Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

[truth_soldier]

more likely it's because they know that if they let you listen, and subtly suggest to you what they want you to hear,

Haha... I'm way to skeptical for that, esp of salesmen trying to get my money. Maybe that would work on other people.
I think half of the people on this site are salesmen pitching "the truth"...
trying to convince people not to trust their own ears and instead trust what the "science" says is true, or what the "experts" who understand the science think.

 

[oleg87]

Haha... I'm way to skeptical for that, esp of salesmen trying to get my money. Maybe that would work on other people.
I think half of the people on this site are salesmen pitching "the truth"...
trying to convince people not to trust their own ears and instead trust what the "science" says is true, or what the "experts" who understand the science think.

I'm not really trying to "pitch" anything to anyone - if someone is persuaded by the ASR forum to actually test how reliable of an instrument human hearing is, that's great, but we can only lead an audiophile to water. This is about keeping ASR on-topic. If you think your op-amp swap or whatever has made a significant difference, it is not prohibitively expensive to provide this community with information that is objective, useful, and non-imaginary. Casual subjective impressions, unfortunately, cannot be assumed to be any of those things, and I come to ASR specifically to avoid the kind of discourse that makes most audio communities a cesspool of misinformation.

 

[antcollinet]

Maybe that would work on other people.

It works on everybody - perceptive bias is a symptom of how our senses work. The pre-filtering by our unconscious brain before the information reaches our conscious brain. Even when we know it is happening - when we know how we are being fooled, it is not possible to turn it off. That is why it is employed so effectively in sales.

It is not a symptom of a "weak mind" or of being gullible.

Here is an example - speech rather than audio related, but it clearly shows how what you perceive you hear is altered by your experience and what you know. And even though you know how your brain is fooling you it doesn't stop happening.

 

[JSmith]

I think half of the people on this site are salesmen pitching "the truth"...
trying to convince people not to trust their own ears and instead trust what the "science" says is true, or what the "experts" who understand the science think.

You don't think all those subjective "reviewers" are being paid with money or gear?

It's rather uncouth to accuse our Audio Luminary and Expert members of such conduct. Most members here tend to show them a very high level of respect and appreciation.


JSmith

 

[DVinylfan]

A propos nothing did some sighted AB testing with peer-tested volume-matching "does that sound about the same loudness (subjects)?" between incumbent Meridian 208 CD player and the pretender, Marantz CD42.
Conclusion the two players sound the same

 

[MattHooper]

A propos nothing did some sighted AB testing with peer-tested volume-matching "does that sound about the same loudness (subjects)?" between incumbent Meridian 208 CD player and the pretender, Marantz CD42.
Conclusion the two players sound the same

Cool. I suspect that would be the typical result (especially under blind testing).

That said as I’ve reported before, I was able to easily identify some different CDPs/DACs under level matched blind conditions(… many years ago). One of them was the Meridian 508.20 CDP vs a Sony CDP.

 

[Dan Lavry]

I stopped looking at forms 20 years ago, after 2+ years as a moderator at Pro Sound Web. I needed all my time for design work. I took a little time to catch up, viewing a few audio forums. I looked at the ASR thread "Are Measurements Everything or Nothing". I liked what I saw. It looks like a good thread with interesting comments. Good work.

 

[rdenney]

I stopped looking at forms 20 years ago, after 2+ years as a moderator at Pro Sound Web. I needed all my time for design work. I took a little time to catch up, viewing a few audio forums. I looked at the ASR thread "Are Measurements Everything or Nothing". I liked what I saw. It looks like a good thread with interesting comments. Good work.

Most of us found a home here after battling (and being berated for doing so) the BS of intangible woo on other forums.

Rick "often by those who should have known better" Denney

 

[Purité Audio]

Very nice to see you here Dan, I hope you stay.
Keith

 

[j_j]

Most of us found a home here after battling (and being berated for doing so) the BS of intangible woo on other forums.

Rick "often by those who should have known better" Denney

Dan! How are you? Hope you're doing well. We've moved out to Sequim. Although I have nothing audio set up, you and the spouse would be welcome to visit sometime if you're available.

 

[Dan Lavry]

Dan! How are you? Hope you're doing well. We've moved out to Sequim. Although I have nothing audio set up, you and the spouse would be welcome to visit sometime if you're available.

Hi JJ, we are well. We also moved. We will be happy to have you visit us.

 

[Dan Lavry]

Most of us found a home here after battling (and being berated for doing so) the BS of intangible woo on other forums.

Rick "often by those who should have known better" Denney

Yes, I understand. I had a problem with people talking about digital sound. I tried to explain the REASON for digital. I said:

Sound is analog; We cannot hear a digital signal. We use digital because it offers us UTILITY, it enables us to do things that cannot be done with analog. Conversion to and from digital is NOT ABOUT SOUND. The A/D changes the signal to a format enabling storage, processing and transmission of the audio. The digital format is there to provide features not available by analog means. The D/A enables listening to the result.
The converter function is to convert. Sonic alterations can be done with analog gear, digital gear, and computer software. A converter is not an equalizer, mixer or compressor. My main goal was always clear: to achieve accurate conversion with minimal sonic alteration.

You can"t send vinyl record over the internet. You can send a lot of music (files) from the US to England in one second. There is a lot that can"t be done with analog (or yield terrible results). Analog memory is very limited (disk or tape). Digital memory on your phone or memory stick is plentiful, tiny, cheap. It makes a lot of difference.. Digital enables processing that can't be done in analog. But sound is analog, so we need to convert from language A (analog) to language D (digital) and at some point to convert back. I view it as a language translator process. I want the translation to be as accurate as possible relative to human hearing... So, there is no such thing as "digital sound". There are distortions, or "sonic alterations" for people that like them. When it comes to converters, the goal is have the accuracy for audio be better than human hearing ability. I have been focused on improving accuracy for a very long time.

The concept and conversations about "digital sound" wore me out. I am comfortable with the scientific approach.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I view it as a language translator process

nitpicking for sure but there is no such thing as a perfect translation from language to language; there are always connotations, nuances, and culture-specific context, and translation is always a compromise as a result. AD/DA is a much, much simpler job than translation (and thus a more perfectable one).

 

[Sal1950]

I was able to easily identify some different CDPs/DACs under level matched blind conditions(… many years ago). One of them was the Meridian 508.20 CDP vs a Sony CDP.

One was broken. LOL

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, I understand. I had a problem with people talking about digital sound. I tried to explain the REASON for digital. I said:

Sound is analog; We cannot hear a digital signal. We use digital because it offers us UTILITY, it enables us to do things that cannot be done with analog. Conversion to and from digital is NOT ABOUT SOUND. The A/D changes the signal to a format enabling storage, processing and transmission of the audio. The digital format is there to provide features not available by analog means. The D/A enables listening to the result.
The converter function is to convert. Sonic alterations can be done with analog gear, digital gear, and computer software. A converter is not an equalizer, mixer or compressor. My main goal was always clear: to achieve accurate conversion with minimal sonic alteration.

You can"t send vinyl record over the internet. You can send a lot of music (files) from the US to England in one second. There is a lot that can"t be done with analog (or yield terrible results). Analog memory is very limited (disk or tape). Digital memory on your phone or memory stick is plentiful, tiny, cheap. It makes a lot of difference.. Digital enables processing that can't be done in analog. But sound is analog, so we need to convert from language A (analog) to language D (digital) and at some point to convert back. I view it as a language translator process. I want the translation to be as accurate as possible relative to human hearing... So, there is no such thing as "digital sound". There are distortions, or "sonic alterations" for people that like them. When it comes to converters, the goal is have the accuracy for audio be better than human hearing ability. I have been focused on improving accuracy for a very long time.

The concept and conversations about "digital sound" wore me out. I am comfortable with the scientific approach.

Welcome - you have obviously been a good fit for this place for a long time.

 

[Audionaut]

The concept and conversations about "digital sound" wore me out. I am comfortable with the scientific approach.

Yes, I can understand that very well.
When it is stated again immediately afterwards that a translation can never be perfect, it is like running into a wall to argue against it.
When I read this forum, even the letters are digitally encoded, and yet I can still decipher them without any problems, as can everyone else.
The conversion in DA and AD is about approaching an infinite function, and in the audio field, this approximation has been so consistent for years that it can no longer be perceived by humans, and digital copies are completely identical, in contrast to analog copies, which get worse with each iteration.
This discussion has actually been settled for years, but there will always be people who think they can actually hear every 0 and 1.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Yes, I understand. I had a problem with people talking about digital sound. I tried to explain the REASON for digital. I said:

Sound is analog; We cannot hear a digital signal. We use digital because it offers us UTILITY, it enables us to do things that cannot be done with analog. Conversion to and from digital is NOT ABOUT SOUND. The A/D changes the signal to a format enabling storage, processing and transmission of the audio. The digital format is there to provide features not available by analog means. The D/A enables listening to the result.
The converter function is to convert. Sonic alterations can be done with analog gear, digital gear, and computer software. A converter is not an equalizer, mixer or compressor. My main goal was always clear: to achieve accurate conversion with minimal sonic alteration.

You can"t send vinyl record over the internet. You can send a lot of music (files) from the US to England in one second. There is a lot that can"t be done with analog (or yield terrible results). Analog memory is very limited (disk or tape). Digital memory on your phone or memory stick is plentiful, tiny, cheap. It makes a lot of difference.. Digital enables processing that can't be done in analog. But sound is analog, so we need to convert from language A (analog) to language D (digital) and at some point to convert back. I view it as a language translator process. I want the translation to be as accurate as possible relative to human hearing... So, there is no such thing as "digital sound". There are distortions, or "sonic alterations" for people that like them. When it comes to converters, the goal is have the accuracy for audio be better than human hearing ability. I have been focused on improving accuracy for a very long time.

The concept and conversations about "digital sound" wore me out. I am comfortable with the scientific approach.

Agreed!

Much early research was in information "transmission" in the presence of noise. With redundancy and checksums, digitally encoded information can be transmitted through very noisy environments and even sometimes below the noise floor, and yet be fully recovered. This is simply not the case with analogue signals.

The whole point of digital audio is the digits are robust and flexible allowing a wide variety of non-degrading storage and movement. A-to-D and D-to-A conversion is almost certainly better than human hearing and has been for decades.

 

[solderdude]

When I read this forum, even the letters are digitally encoded, and yet I can still decipher them without any problems, as can everyone else.

You cannot decipher this without a conversion.

01010111 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 01110101 01101101 00101100 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100101 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100100 01101001 01100111 01101001 01110100 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100011 01101111 01100100 01100101 01100100 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01111001 01100101 01110100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100011 01101001 01110000 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101100 01100101 01101101 01110011 00101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100101 01101100 01110011 01100101 00101110

 

[Sal1950]

The conversion in DA and AD is about approaching an infinite function, and in the audio field, this approximation has been so consistent for years that it can no longer be perceived by humans, and digital copies are completely identical, in contrast to analog copies, which get worse with each iteration.
This discussion has actually been settled for years, but there will always be people who think they can actually hear every 0 and 1.

Agreed!

Amen,
This so glaringly highlights the snake-oil high-end marketing crowd and their constant claims of vinyl superiority as a home music reproduction medium.
That ended long ago with a thing called Redbook.

 

[Dan Lavry]

Many of our AD and DA converters are used by the companies that make the vinyl. Much of the music passes through converters before and during the manufacturing of vinyl. I think it should put an end to the argument that vinyl is better because it is all analog.