Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[solderdude]

Its funny that an amateurish attempt with the soul purpose of proving expensive DACs are supposed to sound better is used as 'evidence' of sound differences.
There are many videos like this. Even about cables etc.

 

[Ja1man]

Not to me. Sounded the same. Some people could pick up a mismatched level as an "improvement". He also moved the phone around between DACs, that alone disqualifies the whole endeavour.

Sounded the same? Lmao.

 

[DonR]

Sounded the same? Lmao.

Yes. I have a 13khz limit and can't hear anything below about 30db relative Typical for a middle aged male.

 

[Mart68]

sounds the same to me.

 

[solderdude]

Try and keep an open mind.

The 'keep an open mind card'

 

[antcollinet]

Not to me. Sounded the same. Some people could pick up a mismatched level as an "improvement". He also moved the phone around between DACs, that alone disqualifies the whole endeavour.

Even if he just stood in a different place in the room (He and the phone were moving around), that would impact the reflections reaching the microphone. The only difference I heard was a level/volume one.

And if anyone believes a phone microphone stands any chance of accurately detecting the differences between two competent DAC's it is complete ignorance and/or delusion.

The video is laughable. The gullibility of anyone who watches it and says "HA - proof" is beyond belief.

View attachment 230320

"Keep an open mind. Just not so open that your brains fall out"

 

[MattHooper]

The 'keep an open mind card'

View attachment 230320

There's also a very common misconception that "keeping an open mind" equates to "not having come to any conclusion." As if we are supposed to be in this never ending state of not assigning probabilities to any proposition.
Which is of course untenable. But they always want you to be in this state For Their Particular Claim (and...so does everyone else making alternative claims).

There is nothing at all "close minded" about having come to a conclusion - whether it's that "X" disease is the cause of some symptoms, or that an expensive AC cable is unlikely to make any sonic difference in most systems. So long as you have good reasons, having decided is perfectly fine.

Where the actual problem of "close mindedness" comes in, therefore, is not in having previously come to a conclusion on the claim put forth, but in being closed to any argument or evidence for the claim. In other words, admitting one could always have been in error: in not being open to changing your mind, if someone puts forth good justification. THAT's the real "close mindedness" problem.

But audiophiles (and people pushing miracle cures and any number of dubious ideas) will always presume dogmatism if someone is already (rightly) skeptical of their claim.

This is one reason why, when talking with pure "subjectivists" I ask them what method they have in place that would change their mind - how could the conclusion, gained by their purely subjective method - be shown to be wrong?
I have NEVER had an answer! And often it's just "I Couldn't Be Wrong." THAT is clearly close-minded, and yet they'll cast the "objectivist" who is open to and seeking evidence as "close minded" because we aren't just immediately accepting their claim.

/rant

 

[Jimster480]

Even if he just stood in a different place in the room (He and the phone were moving around), that would impact the reflections reaching the microphone. The only difference I heard was a level/volume one.

And if anyone believes a phone microphone stands any chance of accurately detecting the differences between two competent DAC's it is complete ignorance and/or delusion.

The video is laughable. The gullibility of anyone who watches it and says "HA - proof" is beyond belief.






"Keep an open mind. Just not so open that your brains fall out"

I agree with that, at the end of the day the two clips sound slightly different but we cannot necessarily attribute that to the DAC. Additionally we don't know if either of those is a competent DAC just because the price tag is high. Amir has tested some expensive stuff with disastrous quality.

 

[antcollinet]

I agree with that, at the end of the day the two clips sound slightly different but we cannot necessarily attribute that to the DAC. Additionally we don't know if either of those is a competent DAC just because the price tag is high. Amir has tested some expensive stuff with disastrous quality.

True - but even badly measuring dacs are still audibly transparent for most of us.

However, position your head ideally at correct listening position - tweeter height etc.

Then stand up and see how the sound changes. The changes from ear (or Mic) position moving will dwarf any differences between dacs - even between good and disastrous dacs which have an audible difference. As will (or can) reflection differences caused by the objects in the room moving.

 

[OWC]

There's also a very common misconception that "keeping an open mind" equates to "not having come to any conclusion." As if we are supposed to be in this never ending state of not assigning probabilities to any proposition.
Which is of course untenable. But they always want you to be in this state For Their Particular Claim (and...so does everyone else making alternative claims).

There is nothing at all "close minded" about having come to a conclusion - whether it's that "X" disease is the cause of some symptoms, or that an expensive AC cable is unlikely to make any sonic difference in most systems. So long as you have good reasons, having decided is perfectly fine.

Where the actual problem of "close mindedness" comes in, therefore, is not in having previously come to a conclusion on the claim put forth, but in being closed to any argument or evidence for the claim. In other words, admitting one could always have been in error: in not being open to changing your mind, if someone puts forth good justification. THAT's the real "close mindedness" problem.

But audiophiles (and people pushing miracle cures and any number of dubious ideas) will always presume dogmatism if someone is already (rightly) skeptical of their claim.

This is one reason why, when talking with pure "subjectivists" I ask them what method they have in place that would change their mind - how could the conclusion, gained by their purely subjective method - be shown to be wrong?
I have NEVER had an answer! And often it's just "I Couldn't Be Wrong." THAT is clearly close-minded, and yet they'll cast the "objectivist" who is open to and seeking evidence as "close minded" because we aren't just immediately accepting their claim.

/rant

That all depends how set in stone that "conclusion" is.

If that is a temporary conclusion, based on what we know atm, I agree.
Meaning it will or might change over time depending on more answers and data we will get in future.

I think it's a lot wiser not to think in a bivalence way, but rather use a scale of likeliness from 0 - 100%.
Not only for audio, just in life in general even.

As for "reasons", most people don't give reasons, the give loophole fallacies.
For example saying that certain things aren't perfect, but totally omitting (and forgetting) that all other alternatives are even (way) worse.

 

[Peluvius]

There's also a very common misconception that "keeping an open mind" equates to "not having come to any conclusion." As if we are supposed to be in this never ending state of not assigning probabilities to any proposition.
Which is of course untenable. But they always want you to be in this state For Their Particular Claim (and...so does everyone else making alternative claims).

There is nothing at all "close minded" about having come to a conclusion - whether it's that "X" disease is the cause of some symptoms, or that an expensive AC cable is unlikely to make any sonic difference in most systems. So long as you have good reasons, having decided is perfectly fine.

Where the actual problem of "close mindedness" comes in, therefore, is not in having previously come to a conclusion on the claim put forth, but in being closed to any argument or evidence for the claim. In other words, admitting one could always have been in error: in not being open to changing your mind, if someone puts forth good justification. THAT's the real "close mindedness" problem.

But audiophiles (and people pushing miracle cures and any number of dubious ideas) will always presume dogmatism if someone is already (rightly) skeptical of their claim.

This is one reason why, when talking with pure "subjectivists" I ask them what method they have in place that would change their mind - how could the conclusion, gained by their purely subjective method - be shown to be wrong?
I have NEVER had an answer! And often it's just "I Couldn't Be Wrong." THAT is clearly close-minded, and yet they'll cast the "objectivist" who is open to and seeking evidence as "close minded" because we aren't just immediately accepting their claim.

/rant

"stay open to the truth" someone once said and I think that is a good approach. I agree with your thoughts on how someone saying "keep an open mind" is usually just a precursor to them telling you something they want you to accept. Another interesting aspect of human behaviour is the tendency to lie to yourself in support of a decision you might have made (confirmation bias). Also spot on in terms of trying to figure out what would change a persons mind, that is often the trickiest part. Facts and logic you would think but not always. If someone has spent 50k on a bit of kit and they did it after being convinced it will improve the sound there are a whole lot of things at play; They don't like to think they might have been duped; they don't want to think their judgement has failed; they don't want to think they have wasted their money etc.... so even if you can present a cohesive case which convincingly presents an alternative view you will often find the person completely unreceptive, at least to all external observation.

 

[antcollinet]

That all depends how set in stone that "conclusion" is.

If that is a temporary conclusion, based on what we know atm, I agree.
Meaning it will or might change over time depending on more answers and data we will get in future.

I think it's a lot wiser not to think in a bivalence way, but rather use a scale of likeliness from 0 - 100%.
Not only for audio, just in life in general even.

As for "reasons", most people don't give reasons, the give loophole fallacies.
For example saying that certain things aren't perfect, but totally omitting (and forgetting) that all other alternatives are even (way) worse.

I'm feeling the need to quote from Tim Minchin's "Storm" for the second time here in two days.

"You're so sure of your position but you're just closed-minded
I think you'll find that your faith in science and
Tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist"

"Wow that's a good point, let me think for a bit.
Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me that, say, homeopathy works, then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long
Lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!'

 

[MattHooper]

I'm feeling the need to quote from Tim Minchin's "Storm" for the second time here in two days.

As someone who has for decades debated with Creationists/Fundamentalists/IDers etc, it's mind-numbing the amount of times I've had to counter that claim.

 

[OWC]

I'm feeling the need to quote from Tim Minchin's "Storm" for the second time here in two days.

I struggle with the 2nd sentence.

Science is a method, not something you can have "faith in", it's not like a religion.
So saying "having faith or believe" in science is impossible.
Unless someone wants to say that he doesn't have faith in a method trying to be as objective as possible.

It's like saying "do you believe in water"

 

[antcollinet]

As someone who has for decades debated with Creationists/Fundamentalists/IDers etc, it's mind-numbing the amount of times I've had to counter that claim.

I can highly recommend listing to the whole thing if you've not already.

I consider it a work of genius.

 

[antcollinet]

I struggle with the 2nd sentence.

Science is a method, not something you can have "faith in", it's not like a religion.
So saying "having faith or believe" in science is impossible.
Unless someone wants to say that he doesn't have faith in a method trying to be as objective as possible.

It's like saying "do you believe in water"

I think you've missed the point.

The first paragraph is an accusation aimed at science by (let's just say) a subjectivist.

 

[OWC]

I think you've missed the point.

The first paragraph is an accusation aimed at science by (let's just say) a subjectivist.

lol, my bad, I was getting a little confused about the rant way of writing in it.
No worries!

But yeah, on the other hand, it's even weird how many engineers and scientists even say that they "believe in science"

 

[jtgofish]

This is the best post I have seen on the topic-


Not objectivity per se but naïve objectivity such as:

We can measure an impossibly high sinad so that must be best but with absolutely no correlation whatsoever to how it sounds to real people that have some experience in listening. This is the crux of my question, which measurements correlate with what someone might hear. I have bought amps previously which claim impossibly low distortion or sinad or whatever and they are trounced (in my view) by others that have less impressive numbers.

I dont have any issue with measurements and coming from a research background have done plenty of measuring myself but measurements which are not correlated with what the component is meant to do Ie "sound good" have little value in the pursuit of something which sounds "good".

I see lots of talk about measurements indicating which component is accurate. My experience thus far has been that some of these "accurate" devices sound pretty unlistenable. How is that accurate? ie the measurements do not represent accuracy at the ear.

What is the point of comparing devices on these parameters if we cannot show that there is a correlation with how something might sound.

I think a good parallel is wine, no measurement/s are good predictor of final quality as judged by an experienced taster/s

I then have to conclude that in terms of helping me decide which component is to my preference I cant trust measurements!

​

 

[ahofer]

Just curious, for those of you that frequent AV sites - is there a similar debate about displays/monitors? Do the high end ones have ineffable and unmeasurable qualities that cause wives to sprint in from the kitchen?

 

[MattHooper]

Just curious, for those of you that frequent AV sites - is there a similar debate about displays/monitors? Do the high end ones have ineffable and unmeasurable qualities that cause wives to sprint in from the kitchen?

I've been a member of the AVSForum since 2001, mostly posting with respect to display technologies.

Generally speaking, no, the conversations about displays don't mirror so much the audio stuff you reference.

I mean, yeah to a degree people tried to put in to words the subjective qualities of watching a plasma vs an LCD back in the day.

But generally the claims are a lot more technical.

That said, before HDMI, there was a fair amount of talk about how different cables changed the image on a display (just as lots of the more subjective-review-oriented AV mag writers sometimes claimed the same thing). Of course, like the audio/AC cable debate in audio, actual objective evidence never showed up.
And I actually organized a type of on-line blind test of cheap up to very expensive cables on the AVSForum, the results indicating the selections were just chance.

Once HDMI came on the seen most of the cable-difference stuff went away. (Though you can still find people here and there claiming to see marked differences in $1,000 HDMI boutique cables. All their claims would show up using any of the calibration patterns and devices typically used for calibrating displays...and of course crickets on any such evidence).