Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[DonR]

Wrong. The entire GPS system would break down if not for relativistic adjustments.

Absolutely but that is because of the curvature of space-time which is beyond our abilities to sense directly.

 

[Guettel]

Absolutely but that is because of the curvature of space-time which is beyond our abilities to sense directly.

I sense the curvature of space time every day as I fight gravity and try to get my fat butt out of bed!

 

[amirm]

No one has proven what is currently measureable is all that is hearable.

No one has shown what is audible that we don't measure. Give an example and proof and it would be trivial to create a measurement for it.

 

[pkane]

Insult me all you want to.

That's all you have since the essential point that what we can currently measure may not be all that matters is unassailable.

You’re can take it as an insult, or take it as a gentle suggestion to try to read and learn about things you may not already know. Neither Newton nor Einstein started with the premise that we don’t know everything therefore we can’t possibly learn.

 

[Guettel]

No one has shown what is audible that we don't measure. Give an example and proof and it would be trivial to create a measurement for it.

"Feel" is unquestionably audible. How do you measure it?

"Groove" is unquestionably measurable. How do you measure it?

 

[Guettel]

You’re can take it as an insult, or take it as a gentle suggestion to try to read and learn about things you may not already know. Neither Newton nor Einstein started with the premise that we don’t know everything therefore we can’t possibly learn.

Exactly: you're making my point exactly. To assume that what we can currently measure is all there is is to be closed to the idea there's more to learn. Which is exactly the point.

 

[RonSanderson]

Nor would I, but I *would* pay attention to whether they are from aural or other stimuli. Otherwise it's all just a crap shoot.

I should have said something like “scientific”, “measurable” concepts that increase musical enjoyment.

I’m not a gimmicks guy. But I do think we are leaving measurements behind that we should be investigating.

 

[pkane]

Exactly: you're making my point exactly. To assume that what we can currently measure is all there is is to be closed to the idea there's more to learn. Which is exactly the point.

And what you’re missing is all the facts we do know already. Which is what I suggest you try to learn before pronouncing current body of knowledge as insufficient.

 

[Guettel]

BTW, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful debate. Thank you for that.

 

[Guettel]

And what you’re missing is all the facts we do know already. Which is what I suggest you try to learn before pronouncing current body of knowledge as insufficient.

Never in the history of science has the current body of knowledge been sufficient. That's the entire point of science.

There is an immense amount about why we enjoy music that we don't understand.

 

[DonR]

I sense the curvature of space time every day as I fight gravity and try to get my fat butt out of bed!

Newtonian gravity. Unless you are planetary in size or moving at high speed you won't notice any time effects.

 

[captainbeefheart]

Given the rhythmic nature of most music, would odd-order harmonic distortion make the music seem to have more impact than the equivalent amount of even-order distortion.

Looking at music theory with intervals might help.

Second harmonic is a musical octave, same note just higher.

Third harmonic is a musical twelfth, which is a perfect fifth but an octave higher.

Playing these intervals on a piano you can hear the difference between them, I'd assert that the fundamental and third harmonic which would be a I-V interval, has a much more powerful sound to it than just fundamental and octave. In the guitar world when you play a I-V chord it's called a "power chord" for a reason. Most rock, alternative music etc.. uses tons of "power chords" which consist of only fundamentals and perfect fifths.

I take this information when tweaking distortion effects in guitar amps. For example using two matched diodes in parallel and antiphase connected in the feedback path of an opamp you get linear clipping which creates distortion with all odd harmonics. This type of distortion is very aggressive sounding and really stands out. If the player wants a more mellow distortion for say blues type music I use dissimilar diodes in the feedback loop of the opamp which gives non-linear clipping and hence even harmonic distortion content.

Taking this even further, when I buy boxes of 12AX7's I test them at 10v output and sort them by their distortion content, specimens that contain low order harmonics, especially high second harmonic and low higher order harmonics I keep them for hifi. The tubes that have very high distortion which contain higher harmonics 3H and above I keep for guitar amps since they have a more colored tone and stand out more.

 

[pkane]

Never in the history of science has the current body of knowledge been sufficient. That's the entire point of science.

There is an immense amount about why we enjoy music that we don't understand.

We’re not discussing music here, if you’ve not already noticed. Arguing that we may not know something because we never know everything is useless. It doesn’t serve to further any knowledge or understanding and is an argument often used to hinder further scientific inquiry.

 

[amirm]

"Feel" is unquestionably audible. How do you measure it?

"Groove" is unquestionably measurable. How do you measure it?

These are things that a DAC does? I thought they were characteristics of music itself. But sure, you do a blind test, repeat 10 times and show that one DAC has more feel/groove than another and I will guarantee you a measurement for it. To the extent you can't, then your assumption that DACs do that is false and there is nothing to measure.

 

[amirm]

In 1930, frequency response couldn't be measured. But it sure does matter.

Fletcher-Munson not only could measure frequency response in 1933, but measured ear's frequency response including threshold of hearing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

"The Fletcher–Munson curves are one of many sets of equal-loudness contours for the human ear, determined experimentally by Harvey Fletcher and Wilden A. Munson, and reported in a 1933 paper entitled "Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation" in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.[2] "

You see the danger in talking about specific science but not having done the research to know it? In this forum, you are talking to people who have studied the science and engineering. In contrast, you are repeating marketing lines from manufactures that benefits them but not consumers. You need to get past that to know that we are more than qualified to measure what makes a high performance DAC, and what doesn't.

 

[Guettel]

These are things that a DAC does? I thought they were characteristics of music itself. But sure, you do a blind test, repeat 10 times and show that one DAC has more feel/groove than another and I will guarantee you a measurement for it. To the extent you can't, then your assumption that DACs do that is false and there is nothing to measure.

That sounds like a great idea. I wish there were an actual way to do that and film it and put it on this site.

For, if I did a blind test of Dave against any of the $100 DACs you say are superior, I would hear the difference in a blind test 100% of the time. I would then be extremely interested in how you figured a measurement for it. I'm a musician and I would LOVE to see feel or groove quantified.

 

[amirm]

To be fair, determining why we hear what we hear can often be difficult. But detecting that something exists, is trivial. So when a company or audiophile claims this and DAC is better than another, we can easily rule out if such a fact exists, i.e. a difference, or not. It is this part that audiophiles get wrong when they say we can't measure everything. We can capture and analyze any audio sample to very high precision. And translate that into noise and distortion. How much noise and distortion is audible can be difficult, but not measuring those two factors.

 

[Guettel]

Fletcher-Munson not only could measure frequency response in 1933, but measured ear's frequency response including threshold of hearing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

"The Fletcher–Munson curves are one of many sets of equal-loudness contours for the human ear, determined experimentally by Harvey Fletcher and Wilden A. Munson, and reported in a 1933 paper entitled "Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation" in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.[2] "

You see the danger in talking about specific science but not having done the research to know it? In this forum, you are talking to people who have studied the science and engineering. In contrast, you are repeating marketing lines from manufactures that benefits them but not consumers. You need to get past that to know that we are more than qualified to measure what makes a high performance DAC, and what doesn't.

Fair enough. I was referring to measuring frequency response sufficiently for DACs. But your point is correct and I was wrong.

 

[amirm]

For, if I did a blind test of Dave against any of the $100 DACs you say are superior, I would hear the difference in a blind test 100% of the time. I would then be extremely interested in how you figured a measurement for it. I'm a musician and I would LOVE to see feel or groove quantified.

I can't assure that. What I can assure is that if you matched their levels, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart reliably in 10 trials. If so, then to you, they are audibly identical and hence, no reason to buy the Dave DAC. You don't need our help to do any of this. Buy the $100 DAC, match levels and do the 10 tests. Once you do and trust what you have experienced, you will be following what we do.

 

[Guettel]

To be fair, determining why we hear what we hear can often be difficult. But detecting that something exists, is trivial. So when a company or audiophile claims this and DAC is better than another, we can easily rule out if such a fact exists, i.e. a difference, or not. It is this part that audiophiles get wrong when they say we can't measure everything. We can capture and analyze any audio sample to very high precision. And translate that into noise and distortion. How much noise and distortion is audible can be difficult, but not measuring those two factors.

Then how do you account for the fact that 95% reviews of the Dave are glowingly positive? Are all those people wrong about what's better?

Obviously, they're not. What's wrong is saying that measurements are what matter about a DAC. This is patently wrong, as DACs are made to subjectively sound good, not only measure well.

But you are of course free to define what matters about DACs in your own way. I just point out that your definition differs from that of nearly everyone else. Nearly everyone else wants a DAC that sounds good to them, regardless of any measurements.