• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

Did you know one reason the Copernican model didn't displace the Ptolemaic model is the Ptolemaic model with its various corrections was the more accurate one at predicting planetary motion. Everyone was hung up on circles in the heavens as being perfection. When Kepler showed orbits were elliptical then everything fell into place it was far more accurate and simple.
I wonder if the trolls on astronomy sites keep telling people to prove that.
 
Did you know one reason the Copernican model didn't displace the Ptolemaic model is the Ptolemaic model with its various corrections was the more accurate one at predicting planetary motion. Everyone was hung up on circles in the heavens as being perfection. When Kepler showed orbits were elliptical then everything fell into place it was far more accurate and simple.
I did know that. I am sure you also know Copernican Model puts the Sun at the center of the Universe. Did you also know that up until 1920s, we were not aware that other nebulae we see in the night sky are different galaxies and that there is a tiny bit more to the Universe than just Milky Way. Fast forward 100 years and we don't care what science says, If I hear a difference it is different.

How fascinating.
 
I did know that. I am sure you also know Copernican Model puts the Sun at the center of the Universe. Did you also know that up until 1920s, we were not aware that other nebulae we see in the night sky are different galaxies and that there is a tiny bit more to the Universe than just Milky Way. Fast forward 100 years and we don't care what science says, If I hear a difference it is different.

How fascinating.
But they didn't have random YouTube recordings back then to hear all the nuances :rolleyes::facepalm:
 
I did know that. I am sure you also know Copernican Model puts the Sun at the center of the Universe. Did you also know that up until 1920s, we were not aware that other nebulae we see in the night sky are different galaxies and that there is a tiny bit more to the Universe than just Milky Way. Fast forward 100 years and we don't care what science says, If I hear a difference it is different.

How fascinating.
Yes I knew that. Edwin Hubble did much of the convincing work though not he alone. The use of Cepheid variables for distance estimation etc. There is a nice not terribly technical book about those involved at that time. "The Day we Found the Universe" by Marcia Bartusiak. Einstein didn't believe the uinverse was expanding, but Hubble and others convinced him with their data. So one of the great scientists was convinced by data to change his opinion, and today so many knowing they don't know refuse to be convinced I guess because everyone is entitled to their own opinion ignoring the platitude they aren't entitled to their own facts.
 
Last edited:
Yes I knew that. Edwin Hubble did much of the convincing work though not he alone. The use of Cepheid variables for distance estimation etc. There is a nice not terribly technical book about those involved at that time. "The Day we Found the Universe" by Marcia Bartusiak. Einstein didn't believe the uinverse was expanding, but Hubble and others convinced him with their data. So one of the great scientists was convinced by data to change his opinion, and today so many knowing they don't know refuse to be convinced I guess because everyone is entitled to their opinion ignoring the platitude they aren't entitled to their own facts.
That is the thing isn't it. People just think that science has been wrong before, maybe it is wrong this time too.

Here, my personal experiences, take them, I humbly donate them to science. Take it and go figure out.

As if it was a guy in this robe-de-chambers looking at the night sky that convinced Einstein his cosmological constant was not a good idea.
 
I think it really got to me because I realized I was thinking like the friend in that story, that it is natural to assume the Sun went around the Earth, until you realize the absurdity of that statement. Even though we know how things work, we can not help falling into the trap of our naive observations.

Agree, but I think about it a bit differently.

Relative to a fixed point on earth, the universe revolves around that point. It's not so absurd, it works for many day-to-day things people do, but it's only consistent with limited observational data and thus incomplete. It isn't a useful model when we need to consider the physics and mechanics of the rest of the universe, and so on.

I don't entirely agree with your final statement, even though some see it as the essence of the rebuttal for subjectivist observations in audio. If we "know how things work" (or simply have a more complete model for them) we aren't inevitably "falling into the trap". We can certainly, but why do that? If I hear an audio component delivering a certain sound impression (keeping in mind that it will be part of a chain of components, assume we changed one of them) I don't assume that the perceived sonics are necessarily an objective result of that component: there are a number of possibilities, everything from complex interaction with other components to my emotional response to an instance of hearing the musical signal.
 
Agree, but I think about it a bit differently.

Relative to a fixed point on earth, the universe revolves around that point. It's not so absurd, it works for many day-to-day things people do, but it's only consistent with limited observational data and thus incomplete. It isn't a useful model when we need to consider the physics and mechanics of the rest of the universe, and so on.

I don't entirely agree with your final statement, even though some see it as the essence of the rebuttal for subjectivist observations in audio. If we "know how things work" (or simply have a more complete model for them) we aren't inevitably "falling into the trap". We can certainly, but why do that? If I hear an audio component delivering a certain sound impression (keeping in mind that it will be part of a chain of components, assume we changed one of them) I don't assume that the perceived sonics are necessarily an objective result of that component: there are a number of possibilities, everything from complex interaction with other components to my emotional response to an instance of hearing the musical signal.
It was not supposed to be a rebuttal to defenders of subjectivity, and I think it is true for objecticivist view as well, is that truths that look blindingly obvious can actually be blindingly and obviously incorrect.
 
Linearity in speakers and other gear doesn't guarantee go sound. Human hearing itself is so deeply flawed and prone to variables (like listening in the morning or the evening, relaxed or under stress, standing up or sitting down), linearity means nothing. Well, it may mean something to studio engineers mastering a recording, but not to the people who end up listening to said recording. Because our own listening is so flawed.

I remember a review of a high-priced pair of Burmester floor-standing speakers in a magazine back in the day. The measurements were ANYthing BUT linear. But they were still rated "reference class" by the reviewer. I found that very enlightening.
 
Linearity in speakers and other gear doesn't guarantee go sound. Human hearing itself is so deeply flawed and prone to variables (like listening in the morning or the evening, relaxed or under stress, standing up or sitting down), linearity means nothing. Well, it may mean something to studio engineers mastering a recording, but not to the people who end up listening to said recording. Because our own listening is so flawed.

I remember a review of a high-priced pair of Burmester floor-standing speakers in a magazine back in the day. The measurements were ANYthing BUT linear. But they were still rated "reference class" by the reviewer. I found that very enlightening.
Perhaps more a statement about reviewers. They often are keenly aware they need advertiser money.
 
I never had much respect for those hifi gear magazines (in my country: Stereoplay, Stereo, Hifi-Magazin and such) myself. Obviously, these people aren't real journalists, and are pressured to rate the most expensive gear most highly. My main argument here is that human hearing itself is so deeply flawed that the "measured" linearity doesn't mean much to the listener in an everyday situation.
 
I never had much respect for those hifi gear magazines (in my country: Stereoplay, Stereo, Hifi-Magazin and such) myself. Obviously, these people aren't real journalists, and are pressured to rate the most expensive gear most highly. My main argument here is that human hearing itself is so deeply flawed that the "measred" linearity doesn't mean much to the listener in an everyday situaion.
I have to disagree. Our hearing is what it is, and to sound natural the speaker needs to broadcast sound into the room in an orderly manner.
 
Measurements are important, no question there. I take issue when measurements get so good that improvements in them cannot result in any audible difference, but people strive to get kit that has one more zero between the decimal point and the first non-zero digit to the right of it in the distortion spec.
 
I have to disagree. Our hearing is what it is, and to sound natural the speaker needs to broadcast sound into the room in an orderly manner.
What he said!

@sound67 it doesn’t matter how ‘chaotic’ the ear is, when it listens to live music it calls that natural, so a hifi needs to linearly reproduce that so the ear will call it natural too.

This is not just theory: careful research backs it up. Our ‘chaotic’ ear is quite sensitive to when reproduced sound doesn’t reflect the parameters of real instruments and voices, and rejects it as less preferred.
 
This exchange with @blackdiamond has made me conscious about how I use measurements .... and how others use them. It had always bothered me that there were consumers who used measurements to find the ne plus ultra in their quests. All around us, we are bombarded with that type of thinking. Stereophile has its "best of ..." ratings. The car mags constantly tease us with which car is "best". Firearms publications have articles on the "best" pistol or the "best" shotgun. Even yoga pants are "rated". :rolleyes:

I can see that this competitive way of thinking has become part and parcel of our modern society. Everyone wants to know, "Which one is best, and how do I get it?". The cost of the object at the pinnacle is assumed to be commensurate .... and it usually is.

I don't think that way.

I want something that satisfies my requirements. To get to that point, I use measurements, but I use them to reject what is inferior or inapplicable. The remainder are all "good enough", and further winnowing is based on purely personal or financial criteria.
I have noticed that some people are offended by this way of thinking. They view "good enough" as a heresy or a crime. They call it "settling for second-best", and deride it.

I don't view it as settling for second-best at all. Sometimes I view it as settling for third-best. :p Seriously, though ....... I view this competitive mode of thought with a great deal of discomfort. It breeds dissatisfaction and causes consumers to not use that which is useful and not apply that which is applicable, all because they overlook what is at hand while they gaze wistfully at the horizon for something "better". (Notice I said "consumers". I realize that scientists and engineers constantly search for something "better".) By association, this means that I reject uncontrolled consumerism.

So when @blackdiamond asked about selecting a DAC, amp, cables and so forth, I was in a quandary. I was at a loss what to tell him. I kept thinking, "Well, just pick one that works. There are hundreds." That's how out-of-touch I am with the competitive (or comparative) way of thinking; I don't know how to explain "good enough".

All I know is that I enjoy listening to music on my "second-best" system, and my sleep is not disturbed by thoughts of "gotta-have-it" or "is-this-better-than-that". If I could give that peace to @blackdiamond , I would consider it a wonderful gift.

And if that's a crime, then I'm happy to be a criminal. ;)

Jim Taylor

p.s. - The biggest reason I liked ASR when I discovered it was that Amir seemed to concentrate on showing which items didn't met specs. That was the sort of information that I desired. I wasn't interested in finding out how many veils were lifted.
I appreciate this post and line of thinking. Contrary to what it may appear, my intent is to better understand the various approaches to audio. I've spent a lot of time on Audiogon where there are a lot of people that have experienced things that I simply cannot imagine being reality. I am an engineer by profession (not an EE) and one of my best friends in an EE that is also into audio gear. We routinely chat about the things audiophiles claim can made a difference and how it might be possible or why it simply makes no sense. So much of audiophile marketing is pseudo science and/or blatantly false. What I've found in my experience is that I've heard things that surprised me, so my response has been to experience more things for myself.

My systems is very nice by any normal standard, but is nowhere near a high end system by audiophile standards where individual cables can cost more than my entire system. One of my online audiophile friends is constantly telling me to put my money into bigger and better components rather than wasting time with cables and such. The difference is that his goal is to achieve the ultimate no expense spared system and my current systems already exceeds anything that I really considered a goal. I'm not unhappy with any part of my system and am now trying things to experience things for myself with a goal to try and make sense of what other audiophiles claim to experience.

There a wide spectrum from measurements are meaningless so trust your ears to everything that people claim they hear is a figment of their imagination. I don't have any idea where the actual middle is between the two extremes, but I can say that my experiences have moved me more toward the trusting my ears side from where I originally started though I think I'm likely still very close to the middle overall.

I've also learned that finding differences can easily lead to dissatisfaction which is where I feel that placebo and expectation bias are the primary factors. For example, I've made some changes and didn't have a positive response to, but when I switched back to the original setup it was like a 3rd setup proving that I was chasing a ghost and false memory. Another example was changing speaker cables were I didn't like the change and when I finally switched back it was like a breath of fresh air where things were right again. I this case I consider the difference to be real and significant enough for placebo and expectation bias to not be the primary factors.

My goal isn't to chase the rainbow, but instead to optimize my system and experience for myself which type of things result in real changes and which don't.

In forum discussions, I "press" people with the goal of trying to understand their thought process and do not have the goal of convincing them of anything or necessarily change my belief (though I'm open to it).

If I'm not active for a while it's primarily because work has consumed my life (starting this week) to a point where I'll be lucky to come home at the end of the day. Please understand that I'm not upset, offended, or anything thing else.
 
It was not supposed to be a rebuttal to defenders of subjectivity,

Don’t worry, I didn’t think you meant that.

and I think it is true for objecticivist view as well, is that truths that look blindingly obvious can actually be blindingly and obviously incorrect.

For sure. But if we treat perceptions and conceptual models as heuristics there is less risk of that kind of error.
 
The interesting part for me is not that our senses were misleading in that instance (they weren't) but that one model for interpretation of that sensory input was off and led to incorrect analysis.
Correct.

Our sense organs are reliable, passive transducers which operate according to well understood mechanistic principles. If they weren't, speakers, headphones, iem's, glasses, hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc. wouldn't work.

When we purchase any new piece of audio equipment (that has a truly objective and measurable impact on the music we hear) there is a cognitive dissonance which arises from the fact that the incoming music (feedforward) is blended with our prior memory, expectation and bias (feedback) that's informing us how the music "should" sound. It can take weeks or months to overcome this bias and appreciate our new purchase.

This is different from claiming to hear a differences in new audio equipment in which there is no measurable or audible differences from our existing equipment.
 
I appreciate this post and line of thinking. Contrary to what it may appear, my intent is to better understand the various approaches to audio. I've spent a lot of time on Audiogon where there are a lot of people that have experienced things that I simply cannot imagine being reality. I am an engineer by profession (not an EE) and one of my best friends in an EE that is also into audio gear. We routinely chat about the things audiophiles claim can made a difference and how it might be possible or why it simply makes no sense. So much of audiophile marketing is pseudo science and/or blatantly false. What I've found in my experience is that I've heard things that surprised me, so my response has been to experience more things for myself.

My systems is very nice by any normal standard, but is nowhere near a high end system by audiophile standards where individual cables can cost more than my entire system. One of my online audiophile friends is constantly telling me to put my money into bigger and better components rather than wasting time with cables and such. The difference is that his goal is to achieve the ultimate no expense spared system and my current systems already exceeds anything that I really considered a goal. I'm not unhappy with any part of my system and am now trying things to experience things for myself with a goal to try and make sense of what other audiophiles claim to experience.

There a wide spectrum from measurements are meaningless so trust your ears to everything that people claim they hear is a figment of their imagination. I don't have any idea where the actual middle is between the two extremes, but I can say that my experiences have moved me more toward the trusting my ears side from where I originally started though I think I'm likely still very close to the middle overall.

I've also learned that finding differences can easily lead to dissatisfaction which is where I feel that placebo and expectation bias are the primary factors. For example, I've made some changes and didn't have a positive response to, but when I switched back to the original setup it was like a 3rd setup proving that I was chasing a ghost and false memory. Another example was changing speaker cables were I didn't like the change and when I finally switched back it was like a breath of fresh air where things were right again. I this case I consider the difference to be real and significant enough for placebo and expectation bias to not be the primary factors.

My goal isn't to chase the rainbow, but instead to optimize my system and experience for myself which type of things result in real changes and which don't.

In forum discussions, I "press" people with the goal of trying to understand their thought process and do not have the goal of convincing them of anything or necessarily change my belief (though I'm open to it).

If I'm not active for a while it's primarily because work has consumed my life (starting this week) to a point where I'll be lucky to come home at the end of the day. Please understand that I'm not upset, offended, or anything thing else.
Don't be offended BD, but on this site, wall of text responses, such as yours, do tend to be subjective. If I should dare to use the term, "we".
We tend to just say that for our artificial music enjoyment. The measurements suffice.
 
For example, I've made some changes and didn't have a positive response to, but when I switched back to the original setup it was like a 3rd setup proving that I was chasing a ghost and false memory. Another example was changing speaker cables were I didn't like the change and when I finally switched back it was like a breath of fresh air where things were right again. I this case I consider the difference to be real and significant enough for placebo and expectation bias to not be the primary factors.

You are dancing all around it, but recognizing the very real impact of normal human bias, and controlling for it with actual controls is really a starting point when it comes to making these comparisons.

The brain is in the business of making stuff up, and it's very clever at it.

Here, we try to cut through the claims and anecdotes and see if there is any actual evidence behind them, and if not they can be (and often are) unceremoniously dismissed.

This quote from Gordon Holt expresses it well.

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html#:~:text=Do you see,spreading my gospel.

"Do you see any signs of future vitality in high-end audio?

Vitality? Don't make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel."

Of course, this is exactly NOT what is in the best interest of those who sell products based on a good story and belief rather than reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom