Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Newman]

Sorry, I did not want to give the impression that reviews of speakers and headphones focus on SINAD. I am well aware that this is not the case. I also did not want to imply that different amps or DACs have a different soundstage (headphones clearly have different soundstage, though). AMPs and DACs should be transparent, but very often they aren't. My question is rather, if we project onto the relevant subspace with the measurements we currently look at.

Within visual perception it is very well established, that such projections can lead to optical illusions. There is no doubt, that there are similar effects in acoustics, it is just much harder to identify and quantify these effects. E.g., think of "soundstage" as a phenomenon similar to "aerial perspective". Our brain infers a 3D-effect from a 2D-projection. It took artists centuries to understand and refine this "aerial perspective". Similarly, we might not yet have understood "soundstage" well enough to measure it. And "Soundstage" is just one example of these subjective audiophile terms, which might or might not be measured given the right approach.

If that is your area of inquiry, I strongly urge you to purchase and read Sound Reproduction by Dr Floyd Toole. He does not set out to explain the myriad stupid ‘winetasting/poetic’ subjective audiophile terms, but does introduce the scientific subjective audio perception lexicon, and explains their evolution and use. At least, to a degree. After all, this mandatory-reading tome has 225 topics, and many more interesting ones.

cheers

 

[Newman]

”The Backfire Effect”

I guess “Knowledge Resistance” is too highbrow a term for Gene, or he deems his audience to think so.

 

[Waxx]

I think many of those audio guru's suffer from the Dunning Kruger syndrome.

I know i've got a subjective taste, but still want to know the science behind it and know i'm an amateur on this. Many here know way more than i know, and if there is no scientific base on a statement, i don't believe it. But at least here (and om sone other spaces) you got that science, and that tells me way more than a vague video of one of those guru's explaining his magical shit. I hope i'm in the right side of this graph, but you never know...

 

[Vacceo]

Your rant doesn't explain how measurements are any guarantee of outright performance.
When you spend a good deal of time in front of the equipment, comparing with others in it's range, it's very clear to see how mearurements and performance are not necessarily going to correlate.
If you love how something sounds after having compared with the other models of it's type by other brands, but then read the measurements were not good, would you no longer be interested?
That's like falling in love with someone, but deciding to have nothing to do with them because someone else said they didn't like certain little things about their personality.
Mis-matched systems are built around buying based on measurements.
An open mind will trust thy senses and pick based on the sound which was most enthralling. The rest can enjoy their system by looking at the spec's over and over.

I want to listen to the source, not to the gear.

 

[Ken1951]

I want to listen to the source, not to the gear.

Wasting your breath, you are.

 

[Vacceo]

Wasting your breath, you are.

Fetishization of gear gets us fun posts, though.

 

[Yoda896]

If that is your area of inquiry, I strongly urge you to purchase and read Sound Reproduction by Dr Floyd Toole. He does not set out to explain the myriad stupid ‘winetasting/poetic’ subjective audiophile terms, but does introduce the scientific subjective audio perception lexicon, and explains their evolution and use. At least, to a degree. After all, this mandatory-reading tome has 225 topics, and many more interesting ones.

cheers

Thanks a lot for this hint. I immediately ordered the book.

 

[lashto]

Just because his system isn't resolving enough, and he blindly believes in measurements, he dismisses all the evidence that so many audio experts have heard.

/How am I doing?

Your sarcasm/irony meter seems fine. But still, "the other way" might also work. Sometimes.

Nobody has 100%-sure, black-or-white answers, we only have some very gray "50 levels of certainty".
One can (relatively) easily eliminate basic errors of math and logic but all the rest is just 'fluid'. Yes, ears are way more (often) wrong. But not always. And measurements are way more (often) right. But not always.

Sometimes I wish it was possible to forget all I know about audio and "just enjoy music". And I do not even know that much...

 

[Galliardist]

Sometimes I wish it was possible to forget all I know about audio and "just enjoy music". And I do not even know that much...

Have you by any chance heard of these things called "live performances"?

Yes, ears are way more (often) wrong. But not always. And measurements are way more (often) right. But not always.

Correctly taken measurements are always going to be right, though interpreting them is not as easy as sometimes made out.

Ears, even older ones, are usually right. It's not the ears, it's what comes after the ears that confuses things.

Indeed, if we were to go through life seeing exactly what hits our retinas with the mixed focusing, upside down image and the big black spot where the nerve comes in, or hearing the raw information that comes through the auditory nerve, life would be a lot harder. What we consciously see and hear has been interpreted by our brains, and in normal life we have to use everything we have to interpret. And remember, the good system is still causing an illusion for us. Those musicians we want to hear playing from our system aren't there, what's really there are a set of vibrating surfaces. The audio industry lives in our interpretation.

We are a lot closer to the 100% black and white than you might think. The problem is that most of us aren't starting with the right questions.

 

[lashto]

Have you by any chance heard of these things called "live performances"?

.. and then I heard about Covid. Listening to that "live performance" for 2-3 years already.

We are a lot closer to the 100% black and white than you might think.

This is the main point that we do not share. At all.
I do not see us (the human kind) being anywhere close to 100%. About anything. Not even sure if we should.

And audio in particular is (still) a very tough nut:

• even Law of Gravity level of certainty is almost impossible in audio, if only because brains/preferences are in the middle of the "problem".
• many around here see those DACs/AMPs at -120 dB THD and seem to think: houray, distortion will be extinct by next week! Really!? Will amazon deliver my 120 dB speakers next week? Or this century?
• Probably even more important, will I like those 120 dB speakers? Will anyone? (particularly with the current music recorded with whatever mics at whatever SINAD ). Oh wait, we do not even have a most basic metric to connect those "measurements are always right" with the things people actually want to know: audibility and preference.
• we are 60+ dB away from 120 dB (a sort of "magic number of SINAD" according to some). And we have no idea about the distance between that number and the actual 100% 'perfection'. That doesn't even fit my definition of 'close'. Look ma, we are this far

 

[Xulonn]

we are 60+ dB away from 120 dB (a sort of "magic number of SINAD" according to some)

I have the intellectual ability to simply ignore (or observe without worry or engagement) that group you call "some".

If you are also capable of such discretion, and use it, you will be much happier just listening to the music.

 

[voodooless]

even Law of Gravity level of certainty is almost impossible in audio, if only because brains/preferences are in the middle of the "problem".

Flat earthers also prefer to think physics to not be real, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

[Killingbeans]

I watched this video earlier today. I think it underlines the problem pretty well. Flat earthers deny reality because of how science has revealed its complexity as being far, far greater than what can be observed by unaided human senses. If they don't experience something on a daily basis, it simply can't be real.

Same thing with audio. If your senses tell you that your setup does this and that to the sound, and you experience this on a daily basis, then all of the research showing how your senses are being fooled must be wrong

 

[David James]

addit : this was moved from the thread about denafrip ares ii, but that was actually the point of the post, not to fan a flame war about measurable vs. subjective splendour

still, now it's over here, and i guess i can either read 200 pages of conflicting opinions, or look somewhere else

perhaps this is not the forum i am seeking? anyway, back to the original post :

been reading a lot about this technology, and watching youtube reviews by people who generally seem impressed by it

yeah, i know that readings are some indication of technology's "measure", but ears are an individual's unique portal to the brain

so when the purists are outraged that people couldn't possibly "hear" the differences, i would like them to explain how they can be so assured that their experience is the real one?

i am a would-be audiophile, and i can quite clearly hear the differences between the components that led me to start my upgrade journey

the chaintech av710 sound card that sounded way better tricked to use the wolfson dacs from the rear channels to do the main stereo out (the bass was suddenly magically tighter and with more punch)
the asus xonar upgrade to opa627's - again, mostly the bass, but also the general width of the sound stage
then i tried the burson v5i in their place, and you know what - more expensive didn't make it sound better... synergy ? artefact ? maybe- but it diminished the experience
and the onboard dac in the nad d3020 was painful in comparison to either, with the upper registers being way too sharp and fatiguing
discovered the khadas tone board, and it shat on all the previous dac solutions, for crazy cheap - i don't know about hearing the "hump" in their implementation of the ess es9038q2m, but i do know about hearing detail and separation

in the interim, i have also played with a (wolfson based) alo pan am and an akm ak4993 based stoner acoustics ud130

what i realise is that despite the clarity of the ess chip, and the perhaps for my ears "too clinical" output of the akm, that the warmth of the wolfson implementations touch my heartstrings in a way the others don't, despite their very agreeable but less appealing analogue out

tldr - if a trained musician can tell me that the tonal qualities of the denafrips are the closest to "real life" that they have heard, why isn't that so?

all the engineering analysis in the world is rather pointless when the personal experience of professional musicians' appreciation compared to actual performance consistently report that is more "life-like" regardless of measuring minuscule increased distortion - the explanation that r2r doesn't influence higher order harmonics the same as delta sigma is surely of some consequence in analogue out

real life is imperfect; the nuanced harmonics of a real performance are on their own - any reproduction by its very nature is "lossy" surely, especially if you are filtering high order harmonics to "fix" distortion?

if what you listen to is mostly recordings, your appreciation will be disproportionately tuned to hearing what you are used to, whereas for a performer, the obvious deficiencies in reproductions will be quite audible, or more likely, missing something that is reality in live performance

i'm not a sound engineer, but my ears work okay, and i know what i like

i know that the focal elears and the alo pan am with the french tubes sound the best of all; i know that the russian tubes sound better with the akg q701's on the same amp, but those tubes are not as good as the elears
i understand tubes "colour" the output - but they and the wolfson are a marriage made in heaven for my happiness

i would be really keen for someone to do a double blind test on me with a denafrips, to see if it hits the spot

personally, if it sounds like angels singing, i don't give a rat's arse about the "lesser thd %" that is below my threshold to appreciate - i just want to hear beautiful music that melts my heart


so, feel free to flame me as if i have suggested silver cables make electrons spin better, but please explain why all the best electronic analysis in the world can possibly define what others' cochlears interpret as if that extinguishes the experience

Didn't really read your whole thread but there are a few things you should keep in mind.
This isn't a religion, even if some people treat it like it is. If you like something then that is great. From your words it would seem that you also see it that way.

The problem with this field is that information is most frequently fogged by those attempting to spread it. Reviewers can be biased, publications can have conflicts of interest, subjective opinions can be influenced, listening rooms can be treated to reduce the negative effects of bad engineering, and so on.

Our brains don't like to be honest with us so bias will usually interfere in our assessments unless accounted for.

The only way I can see to make some kind of informed decisions is to eliminate the variables with standardized testing, to the extent it is possible with the given resources. Luckily for us, some people have a lot of resources, and/or a great deal of commitment, and will share their findings.

Measurements themselves do not represent an ideal. They are simply data. It's up to us to correlate that data according to our purposes.

You should follow whatever methods work for you in making your selections, but understand that this is a place populated by users who are seeking some objectivity in a realm that is famous for lacking it.

 

[Galliardist]

And audio in particular is (still) a very tough nut:

• even Law of Gravity level of certainty is almost impossible in audio, if only because brains/preferences are in the middle of the "problem".
• many around here see those DACs/AMPs at -120 dB THD and seem to think: houray, distortion will be extinct by next week! Really!? Will amazon deliver my 120 dB speakers next week? Or this century?
• Probably even more important, will I like those 120 dB speakers? Will anyone? (particularly with the current music recorded with whatever mics at whatever SINAD ). Oh wait, we do not even have a most basic metric to connect those "measurements are always right" with the things people actually want to know: audibility and preference.
• we are 60+ dB away from 120 dB (a sort of "magic number of SINAD" according to some). And we have no idea about the distance between that number and the actual 100% 'perfection'. That doesn't even fit my definition of 'close'. Look ma, we are this far

A couple of fallacies here. Of course we can study brains/preferences, and how we hear. It's being approached from different directions - measurements, blind testing, study of auditory centres, Science can and is coming along in telling us a fuller story here. And if you think we don't know a lot about audibility and preference, it's time for you to read Toole's book and the science in that field.

Secondly, you confuse SINAD numbers and potentialities with the actual "problem". Defining the problem is one of the things audiophiles have difficulty with, and I'll include myself in that. But just consider that most rooms won't let us near 120dB dynamic range above the noise floor. And consider that no instrument has 120 dB dynamic range from the usual position of a listener to a performance - nor does the human voice. You're asking the wrong question.
.
Thirdly, you are making the common mistake of wanting the best, or expecting perfect reproduction. It's best to think of audio as a representation, just as a TV picture or a home theatre system does no more than a representation. Looked at in that way, we've already achieved a huge amount.

 

[lashto]

I have the intellectual ability to simply ignore (or observe without worry or engagement) that group you call "some".

If you are also capable of such discretion, and use it, you will be much happier just listening to the music.

that is of course very good advice. I'd say that ability is more emotional than intellectual but no need to split any hairs.

Many seem to be worried about some flat-earthers nowadays (maybe the current US elections have something to do with that). I have no expectations from flat-earthers so not much worry either.
I am however a lot more worried about the round-earthers and I'd like to see a lot more "somewhat-round earthers". This "we know all" attitude about numbers that we cannot even begin to properly study/understand is very annoying.
So yes, "some" are very bothersome...

 

[SIY]

This "we know all" attitude about numbers that we cannot even begin to properly study/understand is very annoying.

"This is something I don't understand, therefore no-one understands it."

 

[Killingbeans]

Many seem to be worried about some flat-earthers nowadays (maybe the current US elections have something to do with that). I have no expectations from flat-earthers so not much worry either.

Only Two-Thirds Of American Millennials Believe The Earth Is Round

Millennials in America sometimes get a bad reputation, this time for good reason. A recent survey found that just 66 percent of young adults aged 18 to 24 years old have "always believed the world is round."

www.forbes.com

I think that's plenty of reason to worry...

This "we know all" attitude about numbers that we cannot even begin to properly study/understand is very annoying.

What numbers?

 

[Astoneroad]

Only Two-Thirds Of American Millennials Believe The Earth Is Round

Millennials in America sometimes get a bad reputation, this time for good reason. A recent survey found that just 66 percent of young adults aged 18 to 24 years old have "always believed the world is round."

www.forbes.com

I think that's plenty of reason to worry...



What numbers?

To quote Elvis Costello:

 

[Robbo99999]

Only Two-Thirds Of American Millennials Believe The Earth Is Round

Millennials in America sometimes get a bad reputation, this time for good reason. A recent survey found that just 66 percent of young adults aged 18 to 24 years old have "always believed the world is round."

www.forbes.com

I think that's plenty of reason to worry...



What numbers?

Problem with that survey is that it's not designed properly. The option to select "I have always believed the world is round" is not strictly true because as a kid before your education you might well have assumed the world was flat because of your experience, it's not like you always thought the world was round when you were a toddler or something, so that's probably why a lot of people selected "Other/Not Sure" because there's not really an accurate option to pick - so the way those two dynamics play together make it seem that not an extroardinary proportion of the people "believe the world is round". Of course you can't deny the percentages associated with the options of "I always thought the world is flat, but more recently I am skeptical/have doubts" and the other option of "I have always believed the world is flat". It's a poorly worded poll, which has resulted in a fairly high proportion of people choosing "Other/Not Sure".