Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[Geert]

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.

What I don't get is where you see me making a statement of anyone doing blind tests are not. And especially not about you doing them as I responded to someone else.

 

[Nkam]

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.

that’s fine.

like I said. Want a thesis on it?

where is your thesis on the contrary ?
or research on audio.

do you have any papers published ?

can you point me to some research papers on DACs?

 

[Nkam]

What I don't get is where you see me making a statement of anyone doing blind tests are not. And especially not about you doing them as I responded to someone else.

you said to “ apply different methods “

ok what other methods were discussed here except double blind tests?

because that is all I’m hearing being parroted.

 

[Geert]

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

If you record the output of these DAC's, then can you still hear the differences in a blind test? If so, can you post these recordings so we can also give it it try?

 

[Geert]

ok what other methods were discussed here except double blind tests?

Measurements, null tests, critical listening to get a better understanding of our hearing capabilities.

 

[Nkam]

If you record the output of these DAC's, then can you still hear the differences in a blind test? If so, can you post these recordings so we can also give it it try?

how is that scientific ??

huh??

that would include bias which is also included in reasearch papers, as is methodology too.

 

[Nkam]

I don’t get the argument either.

are we here to convince each other and all come to the same opinion??

 

[Nkam]

Measurements, null tests, critical listening to get a better understanding of our hearing capabilities.

ok and what research have you done conducting those methods to prove that there are no differences in DACs that measure about the same. Or measure well beyond the threshold of hearing?

Measurements aren’t a test.
they are tools.
i think you are confusing measurements as tests.

how is critical listening a control test?

 

[Geert]

how is that scientific ?? Huh?? That would include bias which is also included in reasearch papers, as is methodology too.

You asked 'now what', and I did a suggestion. A suggestion that gives you the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of your arguments.

You're afraid for bias, then we simply add a 3th sample with some added distortion to the test so people should identify differences if they take the test seriously. And we can implement other measures if you still believe it's not good enough. The question is if you're really interested in learning?

 

[Geert]

ok and what research have you done conducting those methods to prove that there are no differences in DACs that measure about the same. Or measure well beyond the threshold of hearing?

I didn't make any statements about the sound of DAC's.

how is critical listening a control test?

I didn't say it was.

 

[JktHifi]

I don’t get the argument either.

are we here to convince each other and all come to the same opinion??

There is a song from Nick Waterhouse - The Fooler:
"I am the fool and You are the fooler..."

You should listen to it to calm down

 

[Galliardist]

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?

Saying it isn't enough.
You see, you are claiming that you can hear things that the standard science, such as it might be, says you can't.
So you are the one making the claim that needs to be verified.

It's time to hold yourself to your own claimed high standard. Where is your thesis? Where are your papers? Can you detail your experiment so that it can be repeated by others and verified?

The one thing that will get you nowhere here is a vague claim. We don't accept "I can", but "I did, this is how, and I will do it again, under controlled conditions, to prove it".

Time and again we hear this stuff, but it never gets beyond a claim or an insufficiently controlled test environment.

As soon as it does happen, properly, I guarantee you that we will change our tune. How many years is it now? A lot longer than I've been on this forum.

Your turn.

 

[lateralous]

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?

Of course you are talking about the unknown, you're claiming to hear a difference even when the output does not measure differently. I would love to see your thesis, and I don't need one of my own to support your own claim. We've been waiting a very long time for a single example of one being able to distinguish via ear measurably transparent DACs, what makes you special among all the rest?

 

[Nkam]

I agree that loudspeaker measurements have been studied quite extensively.
building a good loudspeaker is something most can do nowadays with good measurements.

but the same hasn’t been done on DACs.

anyways.
it’s my opinion.

and your opinions are yours.

all is well

 

[SIY]

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

As a dump for garbage claims offered without a shred of evidence.

 

[Blumlein 88]

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.

You asked who decides what is properly designed. The answer is anyone with good measures can say if something is properly designed by the performance it attains. And yes within the regions of the gray areas that includes me. You don't have to be an awarded scientist or researcher or designer or engineer. You need the knowledge of what limits of performance are sufficient. So any device that reaches those is properly designed for our audio purposes. You might still have quibbles about whether it is cost effective or other issues, but if it performs it is fine. A good example being a recent thread on the big McIntosh power amp. Expensive, but measurements indicate excellent performance. It uses transformers and solid state devices, but none of that matters once you see the resulting performance.

In some respects it is more about what you can say is not properly designed. In terms of something being a properly designed, properly performing high fidelity device, anything with non-flat response is broken. Someone may prefer it, but it is broken (excepting of course devices intended to shape response). Anything that is noise filled is not properly designed. Anything with high levels of distortion. There are many details for all scenarios, and I may not know all of them, but if you don't get those basics the device is a non-starter.

If such ideas are why ASR gets a bad rep, then I don't know why. Amir or the moderators can always correct me if that is wrong. I suspect you are thinking I'm simplistically saying everything is the same. I'm not. There are enough details to look at especially in edge cases. I think this mischaracterization of my views and others on ASR is what is getting the bad rep if that is true.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

As a dump for garbage claims offered without a shred of evidence.

Touche!

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

You asked who decides what is properly designed. The answer is anyone with good measures can say if something is properly designed by the performance it attains. And yes within the regions of the gray areas that includes me. You don't have to be an awarded scientist or researcher or designer or engineer. You need the knowledge of what limits of performance are sufficient. So any device that reaches those is properly designed for our audio purposes. You might still have quibbles about whether it is cost effective or other issues, but if it performs it is fine. A good example being a recent thread on the big McIntosh power amp. Expensive, but measurements indicate excellent performance. It uses transformers and solid state devices, but none of that matters once you see the resulting performance.

In some respects it is more about what you can say is not properly designed. In terms of something being a properly designed, properly performing high fidelity device, anything with non-flat response is broken. Someone may prefer it, but it is broken (excepting of course devices intended to shape response). Anything that is noise filled is not properly designed. Anything with high levels of distortion. There are many details for all scenarios, and I may not know all of them, but if you don't get those basics the device is a non-starter.

If such ideas are why ASR gets a bad rep, then I don't know why. Amir or the moderators can always correct me if that is wrong. I suspect you are thinking I'm simplistically saying everything is the same. I'm not. There are enough details to look at especially in edge cases. I think this mischaracterization of my views and others on ASR is what is getting the bad rep if that is true.

Truthfully Blumlein, what is wrong with a bad rep, in the context of discussing hi-fi equipment?
If ASR is in a minority of one, in this world, I can only say, "I'm Spartacus"!

 

[BDWoody]

i am contributing as much as you are.

Not anymore, this has gotten ridiculous.

 

[Mart68]

Truthfully Blumlein, what is wrong with a bad rep, in the context of discussing hi-fi equipment?
If ASR is in a minority of one, in this world, I can only say, "I'm Spartacus"!

ASR does have a bad rep with the salesmen and the no-nothing gurus.

If you're taking flak you must be over the target.

It's a measure of success, I hope the rep gets worse.