Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[krabapple]

Measurement is not science, but engineering.

Bollocks.

Have you ever done science?

 

[Heinrich]

Bollocks.

Have you ever done science?

That‘s why, yes. I don‘t speak against measurement driven engineering. To the contrary. Engineering is based on well established, effective models of what mankind sees as reality. It is the science though, biology, physics, etc. that designs these models. Science designs not only the models in every detail, but also means to testify them. Some may say, measurements. As biology shows, it‘s not just measurement, but a hypothesis can be tested qualitatively too (in contrast to quantitative). More often than not a theory can be tested by thinking, see Newton‘s. I know that Newton knew about a crucial missing element: if gravity is a force, how is it interchanged? Einstein filled the gap (pun intended) in saying, it‘s not a force, but a property of space itself.

So far, briefly, on my understanding of science. Because you asked. What I‘m asking for is a set of quality criteria in audio that allows for rational decision making when on the market for a once for all purchase. How to compromise if not with every device „the second best“ is available for good. How to funnel all these single measurements into a yes/no verdict on a certain selection of parts. Target: consumer satisfaction.

I came to argue, that the consumer might, besides some objective ranking, take look and feel into account, once the devices are „good enough“. The good enough may be an individual threshold, that isn‘t determined by marketing or other means of investigation yet.

So, I‘m not a nay-sayer, not trolling, it is another perspective. I‘m against fraudulent marketing claims, against abuse of technical or scientific terms. coming from science I‘m fully pro science, and appreciate data driven engineering with nearly every part of my life, practically.

 

[solderdude]

I came to argue, that the consumer might, besides some objective ranking, take look and feel into account, once the devices are „good enough“.

There is nothing to argue about then....
I think all of 'us' know this very well.

The good enough may be an individual threshold, that isn‘t determined by marketing or other means of investigation yet.

I would dare to question whether or not it isn't determined by marketing.
It is my conviction that the vast majority of 'audio gear buyers' do so based on marketing material.
And with marketing material I mean advertising and 'reviews' on YT and in magazines.

There will only be a very small percentage of people buying on measurements or even specs.
Sure ... the ratio will differ for ASR members as they look at it differently but the majority will not include measurements for buying anything.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

@Heinrich and @TTT15

1. Not all original scientific research is in the public domain. Some scientists work on projects for national military organisations; some scientists work for corporations who apply their original research to develop products (including commercial audio companies). Some public institutions such as universities or labs such as Fraunhofer IIS publish a lot of their research.

Just because you can't find it does not mean a piece of scientific research hasn't taken place.

2. And then there's the time element. In many ways, amplifiers were a solved problem in 1927 with Black's feedback amplifier. Heaviside did much of the research about connections in the 1880s which led to understanding about filters/EQ. "Digital" applied research came out of military research on cyphers in the 1940s.

If you want to see scientific research into HiFi, concentrate on what was published between the 1870 and the 1970s. That was the century of audio science.

 

[voodooless]

Just because you can't find don’t read it does not mean a piece of scientific research hasn't taken place.

TIFIFY

 

[krabapple]

That‘s why, yes. I don‘t speak against measurement driven engineering. To the contrary. Engineering is based on well established, effective models of what mankind sees as reality. It is the science though, biology, physics, etc. that designs these models. Science designs not only the models in every detail, but also means to testify them. Some may say, measurements. As biology shows, it‘s not just measurement, but a hypothesis can be tested qualitatively too (in contrast to quantitative). More often than not a theory can be tested by thinking, see Newton‘s. I know that Newton knew about a crucial missing element: if gravity is a force, how is it interchanged? Einstein filled the gap (pun intended) in saying, it‘s not a force, but a property of space itself.

So far, briefly, on my understanding of science. Because you asked. What I‘m asking for is a set of quality criteria in audio that allows for rational decision making when on the market for a once for all purchase. How to compromise if not with every device „the second best“ is available for good. How to funnel all these single measurements into a yes/no verdict on a certain selection of parts. Target: consumer satisfaction.

I came to argue, that the consumer might, besides some objective ranking, take look and feel into account, once the devices are „good enough“. The good enough may be an individual threshold, that isn‘t determined by marketing or other means of investigation yet.

So, I‘m not a nay-sayer, not trolling, it is another perspective. I‘m against fraudulent marketing claims, against abuse of technical or scientific terms. coming from science I‘m fully pro science, and appreciate data driven engineering with nearly every part of my life, practically.

What a lot of blather. Measurement is crucial in engineering and science. Certainly in biology (my field) too. It is a method of, a subset of, observation.

We have measurements that can gauge the technical performance of an audio device -- how it will distort the signal. We have data. Tons of it. For speakers, we even have data that link measured performance to likely consumer preference.

No one here denies the part I bolded. People like what they like for their reasons, and 'high fidelity' sonic performance, as indicated by measurement, may not be the central or only reason. Alert the media? No, we know that already. If it's your main point, you may retire now.
(btw, those reasons certainly *can* be investigated. Consumer satisfaction *can be measured*. Using scientific methods.)

 

[Heinrich]

What a lot of blather.

That‘s really not my intent—to present myself as an ignorant. You have the data, me in all modesty asked for an understanding of it, see posts above.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

That‘s really not my intent—to present myself as an ignorant

I'm sure that it is not your intent to present yourself as ignorant, but you need to do a better job of ensuring we don't draw that conclusion.

The statements you make about physics are frequently incorrect. This means you come across as someone who's read a bad AI hallucination about something and you have not put enough critical thinking into determining its veracity.

 

[JSmith]

I was going to stop here...

Maxwell would have laughed.

... I should have.


JSmith

 

[Heinrich]

I was going to stop here...

... I should have.


JSmith

As you talk of Maxwell, what about—explaining the topic correctly? Right from the basic Maxwell‘s equations aka „Eq“? So that „we“ can‘t be fooled by „frequent incorrect talk about physics“ no more? „We“ need to deliver …

 

[Heinrich]

As you talk of Maxwell, what about—explaining the topic correctly? Right from the basic Maxwell‘s equations aka „Eq“? So that „we“ can‘t be fooled by „frequent incorrect talk about physics“ no more? „We“ need to deliver …

… if it comes to quantum then, ask me. I‘m especially fond of uncertainty *gg*

Measurement is meant here as quantyfying elements of a given model. I actually argue if the model is proper, taking THD, smoothness of frequency response, extension of which, speaker directivity etc into account. All as essentially disconnected items. These don‘t support decision making too well, while the Olive score seems to be the first attempt to unwind the crossed wires. Based, as you may know, on subjective, statistically evaluated verdict.

Ironically the best, most trustworthy measurement we have with amps, dacs, … wires, that are a non-issue today. Measurement on these are just the confirmation of „good enough“ and done for good. Speakers, well, the Olive score confirms good design, confirms kind of a given engineering standard, now established as a real standard. Call it done, just stick to it on both sides of the production—consumption chain, and you‘re good for most of it.

Headphones, folks need to trust their taste more, because of the individual physiogonmy, right? Subjectivism rules, me thinks. Give them back what they own, fun outside of the box, no measurement regime shall interferre.

So much on the physics of righteous doubt.

 

[RickS]

I saw an article targeting ASR thought I'd share it. Thoughts?

HIGH END AUDIO | How Synergistic Research’s Electromagnetic Revolution Is Rewiring High-End Audio | Facebook

How Synergistic Research’s Electromagnetic Revolution Is Rewiring High-End Audio And Why the Meter-Worshippers at ASR Are Missing the Signal By Inside High End Audio, November 2025 ⸻ The New...

www.facebook.com

Does he offer any proof of ASR measurement limitations? Does he show any better measurements or have any blind testing to demonstrate? Lacking anything substantive, maybe more objective skepticism has affected his business? If he wants to blame ASR for more objective consideration by audio consumers, think we deserve some credit.

Just as with any newer offsite link, you need to summarize why this content is worthy of member consideration.

 

[Newman]

Headphones, folks need to trust their taste more, because of the individual physiogonmy, right?

Not right. No matter what your head and ear shape, a natural sound sounds natural to you because it sets your brain reference point.

That's why the Harman research found high consistency between participants.

Subjectivism rules, me thinks.

No. See above.

cheers

 

[Geert]

I saw an article targeting ASR thought I'd share it. Thoughts?

HIGH END AUDIO | How Synergistic Research’s Electromagnetic Revolution Is Rewiring High-End Audio | Facebook

How Synergistic Research’s Electromagnetic Revolution Is Rewiring High-End Audio And Why the Meter-Worshippers at ASR Are Missing the Signal By Inside High End Audio, November 2025 ⸻ The New...

www.facebook.com

• Dishonest from the start by downplaying ASR’s work and knowledge, suggesting we measure audio using a multimeter
• His argument ”Audio signal isn’t electron flow. It’s an electromagnetic wave’ is flawed. People don’t listen to electromagnetic waves. That's why when Amir measures cables or voodoo stuff, he measures what happens at the output of an audio component

 

[oleg87]

I saw an article targeting ASR thought I'd share it. Thoughts?

HIGH END AUDIO | How Synergistic Research’s Electromagnetic Revolution Is Rewiring High-End Audio | Facebook

How Synergistic Research’s Electromagnetic Revolution Is Rewiring High-End Audio And Why the Meter-Worshippers at ASR Are Missing the Signal By Inside High End Audio, November 2025 ⸻ The New...

www.facebook.com

Like every cable huckster, he thinks you’re stupid, know nothing about electronics, and can be gish-galloped by a spew of random irrelevant technobabble.

Any time someone starts talking about audio signal propagation and they are not wiring an amp in New York to a speaker in Chicago, they are either idiots or charlatans.

 

[Heinrich]

Not right. No matter what your head and ear shape, a natural sound sounds natural to you because it sets your brain reference point.

Could we forget about, as you put it, „your brain“ for a moment?

That's why the Harman research found high consistency between participants.

May I ask if you did some research also? I did in my own private interest, hence it‘s only anecdotal. What if I try to equalize an IEM to match my personal physiogomy? You know, those nasty spikes in upper treble, that are expected to be there (which many people don‘t actually grasp). More pronounced, what is the actual shape of the hump around 3k or so, length of ear canal and so forth. Huge differences between individuals, interacts with the making of thr IEM‘s cavities etc.

No.

I still think it is worthwhile to remind people of the essence of hifi—having fun for yourself. Tune it to your liking. That‘s decidedly not saying that fraud is good. Don‘t you think that I‘m from the objectivist camp? And as a subjectivist, I‘m as honest as it gets.

I‘m not going to educate you of the probs with headphones in general, as you understand the difficulties better than me for sure. Stereo is a case for the mind, not „ brain“, it‘s a fantasy, not illusion.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I still think it is worthwhile to remind people of the essence of hifi—having fun for yourself

Fun is not the essence of HiFi. HIGH FIDELITY to the released source is the essence of HiFi.

Enjoying listening to music is where the fun comes.

 

[bigguyca]

Science and technology moves on. Newton gets replaced by Einstein. Materials improve, storage improves, processing improves , knowledge improves etc There is invariably few absolutes especially when it comes to human interaction. None of that is to diminish the research and measurements that we do have at all. That is just the way it goes. The ASR survey shows that hard core measurement absolutists are in the minority tail of the normal like curve. Unfortunately in this world on many topics it is the people with the most extreme views who tend to be the loudest and most strident but that isn’t typically representative of the majority who tend to be more nuanced in their views.

Newton (and Leibniz) developed calculus. Did Einstein replace calculus?

You have a completely incorrect view of scientific advances. New advances are built on already existing technology with some corrections plus expansions. If you believe that each scientist starts from scratch then you are very confused.

 

[kharan]

Not right. No matter what your head and ear shape, a natural sound sounds natural to you because it sets your brain reference point.

That's why the Harman research found high consistency between participants.

TBH, headphones are one area where measurements only give a vague idea of sound rather than properly characterise sound itself.

First, there's the fact that the Harman curve is very low precision, I don't recall the exact number but the adjustable frequency bands we limited.

Then two headphones that measure very close on a test fixture can measure very also very close with microphones in a real person's ears, or they can also measure entirely different with microphones on another person's ears.

To make an analogy, measuring on a test fixture is like measuring the in-room frequency response of a speaker set in a particular room. And once you switch to a person, it's an entirely new room. And because the enclosure is made from the earcup and your face, the dimensions involved are way smaller, the equivalent of the Schroeder frequency isn't 300 Hz, but way higher. People have resonances in the 5-12 kHz regions, sometimes multiple of them.

 

[Newman]

[to Newman] Could we forget about, as you put it, „your brain“ for a moment?

No, because it's the critical issue that you are overlooking.

May I ask if you did some research also? I did in my own private interest, hence it‘s only anecdotal. What if I try to equalize an IEM to match my personal physiogomy? You know, those nasty spikes in upper treble, that are expected to be there (which many people don‘t actually grasp). More pronounced, what is the actual shape of the hump around 3k or so, length of ear canal and so forth. Huge differences between individuals, interacts with the making of thr IEM‘s cavities etc.

I still think it is worthwhile to remind people of the essence of hifi—having fun for yourself. Tune it to your liking. That‘s decidedly not saying that fraud is good. Don‘t you think that I‘m from the objectivist camp? And as a subjectivist, I‘m as honest as it gets.

I‘m not going to educate you of the probs with headphones in general, as you understand the difficulties better than me for sure. Stereo is a case for the mind, not „ brain“, it‘s a fantasy, not illusion.

[to Newman] TBH, headphones are one area where measurements only give a vague idea of sound rather than properly characterise sound itself.

First, there's the fact that the Harman curve is very low precision, I don't recall the exact number but the adjustable frequency bands we limited.

Then two headphones that measure very close on a test fixture can measure very also very close with microphones in a real person's ears, or they can also measure entirely different with microphones on another person's ears.

To make an analogy, measuring on a test fixture is like measuring the in-room frequency response of a speaker set in a particular room. And once you switch to a person, it's an entirely new room. And because the enclosure is made from the earcup and your face, the dimensions involved are way smaller, the equivalent of the Schroeder frequency isn't 300 Hz, but way higher. People have resonances in the 5-12 kHz regions, sometimes multiple of them.

You guys are just making stuff up and stating it as axiomatic. Can we discuss the actual research instead?

In a nutshell, 100% of listeners prefer the Harman Curve to within 1 dB above 300 Hz, but below 300 Hz listeners split into 3 preference groups: 64% prefer the Curve within 2 dB, 21% prefer the Curve modified to -2 dB to -3 dB of bass, and 15% prefer the Curve modified to +3 dB to +6 dB of bass.

The underlined bit IMO is extremely important and gives a clue to how little human preference varies for sound quality in general. And even in the bass it’s the same curve, with tweaks to the level (not to the shape), and 100% of listeners fall into one of the 3 tweaks. IMO overall the message is one of remarkably high consistency in preferences: one only needs to ask a person if he or she is a bit averse to bass, or a bit crazy about bass, or neither, and you can pretty much hand him or her the target curve to look for in headphones. Wow. Even easier, just hand them the standard Harman Curve 100% of the time, and say there is a 1 in 3 chance they might want to apply a bass shelf of plus or minus a few dB to taste. Wow wow. No wonder Dr Toole describes us as stable and consistent measuring instruments.

....and that is despite all our varying head and ear canal variations as individual humans. And the reason is the bit you, Heinrich, want me to "forget about": the brain sets reference for natural sound including one's individual head and ear shape.

cheers