Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[polocolo]

Certainly. But introducing it in the first place is counterproductive. If you know more than the basics, you also know it's an unsuitable and hence time wasting trap for an audio forum.

I'd say that since I got some interesting answers from some nice people, it wasn't counterproductive.

 

[polocolo]

option 3:

Select a few speakers that at least measure well and get good reviews and go on a queste to audition those ?

edit: @Blumlein 88 beat me to it.

yeah, like Blumlein said. I agree!

 

[MaxwellsEq]

anything else is probably counterproductive

I'd say that since I got some interesting answers from some nice people, it wasn't counterproductive.

 

[Blumlein 88]

oh yes, of course, sorry, that was implied in my mind but my post was clearly confusing. This is definitely the option that seems the most convincing to me.

(and it does render the blind testing of speakers a little useless...)

Yes. The blind testing established the parameters of the measurements matching preferences. Which allows design of highly effective speakers. So the consumer no longer has to do the heavy lifting to choose appropriately.

The rest of the music chain is different. Blind testing can establish audible limits, but the goals are simpler, the performance now generally beyond audibility. So electronics are a solved problem. Speakers aren't quite so fully solved as to make them interchangeable.

 

[polocolo]

EVER !

New rule .

I honestly think this is not super fair.

any debate, any situation where one tries to convince the other that his reasoning is more sound could be called "competitive philosophy". It's always about how solid is our evidences and the conclusions we deduce from them.

one's "competitive philosophy" is the other's sincere attempt at trying to understand something/question some beliefs.

 

[Mart68]

oh yes, of course, sorry, that was implied in my mind but my post was clearly confusing. This is definitely the option that seems the most convincing to me.

(and it does render the blind testing of speakers a little useless...)

Maybe if we had a show of hands here to see how many did actually select their speakers by doing a blind comparison? Did anyone?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I honestly think this is not super fair.

any debate, any situation where one tries to convince the other that his reasoning is more sound could be called "competitive philosophy". It's always about how solid is our evidences and the conclusions we deduce from them.

one's "competitive philosophy" is the other's sincere attempt at trying to understand something/question some beliefs.

Competitive philosophy has been going on for 2500 years. It's a very rich vein of interesting development for those who want to study it. I don't recommend an audio forum as the correct place.

 

[polocolo]

@MaxwellsEq, I can't seem to answer your message with the two quotes.

But I don't see any contradiction here. The first quote addresses some reactions (the frontal opposition that doesn't take into consideration the form of the hypothesis), the other addresses other kinds of reactions (people giving me their perspective on it).

 

[polocolo]

Competitive philosophy has been going on for 2500 years. It's a very rich vein of interesting development for those who want to study it. I don't recommend an audio forum as the correct place.

And nothing I said here was properly philosophical in the sense you're referring to.
Any scientific proposition is grounded on a reasoning and every scientific paper is supposed to show every step of the reasoning.
That's all I tried to do, on an audio forum that has the word "science" in it.

 

[JeremyFife]

Seems to me (700 pages in, I've not read them all) that;
Sometimes there are audible differences, as in speaker comparison.
In that case it's reasonable that people can hear a difference and the challenge is to communicate what they hear.
Some people are better at hearing those difference, some are better trained to explain them.
When I worked in the traditional wine trade (regular blind tastings) it was easiest to communicate with the group I regularly tasted with, and harder with other people. Explaining something to 'interested amateurs', or trying to understand what they meant, was tricky!
There's a challenge to use clear and objective language, and avoid flowery fanciful descriptive nonsense.
We can work on that.

(That background, followed by working on clinical trial reporting for big Pharma, helped me adjust to ASR fast ... but I was still fooled for years regardless. I really should have known!)

The real issue is where there is no difference, or the difference is inaudible. That includes speakers reproducing the higher frequencies but is obvious for cables, networking, streamers, DACs and Amps operating in their comfort zones.

The challenge in the second case is to help others to accept that there is no difference. It's a big ask - of course they hear a difference, they really do. Undoing the learning of a lifetime is difficult.

Patience, repetition and a lot of resilience might be the best hope with that.

Two different issues; real differences that are hard to communicate, and false differences created by our biases.

Quick note: the relevant part...
Measurements show us this; that differences are present or not and are audible or not. Perhaps they don't help enough in describing those differences but that's it.

 

[Jimbob54]

And nothing I said here was properly philosophical in the sense you're referring to.
Any scientific proposition is grounded on a reasoning and every scientific paper is supposed to show every step of the reasoning.
That's all I tried to do, on an audio forum that has the word "science" in it.

And I think that is where this avenue of discussion should cease. Please .

 

[polocolo]

And I think that is where this avenue of discussion should cease. Please .

As you wish.
I feel like an elephant in a china shop, here! however sincere my attempts, I break every rules. I had waited a year before posting, reading everyday though. Understood the treatment received by stubborn subjectivists. Thought I'd get myself understood if displaying the structure of my beliefs. Failed again and again. Thanks to every person who tried to help me, sorry to all the others I so clearly bothered. All the best to everyone.

 

[Mart68]

As you wish.
I feel like an elephant in a china shop, here! however sincere my attempts, I break every rules. I had waited a year before posting, reading everyday though. Understood the treatment received by stubborn subjectivists. Thought I'd get myself understood if displaying the structure of my beliefs. Failed again and again. Thanks to every person who tried to help me, sorry to all the others I so clearly bothered. All the best to everyone.

No I don't think you failed.

It's a bull in a china shop btw, not an elephant.

Although blinded it would be hard to distinguish between them unless the elephant was also trumpeting whilst it was wrecking the joint.

 

[pkane]

Maybe if we had a show of hands here to see how many did actually select their speakers by doing a blind comparison? Did anyone?

 

[Jimbob54]

View attachment 403350

AI fingers !

 

[pkane]

AI fingers !

AI is never wrong, so five fingers is no longer the correct representation of a human hand.

 

[ahofer]

Any scientific proposition is grounded on a reasoning and every scientific paper is supposed to show every step of the reasoning.

And many of these exist supporting most of the basic beliefs you see on this site. Unfortunately, most are behind the AES paywall (or, for audiology, other paywalls), but @amirm has summarized quite a few on the site.

 

[Galliardist]

And nothing I said here was properly philosophical in the sense you're referring to.
Any scientific proposition is grounded on a reasoning and every scientific paper is supposed to show every step of the reasoning.
That's all I tried to do, on an audio forum that has the word "science" in it.

So let's just briefly consider your hypothesis without the philosophical bent as a working scientific one. It clearly fails.
Why? Because blind testing (and much of the actual scientific work is not ABX) tells a coherent story. The vast majority of people give the same responses. If there was a "bias" it would be held to different strengths, or not at all, then the story told by blind testing would be incoherent. The blind testing tells us something about human hearing - not bias but properties. It's actually pretty pointless to ask why blind tests are wrong, and certainly a problem to do so in isolation from studying sighted response.

A reasonable question for study in the area is the opposite one: why does the coherent story of blind testing break down when testing is instead sighted?

 

[Galliardist]

AI is never wrong, so five fingers is no longer the correct representation of a human hand.

The correct representation of a hand isn't five fingers, though.

It's four, and the thumb.

 

[Geert]

I'm leaning towards: "don't listen to the speakers and pick them from measurements" OR "pick the one you like better in sighted conditions.
it seems like the only two reasonable choices.

I fell for a third option; pick speakers from measurements and spec's, do a sighted listening session, buy the speakers although you didn't like their sound and looks. Great speakers.