• 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?

Ken Tajalli

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,997
Likes
1,773
Location
London UK
I think it is a sweet reminder that this thread is a dumping ground for posts made elsewhere by science-refusing believers who have sucked up all the cool-aid myths of recorded-audio reproduction and playback. And where they can find answers. Or they can go full denialist and refuse to learn or understand the answers, and argue to the ends of the earth. Yes, you know who you are, and this is your thread, guys. Have at it.

Or learn. Your choice.

cheers
Do I detect a supremacist tone, in your statement " Or learn, Your choice"?
I don't know you, and certainly nothing in your profile could be an excuse for this kind of Finger pointing.
Shouldn't we All be learning?
Or have you reached that zenith of knowledge (because you can read graphs!) that learning is for your subordinates?
There is more to learn about measurements and comprehending the data, yet to be discovered.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,632
Likes
10,207
Location
North-East
Do I detect a supremacist tone, in your statement " Or learn, Your choice"?
I don't know you, and certainly nothing in your profile could be an excuse for this kind of Finger pointing.
Shouldn't we All be learning?
Or have you reached that zenith of knowledge (because you can read graphs!) that learning is for your subordinates?
There is more to learn about measurements and comprehending the data, yet to be discovered.

Learning is a choice, accepting something on faith is also a choice. Nothing supremacist about that. But I do feel superior to those still believing in the flat earth "theory". And I'm not holding my breath that some new measurement or comprehension is yet to be discovered to prove that earth really is flat.
 

audiophile

Active Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
177
Likes
140
I have a scale for how much measurements matter for each category of products:

DACs: 100%
Amplifiers (headphone and speaker): 80 to 90% due to variability of available power. Hard to internalize how much power is available/enough without listening tests.
Speakers: 70 to 80%
Headphones: 50 to 80% (measurements too variable)

This is why you see me do listening tests for the last two categories and half of second (headphone amps).
This thread and this particular quote were mentioned in the recent Darko’s podcast where he discusses measurements with Goldensound


The discussion itself is pretty interesting, gives some food for thought
 
Last edited:

Ken Tajalli

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,997
Likes
1,773
Location
London UK
But I do feel superior to those still believing
Don't ! none of us is that clever.
in the flat earth "theory". And I'm not holding my breath that some yet to be discovered to prove that earth really is flat.
For more than 50% of applications, Earth is flat!
this is what "comprehending the data" means.
Where something matters, where it doesn't.
Absolutes are not practical .
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,632
Likes
10,207
Location
North-East
Don't ! none of us is that clever.

For more than 50% of applications, Earth is flat!
this is what "comprehending the data" means.
Where something matters, where it doesn't.
Absolutes are not practical .
So science still needs to explain why earth is flat in your "50% of applications"? Didn't realize we had such wide open questions left ;) I thought Euclid explained that a few thousand years ago, but it's never too late to revisit and prove geometry wrong.
 

Gary_G

Active Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
167
Likes
244
Location
SW Virginia, USA
As a Land Surveyor, the earth is flat, when I want it to be flat ! :)

As for measurements , I always looked for empirical data to start off my assessment or evaluation. BUT, I also look at, function, aesthetics, price and, yes opinions of others.
 

Waxx

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2021
Messages
1,933
Likes
7,690
Location
Wodecq, Hainaut, Belgium
So science still needs to explain why earth is flat in your "50% of applications"? Didn't realize we had such wide open questions left ;) I thought Euclid explained that a few thousand years ago, but it's never too late to revisit and prove geometry wrong.
That was responded by Einstein, in this famous "Theory of relativity" ...
 

Ken Tajalli

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,997
Likes
1,773
Location
London UK
So science still needs to explain why earth is flat in your "50% of applications"? Didn't realize we had such wide open questions left ;) I thought Euclid explained that a few thousand years ago, but it's never too late to revisit and prove geometry wrong.
 

PatF

Active Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
195
Likes
210
Guys 148 pages .... OMG. I will try to read all but it will take a time. For now after some reading here and there on this vast forum I have head full of question marks... but for sure somewhere here I can find an answer to most of them. What I really wanted to say is that in my opinion without measurements we are prone to our very inadequate senses, biased by so many factors that failure in assessing quality is very high. So, measurements are necessary (it is shame that many equipment reviews is only audio poetry and show us usually only current state of mood and preferences of reviewer). After we measure we can ask ourselves why we like the sound or not. Also we can ask countless other questions like: if this was musicians intent, or sound engineer intent or producer intent etc. One thing is sure all music lovers should have access to as big as possible data on equipment they are buying then decide. We are lucky that we have place when we can gain such knowledge in much broader scope than usual.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,455
Likes
4,218
Do I detect a supremacist tone, in your statement " Or learn, Your choice"?
I don't know you, and certainly nothing in your profile could be an excuse for this kind of Finger pointing.
Shouldn't we All be learning?
Or have you reached that zenith of knowledge (because you can read graphs!) that learning is for your subordinates?
There is more to learn about measurements and comprehending the data, yet to be discovered.
No supremacist tone at all. When I wrote ‘you’, I was specifically directed to the people who come here with a denialist attitude and a resistance to learning the key points that audio science has revealed, preferring to recite blatant myths born of sighted listening. A key indicator of that attitude is when people trot out the old platitude about “science is always overwriting today’s knowledge with tomorrow’s discoveries, so I don’t see any reason to accept anything about today’s science. ’Cos, y’know, Einstein.” I didn’t bring that attitude here, and I learn here.

That’s why I quoted post #1, where Amir made quite a list of the sort of statements that indicate the potential for some more reading and learning from (today’s!) audio science (did you notice his #1, very similar to your last sentence above, hmmm). I was making a statement directed to the people making those sorts of statements in other threads and (hopefully) being dumped here. Like Amir said, not just me: this thread could be where such people can find answers to their statements, or just where they argue.

Your post, OTOH, oozes resentment at me for pointing that out…

cheers
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
Newman, your replies suggest you may have some technical knowledge.
But not much self-awareness. Consider:

He repeatedly makes the point that opinions based on sighted listening are per se delusions. E.g., from a very recent post: "It's just a false concept that people get, even about themselves, from making the massive mistake of "trusting their ears" in sighted listening, and trusting that sighted listening reveals qualities in the sound waves. Big mistake." (Point of clarification - is the mistake massive, or merely big?) And from today: " ... blatant myths born of sighted listening." And so on, endlessly.

Yet not long ago he conceded he established his preference for multichannel over two-channel via sighted listening. And chose his speakers via sighted listening.

Thus by his own standards, he has no idea what's really in the sound waves. He's wallowing in his own delusions. Why pay attention?
 

Ken Tajalli

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,997
Likes
1,773
Location
London UK
Your post, OTOH, oozes resentment at me for pointing that out…
I am sorry if it gave you that impression, not my intention. Respect.
But there are people here who think, they know better, and keep pointing their finger at others, talking down to them, not cool.
Whichever campaign they belong to.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
Don't ! none of us is that clever.

You'd rather we be more stupid?

For more than 50% of applications, Earth is flat!
this is what "comprehending the data" means.
Where something matters, where it doesn't.
Absolutes are not practical .

What utter nonsense.

Earth is 'flat enough' locally, to treat as flat for some purposes. That doesn't mean anyone should 'believe' that 'the earth is actually flat'.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
But not much self-awareness. Consider:

He repeatedly makes the point that opinions based on sighted listening are per se delusions. E.g., from a very recent post: "It's just a false concept that people get, even about themselves, from making the massive mistake of "trusting their ears" in sighted listening, and trusting that sighted listening reveals qualities in the sound waves. Big mistake." (Point of clarification - is the mistake massive, or merely big?) And from today: " ... blatant myths born of sighted listening." And so on, endlessly.

Yet not long ago he conceded he established his preference for multichannel over two-channel via sighted listening. And chose his speakers via sighted listening.

Thus by his own standards, he has no idea what's really in the sound waves. He's wallowing in his own delusions. Why pay attention?
You've really missed the point.

It's not about avoiding buying or preferring anything unless you can perform a blind test. It's about *what claims you make* about the audio and the gear what you bought or preferred , based on your evaluation method.

Newman is aware, I'm sure, like me, that his sighted preference is open to all sorts of bias. He has made his awareness of sighted bias and scientific methods to thwart same, very clear. So either you're demanding that he add a disclaimer to every mention of his audio choices that aren't purely measurement based -- 'NB: preferences was based on sighted evaluation, the usual caveats apply' -- or you've simply not been following along.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,820
Learning is a choice, accepting something on faith is also a choice. Nothing supremacist about that.

The problem isn't concerned with not learning. The issue is when someone who thinks he is in such possession of The Truth that if you don't agree with HIS arguments, you must be anti-science or not willing to "learn." This, I believe, was also Ken's point in objecting. It's that silly imperious wielding of I Have The Truth so to argue against me is to be a science denialist!

It's a problem with conflating "Believing In Science" with "Therefore My Arguments Are Sound...and Better Than Yours." Throw in some tribalist in group/out group knee-jerk reactions, and you get this mess from some folks (e.g. Newman).

It's a kind of parallel with the new anti-racism among the "progressives" that many (even liberal) folks are pushing back on at this point. You can totally agree that racism is bad and needs to be expunged to the degree possible, yet disagree with the "anti-racist's" analysis of the nature of the problem, and their particular "solutions." But since they are so sure unquestioning of their assumptions, they are so obviously "right," they interpret any disagreement as "If You Don't Agree With What I've Just Said, You Must Be Racist!" So you can be on the same page, believing that racism is evil, yet if you disagree with their particular arguments on the nature and solution, it can only be because you've outed yourself as a racist!

It inability to step back and look at the coherency of an argument, and to leap to "With Us or Against Us" thinking, makes conversation and true fruitful discussion impossible.

Similarly, sometimes you get folks in the audio hobby who try to follow the science. Which is great! So we can be completely on the same page as to the relevance of science and measurements for audio gear.

But they make the mistake in believing that "because I follow the science" and "therefore the facts and evidence is on MY SIDE," to "therefore if you disagree with what I argue, you are not just wrong but ANTI-SCIENCE!"

This conflates one's allegiance to science with one's actual ability to reason through arguments...both in discussions of the science, and even in discussions that are not strictly scientific arguments!

We all know that it's wrong to conclude because someone is a scientist that their claims or arguments are factual and sound. "He's devoted to objective truth, so his arguments will be sound!" No. People are faulty in their reasoning. Bias does this to all of us. That's why the scientific method attempts to correct for the faults of individual scientists.

For the same reason, just because you care about science, and try to follow the science, it doesn't mean you are actually making cogent or even relevant arguments in any particular case. This is the illusion that happens when you have a module in your brain always saying "The Science Is On My Side!"

One sees this perfectly in Newman's replies, where he was making all sorts of naive claims about the recording business, the art etc, - which of course weren't even scientific arguments to begin with! - yet upon pushback he follows up with a rant about "denialists" and "science-refusing believers."**

Like the "anti-racists" who immediately leap to in group/out group reactions, declaring you racist if you don't agree with their argument, some folks like Newman make knee-jerk leaps from "you disagreed with my arguments" to "therefore YOU ARE ANTI-SCIENCE!"

(And Newman isn't the only one who has seemed to make similar inferences...like to disagree on some particular issue entails one is a Stealth Anti-Science Subjectivist In Sheep's Clothing. Newman's posts just tend to be the most vivid examples).

**(Not to mention the...to use a polite word..."irony"... of Newman suddenly thread-copping, castigating people for off topic discussion, when he has been a vociferous part of those very discussions).
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,820
You've really missed the point.

It's not about avoiding buying or preferring anything unless you can perform a blind test. It's about *what claims you make* about the audio and the gear what you bought or preferred , based on your evaluation method.

Newman is aware, I'm sure, like me, that his sighted preference is open to all sorts of bias. He has made his awareness of sighted bias and scientific methods to thwart same, very clear. So either you're demanding that he add a disclaimer to every mention of his audio choices that aren't purely measurement based -- 'NB: preferences was based on sighted evaluation, the usual caveats apply' -- or you've simply not been following along.

And yet despite the fact I follow precisely that ethos in my own claims, Newman never tires of telling everyone I'm anti-science and a science denier.

The fact I follow that ethos very carefully is why Newman has never backed up his claims with any evidence I'm anti-science or a science denier with regard to audio or anything else. He simply throws it out as a rant, usually when he's losing an argument.

Innerspace is right, no need to mince words: he's being a hypocrite.
 
Top Bottom