The deaf leading the blind? A piece by Henning Møller (B&K)

[JMC]

The Encyclopædia Britannica describes measurement as the process of associating numbers with physical quantities and phenomena.

To the best of my knowledge our ears can be used to enjoy music, to taste a sonic presentation or (for observational purposes) to identify, but not quantify, shortcomings.

They are still a measuring device, by your definition, I can assign a number to the sound I am hearing. Is it a repeatable or accurate measuring device (which was my point)? No.

 

[tuga]

They are still a measuring device, by your definition, I can assign a number to the sound I am hearing. Is it a repeatable or accurate measuring device (which was my point)? No.

Are you for real?

Even though I said "Ears are not tools for measurement", you tell me that "They are still a measuring device, by your definition" (mine) and then you say they aren't?

 

[BDWoody]

If you've had hands-on or listener experience with modified/optimised equipment you will know that simple improvements in the PSU or grounding can have consequential, audible as well as measureable, impact.

Uh huh...

 

[tuga]

Oh?

Uh huh...

You probably never heard of AMG, Alpina, Ruf,...Prodrive. They pick a road car and modify it, improving performance.

The same happens with commercial audio equipment.
It's all built to a price point and sometimes the designer just follows the application notes or uses off-the-shelf parts or goes for a small and light universal SMPS to make shipping easier etc.

 

[q3cpma]

You probably never heard of AMG, Alpina, Ruf,...Prodrive. They pick a road car and modify it, improving performance.

The same happens with commercial audio equipment.
It's all built to a price point and sometimes the designer just follows the application notes or uses off-the-shelf parts or goes for a small and light universal SMPS to make shipping easier etc.

How about showing a concrete example with the measurements you talked about?

 

[frogmeat69]

When I first read the thread title, I thought it said, "The deaf leading the blind? A piece by Helen Keller", lol.

 

[SIY]

Ears are great and necessary for evaluation if that's all you're using.

Once you peek, you're not using your ears. This seems to be difficult for some to understand.

edit: I looked at that linked thread. FUD without a shred of actual listening tests. Beyond worthless.

 

[mansr]

sometimes the designer just follows the application notes

Why is that a bad thing?

 

[BDWoody]

You probably never heard of AMG, Alpina, Ruf,...Prodrive. They pick a road car and modify it, improving performance.

I wonder how much time they would spend improving the performance of the battery voltage meter, for example... if it's already accurate to 9 decimal places. I'd guess they would spend time on things that might actually improve performance.

I would also guess that even if the driver 'thinks' or 'feels' that it was faster to him, they would at least pull out a stopwatch and check the claimed results against the stopwatch (i.e. reality).

 

[tuga]

Ears are great and necessary for evaluation if that's all you're using.

Once you peek, you're not using your ears. This seems to be difficult for some to understand.

That is absurd.

 

[pkane]

That is absurd.

Is it?

 

[tuga]

Is it?

It is. Unless one is merely doing a simpletonic AB spot-the-FR-difference test.

If you are listening to a piece of equipment (f.e. a pair of speakers) for a long period of time (weeks) are you not able to objectively observe performance and look for shortcomings?
Are you so frail that you can't focus because the equipment in front of you looks a-million, has pedigree and rave reviews?

 

[pkane]

It is. Unless one is merely doing a simpletonic AB spot-the-FR-difference test.

If you are listening to a piece of equipment (f.e. a pair of speakers) for a long period of time (weeks) are you not able to objectively observe performance and look for shortcomings?
Are you so frail that you can't focus because the equipment in front of you looks a-million, has pedigree and rave reviews?

Has little to do with pedigree or price. That's the simplest case of expectation bias. The much larger problem, ignored by most 'sighted' audiophiles, is that our ability to compare and contrast audio quality is just not good enough to do any comparisons over 10 seconds or so. The brain isn't developed to evaluate and recall perfectly audio quality. It's developed to recognize familiar sounds and to pick them out of messy, noisy environments. That was (and sometimes still is) the key to our survival. It's a pattern matching machine that often fills in the details that may be missing using all other senses and past experiences. Hearing is much more driven by sight and knowledge than we recognize on a conscious level.

If you don't do these comparisons without knowing which device is playing, you're not testing with your ears, you are testing with your whole brain and memory, and that has huge effect on the outcome of the test. To claim that you can somehow turn off this function of the brain is silly. Not only because that's extremely hard to do, but because nobody, including you, knows for sure if you are actually able to achieve this mental state.

 

[andreasmaaan]

If you are listening to a piece of equipment (f.e. a pair of speakers) for a long period of time (weeks) are you not able to objectively observe performance and look for shortcomings?
Are you so frail that you can't focus because the equipment in front of you looks a-million, has pedigree and rave reviews?

Precisely

Also, if Miska is correct that there's an audible problem with ESS chips that doesn't show up in traditional measurements, why is it so difficult to hear the difference between a recording that's been run through an ESS chip eight times and one that hasn't?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dac-loop-vs-the-original-can-you-hear-it.448/

 

[mansr]

Precisely

Also, if Miska is correct that there's an audible problem with ESS chips that doesn't show up in traditional measurements, why is it so difficult to hear the difference between a recording that's been run through an ESS chip eight times and one that hasn't?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dac-loop-vs-the-original-can-you-hear-it.448/

Because DSD and something, something sonar operators.

 

[Leporello]

I think that radical "Objectivists" that do not value critical listening are nearly as deluded as ears-only alt-"Subjectivists".
Critical listening and measurements are complementary tools.

So, where are these 'radical objectivists'? To me, they sound like strawmen.

 

[tuga]

Why is that a bad thing?

It doesn't have to.

Has little to do with pedigree or price. That's the simplest case of expectation bias. The much larger problem, ignored by most 'sighted' audiophiles, is that our ability to compare and contrast audio quality is just not good enough to do any comparisons over 10 seconds or so. The brain isn't developed to evaluate and recall perfectly audio quality. It's developed to recognize familiar sounds and to pick them out of messy, noisy environments. That was (and sometimes still is) the key to our survival. It's a pattern matching machine that often fills in the details that may be missing using all other senses and past experiences. Hearing is much more driven by sight and knowledge than we recognize on a conscious level.

If you don't do these comparisons without knowing which device is playing, you're not testing with your ears, you are testing with your whole brain and memory, and that has huge effect on the outcome of the test. To claim that you can somehow turn off this function of the brain is silly. Not only because that's extremely hard to do, but because nobody, including you, knows for sure if you are actually able to achieve this mental state.

I don't do AB. Hate it. Don't even know how I got to Silver in the Philips Golden Ear Challenge... Must have been mad. Awful tune.

AB is for spot-the-difference (quick) comparison, not for observational assessment (where one listen for problems over a long period, those one is acquanted with). Different goals.


By the way, I shortlist equipment from measured performance, buy used then live with for a while and keep or pass along depending on shortcomings, so I'm not really worried about bias. Budget restraints help me to be more selective and cautious. I don't waste money on cables.

 

[tuga]

So, where are these 'radical objectivists'? To me, they sound like strawmen.

Ooo, loads of strawmen interacting with me at present...

Not you who've just started posting in the forum.

 

[andreasmaaan]

AB is for spot-the-difference (quick) comparison, not for observational assessment (where one listen for problems over a long period, those one is acquanted with). Different goals.

But all the evidence suggests that long-term "observational assessment" as you call it is less sensitive to differences than ABX comparison (which needn't be short-term by the way; it's the switching, not the listening, that needs to be short if the listener is to have the best chance of hearing differences).

 

[tuga]

Precisely

Also, if Miska is correct that there's an audible problem with ESS chips that doesn't show up in traditional measurements, why is it so difficult to hear the difference between a recording that's been run through an ESS chip eight times and one that hasn't?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dac-loop-vs-the-original-can-you-hear-it.448/

Radical "Objectivist" deniers also said the same about TIM...