• 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?

Then I have more of a listening to music hobby.
This. I'm interested in equipment, but not in acquiring or chasing it. If either of my AVRs fail I'll buy new ones. If my beloved GA555 fails, same thing. I love the engineering and the performance and following what's being developed. But it's music and video I love.
 
Then I have more of a listening to music hobby.

Perhaps, but isn’t spending lots of time and thousands of posts talking about audio gear on a gear forum just another way of spending time thinking about the gear?

(this is in no way implying that anybody is any less into the music for doing so!)
 
Then I have more of a listening to music hobby.
mmm, not this.

I take that hobby as a given in all cases. I know, I know, there are those who claim that "audiophiles" buy music to listen to gear and not the other way around, but honestly, I think that people make that claim as a way of asserting some kind of superiority, while denigrating others who have high standards for audio playback gear.

I tend to be much more generous and universally assume that people here with a 'hifi hobby' have a primary interest in the media that the gear is reproducing. The only real question, IMHO, is how much they want that media to be heard with all the rich nuance that the production can yield.

See, it's still all about the media.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but I agree with a 'but'.

Namely, if I should be demonstrated a system that clearly sounds better than mine, is comfortably affordable, and doesn't entail domestic dramas, then yes I will pursue that. That fact that, like you, what I have now is better than what I started out aiming for, or that it is never bad and sometimes quite stunning, doesn't kill off my interest in the next level. To me, that is having a hifi hobby. Saying no to such a system is kind of like saying I no longer have a hifi hobby.

cheers
I suppose that open up a wider question as to what is the hobby?

Building your own equipment certainly is, but just buying equipment and plugging it in?

I have friends who are always seeking out new cables, rotating DACs, changing capacitors, trying things like fuses, grounding boxes, burn in discs. They don't want to know about cognitive bias as in their words 'It ruins the hobby.'

So that is their hobby, but it isn't mine. I do question if I actually have hi-fi as a hobby at all. Maybe it is just an interest and nothing more.

I started with no money so learning about audio playback was a means to an end - getting good sound on the cheap. I think really that all I ever wanted to achieve was a better sound than the Aiwa midi system I started with and, once there, just kick back and listen to music.

At some point I got drawn in a bit further than that. Now I ended up buying the electronics pretty much for entirely what they look like - build quality and appearance. And I have new speakers arriving, but that's more of a 'Because I can' than because I think it will jump things up to some new level of wonder.

I like to chat about hi-fi with fellow nuts, but is that a hobby? I don't really think so. And I still like to learn about how it all works, but these days only from an academic perspective since I'm unlikely to put that to practical use.

I don't think it was ever really a hobby for me. More like a habit.
 
Last edited:
mmm, not this.

I take that hobby as a given in all cases. I know, I know, there are those who claim that "audiophiles" buy gear to listen to music and not the other way around, but honestly, I think that people make that claim as a way of asserting some kind of superiority, while denigrating others who have high standards for audio playback gear.

I tend to be much more generous and universally assume that people here with a 'hifi hobby' have a primary interest in the media that the gear is reproducing. The only real question, IMHO, is how much they want that media to be heard with all the rich nuance that the production can yield.

See, it's still all about the media.
I don't mean to make myself out as more virtuous in some way, but my gear acquisition jones is very intermittent. In fact, from roughly 1994 to 2018, the only change I made to my primary system was what I needed to move from CD to local music server to server+streaming. I tend not to have the urge unless a) I'm kitting out a new space b) the technology changes in some material way or c) something goes wrong/breaks.

In my NYC system I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the Revels I have in my other system to the Harbeths I have now, side by side. But I find myself pretty happy listening to music with the Harbeths and have no urge to make that upgrade. And, of course, the electronics are all as good as they are going to get....
 
I tend to be much more generous and universally assume that people here with a 'hifi hobby' have a primary interest in the media that the gear is reproducing.

I’m sure I’m not the only one surprised by this statement. Plenty of us on the vinyl thread are used to judgements like this made about members who enjoy playing records…

If you are "all about the music", then digital is literally the only sensible choice. To choose vinyl is to be "all about the gear".

But if you are turning a new page, that’s great! :)
 
I’m sure I’m not the only one surprised by this statement. Plenty of us on the vinyl thread are used to judgements like this made about members who enjoy playing records…

If you are "all about the music", then digital is literally the only sensible choice. To choose vinyl is to be "all about the gear".

But if you are turning a new page, that’s great! :)
You people with your turntables, yes, all about the gear. All of you. Even @Newman :rolleyes:

I'm asserting superiority what with my digital only system, only proper high quality for me.

(Returns to listening to acoustic recordings of Paderewski from 1912 on Qobuz)
 
mmm, not this.

I take that hobby as a given in all cases. I know, I know, there are those who claim that "audiophiles" buy gear to listen to music and not the other way around, but honestly, I think that people make that claim as a way of asserting some kind of superiority, while denigrating others who have high standards for audio playback gear.

I tend to be much more generous and universally assume that people here with a 'hifi hobby' have a primary interest in the media that the gear is reproducing. The only real question, IMHO, is how much they want that media to be heard with all the rich nuance that the production can yield.

See, it's still all about the media.
I see plenty of people around who actually move through gear because they want to hear the music presented in different ways from systems that sound different.

But is that listening to gear, or wanting to listen to music differently? Whatever it is, it's clearly a branch of audiophilia, and it's that subset of audiophiles that maybe get us all accused of listening to gear.

I find it interesting that people go straight to the insult - just like ASR being a cult where we only listen to measurements.
 
The ‘hobby’ aspect of hi-fi is important for many, trying different stuff, experimenting hoping to obtain the ultimate sound which marketing promises.
Isn’t that the appeal for many it was for me and in many respects still is just now I realise that some elements will bring no improvement whatsoever no matter how much they cost.
I believe the ‘fear’ of having the hobby aspect removed or at least diminished is what drives many to criticise ASR.
Keith
 
The ‘hobby’ aspect of hi-fi is important for many, trying different stuff, experimenting hoping to obtain the ultimate sound which marketing promises.
Isn’t that the appeal for many it was for me and in many respects still is just now I realise that some elements will bring no improvement whatsoever no matter how much they cost.
I believe the ‘fear’ of having the hobby aspect removed or at least diminished is what drives many to criticise ASR.
Keith

I don't think you have to fear that that part of the hobby will be removed or diminished, the hype train looks exactly the same on ASR as on any other audio site.

Just have a look at the complete hype process going on right from the start and throughout this thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/topping-to-release-a-new-iem!.48284/
 
Not sure how and why such debates are on going.
As from personal or objective point, there is no gear that DOESN'T influnce nor color the sound.
One would impose certain harmonics in and the outher would remove even what is existing in a source etc..

Since I'm personally part of this game I'm really sick and tired in neverending debates between who is RIGHT or who is WRONG.

Everyone can measure and bounce to the results but NONE will give you the REALITY and HOW IT SHOULD SOUND LIKE as there is NO REFERENCE you can bound to. The measurements are only relative tho what EXACTLY? IF someone knows this pelase share but don't commnet for no reason trying to be smart in front of the audience.

Finally if one want to prove MEASUREMENTS on PROFFESIONAL level please show case the following: Bring live musician(s) to play, put them in parallel on a playback system and COMPARE the difference.
As long as we don't have exact output (where also the audience can't distinguish between two) from the playback system we can dance in a loop, masure whatever and however we want but we CAN'T proove anything there. And in reverse engineering approch we need try to figure out where the problems are in a playback system, correct them, measure them and do this as long as we need to match the output. CAN we do that? do we KNOW how to DO THAT?

Once we do that then we can state WE HAVE A PROPER SOUNDING EQUIPMENT AND A PROPER MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE as a REFERENCE POINT FOR ALL THE OTHERS.
Until them we all can DERAM ON on stories and feritails about the measurements and sounding gear..

This is a reality, everything else is a nice hobby. And yes, I'm in this hobby too so don't feel accused :)
 
IEMs are transducers one component that really can make a difference , subjective ‘hobbyists’ are an order of magnitude more crazy,
from the electricity supply, plugs, fuses in the plugs cables ( cable lifters) the list is endless.
One told me the other day that an integrated system would for him be like being in prison.
Keith
 
Not sure how and why such debates are on going.
As from personal or objective point, there is no gear that DOESN'T influnce nor color the sound.
One would impose certain harmonics in and the outher would remove even what is existing in a source etc..

Since I'm personally part of this game I'm really sick and tired in neverending debates between who is RIGHT or who is WRONG.

Everyone can measure and bounce to the results but NONE will give you the REALITY and HOW IT SHOULD SOUND LIKE as there is NO REFERENCE you can bound to. The measurements are only relative tho what EXACTLY? IF someone knows this pelase share but don't commnet for no reason trying to be smart in front of the audience.

Finally if one want to prove MEASUREMENTS on PROFFESIONAL level please show case the following: Bring live musician(s) to play, put them in parallel on a playback system and COMPARE the difference.
As long as we don't have exact output (where also the audience can't distinguish between two) from the playback system we can dance in a loop, masure whatever and however we want but we CAN'T proove anything there. And in reverse engineering approch we need try to figure out where the problems are in a playback system, correct them, measure them and do this as long as we need to match the output. CAN we do that? do we KNOW how to DO THAT?

Once we do that then we can state WE HAVE A PROPER SOUNDING EQUIPMENT AND A PROPER MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE as a REFERENCE POINT FOR ALL THE OTHERS.
Until them we all can DERAM ON on stories and feritails about the measurements and sounding gear..

This is a reality, everything else is a nice hobby. And yes, I'm in this hobby too so don't feel accused :)
BOUNCING this one straight into the neverending messurements thread !
 
Not sure how and why such debates are on going.
As from personal or objective point, there is no gear that DOESN'T influnce nor color the sound.
One would impose certain harmonics in and the outher would remove even what is existing in a source etc..

Since I'm personally part of this game I'm really sick and tired in neverending debates between who is RIGHT or who is WRONG.

Everyone can measure and bounce to the results but NONE will give you the REALITY and HOW IT SHOULD SOUND LIKE as there is NO REFERENCE you can bound to. The measurements are only relative tho what EXACTLY? IF someone knows this pelase share but don't commnet for no reason trying to be smart in front of the audience.

Finally if one want to prove MEASUREMENTS on PROFFESIONAL level please show case the following: Bring live musician(s) to play, put them in parallel on a playback system and COMPARE the difference.
As long as we don't have exact output (where also the audience can't distinguish between two) from the playback system we can dance in a loop, masure whatever and however we want but we CAN'T proove anything there. And in reverse engineering approch we need try to figure out where the problems are in a playback system, correct them, measure them and do this as long as we need to match the output. CAN we do that? do we KNOW how to DO THAT?

Once we do that then we can state WE HAVE A PROPER SOUNDING EQUIPMENT AND A PROPER MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE as a REFERENCE POINT FOR ALL THE OTHERS.
Until them we all can DERAM ON on stories and feritails about the measurements and sounding gear..

This is a reality, everything else is a nice hobby. And yes, I'm in this hobby too so don't feel accused :)


Keith
IMG_4647.png
 
IEMs are transducers one component that really can make a difference , subjective ‘hobbyists’ are an order of magnitude more crazy,
from the electricity supply, plugs, fuses in the plugs cables ( cable lifters) the list is endless.
One told me the other day that an integrated system would for him be like being in prison.
Keith

The reasons why people want to buy new gear may be different here on ASR in general, but I see about the same urge to upgrade things here as in any other audio forum.

Many times the measurements seems to be close to “nothing” of worth when the hype for the upcoming gear is in full throttle, it's the same here on ASR.
 
Last edited:
Yes but I would like to believe that they upgrade components that will actually improve SQ, rather than just believing marketing.
Keith
 
Hello there,

I try again to engage (with the best intentions, I swear) to just want to raise a question regarding ABX testing.

This is a sincere question, I’m not setting a rhetorical trap, there is no agenda (though I know some might suspect that I’m a crypto-subjectivist pushing a propaganda !).

So in order to ask my question and refute that prejudice, I should share the reasoning behind it:

Premise 1: Every perceptual experience is likely to be biased in the broad sense of term (colored, incomplete…) by some psychological state.

P2: the medium that is the « stimuli » in the case that we focus on is a quite complex one – music is not just one sound, it’s a multitude of sounds that are likely to have an emotional component to them and may probably engage the listener emotionally in one way or another (regarding of their personal affective and perceptive disposition), leading them to be more touched by one sound or another.

First conclusion: one may be even more subjected to biases when listening to music than for an other audio signal.

P1 derived from that first conclusion : if, within the realm of all psychological experiences, one could picture a spectrum going from the least complex experiences (like, maybe, the pure sensation of a sting) to the most complex experiences (like, maybe extremely intricate feelings built with symbols, ideas, sensations, and multiple sub-feelings but also and even more importantly complex subconscious roots implied), the experience of listening to music falls rather on the complex side of the spectrum.

P2: considering that when psychologists conduct experiences on subjects to study behaviours/preferences rooted in deep/complex beliefs and affects systems, they tend to hide the purpose of the study so that the subject doesn’t know why is being studied.

Considering that they do that in order to eliminate bias – that they believe the only way to really understand what people perceive/feel/think you need to have them behave naturally – like they do every other day.

P3: considering that for many subjects that participate in audio blind testings, the psychological stakes involved in passing the test are high (whether it’s the pressure to perform or the fear to fail, the fear to feel shame, to reconsider all their past beliefs…) and then might skew the experience.

Second conclusion/first question: does that not entail that ABX tests are not suited to assess the ability of individuals to distinguish/assess/listen critically?

So this is the hypothesis: ABX tests are not a reliable way to test one’s ability to hear differences in music reproduction because the situation of the test itself involve great psychological bias.

How (un)likely does that sound to you?

In order to respect scientific ethos standards, it would be amazing if you gave the hypothesis a probability (a sort of bayesian estimation).

Also, if you think it’s unlikely, it would be great if you told me what seemed wrong, for you, in the reasoning behind it.

Thanks!
 
How (un)likely does that sound to you?
You asked, so - it sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

For a start Blind/ABX is not intended to
assess the ability of individuals to distinguish/assess/listen critically?
It is simply to allow people to compare two sources to identify whether or not an audible (for them) difference exists.

It actually removes sources of
great psychological bias.

Because there is no input into the perceptive system to allow bias to take place.



P3: considering that for many subjects that participate in audio blind testings, the psychological stakes involved in passing the test are high (whether it’s the pressure to perform or the fear to fail, the fear to feel shame, to reconsider all their past beliefs…) and then might skew the experience.
But where does the pressure come from. 9 times out of 10 these subjects are claiming night and day differences. Easy to detect. Surely then these night and day easy to detect differences will be just as easy to hear when you don't know which device is which. Sure - when they find they can no longer detect those differences there may be some discomfort in the form of feeling foolish - but that is after the fact. It is caused by the inability to perceive - not the other way around.

Frankly you are simply parroting the old and tired excuse that blind testing uniquely doesn't apply to music - even though it routinely applies to everything else. There is nothing special about the perception of music that doesn't apply to any other perceptive abilities.
 
Not sure how and why such debates are on going.
The debates have been going on for decades and will continue to do so for decades and the reason is simple.
Human perception which is NOT a measurement device but people believe it to be just that and even claim they can hear more than what can be shown by measurements.
This is true for virtually all things in life and not just audio.

As from personal or objective point, there is no gear that DOESN'T influnce nor color the sound.
From a personal and objective point there is no transducer and acoustics as well as hearing/brain that does NOT influence the sound.
It appears that you also like to include re-production electronics.
Yes, some electronics can do that, some are purpose made, some 'change' waveforms deliberately (sound processors, tone controls) some by design.

Also all electronics alter (or reproduce) signals with some errors or additions but need to pass audibility thresholds of the listener in question.
The latter seems to be a matter of debate. Fact is that most aspects have been researched and that research shows there are tolerance bands around the 'known' threshold levels. These are smaller than some people believe it is.

One would impose certain harmonics in and the other would remove even what is existing in a source etc..
Sure you can add harmonic distortion to a single tone. When you do that with multiple tones you also get intermodulation distortion and there is nothing 'nice' about that.
For music you thus can add harmonics but NOT without also adding IM distortion so adding harmonics only does not exist.

Since I'm personally part of this game I'm really sick and tired in neverending debates between who is RIGHT or who is WRONG.
I reckon you are being sick and tired being told you are wrong while thinking you are right which might or might not be the case depending on perception.

Everyone can measure and bounce to the results but NONE will give you the REALITY and HOW IT SHOULD SOUND LIKE as there is NO REFERENCE you can bound to.
You CAN have a reference and objectively show results because there can be a reference (in most cases) but it usually is difficult to do and time consuming as well as exhausting.

The measurements are only relative tho what EXACTLY?
To measured waveform fidelity IF measured correctly. Here the word 'correctly' is the difficult part. The second hurdle is the interpretation of measurements and understanding what results of various measurements mean AND you need to know about perception.

IF someone knows this pelase share but don't commnet for no reason trying to be smart in front of the audience.
Many people know this, even more people think they know it but do not known enough. There are also people who (think) they know more.
The problem here is perception and bias of the one that is being told/explained who does not really know what to believe and/or has a different viewpoint/conviction.

Finally if one want to prove MEASUREMENTS on PROFFESIONAL level please show case the following: Bring live musician(s) to play, put them in parallel on a playback system and COMPARE the difference.

As long as we don't have exact output (where also the audience can't distinguish between two) from the playback system we can dance in a loop, masure whatever and however we want but we CAN'T proove anything there.
Total nonsense. Absolutely impossible too as instruments all have their own dispersion pattern, change of timbre depending on how 'loud' they are played and cannot reproduce exactly. Any recording is merely a registration and has to be manipulated and mixed to come to an end result which is to be reproduced on 2 transducers in another room.

And in reverse engineering approch we need try to figure out where the problems are in a playback system, correct them, measure them and do this as long as we need to match the output. CAN we do that? do we KNOW how to DO THAT?
On the electronics side sure... within boundaries. In acoustics it becomes another matter. One can only address some of the issues that occur there.

Once we do that then we can state WE HAVE A PROPER SOUNDING EQUIPMENT AND A PROPER MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE as a REFERENCE POINT FOR ALL THE OTHERS.
For DACs and amplification this is really easy to do up to certain levels.
The difficulties arise in:
The used recording
The used transducers
The used acoustic conditions
The used playback level (SPL)
The used listening position
The experience listeners have and knowledge they poses to describe heard things in a way that is understandable
The perception capabilities.
The rigor of the 'test'/'comparison' if that is the goal.

Until them we all can DERAM ON on stories and feritails about the measurements and sounding gear..
We all can dream on anyway. Regardless who it is and what their dreams/goals are.

This is a reality, everything else is a nice hobby. And yes, I'm in this hobby too so don't feel accused :)
Sound reproduction other than for 'reviewers' and professionals in the recording/sound reinforcement is a hobby.
Salespersons for AV gear also are professionals but in selling gear to people.
Some think they offer good advice, some do offer good advice but in the end they have to sell in order to make a living and either sell lots of things or make large profits on less items.

Everyone enjoying reproduced music does this for a hobby. Some are more passionate than others and some have more 'real' knowledge than others. There just aren't any extremely knowledgeable judges but many people think they are.

Such is the state of this hobby.... for ALL of them no matter where on the objective-subjective scale they may be.
 
Back
Top Bottom