Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[BDWoody]

Okay. Well I mean the null test between 2 or 3 of the best measuring DACs on this website. Are you absolutely certain that capturing the output from the same file will produce identical waveforms? Meaning 100% the same?!

They can't be 100% the same, but if they null to the point where you can't hear the null file unless you crank the gain way up, how is that effectively different? Do you understand these tests? Sounds like you may not, even though it is what you were asking for. Like magic, they are already available.

There are some things that are beyond the ability of a machine to measure.

Anything that can be heard and identified by ear, can be measured. Do you have any examples otherwise?

If we are honest with ourselves -- simply relax and listen without any expectation bias (i won't hear a difference) vs (i will hear a difference) simply having no belief in being able to hear a difference or not...being a blank slate in a sense...then we will definitely hear differences that are meaningful between audio gear of all kinds.

With no controls, you are virtually guaranteed to hear lots of differences. The question is whether you would hear them if you DID use controls. So far, we get a lot of people telling us what we are missing, but then can't go on and actually demonstrate that THEY are hearing anything we aren't.

The fact of the matter is - anyone who only believes in measurments has a deep-rooted belief that clouds their judgement when listening to new audio gear.

I might turn that around and say that if you don't have a basic understanding of measurements and psychoacoustics, which it seems you don't, you will be forever chasing new stories, rather than a different or better sound.

measurement wars between such companies which has lead to gear with high SINAD (low THD, high dynamic range, etc.) but at what cost?

Generally, at a lower cost to the consumer. We get to buy gear that performs better by any metric for less money than ever. Those who claim the music is missing something beyond noise or distortion need to do more than whine about it all and put up some evidence.

Sure, the THD might be higher - but that's mostly because of little to no negative feedback or design compromises. In essence, providing you with the best possible objective performance that falls squarely in the range of hearing that we humans can actually discern and appreciate.

How does higher THD lead to the best possible objective performance? So, negative feedback is an automatically bad thing?

 

[voodooless]

So, negative feedback is an automatically bad thing?

It's right there in the name... what more proof do you need?

 

[isaudio]

We can.



I personally doubt anyone will ever rely completely on measurements. However, some day certain people may learn to trust that measurements actually show information accurately and usefully, and that their ears do not.



That's a lot of supposing.
If you don't audition whatever gear that your "trusted" reviewer is talking about, how do you know that you can trust the reviewer? Don't you need to compare the equipment to your standards, the reviewer's standards, and the standards of those other reviewers .... y'know, the ones you don't trust? How can you get by without comparisons .... and lots of them ..... since without comparisons, you have no frame of reference.

And if you do set up comparisons, why not simply trust your own impressions instead of listening to someone else?????? Jim

I don't audition headphones. I don't have that luxury as I am in school most of the time.
I use my gut to see if a reviewer is trustworthy or not. I get to know their biases by comparisons with other people. After all, everything is relative.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

In general, on ASR, objectivists state short facts!
"It's the measurements stupid", might be an example.
Subjectivists seem to like Eiger Face walls of text, which, with the best will in the world, can be too long to plough through.
Only my opinion,of course.

 

[voodooless]

Subjectivists seem to like Eiger Face walls of text, which, with the best will in the world, can be too long to plough through.

Yeah, it's funny that I'm 90% sure it's some subjectivist drivel when I see a massive slab of text. I'm rarely wrong

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Yeah, it's funny that I'm 90% sure it's some subjectivist drivel when I see a massive slab of text. I'm rarely wrong

In fairness, should I really get down to the "veil lifting", "soundstage broadening", "bringing Bonnie Rait right on to my lap", etc experience of my Spendor S100's. I'm pretty sure I could drive everybody, straight back over to Stereophile!

 

[AdamG]

Yeah, it's funny that I'm 90% sure it's some subjectivist drivel when I see a massive slab of text. I'm rarely wrong

This is absolutely right on point. Any post over 3 to 4 paragraphs is normally exactly this. They tend to get overly wordy when they have no facts or data to support their claims. Word salad is their Armor.

 

[voodooless]

This is absolutely right on point. Any post over 3 to 4 paragraphs is normally exactly this. They tend to get overly wordy when they have no facts or data to support their claims. Word salad is their Armor.

Stories take time to write down, facts, not so much.

 

[KellenVancouver]

An emphasis on objective measurement is an emphasis on science. An emphasis on subjective measurement is an emphasis on art. Seemingly, the historical emphasis was on art ("state of the art" electronics) perhaps due to shortcomings in the science. Since there is little to no shortcoming in the science today the question begs, has art been wholly supplanted by science when it comes to evaluating audio? It seems that is the heart of this discussion.

Why has it taken 3,513 responses (so far) to acknowledge that objective performance measures (science) are superior to subjective bias (art)? Because as human beings we don't listen objectively, we listen subjectively. And our subjectivity is linked to our emotions. Emotions will almost always dominate rationality, just ask any person working in advertising or political propaganda. From that perspective, subjectivity is superior to objectivity.

Let's say someone modifies a Volkswagen to exactly match the performance of a Rolls Royce. Test 100 people riding in the modified Volkswagen compared to riding in the Rolls Royce, and chances are most (if not all) will say the Rolls Royce performs better. That would reflect the dominance of their subjective reaction based on the superiority of the Rolls Royce's artistic value. But if the same test was conducted with the participants blindfolded, thus stripping away artistic value considerations, then I'd wager the test results would be quite different, closer to a 50-50 split between the two vehicles in evaluating which performs better.

The point is none of the participants in those tests would be "wrong." One manner of testing above is not superior to the other. They are just testing two different things, subjectivity vs. objectivity. Having subjective bias doesn't make anyone wrong, it just makes them human. At the same time, subjective bias doesn't negate the validity of objective performance. So at the end of the day, all you can say is to each their own. Thus the 3,514 responses for this thread (including this one).

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Stories take time to write down, facts, not so much.

If somebody didn't write this, I would have.

Facts and scientific papers tend to not need much prose, if any, to get to the point. It's pretty clear in this thread. As engineer students back in the day, we would be slapped hard if we turned in a paper containing unnecessary gibberish.

You can take this thread and scroll quickly through it and stop at the "Great Walls of Text" and pretty accurately predict what it is without reading it..

 

[voodooless]

The point is none of the participants in those tests would be "wrong." One manner of testing above is not superior to the other.

 

[danadam]

Stories take time to write down, facts, not so much.

And yet "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes."

 

[Deleted member 48726]

An emphasis on objective measurement is an emphasis on science. An emphasis on subjective measurement is an emphasis on art. Seemingly, the historical emphasis was on art ("state of the art" electronics) perhaps due to shortcomings in the science. Since there is little to no shortcoming in the science today the question begs, has art been wholly supplanted by science when it comes to evaluating audio? It seems that is the heart of this discussion.

Why has it taken 3,513 responses (so far) to acknowledge that objective performance measures (science) are superior to subjective bias (art)? Because as human beings we don't listen objectively, we listen subjectively. And our subjectivity is linked to our emotions. Emotions will almost always dominate rationality, just ask any person working in advertising or political propaganda. From that perspective, subjectivity is superior to objectivity.

Let's say someone modifies a Volkswagen to exactly match the performance of a Rolls Royce. Test 100 people riding in the modified Volkswagen compared to riding in the Rolls Royce, and chances are most (if not all) will say the Rolls Royce performs better. That would reflect the dominance of their subjective reaction based on the superiority of the Rolls Royce's artistic value. But if the same test was conducted with the participants blindfolded, thus stripping away artistic value considerations, then I'd wager the test results would be quite different, closer to a 50-50 split between the two vehicles in evaluating which performs better.

The point is none of the participants in those tests would be "wrong." One manner of testing above is not superior to the other. They are just testing two different things, subjectivity vs. objectivity. Having subjective bias doesn't make anyone wrong, it just makes them human. At the same time, subjective bias doesn't negate the validity of objective performance. So at the end of the day, all you can say is to each their own. Thus the 3,514 responses for this thread (including this one).

The two scenarios are two different ones.

One is testing and documenting whether the equipment is capable of accurately reproducing the input signals correctly at a higher voltage.

One is just a listening session.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

And yet "A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Is that a fact?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Is that a fact?

No, it's a platitude.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

No, it's a platitude.

Ah, an old chestnut. (One of the quickly Googled definitions!)
So, subjectivist.

 

[KellenVancouver]

Stories take time to write down, facts, not so much.

Ach mein Gott! Certainly pithy brevity is great for underscoring the simplicity of political slogans, advertising, internet forums, etc., but sometimes facts actually require words to explain. Should Albert Einstein be disrespected for requiring 130 pages to explain Relativity: The Special and the General Theory? Or Nicola Tesla requiring 120 pages to write Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency? Or Stephen Hawking requiring 213 pages to write A Brief History of Time? Gotta love internet wisdom...

 

[BDWoody]

I use my gut to see if a reviewer is trustworthy or not. I get to know their biases by comparisons with other people.

I hope you keep the Pepto handy.

 

[Xulonn]

The attempts at car analogies are really lame - I can never truly relate them to my audio adventures. Not one of them in this thread has enhanced my understanding of subjective vs objective audio issues.

 

[voodooless]

Ach mein Gott! Certainly pithy brevity is great for underscoring the simplicity of political slogans, advertising, internet forums, etc., but sometimes facts actually require words to explain. Should Albert Einstein be disrespected for requiring 130 pages to explain Relativity: The Special and the General Theory? Or Nicola Tesla requiring 120 pages to write Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency? Or Stephen Hawking requiring 213 pages to write A Brief History of Time? Gotta love internet wisdom...

“Requiring” is the keyword here…I rest my case.

Besides, a forum post is not an academic paper.