakers still rated higher relative to others. IIRC.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This has come up before.

There's an interesting Elephant-Shaped Conundrum lurking in the room behind the blind-testing preference research. And it arises due to the fact that most of the research cited (e.g. Toole, HK etc) concerns studying preference.

Not accuracy per se, but preferences.

If were we ONLY adjudicating accuracy in speakers it could be a purely technical, objective evaluation. The measurements don't have "biased preferences."

But when you are measuring peoples subjective impressions, then things get tangled.

If you have people do sighted tests rating their preference between speakers A, B C and you get a relative rating score, it's an interesting and valid question to ask "How would those preference ratings hold up in blind tests, where we remove the variable of sighted bias?"

And from that interesting question we get lots of great research often cited here.

But it's also a relevant, interesting question to ask the reverse. Let's say you START with results from blind ratings of some speakers. Then you can ask: How would the preference ratings of 3 speakers derived from blind testing hold up under sighted conditions?"

After all: it's actually sighted conditions that is more consonant with how people audition, choose and listen to speakers!

Of course whenever research has specifically focused on comparing sighted to blinded speaker evaluations, the above comparison is essentially made. Though it's still limited in it's scope as far as I know, and I also don't think much if any research has been done to track actual consumer satisfaction over time with speakers that test well blind vs sighted. (If anyone has citations I'm curious).

So let's say you start from the blind test ratings, then have people rate the speakers in sighted listening conditions. Let's say that under blind conditions
people preferred speaker A as sounding best, but under sighted conditions people now significantly prefer speaker B.

That seems to be a problem if your blind tests are supposed to help predict what speakers people will like in the real world of sighted listening! Why bother with the blind testing, if people are just going to hear-with-their-eyes to some degree anyway, in terms of altering their perception of the sound.

Ok, let's say that the discrepancy between the blind and sighted tests actually wasn't very big. The sighted preference ratings, while not exact, generally track the relative preferences (e.g. speaker A still preferred as best).

Well, one reaction is to say "See, the blind tests tracked how people perceive the sound in more real world situations, that makes the blind tests relevant!"

But...if the blind tests essentially recapitulated the preference ratings in sighted tests....why bother with blind tests? People can just use sighted listening for what they prefer.

Either way you turn, the relevance of blind testing to the "sighted" scenarios in which people actually listen seems to come in to question to some degree.

Again, this wouldn't be such an issue if speakers were only being evaluated strictly on the basis of technical accuracy, where measurements can replace
the messiness of human biased perception. But so long as we are talking about evaluating preferences...things get squishy. (And, yes it turned out people generally preferred neutral speakers in blind testing...but that doesn't get us out of the conundrum above).

As I've also said many times, none of that is "anti-speaker research." Nor anti-accuracy etc. Rather, it's just to point out that it can feel like we are standing on firm ground at times, but if you drill down further you can start to feel some quick-sand.

BTW, the last time I looked closely at the sighted vs blind speaker ratings (Toole or cited by S. Olive I think), I seem to remember noting that while there were clear differences (e.g. the ratings of some speakers going significantly up or down), it seems certain relationships seemed to hold over from the sighted to blind ratings, e.g. certain speakers still rated higher relative to others. IIRC.

They did do sighted tests, followed by blind tests. Using their employees as I recall. It mostly tracked with a slight bias for their own products and big bias for price, speaker size, and exotic design. Blind results up ended those results substantially.

I too have thought of your idea here, that if sighted bias effects our satisfaction with a speaker, and we know we all use those products sighted then it shouldn't be dismissed. The obvious point is to get best performance at lowest price, and one can make things prettier or stranger for sighted satisfaction, but no reason not to also have such more expensive speakers at least perform well.

To me remaining work which apparently won't be done by Harman is getting a handle on how distinguishing distortion is with otherwise good performing speakers, and figure out dipoles which I think somehow get poorer ratings than they deserve.

 

[MattHooper]

They did do sighted tests, followed by blind tests. Using their employees as I recall. It mostly tracked with a slight bias for their own products and big bias for price, speaker size, and exotic design. Blind results up ended those results substantially.

Yes that's what I remember too. Except, as I mentioned, I'm not as sure about your last sentence. I know in some old post of mine I actually included the graphs of the sighted vs blind evaluations of some speakers. And...again IIRC...while certain of the speaker ratings changed significantly, some of the general relationships held somewhat (e.g. A and B still being rated highly, and still being preferred, in both sighted and blind tests).

I wish I could find that old post but I can't (and can't remember exactly which graphs I cited, I think they were from S. Olive or Toole's citations).

I too have thought of your idea here, that if sighted bias effects our satisfaction with a speaker, and we know we all use those products sighted then it shouldn't be dismissed.

Ultimately I personally want to listen go a speaker in person to gauge my reaction, for similar reasons. Though I have a somewhat different goal or approach than many here. So I think a lot of ASR members use measurements to weed out speaker candidates so they can narrow down which speakers seem worth their time to buy (or audition). That makes all the sense in the world especially if your goal is to own a speaker with certain type of measurements (which research suggests sounds good to most people), and you don't want to "waste time" auditioning more speakers than you have to.

But I really like auditioning speakers. I like variety. I like the way speakers sound different. I like the adventure and surprise. I can certainly look at measurements and get some idea of the character of a speaker before-hand. But I can never fully predict the sound, and can never fully predict if I'll actually be "grabbed" by the presentation or not. There are some speakers that have measured "yikes" that I actually was happy I've heard, because the way a complex set of swerves in speaker behavior will specifically sound can be complex to predict. That's why you see even people who measure lots of speakers - e.g. JA and Amir - sometimes saying they've been a bit surprised sometimes by the sound of a speaker, having seen what looked like obvious problems in the measurements. E.g. "that measurement deviation doesn't actually sound as bad as it looks."

And then of course there is how sighted bias can actually alter sonic perception.

If I find something intriguing about the design, I just want to hear it for myself.

The obvious point is to get best performance at lowest price, and one can make things prettier or stranger for sighted satisfaction, but no reason not to also have such more expensive speakers at least perform well.

Yes, I certainly see your point. But the concentration first on "performance" is a lot easier if we just stuck to "accuracy" but if it concerns "preference" then we must be talking about how a speaker "performs" in terms of our subjective impression. So of two speakers with comparable measured performance, the more expensive "nicer" looking one may "perform better" in sighted listening impressions. If one thinks of "performance" simply in terms of preference satisfaction, that's how it can shake out. But if one thinks of "performance" in objective measurable terms, and that's what one seeks, then perhaps the cheaper looking but slightly better measuring speaker wins out.

To me remaining work which apparently won't be done by Harman is getting a handle on how distinguishing distortion is with otherwise good performing speakers, and figure out dipoles which I think somehow get poorer ratings than they deserve.

What I've found, anecdotally, is that the measurements of the Revel speakers seem to predict how they sound to me in sighted conditions. When I auditioned a few Revel speakers (e.g. some Performa and others) they sounded smooth, clear, really well balanced and in control from top to bottom of the frequency spectrum, without obvious anomalies in tone arising when I shifted my listening positions. In other words, pretty much what the measurements generally predict. And...what the blind tests at Harman Kardon predict!

But...here we go again...if the worth of the HK blind testing is in how well the results would track with my sighted listening impressions....it suggests that my sighted listening was sufficient to evaluate the speakers in the first place!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes that's what I remember too. Except, as I mentioned, I'm not as sure about your last sentence. I know in some old post of mine I actually included the graphs of the sighted vs blind evaluations of some speakers. And...again IIRC...while certain of the speaker ratings changed significantly, some of the general relationships held somewhat (e.g. A and B still being rated highly, and still being preferred, in both sighted and blind tests).

I wish I could find that old post but I can't (and can't remember exactly which graphs I cited, I think they were from S. Olive or Toole's citations).




Ultimately I personally want to listen go a speaker in person to gauge my reaction, for similar reasons. Though I have a somewhat different goal or approach than many here. So I think a lot of ASR members use measurements to weed out speaker candidates so they can narrow down which speakers seem worth their time to buy (or audition). That makes all the sense in the world especially if your goal is to own a speaker with certain type of measurements (which research suggests sounds good to most people), and you don't want to "waste time" auditioning more speakers than you have to.

But I really like auditioning speakers. I like variety. I like the way speakers sound different. I like the adventure and surprise. I can certainly look at measurements and get some idea of the character of a speaker before-hand. But I can never fully predict the sound, and can never fully predict if I'll actually be "grabbed" by the presentation or not. There are some speakers that have measured "yikes" that I actually was happy I've heard, because the way a complex set of swerves in speaker behavior will specifically sound can be complex to predict. That's why you see even people who measure lots of speakers - e.g. JA and Amir - sometimes saying they've been a bit surprised sometimes by the sound of a speaker, having seen what looked like obvious problems in the measurements. E.g. "that measurement deviation doesn't actually sound as bad as it looks."

And then of course there is how sighted bias can actually alter sonic perception.

If I find something intriguing about the design, I just want to hear it for myself.



Yes, I certainly see your point. But the concentration first on "performance" is a lot easier if we just stuck to "accuracy" but if it concerns "preference" then we must be talking about how a speaker "performs" in terms of our subjective impression. So of two speakers with comparable measured performance, the more expensive "nicer" looking one may "perform better" in sighted listening impressions. If one thinks of "performance" simply in terms of preference satisfaction, that's how it can shake out. But if one thinks of "performance" in objective measurable terms, and that's what one seeks, then perhaps the cheaper looking but slightly better measuring speaker wins out.



What I've found, anecdotally, is that the measurements of the Revel speakers seem to predict how they sound to me in sighted conditions. When I auditioned a few Revel speakers (e.g. some Performa and others) they sounded smooth, clear, really well balanced and in control from top to bottom of the frequency spectrum, without obvious anomalies in tone arising when I shifted my listening positions. In other words, pretty much what the measurements generally predict. And...what the blind tests at Harman Kardon predict!

But...here we go again...if the worth of the HK blind testing is in how well the results would track with my sighted listening impressions....it suggests that my sighted listening was sufficient to evaluate the speakers in the first place!

The "big surprise" of work by first the NRC in Canada and later Harman is that preference was for those speakers with flat even balanced response on axis. That result pretty much removes the point of objecting to preference. If preference turned out to be some technically weird result then you'd be in a quandary. Many expected the power response to be best, but instead on axis with a controlled roll off when moving off axis had the highest preference. Yet even here this isn't some technically weird preference.

My general preference has been electrostats. I like hearing speakers, they were all so different. Most of my purchases were after hearing speakers that grabbed me. Heard lots that were okay or bad or boring, but those that seemed actively good were the ones I purchased. Most of them I purchased after someone else I know owned some. I was not at all concerned about being a copy cat.

Then I've purchased some of the JBL monitor speakers based upon needing such a thing, and the good test results. Never heard them prior. They were good, extraordinarily good for the price. Not without blemish or perfect. Mainly I wish they would make a model with much more powerful amps in the same basic speaker. Their limiting to control taxing the chip amps is a bottleneck or Achilles heel if you will. I next purchased some 2nd hand Revels for a video system. Similar sound though better with a good amp on them. I now have some F208's which are not only excellent in an absolute sense, but so good even they are a great bargain. Again they benefit from having an ample amplifier which is no bottleneck to their performance.

So do I like the Revels being biased by the techno-science story behind them? Yeah probably. What I've found about speakers is if you've been fooled or they have genuine deficiencies you are always fighting to fix their weak points. Some that at first blush seemed good were fatally flawed and over time you fell out with them. Maggies prior to them using ribbon tweeters being a good example. Others might always have their own little deficiencies, but were so good otherwise you could live with them. Quad ESL-63s being good examples. With JBLs and Revels if used within their reasonable capabilities with regard to room size and loudness, you set them up, you adjust them some to get them working with the room, and they just stay good thereafter. They don't negatively bring attention to themselves. They might not be the sauciest partner in a positive sense, but they do what a good speaker is supposed to do by playing the music and getting out of the way. When you are used to going thru speakers and looking for the next thing that can be boring in a sense. So good they are boring. They still aren't perfect, but pretty competent all the way around. I would like to hear the largest Genelecs at some point. Genelecs generally seem too small and overpriced for what you get.

 

[Waxx]

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.

then the obvious question on ASR comes to mind, can you show the differences with measurements? Because thos subjective (and biased impressions) don't do it here. And Amir showed already in tests in the past that those components make no difference. So I need to see objective measurements before i believe those make any difference.

 

[PatF]

Loudspeaker topic is very hard for me. Mainly because my listening room is not dedicated room, it has some acoustic adaptation and I managed to get rid of biggest bass domain problems but still some things are present and I need to hear loudspeakers in my room before I decide what to buy. Before I bought my current speakers I went trough long period of tests of several pairs of loudspeakers in my room. So my choice was compilation of measurements, blind tests in audio shop special room (to limit amount of speakers for final tests) and at home. End result is that I am living with my choice for 6 years now and do not have need to change it. I think loudspeakers will always be the most subjective chosen piece of audio chain.

 

[MaxBuck]

I'll say it again: believing that science (in any area) is entirely settled is a very unscientific viewpoint.

This isn't said to defend or justify subjective reporting on audio behaviors; rather that the quest to know more should never stop.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

then the obvious question on ASR comes to mind, can you show the differences with measurements? Because thos subjective (and biased impressions) don't do it here. And Amir showed already in tests in the past that those components make no difference. So I need to see objective measurements before i believe those make any difference.

Somebody raised the subject and I replied.
I couldn't care less, if it does Do it for zealous objectivists.
I know, I know, I may have missed the Science in Audio Science Review!
But as soon as add Audio into the mix, then subjectivity sneaks in.
If It doesn't do it for you, ignore the post.
BTW, measuring transducers of any kind is a bit of a hit-and-miss, it is not as straight forward as an amplifier.

 

[SIY]

Somebody raised the subject and I replied.
I couldn't care less, if it does Do it for zealous objectivists.
I know, I know, I may have missed the Science in Audio Science Review!
But as soon as add Audio into the mix, then subjectivity sneaks in.
If It doesn't do it for you, ignore the post.
BTW, measuring transducers of any kind is a bit of a hit-and-miss, it is not as straight forward as an amplifier.

IOW, you have no evidence about the efficacy of your changes.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

IOW, you have no evidence about the efficacy of your changes.

Exactly! did I ever say I did?
I am sorry if I did.

 

[Mark84]

IOW, you have no evidence about the efficacy of your changes.

Who bloody cares. If someone wants to spend a bit more on some crossover components for their pride and joy/ hobby, then so be it. It’s like you have to buy the cheapest stuff you can if there isn’t a measurement that shows a difference. I bought alloy wheels for my car but it makes no difference. I just like it better. I bought top quality Jantzen crossover parts because I wanted to be lavish with my expensive drivers. The end result is a pair of speakers with sound that beats anything I could even remotely afford out of a store. How do I know? Because I can hear it. Jeez. Hearing must count for something otherwise what’s the point. If you can’t trust your hearing that much why bother listening at all? Just look at your nicely measuring cheap parts and be happy. cheers.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Who bloody cares. If someone wants to spend a bit more on some crossover components for their pride and joy/ hobby, then so be it. It’s like you have to buy the cheapest stuff you can if there isn’t a measurement that shows a difference. I bought alloy wheels for my car but it makes no difference. I just like it better. I bought top quality Jantzen crossover parts because I wanted to be lavish with my expensive drivers. The end result is a pair of speakers with sound that beats anything I could even remotely afford out of a store. How do I know? Because I can hear it. Jeez. Hearing must count for something otherwise what’s the point. If you can’t trust your hearing that much why bother listening at all? Just look at your nicely measuring cheap parts and be happy. cheers.

I am sure SIY can do a better reply himself.
I believe the objection here is not that I like it, so what's the harm!
I believe the objection is to the fact, that I Claimed a certain capacitor made a difference, so if they can not measure it, (I can't prove it by measurement) they can not reproduce it, so Dismissing it is the obvious course of action! Which I (for one) can appreciate, this IS the scientific way.
However, (there is always one!)
some members here, go as far as "Ears are not to be trusted, once the APx 5555555 has passed an equipment, if you can't hear it, admit yourself to a clinic!"
For amplifiers and possibly DACs, I won't argue with it, but on speakers and headphones? I would like to, but mostly save my breath, I also have Asthma
The whole idea of Audio equipment, is to please (and fool!) the ear/brain! (as the kid said in Matrix: there is no spoon (Music!))
Discounting the Ear/Brain will lead to bankruptcy for an audio equipment manufacturer - you see, there are tons more Subjectivists than there are Objectivists.

 

[SIY]

Who bloody cares. If someone wants to spend a bit more on some crossover components for their pride and joy/ hobby, then so be it. It’s like you have to buy the cheapest stuff you can if there isn’t a measurement that shows a difference. I bought alloy wheels for my car but it makes no difference. I just like it better. I bought top quality Jantzen crossover parts because I wanted to be lavish with my expensive drivers. The end result is a pair of speakers with sound that beats anything I could even remotely afford out of a store. How do I know? Because I can hear it. Jeez. Hearing must count for something otherwise what’s the point. If you can’t trust your hearing that much why bother listening at all? Just look at your nicely measuring cheap parts and be happy. cheers.

Some people are interested in what's real and what isn't. Some people aren't. The former are receptive to science and are willing to challenge their own beliefs by testing hypotheses. The latter seek validation more than truth.

 

[BDWoody]

I bought alloy wheels for my car but it makes no difference.

If you claimed it improved lap times by 30%, someone might challenge that.

Why should it be different here?

If you can’t trust your hearing that much why bother listening at all?

To listen to music. Not to kid myself into believing I hear things.