Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[ahofer]

It would be interesting to change the approach from denying or dismissing certain phenomena expressed in narratives as fantasies and makings of the unreliable mind to ask why this is the case. Instead of clinging onto the O'Toole and company curves for speakers and calling it the scientific consensus of what a speaker should sound like, why not ask rather what could be at play and why people, a sizable percentage of the universe, prefer a BBC dip, for example. Maybe it could be their listening environments, and maybe it could be a physiological, anatomical or neurological factor.

Under the umbrella of science, many people's experiences are dissed without thinking about what could be at play, which I call pseudo-science or lazy thinking.

Yes, it would be interesting. This is a motte-and-bailey argument. Nobody "dissed" anyone's experience, as said above, but we often diss their conclusions as to cause. Let's acknowledge that difference consistently. Variable preference for EQ is widely understood here, although most here would suggest you should start with a linear, even-dispersion, low distortion speaker and THEN add a dip or other sound processing in you favorite flavor. Your appetite for such things may change over different recordings.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Most often different volume levels, but any kind of suggestion or bias, rather than an audible difference in signal when fed at the same level.

NB: FLOYD TOOLE. Jeez, the guy posts here, and he's not an Irish bar.

Oh, Toole, thanks.

 

[Geert]

Under the umbrella of science, many people's experiences are dissed without thinking about what could be at play, which I call pseudo-science or lazy thinking.

Since you don't know what knowledge or experience the members of this forum have taken into consideration when developing their opinion, it's your argument that's showing lack of thought. You want a scientific approach? Then first start with an experiment that provides data which showes these experiences are real. I think it's fair to expect the people who make certain claims to provide this data.

clinging onto the O'Toole and company curves for speakers and calling it the scientific consensus

Like it or not, but a lot of Toole's work is the scientific concensus. What you read in his book is not only his work, it's also a study of the work of different researchers. People who spent their whole live researching these topics. If you want to wave this away then I would like to see you come up with something better.

 

[amirm]

Under the umbrella of science, many people's experiences are dissed without thinking about what could be at play, which I call pseudo-science or lazy thinking.

There is nothing lazy about me continuing to extensively test every audio tweak sent to me. We could have stopped day one and said that based on engineering analysis alone, these things don't do anything. But we like to put data, and a lot of it, behind our opinions so we keep testing. Any reasonable person by now would stand back and say, "wow, after testing so many products, the message is so consistent that we don't even need to test more." Yet you call that lazy "thinking?"

 

[HarmonicTHD]

There is nothing lazy about me continuing to extensively test every audio tweak sent to me. We could have stopped day one and said that based on engineering analysis alone, these things don't do anything. But we like to put data, and a lot of it, behind our opinions so we keep testing. Any reasonable person by now would stand back and say, "wow, after testing so many products, the message is so consistent that we don't even need to test more." Yet you call that lazy "thinking?"

Yes I remember everytime you test another DAC or cable there are some calling for you to stop and focus on other equipment as the case is clear. Yet here we are seeing that the case still isn’t clear for some despite the meanwhile overwhelming data (assuming the OP is here in good faith).

 

[JP]

I really feel validated that my favorite analogy is gaining traction.

Time to recycle that quote again.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Time to recycle that quote again.

I have the feeling it won’t be the last time.

 

[Timcognito]

EDIT : - and if anyone knows differently, please tell me where to find them

They cross our borders everyday, work at jobs most people won't do and get little for doing it.

 

[Galliardist]

You know if we ever get to another planet the first thing we'll do is probe various orifices of the indigenous species. It's a universal thing.

What we will do is invent all these powerful new technologies, visit strange new worlds and show off our mechanical watches and super high fidelity turntables.

We’ll go away, they’ll wonder how beings with such powerful tools exist, an within a century someone will unleash powerful new clockwork robots with super weapons that come in “MM” and “MM” forms which will conquer the universe.

 

[widemediaphotography]

When you buy an expensive piece of kit, a good portion of that expence damn better be the result of an extraordinarily meticulous atttention to the things that less expensive products choose to leave out. If it is more susceptible to EMI and ground loops than the cheap stuff, then the designer has failed his/her job.

I have already specified that I also deal with electromagnetic compatibility, the mandatory tests defined by the standards to which all vehicles are subjected. These are certified tests that can last up to several days. The possibility of moving the IME as well as not being contemplated by the test, is not a scientific solution!
I'm saying that before stating the uselessness of low-noise linear audio power supplies, reclockers, fanless, let's test under stress and not where it's more convenient for us to test!

 

[Galliardist]

It would be interesting to change the approach from denying or dismissing certain phenomena expressed in narratives as fantasies and makings of the unreliable mind to ask why this is the case. Instead of clinging onto the O'Toole and company curves for speakers and calling it the scientific consensus of what a speaker should sound like, why not ask rather what could be at play and why people, a sizable percentage of the universe, prefer a BBC dip, for example. Maybe it could be their listening environments, and maybe it could be a physiological, anatomical or neurological factor.

Under the umbrella of science, many people's experiences are dissed without thinking about what could be at play, which I call pseudo-science or lazy thinking.

If the standard for science is to change to “what people believe is right”, we may as well give up now.

I agree that investigating why people prefer one thing sighted and another in blind testing may be interesting.

As to the BBC dip, you may be thinking incorrectly. People prefer certain speakers that have a dip in around a certain frequency, but it may be because those speakers have a traditional, trusted British brand name, because a certain group of reviewers recommend them, because they look like “proper speakers”… preferring the dip may be post-rationalisation of a choice, correlation rather than cause.

The evidence we have suggests that in controlled testing people show a different preference.

Before discussing why a considerable group of people prefer the dip, you do have to go through the step of showing that a considerable group actually do prefer the dip for domestic listening, isolated from other factors.

 

[ahofer]

Before discussing why a considerable group of people prefer the dip, you do have to go through the step of showing that a considerable group actually do prefer the dip for domestic listening, isolated from other factors.

This is also true. There’s room for different preferences, but preferences are often misattributed.

 

[Killingbeans]

I have already specified that I also deal with electromagnetic compatibility, the mandatory tests defined by the standards to which all vehicles are subjected. These are certified tests that can last up to several days. The possibility of moving the IME as well as not being contemplated by the test, is not a scientific solution!
I'm saying that before stating the uselessness of low-noise linear audio power supplies, reclockers, fanless, let's test under stress and not where it's more convenient for us to test!

I get it, I really do. You feel very strongly about EMI testing and would like to see that kind of thinking applied to audio gear.

But since you're the one with far most expertise in the field, I'd also assume you have the ability to estimate the severity of the problem and put some numbers on the probabilities of its effects. Simply saying that it can't possibly not be a problem, is not very useful.

I am not convinced it's much of a problem in home audio applications, but if you have actually built a so called "audio PC", I'd like to think that you did so with a solid estimate of its audible impact beforehand, and made a reliable verification of said impact afterwards?

 

[Mart68]

What should happen:
1) Perceive a difference that shouldn't really exist
2) Assume it is in the mind. Do controlled testing to see if you can still perceive it.
3) If testing positive, publish your experiment and results on audio science forum for peer review and replication by others

What actually happens:
1) Perceive a difference that shouldn't really exist
2) Assume it's real
3) Go on audio science forum and tell them that they've got it all wrong.

 

[Dimitrov]

If the standard for science is to change to “what people believe is right”, we may as well give up now.

I agree that investigating why people prefer one adiadithing sighted and another in blind testing.

As to the BBC dip, you may be thinking incorrectly. People prefer certain speakers that have a dip in around a certain frequency, but it may be because those speakers have a traditional, trusted British brand name, because a certain group of reviewers recommend them, because they look like “proper speakers”… preferring the dip may be post-rationalisation of a choice, correlation rather than cause.

The evidence we have suggests that in controlled testing people show a different preference.

Before discussing why a considerable group of people prefer the dip, you do have to go through the step of showing that a considerable group actually do prefer the dip for domestic listening, isolated from other factors.

As you say, the evidence we have suggests.... but it doesn't suggest that everyone will share the same preference in controlled testing correct? Only a small subset of people?

 

[Galliardist]

As you say, the evidence we have suggests.... but it doesn't suggest that everyone will share the same preference in controlled testing correct? Only a small subset of people?

A large majority of people show similar preferences in controlled testing, and it is not a "BBC dip" that is preferred. If even a small minority prefer the BBC dip consistently in controlled testing for domestic listening - and you can demonstrate that: only then is it really relevant to start discussing why (theories/hypotheses have been put forward for it, of course). At the moment we don't have evidence for that proposition. As I said, you have to show people with consistent preference for the dip before you can start to consider why in a meaningful way.

You really should read Toole's book before continuing on this course. I think you need to see the full proposition, rather than someone firing off a few graphs or numbers at you.

For my part, if I come across someone who prefers a speaker with the dip in a sighted preference, and is enjoying listening to music. I don't really feel the need to fight that. It's not a crime or anything, and while I might not go there (I did own a speaker with a slight dip in the past) I'd still listen happily to that kind of system for the most part. I would recommend that newcomers to hifi listen first to speakers that do match the majority preference, and only move to those that don't once they find that several of the speakers that do miss the mark for them in a similar way, which would point towards a different preference, and probably the same for any listener disgruntled with their current system. I get that people are different from each other, but in audio we are not so different as you might think.

Remember that the BBC speakers were developed for broadcast monitoring, a different purpose to recreational listening in the home.

 

[Geert]

For my part, if I come across someone who prefers a speaker with the dip in a sighted preference, and is enjoying listening to music. I don't really feel the need to fight that.

And if his speaker has a directivity or resonance issue in the midrange, than that person might actually not even hear or generally prefer a BBC dip. Something about listening window and power response.

 

[bodhi]

What should happen:
1) Perceive a difference that shouldn't really exist
2) Assume it is in the mind. Do controlled testing to see if you can still perceive it.
3) If testing positive, publish your experiment and results on audio science forum for peer review and replication by others

What actually happens:
1) Perceive a difference that shouldn't really exist
2) Assume it's real
3) Go on audio science forum and tell them that they've got it all wrong.

There is also the less fanatic version of the second chain:

1) Perceive a difference
2) Want it to be real
3) Go on audio science forum and try poke holes in audio science theory, usually beating up rotting horse corpses far away form the bush.

which then leads to:

4) "The debate is still ongoing, we still don't know for sure"

 

[Galliardist]

There is also the less fanatic version of the second chain:

1) Perceive a difference
2) Want it to be real
3) Go on audio science forum and try poke holes in audio science theory, usually beating up rotting horse corpses far away form the bush.

which then leads to:

4) "The debate is still ongoing, we still don't know for sure"

Not forgetting:
1) Perceive a difference
2) Imagine that it is caused by something quantum, meta, far-infrared, cryogenic, femto, or whatever the current fad is
3) Make half a dozen and sell them for $10000 or more each

 

[bodhi]

Not forgetting:
1) Perceive a difference
2) Imagine that it is caused by something quantum, meta, far-infrared, cryogenic, femto, or whatever the current fad is
3) Make half a dozen and sell them for $10000 or more each

It's still a mystery to me how many of these snake oil merchants really believe they are selling something that works.

I just feel like if you are competent enough of putting together for example luxurious cables from exotic materials and create a functioning business with every required process, you would at some point make time to actually test your stuff in controlled conditions.