Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Miguelón]

I think measurements are not also everything, but still the final objective of any instrument.

We are quite fortunate that we can know whats going on in an acoustic situation in which something sound unpleasant.

Is a room mode? Are harmonic distortion or clipping in the amplifier? A bad tweeter?

In video domain, you can have your RGB space, white temperature point, contrast ratio and other stuff that determines how will behave your TV or your tablet.

So on audio, even more necessary since more elements of interaction with the ambient are present.

Nobody buy a car without knowing its consumption, power, safety features… To me, detailed audio measurements should be mandatory by market regulations

 

[polocolo]

What is reasonable is the question. What's reasonable out in storyland isn't reasonable here.

Yes. It takes time and effort to examine one's stance and if it's reasonable. I always think a forum is a place to do that.

Matt gets a lot of pushback if you haven't noticed, but he has carved out his unique place here over many years as he walks his very fine line.

I have noticed and I was surprised by it since he manifests a degree of (scientific) rigour in his arguments that most don't. It's one of the reason I decided to jump in. From a purely formal perspective, his arguments are way more sound and yet, he's not heard. That's my concern.

For those looking to come here to tell us what we are missing, come with evidence not stories.

A formally perfect reasoning isn't evidence enough? I guess that's my question, now.

 

[polocolo]

I don't need or want to argue with you, but I was hoping I could clarify things a bit about ASR. Judging from your reaction, it would seem that you take what I say as an affront. If that's the case, then you're right, there's no point in further conversation. I'll try one more time. ASR is based on scientific principles, used to study sound reproduction. You can chose to attach emotions and other ancillary attributes to engineered devices, and even argue that TONS of people do so today, but that doesn't make that line of reasoning any more valid than the use of drugs to alter reality. And yes, tons of people do that, too.

Absolutely not what I said. At no point was my argument based on the fact that some or even numerous people do this or that.
Scientific principles are based on an epistemology. I was just curious as to why no one here wants to explain/justifiy it.

Farewell, dear pkane, I wish you well nonetheless.

 

[MAB]

And I already know everything you’re « teaching » here. I haven’t posted but I’ve been reading you guys for a while. I feel that you were replying to a caricature of me, in a way

You're just so humble.

What I don’t understand is: why, on a place dedicated to the means of domestic art reproduction, make so little room for the part that is not evidence-based?

You are reproducing somebody's art in a room, not creating. The Null-Hypothesis In - Out = 0 is the correct question.

 

[polocolo]

You're just so humble.

Lol. It was pretty basic, wasn't it? "ASR 101"! I don't think it's cocky to say I had read here it before. It's basically saying the forum taught it to me. That I learned it here.

You are reproducing somebody's art in a room, not creating. The Null-Hypothesis In - Out = 0 is the correct question.

Never said anything about creating.

 

[pkane]

In other words: I agree that we should be as objectivists as we can be in front of a crowd of subjectivists... but why be absolutely objectivists when conversing with objectivists who happen to be okay with a little subjectivism?

The thread that you posted to is the catch all for most subjectivist arguments. The reaction you're getting is typical for the types of arguments you appear to support. Not an unexpected result.

Farewell, dear pkane, I wish you well nonetheless.

I wish you well, also. Unlike you, I didn't find our discussion adversarial, but happy to leave it where it stands.

 

[MAB]

Lol. It was pretty basic, wasn't it? "ASR 101"! I don't think it's cocky to say I had read here it before. It's basically saying the forum taught it to me. That I learned it here.

No, it didn't read like that. Not the most important thing though.

Never said anything about creating.

Yes, you confuse the two different things, creation and reproduction.

 

[polocolo]

The thread that you posted to is the catch all for most subjectivist arguments. The reaction you're getting is typical for the types of arguments you appear to support. Not an unexpected result.

I don't see how anyone thought I was supporting these arguments. I was merely asking for an epistemological justification.

Unlike you, I didn't find our discussion adversarial,

Maybe because you were among peers while it felt like no-one understood what I was trying to say. Peace.

 

[BDWoody]

A formally perfect reasoning isn't evidence enough? I guess that's my question, now.

We aren't a bunch of navel gazers, we are just a bunch of nerds people who believe the goal of hi-fi music reproduction is just that. Hi-Fi as in high fidelity. It isn't more complicated, even though you feel it should be. Those who are looking for something else will likely be disappointed.

I feel that I've run out of acceptable responses and am just basically repeating myself at this point, so I'll beg out and let you ponder our place in the world without feeling I need to further explain why we are here, or justify how we approach 'things.'

Cheers, and I repeat my sincere welcome to the forum.

 

[polocolo]

No, it didn't read like that. Not the most important thing though.

Just because you didn't doesn't mean it didn't.

Yes, you confuse the two different things, creation and reproduction.

Never confused the two. Never supported anything about creating anything.

 

[polocolo]

We aren't a bunch of naval gazers, we are just a bunch of nerds people who believe the goal of hi-fi music reproduction is just that. Hi-Fi as in high fidelity. It isn't more complicated, even though you feel it should be. Those who are looking for something else will likely be disappointed.

I feel that I've run out of acceptable responses and am just basically repeating myself at this point, so I'll beg out and let you ponder our place in the world without feeling I need to further explain why we are here, or justify how we approach 'things.'

Cheers, and I repeat my sincere welcome to the forum.

Sure, okay, no worries. I'll let you be.

I thought that on a forum so keen on waving scientific principles, there would be genuine interest in diving into the conceptual foundation of said principles – which necessarily imply a formal justification of the epistemology at the basis of our claims.

I just find it a bit unfair to demand a scientific approach to others and then not actually be true to it when being asked to go a little deeper in the foundations of the knowledge (and I don't mean you in particular).

Thank you for the welcome. I'll keep reading. Probably won't post again, though. Clearly, what I have to bring is of no interest to anyone. Sorry to have bothered you.

 

[pkane]

Philosophy ≠ Science

Most scientists are not philosophers, and most philosophers are not scientists.
ASR is not a philosophy forum. This is also not a science forum -- it is a forum dedicated to application of scientific research and findings to audio equipment, aka, engineering.

 

[polocolo]

Philosophy ≠ Science

You could also say audio engineering ≠ science – and yet, you accept to ground your claim about the former on the latter. Why not do the extra step towards epistemology?

Most scientists are not philosophers, and most philosophers are not scientists.
ASR is not a philosophy forum. This is also not a science forum -- it is a forum dedicated to application of scientific research and findings to audio equipment, aka, engineering.

and yet, the forum is filled with assertions that have implicit and/or explicit philosophical or scientifically grounds. I'm sorry I didn't guess we weren't supposed to address them.

I feel the question in the thread is at least partly a philosophical one. It asks what knowledge we seek and value. Fascinating question. I thought that maybe some would find it fun – just that, fun – to tackle it with a different angle than the usual ones.

 

[Theta]

I'm like 90% in agreement with you. I do however see some credence to the idea that what we prefer is not always just the sound waves we prefer. Because our day to day experience with music is not "just the sound waves". I am not being argumentative just for argument's sake.

Now I've come around to the idea that making your decisions based upon what works with just the sound waves is the right path. The results are great, cheaper, easier to achieve and plain superior. For someone who is not in that place, they are not going to just be convinced all at once to have feelings and emotions that match that ideas of how this really works. That is not how people work.

I came to believe everything pretty reasonably other than speakers. I've detailed a few days ago how I came to be convinced on that. If someone can be given the knowledge to never go down the path offered by Stereophile and TAS then so much the better. People not around in the early days of those publications don't know the whole subjective community was super niche, oddball, outcasts, about as far from the mainstream as one could get without disappearing. Both published ostensibly 4 times a year and in reality for years more like 2.5 times a year. There was no market for them. If JGH wasn't strangely resilient, and Harry Pearson rich they would never have survived. JGH of course came to believe the path a dead end regretting being linked to the whole subjectivist enterprise.

According to my opinion, it was CD that let them take off. We had gear that was audibly near enough perfect and with CD finally a source that was. Why would this make these oddballs end up ruling the audio world other than at the very low end? Because once everything other than speakers was perfect, your subjectivity is all that could make a difference. They were already in the business of teaching subjectivity. The personalized approach was also non-technical. Just listen with your own two ears and compare with reality. It let everybody in on the game of making judgements about quality. The turgid truth now is everything is so good and so cheap you don't have to make any judgements. But people feel a sense of ownership, and identity when they make judgements.

I think you are underestimating people's feelings when their judgements represent something about them vs choosing the appropriate widget just like everyone else.

This paragraph is just a variation on loving music vs loving gear. The Alan Parson's quote:"Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment."

Like saying sports car drivers don't use the car to get somewhere, they go somewhere to enjoy driving the car. That doesn't sound all that bad to me.

"Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment" Great statement, dead on.

 

[JiiPee]

Oh, you're not very charitable in the conversation. That's too bad. I'm not a conflictual person, I won't engage in a rhetoric battle to look wittier.
Do you actually believe your answer adresses everything I said?

You can affirm that "the purpose of audio reproduction is exactly that: faithful sound reproduction" but it's too easy to affirm that is the end all and be all of the discussion.

Let's assume that it is. It doesn't forbid to question it.
If I ask "why is it its purpose?" what will you say? "so that we can have the truest experience of music?" and if I ask why it matters to have the "truest experience of music", what will you say?

(Any argument based on "how the artist intended it" is inherently flawed, I hope you know that)

If Your question really is "Why should the ASR insistence of faithful reproduction of original recording be the desired goal?", here is my answer:

First of all, it does not always have to be. For example: If the consumer's goal is "self-satisfaction achieved from shopping", the ASR point of view is probably not critical, but I think it should be obvious that these kind of cases are not meant to be within ASR scope anyway.

Concentrating on cases where the actual, or perceived, sound quality is what matters, I'd say we can divide it into two cases:
a) The consumer actually wants the faithful reproduction of the original recording. In this case, I think the merit of ASR approach is self-evident.
b) The consumer wants sound that pleases him, never mind the faithful reproduction. I will argue that the ASR approach is still the best option for him, because it is much easier to start with a faithfully reproducing system, and then use signal processing to modify the sound to Your liking, than to start with something else.

With a faithfully reproducing system, You have a known foundation that includes all the information needed. If Your system has already lost part of the information (via limited frequency response bandwidth for example), there is in practice very little You can do about it - even if satisfying You personal taste would require it.

As for the other basic parameters highlighted in ASR - distortion and noise - the thing to understand is that it is much easier to add them afterwards, if You wish to have them, than to take them away once they are induced in the signal. A well done steak can not be changed back to medium, and a brain tumor is extremely difficult to remove without removing also something You definitely wished to stay as it was.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Our perception is a combination of the sound, our biases, and a control element. That control element is evidentiary; it's based on science.

Yes and knowledge of that evidence, consequentially, also affects our biases.

 

[dshreter]

This conversation would be very different if the state of acoustic measurement was more mature.

You can do a great job of choosing electronics by looking up their specs for power handling and distortion.

On the flip side, fire up Room EQ Wizard and take some measurements, and it is very hard to relate those measurements to intuitive descriptions of what you are hearing in the room. Then the application of room correction involves advanced algorithms where it might be easy to interpret frequency response, but interpreting the time domain effects not so easy. And the evaluation of the performance of room correction algorithms? I would guess this requires an actual expert if you're not just judging with your ears.

If there were room measurements that were easy to access that gave intuitive descriptions of how a system sounds, I believe people would be much more apt to adopt measurements more completely into their approach.

 

[MAB]

Just because you didn't doesn't mean it didn't.

Never confused the two. Never supported anything about creating anything.

Well, you may claim to be unconfused, but you are an extremely confusing writer.
I am not going to argue semantics with you.
Present something concrete to discuss rather than extended word-play.

 

[Ken1951]

This brings up another issue ... one that has been in the back of my mind for quite some time.

What good are you doing here? Seriously ... who receives a benefit from your posts? When someone has a problem, do you try to help them? It seems to me that you obfuscate a great deal, but that you do not clarify very much. Isn't being helpful and kind one of the most basic (and most appreciated) human virtues?

Every day, when I see that you post here, I fervently wish that you were more helpful and less argumentative. Could you please humor me?

This is precisely why I put him on ignore ages ago. Same preachy (Incredibly long) tomes espousing the same position, time after time after time, ad nauseam.

 

[pkane]

You could also say audio engineering ≠ science – and yet, you accept to ground your claim about the former on the latter. Why not do the extra step towards epistemology?

Philosophers didn't create the scientific method. Philosophy came after, trying to poke holes and to create epistemology around it. To my mind, that's the main difference. Science comes up with testable models, predictions, and explanations. Engineering converts these models into practical implementations. Philosophy sits in an armchair, after the fact, trying to come up with questions about what was done and why it may be all wrong.