Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[DonR]

As @Multicore said in such a beautifully pedantic way, measurements are free from faith. They just are.

 

[Multicore]

Re Faith not being what we do...

I think it's impractical to deny all faith. For the last 8 days I've been receiving medical attention for what turns out to be probably a case of Anaplasmosis perhaps among other things. The huge array of objective measurements that have been performed on me is astounding and bewildering. I can try to interpret the data, and did, and failed. And I don't think it was only a matter of fever making it hard for me to think. The practical option is to have faith in the specialists.

In general, try as I may, I don't have time to be skeptical about everything all the time so I use a simplifying principle: I get so far considering something and then decide that's good enough for me and I move on. Practically this means that I have accepted something more or less on faith and doing so allows me to use it as a part of my intellectual structure on which I can build other things. I am of course free to revise this later given new information but I do think that some amount faith is a necessary in life.

 

[DonR]

Re Faith not being what we do...

I think it's impractical to deny all faith. For the last 8 days I've been receiving medical attention for what turns out to be probably a case of Anaplasmosis perhaps among other things. The huge array of objective measurements that have been performed on me is astounding and bewildering. I can try to interpret the data, and did, and failed. And I don't think it was only a matter of fever making it hard for me to think. The practical option is to have faith in the specialists.

In general, try as I may, I don't have time to be skeptical about everything all the time so I use a simplifying principle: I get so far considering something and then decide that's good enough for me and I move on. Practically this means that I have accepted something more or less on faith and doing so allows me to use it as a part of my intellectual structure on which I can build other things. I am of course free to revise this later given new information but I do think that some amount faith is a necessary in life.

Your faith is in the specialists' ability to interpret the results of the tests or in the accuracy of the test results? or both?

 

[antcollinet]

I prefer the word trust rather than faith in this context, due to the word "faith" being intertwined somewhat with religion as discussed above.

 

[Multicore]

Your faith is in the specialists' ability to interpret the results of the tests or in the accuracy of the test results? or both?

Both. I am disposed to be skeptical of both but I can't think of many ways use that skepticism.

 

[DonR]

Both. I am disposed to be skeptical of both but I can't think of many ways use that skepticism.

I have been in situations where my faith in specialists was questioned. Second opinions verified my skepticism. It's rare but it does happen. Hope you make a speedy recovery.

 

[Multicore]

I prefer the word trust rather than faith in this context, due to the word "faith" being intertwined somewhat with religion as discussed above.

That's fair enough. In practice we can often rephrase to use trust or believe and your preference is wise. Especially at ASR.

It appears from the above I decided that faith is a disposition to trust or believe. But it might be a more than that. In faith the disposition is often self-conscious and willful.

 

[Multicore]

I have been in situations where my faith in specialists was questioned. Second opinions verified my skepticism. It's rare but it does happen. Hope you make a speedy recovery.

I'm scheduled to get my third opinion next week. The first two conferred and suggested I might want to get a third. Maybe they are conscious of their own limits to read these fabulously sophisticated tea leaves, which I choose to believe is a good thing.

Thanks for your kind wishes.

 

[ahofer]

 

[MattHooper]

I prefer the word trust rather than faith in this context, due to the word "faith" being intertwined somewhat with religion as discussed above.

Same here. One can use a definition of "faith" in a way that makes it the same as regular, empirical inductive inference. But then it may as well be substituted by the word "knowledge." (And since "faith" can have alternative meanings - "justified belief from evidence" as well as "belief held in contradiction to the evidence" it can be confusing, and often allow people to slyly conflate the two in the "you have faith too" type replies).

 

[MattHooper]

Unpopular opinion alert: George Michael was a "good" singer...but a boring singer. He could hit the notes, but had an unremarkable "MOR" tone.

 

[lashto]

Unpopular opinion alert: George Michael was a "good" singer...but a boring singer. He could hit the notes, but had an unremarkable "MOR" tone.

somewhat agree but I'd take him over anyone in the current billboard top10 (probably even top100)

 

[Doodski]

George Michael hated modeling for music videos. He hired models to avoid doing it himself.

 

[Robbo99999]

George Michael hated modeling for music videos. He hired models to avoid doing it himself.

Oh yeah, that "Freedom" video from the early 90's was excellent!

 

[Unknown_Command]

Can someone please enlighten me? There's one thing that bothers me in this whole DAC business. There are so many great products out there with virtually no noise on the output and yet reviewers very often claim that there are audible differences in sound they produce. I don't get it. Shouldn't it be that if we compare 2 or more products with the same output there wouldn't be any sound differences between them?

 

[presence]

I had to create an account to contribute for your discussion, but all golden-ear mixing and especially mastering engineers who has ability to feel the sweet spots know that numbers do not tell anything to your ears and how you persieve the sound in real life. Sound has more attributes. So, if you measure a SSL, Neve, Api etc. same and claim that they sound same, because your measurements do say so, you will have no future in being professional sound engineer for sure. That is a 'secret' of the best sound engineers in the world, their monitor system is the one they know by heart so it will translate and they sense the sound better than above from average ears. Development on sensitive ears can be by many reasons; genes, nature of person or a need for sensitivity development by an environmential reasons. But, it is good to know the numbers as well, and Mr. Neve was known for being good with numbers beside having the golden ears. I prefer SSL and Api a bit more but Neves are very good for 'cleaning' channels, thats why Neves pre-amps are maybe the best from all others. Thats why I also prefer Neve HP-amp. Again, clean do not mean by measurement vise.

edit; this post was moved from RNHP amp measurements..

 

[Overseas]

Can someone please enlighten me? There's one thing that bothers me in this whole DAC business. There are so many great products out there with virtually no noise on the output and yet reviewers very often claim that there are audible differences in sound they produce. I don't get it. Shouldn't it be that if we compare 2 or more products with the same output there wouldn't be any sound differences between them?

I upgraded to E50 from E30, though technically where is the 'upgrade' as pr ASR standards?! However, I have this bias that ESS dac's behave somehow differently from AK. As a result, based on a few non blind testing, my sound improved a bit, I would say perceptibly, the most clear being better control at high volumes. With E30 I can say that sound became unpleasant and hollow at high volumes due to my big empty space of 60 sqm with ceramic tiling (I know...).

 

[Unknown_Command]

I upgraded to E50 from E30, though technically where is the 'upgrade' as pr ASR standards?! However, I have this bias that ESS dac's behave somehow differently from AK. As a result, based on a few non blind testing, my sound improved a bit, I would say perceptibly, the most clear being better control at high volumes. With E30 I can say that sound became unpleasant and hollow at high volumes due to my big empty space of 60 sqm with ceramic tiling (I know...).

Thanks mate! That's exactly what I heard regarding E30 and E50 comparison. Some say that E50 has much more natural sound compared to E30 but I guess I will have to test that myself. I recently got a pretty decent and rather on the warm side of neutral analog amp from Rega so I'm hoping that it would bring the best from E50 without causing listening fatigue. I don't know... If I don't like it I will return E50 and I'm just wondering what to base my next purchase decision on considering that pretty much all of the new DACs on paper have excellent specs... But still, it puzzles me how on earth it's even possible that all of those top notch DACs according to many reviewers sound so differently. They shouldn't, right? Or am I missing something?

 

[RHO]

You're not missing anything. They don't sound different. If there's no measurements or DBT backing up their claims, it's not a review but a story.

 

[Unknown_Command]

You're not missing anything. They don't sound different. If there's no measurements or DBT backing up their claims, it's not a review but a story.

Oh, man! You've just made my day Thank you for that! In that case, pardon my French, screw them! I'm going to stay positive while waiting for my E50 to arrive and then I'm just simply going to enjoy it