Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Frgirard]

The audiophile language is the reproduction of the literature of music reviewers
The both doing the same thing: listen music.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

Doesn't the end user's hearing matter most?

 

[Spkrdctr]

A brief digression from Randy Newman:

That was an AWESOME video. But, you now have an appointment with the FSB. Something about making fun of the greatest leader in our time. I would suggest running as fast as you can, cause Putin always get his man (or woman). Don't eat any radioactive substances any time soon........

 

[Robin L]

That was an AWESOME video. But, you now have an appointment with the FSB. Something about making fun of the greatest leader in our time. I would suggest running as fast as you can, cause Putin always get his man (or woman). Don't eat any radioactive substances any time soon........

 

[Killingbeans]

Doesn't the end user's hearing matter most?

For what? Coloration of the experience?

 

[Killingbeans]

That was an AWESOME video. But, you now have an appointment with the FSB. Something about making fun of the greatest leader in our time. I would suggest running as fast as you can, cause Putin always get his man (or woman). Don't eat any radioactive substances any time soon........

 

[dc655321]

Really? I must be ignoring those “certain” measurements. Please do share.

I said it is measurable, not that it was measured.
I don't follow monitor tech, so I don't know of examples.
The effect is adding content not present in the original signal - aka distortion.

Therefore my baseline is that whatever measurements you bring to the table are valuable only insofar as they are strong predictors for my preference. Otherwise what’s the point of it?

Measurements quantify fidelity - how faithfully a signal would be reproduced. That's the point.
If a signal is faithfully reproduced and yet not preferred, what does that say about the system reproducing the signal?
I don't know the answer.

Well based on what I read, I’m pretty certain that no-one knows. Much is known about atmospheric physics yet we cannot accurately predict the weather outside a small window.

Frequency response and directivity are interesting and important (to me). But based on what I listen, I don’t think they tell the relevant part of the story. As in, if speaker A does better in both compared to speaker B, it follows that A will sound better in my room, or that A would even sound better (to me) in any room.

If by "small window" you mean a period of several days, true, weather prediction is a difficult problem.
Inside that window, weather prediction has become amazingly accurate over the last 10-15 yrs.

You are providing fine examples of, "if I don't understand it, no one else can either". Thank you for that.
I'll leave you to it.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

For what? Coloration of the experience?

The customers’ experience is all that matters in the end.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

For what? Coloration of the experience?

Well, everything. What can you hear, what can you differentiate?

 

[symphara]

I said it is measurable, not that it was measured.
I don't follow monitor tech, so I don't know of examples.

So you have no idea but you just postulate something anyway. Seems in tune with the topic at hand.

 

[voodooless]

So you have no idea but you just postulate something anyway. Seems in tune with the topic at hand.

Detecting the soap opera effect is trivially simple. Just check the amount of individual frames in a timespan against the original source. Soap opera effect enabled will have created “new” frames. Obviously this will not tell you what exact processing was done, but it does show your looking at “enhanced” video. More advanced algorithms will give more detailed output.

I don’t see anything wrong with postulating in this case. If we can see it, we can measure it, no doubt in my mind about this.

 

[dc655321]

So you have no idea but you just postulate something anyway. Seems in tune with the topic at hand.

Please tell me you at least realize you've just demonstrated my point again?
I know how I would test it, and could certainly do so.
That you do not know has no bearing on anyone else's knowledge.

 

[Killingbeans]

The customers’ experience is all that matters in the end.

True. I'm mostly interested in the mechanics behind the experience. Hoop jumping might be the biggest contributor to the fun for many in this hobby, but I like the idea of having the option to keeping it at a minimum.

Well, everything. What can you hear, what can you differentiate?

Still don't follow. Are we talking about the hearing abilities of the end user?

And by 'everything', do you mean the perception of accuracy, or just enjoyment... or both?

I'm not in any way convinced than an experience necessarily implies an ability to differentiate something.

 

[BoredErica]

I think it's pretty clear based on how people type whether they're open minded on the idea of using measurements or they're just here to stir the pot and to try to piss off objectivists. And people who are the latter never understand measurements as well as I do, which is really saying something since I'm faaar from the most knowledgeable person on this forum. They don't understand what they criticize.

 

[rdenney]

But they just haven't. Believing is an act of faith, we're discussing science.

I was responding to the notion that the burden of disproving mystical effects is on the experts.

I just typed a long essay on it, but I deleted it. It's a waste of time.

When experts know what they know based on years of designing things and measuring what they designed (and putting it in front of listeners in controlled tests), they are entitled to confidence in that knowledge and experience. It is not their responsibility to prove that every claimed effect doesn't exist, if the claim finds no basis in the vast store of knowledge we already have. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate the validity of the novel experience. Too often, there is no attempt by the challenger to meet the experts halfway, either by reading background material, by reviewing how the effect they claim has been refuted by past controlled tests and blind comparisons, by postulating an electronic explanation that isn't patent BS, or by conducting their own properly constructed controlled test.

Rick "not expecting to persuade anyone" Denney

 

[Deleted member 21219]

They don't understand what they criticize.

What's the old adage? "What people cannot understand, they destroy. What they cannot destroy, they worship." Seems accurate to me. Jim

 

[SIY]

I was responding to the notion that the burden of disproving mystical effects is on the experts.

I just typed a long essay on it, but I deleted it. It's a waste of time.

When experts know what they know based on years of designing things and measuring what they designed (and putting it in front of listeners in controlled tests), they are entitled to confidence in that knowledge and experience. It is not their responsibility to prove that every claimed effect doesn't exist, if the claim finds no basis in the vast store of knowledge we already have. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate the validity of the novel experience. Too often, there is no attempt by the challenger to meet the experts halfway, either by reading background material, by reviewing how the effect they claim has been refuted by past controlled tests and blind comparisons, by postulating an electronic explanation that isn't patent BS, or by conducting their own properly constructed controlled test.

Rick "not expecting to persuade anyone" Denney

Russell's Teapot.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

True. I'm mostly interested in the mechanics behind the experience. Hoop jumping might be the biggest contributor to the fun for many in this hobby, but I like the idea of having the option to keeping it at a minimum.



Still don't follow. Are we talking about the hearing abilities of the end user?

And by 'everything', do you mean the perception of accuracy, or just enjoyment... or both?

I'm not in any way convinced than an experience necessarily implies an ability to differentiate something.

Great reply to what I’d posted and nothing I can disagree with. Certainly guilty of being a box swapper although with a caveat. As an example when it comes to speakers anything with an ABR or rear firing port are out. ABRs always make the bass sound soggy and because of my speakers being near to a back wall rear firing ports are out. Certain manufacturers are on my s*** list, Naim and Focal far too harsh.
Read a review in a magazine from a HiFi show before the virus struck they had listen to a Naim/Focal system and said it sounded clinical. Went to the same show and the people running the demo ripped one of my CDs and played it for me, it wasn’t clinical it was forensic, couldn’t get out of the room fast enough. Too much PRAT not enough melody and at the other end of the audio spectrum you have Copland, soporific. So for me it’s about enjoyment.

 

[rdenney]

Russell's Teapot.

Up to a point. But the burden of proving the existence of God is on God, not his apologists (who are merely instructed to present evidence), and that proof will be sufficient for those who have faith and insufficient for those who don't. What's the source of faith? Christians would say: God, a circularity some can't accept until they can. A person of both faith and science would expect God and his actions to be consistent with God's infinite understanding of science, and also consistent with our finite understanding as far as it goes. But the decision to have faith is not a scientific decision, nor is it a matter of simple persuasion. Rejecting God on the basis of science is tempting, but it assumes God's understanding of science is as limited as our own. Science can be a defense mechanism, too.

For that line of reasoning to transfer to audio stuff would deify audio and turn the purveyors of audio mysticism into priests with a special understanding of that deity. I'm waaaay too much of a Reformer to want priests between me and God. So, unless I see something in God's word that says "Verily, verily I say unto you, no two DACs can sound the same," I'll leave that discussion to engineering and science writ small, and depend on actual data and analysis (fact) to serve as evidence of truth.

Rick "a crackpot, maybe" Denney

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Up to a point. But the burden of proving the existence of God is on God,

Isn't that the same as saying "the burden of proving the existence of gravity is on gravity?" "The burden of proving the existence of evolution is on evolution?" If god doesn't exist, he can't possibly prove (or more-importantly disprove) his existence to us. We attempt to prove the existence of things by conducting experiments and collecting data and providing evidence.