Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[IAtaman]

Isnt Nyquist filter a TV thing? Is there an audio Nyquist filter as well?

Dunno. Obviously a lot of our trolls haven't heard about Fourier, either. Maybe give it another few hundred years.

Who?

 

[JaMaSt]

I've seen this claim before, but haven't seen any evidence that it is true. I'm old enough to remember first hand people like Gordon Holt proclaiming that the sound was the best they'd ever heard. Were there some bad CDs? Sure, and that was true throughout the lifetime of that medium (and every other medium).

I agree. I think I was a freshman in college when I got my first CD player (1986-ish). I thought I'd died and gone to heaven, the sound was so good (even on my so/so Kenwood stack, Altec Lansing speakers and $99 Sony Studio Monitor headphones). I still have some of those CD's (flac's now...) and some, but not all, sound better than some "remasters" that I bought years later thinking to improve the sound.

 

[Mulder]

That I don't accept, that's almost claiming that subjectivists are stupid. The subjectivist audiophiles I have personally know are smart people, engineers even, and know very well all the biases that cloud our judgements. They also were people who valued rationalism and live their lives accordingly. They laugh at people who believe in gods, astrology, homeopathy etc.

But then there is hifi. For this ONE case they make an exception. No proof is needed, what they experience is not confirmation bias, they hear the things so clearly, science is not yet there when it comes to audio, blind tests hide differences... It is completely infuriating sometimes, although less and less as I have grown older.

This has nothing to do with being smart or stupid. You can not get yourself rid of bias even if you are aware of confirmation bias. I have myself experienced how huge percieved differences have just disapeared when going from sighted to blind testing. A couple of blind tests are a very effective cure against all ideas about the ”I put trust in my ears”- idea.

 

[pkane]

Obviously a lot of our trolls haven't heard about Fourier, either. Maybe give it another few hundred years

Who?

Seems like some kind of celebrity here on ASR. Never met the guy.

 

[Sokel]

Seems like some kind of celebrity here on ASR. Never met the guy.

Let's see:

@fourier
@Fourier

Nope,our reality is still solid,no multidimensional users.

 

[JaMaSt]

Seems like some kind of celebrity here on ASR. Never met the guy.

He's hard to get a lock on since he's so fast and likes to transform himself almost constantly.

 

[bodhi]

A couple of blind tests are a very effective cure against all ideas about the ”I put trust in my ears”- idea.

Not if you counter with "blind test stress masks differences" or "you need to get used to the gear in your own room for a few days"

 

[fpitas]

Not if you counter with "blind test stress masks differences" or "you need to get used to the gear in your own room for a few days"

And the ever popular, "The test system isn't resolving enough to hear the difference!"

 

[voodooless]

He's hard to get a lock on since he's so fast and likes to transform himself almost constantly.

Must be family of Schrödinger then…

 

[bodhi]

And the ever popular, "The test system isn't resolving enough to hear the difference!"

Seasoned subjectivist will not use that as it is followed by "I'll bring the test gear to your living room".

 

[Koeitje]

What is the reference, what is our reference in photo , video?Not the limitations of the equipment or the data, it is whether our senses believe in what we see.

The first LCD TVs were terrible to look at even though they were technically better than what they replaced, CDs were terrible to listen to even though from an engineer's point of view CDs were perfect sound forever.

Fortunately, we had a reference, the reality we experience every day.

Over time, both CD and LCD were aligned with this reference.
With CD it had a lot to do with the filter Nyquist forgot that people wanted to hear something similar to reality.

With TV it was backlight and screen that were the main problem.
Both are something you can't read off the data sheet, but it's easy to hear or see.

There is nothing wrong in precision , in good data , but as long as hifi is not like a calculator or a measuring instrument where there is always one and only one result , possibly with a tolerance added.
In my opinion, does this have to be taken into account

hifi and especially high-end is a combination of precision ,the measurable plus experience and experimentation with all that is difficult to measure with certainty with anything but ear and brain:
soundstage Image rhythm , fidelity sound perceived resolution ,dynamics and more.

Parameters that mean more to the hifi experience than precision alone for most.
This is so because hifi is not a one to one reproduction, it is not flawless , at best a good illusion is achieved, the errors must be chosen with care for least damage to the hifi experience , it is more about choosing the right structure For the inevitable errors , than the amount

Comparing LCD technology to CDs make absolutely zero sense. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital audio works.

 

[MattHooper]

I've seen this claim before, but haven't seen any evidence that it is true. I'm old enough to remember first hand people like Gordon Holt proclaiming that the sound was the best they'd ever heard. Were there some bad CDs? Sure, and that was true throughout the lifetime of that medium (and every other medium).

I think people knew about Nyquist in 1983.

Yes the "CD's sounded awful at first" claim seems almost an article of faith at this point.

Just like the "Measurements can't tell you how something sounds, because...Remember all those solid state amps that measured 'perfect' but sounded awful?"

No. No I don't.

 

[DonR]

Comparing LCD technology to CDs make absolutely zero sense. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital audio works.

Reaching for an analogy rather than explaining why is usually a tell that the subject matter is not fully grasped.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Reaching for an analogy rather than explaining why is usually a tell that the subject matter is not fully grasped.

Guilty.

 

[DonR]

Guilty.

I as well and that is why I am endeavouring to eliminate analogies from my lexicon.

 

[MattHooper]

Comparing LCD technology to CDs make absolutely zero sense. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital audio works.

Right.

It's like saying because video games have made so many improvements since "Pong" it's reasonable to suggest early digital watches "weren't any more accurate than analog watches."

Reaching for an analogy rather than explaining why is usually a tell that the subject matter is not fully grasped.

Yeah.

It's like how you wouldn't want to go under the knife of a brain surgeon who could only describe the brain as "like a bag of wet noodles."

 

[JaMaSt]

I as well and that is why I am endeavouring to eliminate analogies from my lexicon.

Maybe you can clarify, with an analogy, what you hope you'll accomplish in eliminating analogies from your lexicon?

 

[DonR]

Maybe you can clarify, with an analogy, what you hope you'll accomplish in eliminating analogies from your lexicon?

No need for an analogy. I can explain why.

If I feel myself reaching for an analogy, I tell myself I need to look at the subject matter more to gain a more thorough understanding and explain my position better.

 

[MattHooper]

No need for an analogy. I can explain why.

If I feel myself reaching for an analogy, I tell myself I need to look at the subject matter more to gain a more thorough understanding and explain my position better.

Not that I'm looking to change your direction but...analogies can also be a sign of someone having a firm grasp on a subject, and knowing how to analogize and simplify it to get the point across to someone else.

For instance: Feynman when teaching made extensive use of analogies. One wouldn't say this was a sign he didn't grasp his subject.


*(I think my previous reply flew under the radar ).

 

[DonR]

Not that I'm looking to change your direction but...analogies can also be a sign of someone having a firm grasp on a subject, and knowing how to analogize and simplify it to get the point across to someone else.

For instance: Feynman when teaching made extensive use of analogies. One wouldn't say this was a sign he didn't grasp his subject.


*(I think my previous reply flew under the radar ).

He obviously had a good grasp of the use of analogies. Maybe that is where I am lacking. The problem as I see it is there never seems to be a perfect analogy and in the imperfections lies misunderstanding.