Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[billyjoebob]

This thread will be filled of 'All good measuring DACs sound the same' folks very soon. Wait for it, wait for it.....

Very soon?
Might be a slight understatement.

 

[Grumpish]

Back to the original question - yes and no. A DAC, yes probably the measurements alone are all you need, barring odd interactions such as a high output impedance into a low input impedance.. Speakers - probably not, there are too many variables, from the way that a speaker interacts with a room to an individuals hearing, and power amplifiers can interact with speakers, so there is another maybe there as well. And there is always that question mark (one that the hard core here are oddly resistant to) over are the right things being measured? For example, is measuring a power amplifiers performance into a simple passive resistive load valid when in real life a speaker is usually anything but?

 

[Deleted member 23982]

If I measure something and it is an inch long, then it is an inch long. Doesn't mean you'll like it, dislike it, or that it's aesthetically pleasing, just that it's an inch long as measured.

what ruler scale you use to measure 100% exact? yea.... even those precious things i forget the english name off are not 100% exact and measurement of any kind ALWAYS happens -after- an observation/idea ,not before that, just to have it proofed/on paper
its just foolish to think every little "influence" has been discovered yet. (or atleast gone "mainstream")
sure we could discuss "audibility" but even that is pretty much a unresolved book, tho you DBT guys are sure of it and i really think "golden-ears" exist, tho its a funny term, no human is the same.... some have better ears, maybe, probably even a more sensitive auditory system, maybe its even a good thing some dont hear a difference, maybe YOUR brain can reconstruct "faulty" sound "better" and thats why, also most studys just try to find a "middleway" instead of figuring out the true extremes

 

[pkane]

For example, is measuring a power amplifiers performance into a simple passive resistive load valid when in real life a speaker is usually anything but?

Of course it's valid when used appropriately, just like measuring THD at 1kHz at full scale is valid -- it's just another test that reveals some of the behavior of the DUT, under certain conditions. Nobody is making the claim that it is the only measurement needed, or that it fully characterizes the DUT... except for those who want to make up stories about objectivists and the objective approach.

 

[ShiZo]

Is -110db to -120db below a tone the questiest noise humans can hear as far as SINAD, SNR, and Crosstalk?

 

[Deleted member 23982]

is -110db to -120db below a tone the questiest humans can hear with SINAD, SNR, and Crosstalk?

yea atleast "on its own" i dont know if this conversion is right but imagine leveling your gear at 90db at 0dbfs, then -120db would be at -30db, humans can barely hear 25-30db (it counts as "silent" ) (and in most cases your amp actually produces more noise than your dac, so "in theory" it doesnt matter but in my opinion/expierence it still does)
im unsure myself how noise etc could still "mess" with the main tones, even if the noise itself is inaudible

 

[audio2design]

How about voltage matched and blind ABX tested in our local hifi store and results showed that over 80% people, including yours truly, could make out the difference between a SU9N and Topping D90 and actual owners could even point out which one are their units? Enough for a select few that participated to know that there are differences in 2 'good measuring' dacs.

I will take things that didn't happen as described for $400 Alex! Sure people picked out their own DACs blind without their own speakers, room, amp, etc. Was it February 30th by chance? Equalized people can't pick out their own speakers blind let alone a DAC.

I don't believe brick and mortar stores carry either Topping or SMSL? ... Strange to compare those at the local hifi store.

 

[solderdude]

im unsure myself how noise etc could still "mess" with the main tones, even if the noise itself is inaudible

Proper testing will reveal this quite easily. This requires controls.
For instance... use a low noise recording (if such a thing exists, noise in any recording is magnitudes higher than a DAC) and copy the file.
Then add noise in various levels to the copies.
Now use ABX comparator and prove to the world at which level of added noise you can reliable tell a difference.

Ah right... it doesn't work that way as ABX is a flawed method.

Fine... do this by randomly playing the files without peeking over several days and make notes.

 

[Deleted member 23982]

Proper testing will reveal this quite easily. This requires controls.
For instance... use a low noise recording (if such a thing exists, noise in any recording is magnitudes higher than a DAC) and copy the file.
Then add noise in various levels to the copies.
Now use ABX comparator and prove to the world at which level of added noise you can reliable tell a difference.

Ah right... it doesn't work that way as ABX is a flawed method.

Fine... do this by randomly playing the files without peeking over several days and make notes.

would be an interesting test, tho i dont know how to add noise i never used software for this
maybe this would be even a good addition to the audiocheck.net blindtests

 

[solderdude]

Audacity is free software that can do this.

 

[audio2design]

Some of us do here large differences in electronics. Just the way it is. Speakers will be the weak link, but that does not mean for us, the electronics don't matter. Yes, even a difference in DACs that measure in the "blue" scale. You may believe it or not, but I know what I hear, I know and have been told, what my wife hears.

You seem to believe what you are saying. That should be your first clue.

 

[stevenswall]

what ruler scale you use to measure 100% exact? yea.... even those precious things i forget the english name off are not 100% exact and measurement of any kind ALWAYS happens -after- an observation/idea ,not before that, just to have it proofed/on paper
its just foolish to think every little "influence" has been discovered yet. (or atleast gone "mainstream")
sure we could discuss "audibility" but even that is pretty much a unresolved book, tho you DBT guys are sure of it and i really think "golden-ears" exist, tho its a funny term, no human is the same.... some have better ears, maybe, probably even a more sensitive auditory system, maybe its even a good thing some dont hear a difference, maybe YOUR brain can reconstruct "faulty" sound "better" and thats why, also most studys just try to find a "middleway" instead of figuring out the true extremes

Using the mutually agreed upon inch whose room for error is common in every ruler a consumer will buy and just as transparent to them as fractions of a decibel are to the human ear.

It's foolish to think that an inch or a decibel ever was something to represent every little influence of everything that exists, discovered or not.

Unless you're claiming to have golden ears better than everyone else... I fail to see your point. You still use things that measure inches, lumens, miles per hour or km/h, and many other measurements that represent reality, not an opinion, and aren't perfectly precise (which nobody ever claims because that would be a religious claim since it would require absolute control of energy, matter, and space and nobody claims that here.)

 

[rdenney]

And why are the explanations given for a better new product almost always pseudo scientific prattle? Why never backed up with any measurements?

Because the measurements would too often reveal nothing to distinguish the product, at least not in a good way.

Old sales aphorism: if you can’t win the bid, muddy the waters. My update: if you can’t fulfill the requirements, dispute the needs.

Rick “who trusts products that disclose useful measurements, because there’s something to trust” Denney

 

[voodooless]

Because the measurements would too often reveal nothing to distinguish the product, at least not in a good way.

They were rhetorical questions, wasn't expecting a truthful answer, but thanks

 

[solderdude]

Rick “who trusts products that disclose useful measurements, because there’s something to trust” Denney

Not all products that disclose measurements are useful nor trustworthy... that's why Amir measures things.
The real difficulty, which requires some expertise, is to determine which specs are trustworthy, how they were made and what a suite of different measurements can tell you about a certain product.
Therein lies the whole issue of measurements and their usefulness.

 

[Geert]

its just foolish to think every little "influence" has been discovered yet. (or atleast gone "mainstream")

You clearly don't see you're arguing with people that have far more knowledge than what's "mainstream'. You have a unique opportunity to learn from them. Instead you choose to be condescending.

sure we could discuss "audibility" but even that is pretty much a unresolved book, tho you DBT guys are sure of it

After days of discussion you still fail to understand the scientific method "involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation". (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific method). If you don't like that than maybe write a paper and present it to the AAAS.

and i really think "golden-ears" exist,

You 'think', based on what? The observation of people making claims of hearing things in uncontrolled conditions? Guess what happens if we put them to the test. Trained listeners exist, that's a more interesting topic.

some have better ears, maybe, probably even a more sensitive auditory system,

Do you know there's a ton of research on this topic, which you can review and respond to if you think something was missed? That also includes bone conduction, in case you were wondering.

 

[Spkrdctr]

You clearly don't see you're arguing with people that have far more knowledge than what's "mainstream'. You have a unique opportunity to learn from them. Instead you choose to be condescending.


After days of discussion you still fail to understand the scientific method "involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation". (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific method). If you don't like that than maybe write a paper and present it to the AAAS.


You 'think', based on what? The observation of people making claims of hearing things in uncontrolled conditions? Guess what happens if we put them to the test. Trained listeners exist, that's a more interesting topic.


Do you know there's a ton of research on this topic, which you can review and respond to if you think something was missed? That also includes bone conduction, in case you were wondering.

Now you did it. You brought knowledge and truth to a subjectivist. You will be burned at the stake as all science is just an opinion. I see you opened another can of worms! Having a ton of research means nothing when someone thinks they can hear things others can't. What do we normally call someone who hears things no one else can? Golden Ears? Psychotic? I go with the second term. County mental health wards are full of people hearing things no one else can. Tons of research shows they have serious mental health issues. Usually a strong regimen of drugs can fix the problem. So, subjectivists have a lot in common with mentally ill people. I think this from my limited experience, therefor it is true. Prove me wrong. In fact if I think of anything, it now becomes the truth or fact.
I will now go to my throne and have a seat. Being king over all I can think about is a very empowering way to live!

 

[Deleted member 23982]

Now you did it. You brought knowledge and truth to a subjectivist. You will be burned at the stake as all science is just an opinion. I see you opened another can of worms! Having a ton of research means nothing when someone thinks they can hear things others can't. What do we normally call someone who hears things no one else can? Golden Ears? Psychotic? I go with the second term. County mental health wards are full of people hearing things no one else can. Tons of research shows they have serious mental health issues. Usually a strong regimen of drugs can fix the problem. So, subjectivists have a lot in common with mentally ill people. I think this from my limited experience, therefor it is true. Prove me wrong. In fact if I think of anything, it now becomes the truth or fact.
I will now go to my throne and have a seat. Being king over all I can think about is a very empowering way to live!

yep im psychotic and it was all a hoax, got ya!

some people found eachother i guess and im certainly not one of them

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Now you did it. You brought knowledge and truth to a subjectivist. You will be burned at the stake as all science is just an opinion. I see you opened another can of worms! Having a ton of research means nothing when someone thinks they can hear things others can't. What do we normally call someone who hears things no one else can? Golden Ears? Psychotic? I go with the second term. County mental health wards are full of people hearing things no one else can. Tons of research shows they have serious mental health issues. Usually a strong regimen of drugs can fix the problem. So, subjectivists have a lot in common with mentally ill people. I think this from my limited experience, therefor it is true. Prove me wrong. In fact if I think of anything, it now becomes the truth or fact.
I will now go to my throne and have a seat. Being king over all I can think about is a very empowering way to live!

Please calm down and try listening to some music, it often helps!

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Please calm down and try listening to some music, it often helps!

No time to listen to music now. Too busy shopping for new interconnect cables...the primary requirements being that they must cost at least 3 times as much as my current cables and they must be supported by many many anecdotal claims that they will reveal panoramic new vistas of detail found in my vinyl LP collection - most of which was recorded before 1980.