Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Deleted member 48726]

lol

as are you, only human.

Its a science forum and also because you are all human as well, I have witnessed many errors in measurements.
and I don’t have to prove anything to anyone , for something as silly as a DAC or sound.
my question to you is, Have you concluded that our current measurements of DACs or audio are complete?
all there is to attribute to our auditory system has been discovered ?

if you do, as I said that is a pretty unscientific claim , as well as a bold dogmatic claim.
which is not science at all
don’t hide behind this word all of a sudden that’s called science.
first of all it’s the Scientific method. there is no weird entity science. Ha. Geez

and as I stated before science , true science always tries to un-prove itself. That’s why we make strides .
Once upon a time people didn’t know what caused ulcers.
The medical community didn’t stop there. They continued their research and discovered that it was Helicobacter Pylori. A bacterium that caused it.

what we thought about Newtonian physics is now being challenged by Quantum theory.
and it’s opening up new doors of insight.
if those physicists stopped at Newtonian physics and claimed that was it. Where would we be now.

what you are claiming to be science is just a word you can hide behind something you don’t understand and more so , you don’t want to or have the curiosity to understand.

but that’s ok.
i understand. It’s difficult to be open minded and really follow a scientific methodology when you can’t even imagine some things might be wrong. Or there might be something more.
it shatters your safe haven you have convinced yourself of.

a real scientist would address the issue by trying to find, what is it that make these sound different??

there have been many random blind studies done in audio showing we don’t fully understand our auditory system.

Your ‘ evidence’ is based upon a false claim that our current suite of measurements is all we need to determine how a piece of audio gear sounds like.
That has never ever been substantiated. And engineers such as John Siau are constantly trying to better things and understand more and learn.

it must be pretty horrible to not be open to learning more.

as I said. I have nothing to prove at all. It’s pointless
you can stay in your bubble and I respect that and I’ll stay in mine. They are called opinions.

cheers

This is true words of wisdom and science. Kudos.
Science is about objectivism and trying to prove or disprove things by being sceptic. Some here are indeed using the numbers to establish that we know all there is to know. We know a lot and can measure many things. But do they really reflect real life? -It's good to question the measurements and methods as well from time to time. It may lead to expanding our common knowledge. Which should be the goal of real science.

 

[bodhi]

why do you feel the need to be condescending and rude?
i haven’t made snarky , condescending remarks to you.

fascinating.

You are generally being passive-aggressive and writing long, hard to read messages that don't really have any content. You keep parroting stuff about what would be good science but don't seem to understand how science works. You erroneously claim how others are trying to change your opinion when people are only debating the arguments you bring to the table.

These things might get to some peoples' nerves.

 

[Nkam]

This is true words of wisdom and science. Kudos.
Science is about objectivism and trying to prove or disprove things by being sceptic. Some here are indeed using the numbers to establish that we know all there is to know. We know a lot and can measure many things. But do they really reflect real life? -It's good to question the measurements and methods as well from time to time. It may lead to expanding our common knowledge. Which should be the goal of real science.

well if we all just agreed and rested on our ‘ current success’ or ‘ discoveries’ , we wouldnt be where we are today , thank god.

thank god l as humans we seek out more constantly and are not satisfied with what we have currently.

if others are satisfied and think we have figured all we need to know about music reproduction and/or production , well great. Good for you. Makes your life a lot easier so to speak.

and I’m fine with it.

i for one am not.
just the myriad of examples of past scientific theories which have been disproven time and time again is good enough for me to keep searching and enjoy the journey.
and others can claim I hear the differences between fuses as an extreme to try and snow incompetence of mine on some level.

doesn’t bother me at all.

as always, the more technology give us better and better tools for scientific exploration, the more we have to discover.

it’s pretty exciting actually.

and psychoacoustics is also a fascinating field , which again we are constantly learning about.

 

[voodooless]

at a certain point in time we thought the earth was the center of our solar system.
that was actually science.

No, that was religion, not science.

religion was the only one that had a conclusion and didn’t want to search further.

Only after we applied science we found out it was wrong.

well actually a Catholic monk or priest, can’t remember l created the Big bang theory to be honest.

So what? He was a cosmologist, and happend to be a priest.

Parrot double blind studies etc, without having conducted any actually scientific studies on our auditory system.

I don’t see a problem. Those tests are designed specifically because we don’t know. Dismissing them because of it is just ignorant.

science is constantly disproving theories. It’s the way it works.

Yes, by doing actual science, not by randomly plugging and unplugging equipment and pretending to hear differences.

Studies on digital audio are very very limited.
there is DSD, PCM. ΣΔ DACs, ladder DACs. Different technology.
not all work the same.
there is also arguments around how audible ringing is, pre ringing etc.
not many studies.

Are you kidding me? We have litterally decades of thousands of studies. All these things are very well understood.

again. It’s only my opinion. I’m just one person.
you have your opinion and I have mine.

This is not about opinions. It’s about facts, and in this case, they are not on your side.

 

[Nkam]

You are generally being passive-aggressive and writing long, hard to read messages that don't really have any content. You keep parroting stuff about what would be good science but don't seem to understand how science works. You erroneously claim how others are trying to change your opinion when people are only debating the arguments you bring to the table.

These things might get to some peoples' nerves.

excuse me?

i might get on other peoples nerves because I have a different opinion??
and can’t be swayed to agree?

interesting again.

so either I comply with certain peoples ideas or I’m out?

well , get some moderators to ban me then.

don’t know what to tell you.

this is a thread on if measurements matter or not. Isn’t it?

 

[Galliardist]

and psychoacoustics is also a fascinating field , which again we are constantly learning about.

I'll agree with that. It's actually what I've been saying to you all along!

As for stating "opinions" here, I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended...

"All I did was get into this cage to express the opinion that lions are herbivores, why are you trying to maul me to death?".

I guess it's what we do here.

A belated welcome to ASR, by the way.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

well if we all just agreed and rested on our ‘ current success’ or ‘ discoveries’ , we wouldnt be where we are today , thank god.

thank god l as humans we seek out more constantly and are not satisfied with what we have currently.

if others are satisfied and think we have figured all we need to know about music reproduction and/or production , well great. Good for you. Makes your life a lot easier so to speak.

and I’m fine with it.

i for one am not.
just the myriad of examples of past scientific theories which have been disproven time and time again is good enough for me to keep searching and enjoy the journey.
and others can claim I hear the differences between fuses as an extreme to try and snow incompetence of mine on some level.

doesn’t bother me at all.

as always, the more technology give us better and better tools for scientific exploration, the more we have to discover.

it’s pretty exciting actually.

and psychoacoustics is also a fascinating field , which again we are constantly learning about.

And as a mean to establish differences that may or may not be visible in measurements, blind tests are essential. They are hard to do and document proper though, I think. But if establishing trust and convincing arguments to claims it may be the only way.
On that note it may be good to change the discussion to e.g. that we may not get full transparent picture from certain measurements than to stand ground and claim there is different between X and Y components. -Because without test results that show you can hear the difference the discussion is futile and may even be waste of time.

 

[Nkam]

No, that was religion, not science.

Only after we applied science we found out it was wrong.

So what? He was a cosmologist, and happend to be a priest.

I don’t see a problem. Those tests are designed specifically because we don’t know. Dismissing them because of it is just ignorant.

Yes, by doing actual science, not by randomly plugging and unplugging equipment and pretending to hear differences.

Are you kidding me? We have litterally decades of thousands of studies. All these things are very well understood.

This is not about opinions. It’s about facts, and in this case, they are not on your side.

religion ???

no it’s was a mathematician at the time Ptolemy

Copernicus turned that around. And also made mistakes.

https://www.space.com/heliocentrism

you are putting words in my mouth. I never dismissed anything.
i actually said there is a lot to show from measurements. And certain ones.

again. You got the earth part wrong. The scientist at the time got it wrong too. Ptolemy.

i seriously don’t understand why the insistence on hurling insults. “ it’s about facts and they are not on your side”
who discusses civilly like that?

is it ok for us to disagree on this?

why does this thread even exist then?

was it made so only a few can have their opinion and others to mock them and hurl insults?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sorry I don’t agree.

im not trying to convince anyone , I have no clue why you guys are.

kinda wild to say the least

at a certain point in time we thought the earth was the center of our solar system.
that was actually science.
religion was the only one that had a conclusion and didn’t want to search further.
well actually a Catholic monk or priest, can’t remember l created the Big bang theory to be honest.

i disagree.
we have not completely understood human hearing and/or it’s limits.
we aren’t talking about fuses or other silly things. I mean nice try to prove a point that what one person is saying is dumb by showing an extreme example.

you can have your opinion and I have mine. And we are fine.
as a matter of fact that is how science has progressed over the centuries.
not everyone nodded their heads in agreement.

it’s a good thing fellas.

you can call me whatever you want. Parrot double blind studies etc, without having conducted any actually scientific studies on our auditory system, I’m sure.
it is your opinion.

not everyone shares it.

i don’t have a problem with your view. That’s fine.

science is constantly disproving theories. It’s the way it works.
Studies on digital audio are very very limited.
there is DSD, PCM. ΣΔ DACs, ladder DACs. Different technology.
not all work the same.
there is also arguments around how audible ringing is, pre ringing etc.
not many studies.

thank god there have been some studies by Toole on speakers and what people prefer etc.
digital audio?
not so much.
not much money in it. So it lags.

again. It’s only my opinion. I’m just one person.
you have your opinion and I have mine.

all is well

cheers

Combinations of straw men assertions, red herrings, and misdirection. Brandolini's law in action.

 

[Nkam]

And as a mean to establish differences that may or may not be visible in measurements, blind tests are essential. They are hard to do and document proper though, I think. But if establishing trust and convincing arguments to claims it may be the only way.
On that note it may be good to change the discussion to e.g. that we may not get full transparent picture from certain measurements than to stand ground and claim there is different between X and Y components. -Because without test results that show you can hear the difference the discussion is futile and may even be waste of time.

i guess some people think that’s it for audio.
all we need to know we know already.

and we will be stuck with huge boxes called speakers , with large pistonic diaphragms to reproduce sound.
great.

i was kinda hoping someday things would be better.

 

[Geert]

at a certain point in time we thought the earth was the center of our solar system.
that was actually science.eligion was the only one that had a conclusion and didn’t want to search further.

You are preaching to the wrong choir. Different people involved in this discussion have decades of experience in electronic engineering. In practise that's a life devoted to study. And you are telling them they don't want to learn? You think you're well placed to educate them on how science and technology evolve?

 

[Nkam]

Combinations of straw men assertions, red herrings, and misdirection. Brandolini's law in action.

you do realize that some people think you are wrong, don’t you?

i mean I realize that some people don’t agree with me either and I’m fine with it, without hurling insults.

it’s how things work.

 

[Nkam]

You are preaching to the wrong choir. Different people involved in this discussion have decades of experience in electronic engineering. In practise that's a life devoted to study. And you are telling them they don't want to learn? You think you're well placed to educate them on how science and technology evolve?

so you are basically saying I don’t have any say here?

i didn’t remember reading in the forum that to join and post you had to have certain credentials.

did I miss that part?

if I did , I’ll leave.

don’t want to get anyone angry.

im not well placed or trying to change anyones opinion in fact.
i think you are trying to do that to me


again I ask Legitimately. Why on earth was this thread created then?
if there is only one accepted opinion and law.

Ban me or not. Other people disagree with you and the same goes for me.
there will be people who disagree with me as well.

 

[Geert]

so you are basically saying I don’t have any say here?

No I don't, that conclusion is your own.

again I ask Legitimately. Why on earth was this thread created then?

I've moved this series of posts to the thread where we try to contain this type of stuff, so we can reduce the noise on the rest of the forum.

 

[Els]

Physics and reason for electronics.

Flat frequency response first of all. Low noise, low distortion. Flat is easy. Low noise needs to be low enough. Some gray area, but not much of a hurdle to overcome. Low distortion also some gray area, but not much of a hurdle. In short the old idea of high fidelity to the signal.

So, you have mastered all the above.
In other words you are going to judge each engineer foreign or otherwise and give them your seal of approval. What are your accomplishments in the domain of audio design and engineering, which components have you designed?
I have to say here, that I am very appreciative of Amir's work. But:
I am sorry, I have to point out that some "major contributors" like you are the reason this forum is getting somewhat of a bad rep in the audio industry.

 

[lateralous]

im not well placed or trying to change anyones opinion in fact.
i think you are trying to do that to me


again I ask Legitimately. Why on earth was this thread created then?
if there is only one accepted opinion and law.

Ban me or not. Other people disagree with you and the same goes for me.
there will be people who disagree with me as well.

Let's try another angle, what do you think you've contributed here in helping us all gain a better understanding? At best I can see a statement of "there are unknown unknows that you all don't know". Great, that doesn't help us in understanding if that unknown unknown exists. It seems you've presupposed we have a vested interest in ensuring such unknowns never become known; I think that is a terrible mischaracterization, we just need valid evidence. Your hearing is not valid evidence.

 

[Geert]

In other words you are going to judge each engineer foreign or otherwise and give them your seal of approval.

As an answer to your question, you were handed some objective criteria to judge the quality of certain aspects of a design. Criteria anyone can apply. So what makes you conclude some people on this forum believe they are the only ones who can judge quality? Why do you think they suggested different articles to help you learn to apply the suggested methods?

 

[Nkam]

As an answer to your question, you were handed some objective criteria to judge the quality of certain aspects of a design. Criteria anyone can apply. So what makes you conclude some people on this forum believe they are the only ones who can judge quality? Why do you think they suggested different articles to help you learn to apply the suggested methods?

who says we don’t apply these methods in the first place??

do you know if I do double blind listening at home with the help of a friend?

I don’t get that assumption all of a sudden.

 

[Galliardist]

who says we don’t apply these methods in the first place??

do you know if I do double blind listening at home with the help of a friend?

I don’t get that assumption all of a sudden.

Strictly, you can't do double blind listening with a friend at home - it would at best be a blind test.

A message from the Department of Extreme Pedantry, that some of us have to repeat again and again here.

 

[Nkam]

Let's try another angle, what do you think you've contributed here in helping us all gain a better understanding? At best I can see a statement of "there are unknown unknows that you all don't know". Great, that doesn't help us in understanding if that unknown unknown exists. It seems you've presupposed we have a vested interest in ensuring such unknowns never become known; I think that is a terrible mischaracterization, we just need valid evidence. Your hearing is not valid evidence.

i am contributing as much as you are.

im asking once more. Why was this thread created in the first place?

what is the ‘ other angle’. that I have to agree with you , or I’m an outcast?

what on earth??

no one is talking about ‘ the unknown’ or some mystical things here.
we are talking about volume matched blind tests.

what, do you want a thesis on it?
where is your thesis on the contrary?

im confused.

all I’m saying is that I can successfully hear the differences between DACs which measure about the same. Blindly and volume matched.

and I’m also saying that all that has been discovered for audio quantification has not been done yet.

now what?