Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Thunder22]

Announcement Announcement!!!

From hence forth, until the end of time. We hereby prohibit the use of the word “altogether”.

"Surely you can't be serious"

 

[AdamG]

"Surely you can't be serious"

Of course not. Pure humor. Joking with John.

 

[BDWoody]

Of course not. Pure humor. Joking with John.

 

[Killingbeans]

"Surely you can't be serious"

He is serious... and don't call him Shirley.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Did they accept it as payment for the kidney stone removal Ken.

Actually , they couldn't remove it in one operation! it was yhe size of one of Mojo's marbles.
At any rate, your answer is No.
It was free, called NHS.

 

[presence]

All of which is true. But you are talking about measuring an F1 drivers talent. Everything about the performance of the tool the driver uses - his car - is measurable - and an awful lot of it is measured - in real time - as he is driving.

And it doesn't matter how "good" you are, how talented, or skilled, you are still prone to being deceived by cognitive bias.

Your skill as an audio engineer is about understaning how what you do to sound impacts the enjoyment of the listtener. How to mix and master to get the best possible out of the music that will appeal to as large a percentage of the audience as possible. Everything you do, every change you make however is measureable. Your skill doesn't mean that somehow your ears are able to detect some mythical unmeasurable aspects of audio - nor do you need to be able to in order to be a world class engineer.

So you agree that ears with brains for engineer and driving skills to F1 driver are more important than measurements?

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Actually , they couldn't remove it in one operation! it was yhe size of one of Mojo's marbles.
At any rate, your answer is No.
It was free, called NHS.

So I assume you kindly donated it to our wonderful NHS, and got yourself a decent Topping?

 

[Ken Tajalli]

So I assume you kindly donated it to our wonderful NHS, and got yourself a decent Topping?

Already have a Topping and a Hugo2, but the Mojos (1 and two) are gone now.
BTW, the pulverized it with a laser beam! I wonder if they had to add large amounts of jitter to the laser beam to make it really unpalatable to the stone.
Enough of this, we are going off topic.

 

[antcollinet]

So you agree that ears with brains for engineer and driving skills to F1 driver are more important than measurements?

That is a meaningess question in the context of my post.

You rightly pointed out that skill can't be measured with instrumentation.

I pointed out that is irrelevant in the context of measurements of equipment (Car/audio reproduction) (IE the measurements we are talking about in this thread). Skill and measurement are orthoganal - they do two different things. In particular - no matter how skilled, your senses are never going to come close to the accuracy of measurement gear. It is why we created measurement gear.

If the technical measurements of equipment show something doesn't exist - no amount of skill can change that.

If the car is measured as having an absolute top speed of 351.7kph - not even Lewis Hamilton's skill can make it go faster.

If a piece of audio equimpment has levels of noise/distortion below that which the human ear can detect - no amount of skill (measured or otherwise) can detect that noise/distortion, or tell the difference between the audio from that device, or a another device with similarly low levels of noise and distortion.

 

[Aleksandar RS]

Can someone explain to me the purpose of the SINAD list if all DACs sound the same. Obviously, it doesn't reflect the sound quality.

I ask because I really don't understand, and I ask that it not be understood as an attack on I don't know what.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Can someone explain to me the purpose of the SINAD list if all DACs sound the same. Obviously, it doesn't reflect the sound quality.

I ask because I really don't understand, and I ask that it not be understood as an attack on I don't know what.

Many of us here don't like the SINAD chart and have complained. Amir's purpose was to give a simple idea to show superior engineering or at least superior results. He does not say it represents a relative rank of sound quality.

However, it can show sub-standard results (which may not be audible) and show great results. As you can get great results for cheap, why other than features or build quality would you pay more for lesser results, even if they are inaudible?

So if something gets -110 db or better for noise and THD we know it won't be an audible sound problem if frequency response is good. It means noise is less than -110 db and THD is less than this. It represents solid engineering.

I myself don't like it because despite repeated explanations it seems almost everyone mistakes it for being the rank of quality of sound. In one sense it sort of does represent quality of fidelity, but in a sense of hearing one better than another it does not. It is a subtle difference. And Amir realizes some simplification is involved in such things. It also doesn't include some possible issues over the whole frequency range. So I sort of get it, but I wouldn't do it that way.

 

[TheBatsEar]

It tells you how far from "not transparent" they are.
In general, if they offer a SINAD of 96dB, their artifacts are below that of the best a CD (16 bits) can deliver, which i think can be called transparent (basically, you can't hear differences if they are transparent).

Don't overthink it. Why do family cars have a peak kmh of 190, others 191, when you aren't allowed to drive faster than 140 anyway?

 

[antcollinet]

Can someone explain to me the purpose of the SINAD list if all DACs sound the same. Obviously, it doesn't reflect the sound quality.

I ask because I really don't understand, and I ask that it not be understood as an attack on I don't know what.

Again : NO ONE says "all dacs sound the same" except people straw manning the discussion.

If a dac has high levels of noise or distortion - it might well sound different to one that has levels of noise/distortion below the level the human ear can detect. Or from another DAC with high noise/distortion of a different type.

 

[Aleksandar RS]

Many of us here don't like the SINAD chart and have complained. Amir's purpose was to give a simple idea to show superior engineering or at least superior results. He does not say it represents a relative rank of sound quality.

However, it can show sub-standard results (which may not be audible) and show great results. As you can get great results for cheap, why other than features or build quality would you pay more for lesser results, even if they are inaudible?

So if something gets -110 db or better for noise and THD we know it won't be an audible sound problem if frequency response is good. It means noise is less than -110 db and THD is less than this. It represents solid engineering.

I myself don't like it because despite repeated explanations it seems almost everyone mistakes it for being the rank of quality of sound. In one sense it sort of does represent quality of fidelity, but in a sense of hearing one better than another it does not. It is a subtle difference. And Amir realizes some simplification is involved in such things. It also doesn't include some possible issues over the whole frequency range. So I sort of get it, but I wouldn't do it that way.

Thanks

 

[TheBatsEar]

So if something gets -110 db or better for noise and THD we know it won't be an audible sound problem if frequency response is good. It means noise is less than -110 db and THD is less than this. It represents solid engineering.

Maybe we should just measure it up to 96 or so, then say "better than transparent".

I know @restorer-john doesn't like the word, but he isn't even my real mom, i can say any word i like.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Maybe we should just measure it up to 96 or so, then say "better than transparent".

I know @restorer-john doesn't like the word, but he isn't even my real mom, i can say any word i like.

I like this comment.

One thing ignored is cheap DACs outperform almost all ADCs even SOTA ones. ADCs on the recording end bottleneck the best playback DACs. Not necessarily by much, but they do.

 

[antcollinet]

.....but he isn't even my real mom, i can say any word i like.

Thanks - every day needs a laugh like that.

 

[Aleksandar RS]

It tells you how far from "not transparent" they are.
In general, if they offer a SINAD of 96dB, their artifacts are below that of the best a CD (16 bits) can deliver, which i think can be called transparent (basically, you can't hear differences if they are transparent).

Don't overthink it. Why do family cars have a peak kmh of 190, others 191, when you aren't allowed to drive faster than 140 anyway?

Ok, but the comparison with the car is not the happiest. The max speed of the car shows how easily the car will handle those 140.

 

[antcollinet]

Ok, but the comparison with the car is not the happiest. The max speed of the car shows how easily the car will handle those 140.

Analogies are just that - they are never perfect. Car ones are the worst

 

[DonR]

Ok, but the comparison with the car is not the happiest. The max speed of the car shows how easily the car will handle those 140.

No, it doesn't.