"Things that cannot be measured"

[danadam]

What comes above the facepalm ?

Headdesk.

 

[antcollinet]

But how to determine the amount of roll-eyes

Normally the meter maxes out at the RHS limit.

Often there are not enough on the whole planet.

 

[KMSA]

Technology improves. I listened to both and the difference is apparent. You can call me a barbarian but I like the old one better. It's great music either way.

Lucky you and others who agree, the original version is available for $7 in 44.1 at carmengomes.bandcamp.com . Personally I find the new one worth the extra fiver.

 

[livinon2wheels]

The limitations of measurements was something I covered in my 2015 RMAF talk, "What the specs don't tell you and why." And I only scratched the surface in that talk. I sold audio test gear for 15 years and sat on standards committees too. In a nutshell, we measure what we do because we can do so easily. It is my opinion that we can get A LOT more from instrumentation but choose not to because the financial reward for doing so is not there.

Like so many things in life, it really is all about the money, or in this case the lack of adequate reward for effort invested. Or maybe another way of saying it is that its all about ROI.

 

[Audionaut]

Nowadays, it is possible to measure the generating part very well to almost perfectly, i.e. everything that is produced by devices.

What can still only be measured with a great deal of error, however, is the receiving part, i.e. everything that people take in via the devices and process cerebrally.

And the eternal cycle of competition between objectively measurable data versus subjectively perceived sensory experiences begins precisely at the interface between objectively measurable results and subjectively perceived experiences.

The differences in people's perceptual behavior and the subsequent internal evaluation are far greater than the differences in objective measurements can be.

 

[j_j]

The differences in people's perceptual behavior and the subsequent internal evaluation are far greater than the differences in objective measurements can be.

With one other issue at hand, sound from loudspeakers in rooms is one place that objective measurements are all over the place, even if we're talking about good systems and decent rooms. Between direct, early reflections, specular late reflections, and (in usual sized rooms) pseudoreverberation, there is a lot of ground to cover, and I can state quite comfortably that different people have substantially different desires.

 

[Audionaut]

I can state quite comfortably that different people have substantially different desires.

That's the way it is - and when you go to a restaurant with a group of people, it's also quite natural that everyone chooses what they like and that this can also be extremely different. Not everyone likes a big T-bone steak, not everyone likes vegetarian food.

Here on ASR, I sometimes have the feeling that only the only blissful, thoroughly measured and scientifically fully evaluated hi-fi food is allowed to be enjoyed and propagated.
It also comes up in every other post, which is about as exhausting as people who have to tell you after a minute that they eat a vegan diet.

Yes, fine, nobody has anything against it, but please let others enjoy their boeuf bourgignon in peace if they like it.
Food is a pleasure at the best of times, hi-fi should be too - and not everyone has the same tastes and preferences.

That reads as if I'm a very subjective audiophile. No, I'm not at all, but I don't begrudge them their fun, even if I don't like it myself.
That's my equivalent of: “Bon appétit, may you enjoy it” in opposite of “What disgusting stuff have you ordered?”

 

[Mort]

I don't begrudge them their fun

Meh. There's fun 'I'm trying sweetbreads for the first time" and there's the "let me explain why a McDonald's hamburger tastes the best".

It just doesn't.

 

[SIY]

That's the way it is - and when you go to a restaurant with a group of people, it's also quite natural that everyone chooses what they like and that this can also be extremely different. Not everyone likes a big T-bone steak, not everyone likes vegetarian food.

Here on ASR, I sometimes have the feeling that only the only blissful, thoroughly measured and scientifically fully evaluated hi-fi food is allowed to be enjoyed and propagated.
It also comes up in every other post, which is about as exhausting as people who have to tell you after a minute that they eat a vegan diet.

Yes, fine, nobody has anything against it, but please let others enjoy their boeuf bourgignon in peace if they like it.
Food is a pleasure at the best of times, hi-fi should be too - and not everyone has the same tastes and preferences.

That reads as if I'm a very subjective audiophile. No, I'm not at all, but I don't begrudge them their fun, even if I don't like it myself.
That's my equivalent of: “Bon appétit, may you enjoy it” in opposite of “What disgusting stuff have you ordered?”

But again, distinguish between actually perceived differences (which are 100% measurable) and preference between verifiably different components.

To date, there has been no, zero, none, nada case where two components can be distinguished by ear alone and an inability to trivially measure those differences.

 

[Audionaut]

But again, distinguish between actually perceived differences (which are 100% measurable) and preference between verifiably different components.
To date, there has been no, zero, none, nada case where two components can be distinguished by ear alone and an inability to trivially measure those differences.

There is no disagreement about this (with me).

What I wanted to get at: Despite all the correctness and knowledge gained through measurements, it is possible that someone prefers the sound (and appearance) of a Klipsch La Scala to the sound of a Genelec or Neumann studio monitor, EVEN though he knows that the studio monitors are far closer to the “acoustic truth” than the La Scala.

 

[Sal1950]

That reads as if I'm a very subjective audiophile. No, I'm not at all, but I don't begrudge them their fun, even if I don't like it myself.

Me either. But there's High Fidelity reproduction and then there's something else.
If your desire is to read a rave glowing review on the warm sound of the latest 5 watt SET tube amp there's plenty of places to do that.
Here we measure different gear and try to separate out those which can most likely reproduce the sound the artists and engineers tried
to capture on the source. That has always been the goal of a good Hi-Fi.

 

[Waxx]

In recent discussions on other media (oa diyaudio.com) some people said ASR measurements are not valid because they don't measure "corrolated noise" and that kind of noise makes class D amps and digital sound like shit. They say you can't measure it with "test signals", only with real music.

I don't really know what they mean with that and how to respond on that (i know it's bullshit). But what is the right answer on that (with science attached please), i would love to be able to debunk that, but i lack the scientific/theoretic background to do it.

 

[Audionaut]

Here we measure different gear

Well, it's mainly Amir who is measuring.

It's not about the contradiction of objectivism vs subjectivism, but about the fact that acoustic tastes cannot be trivially categorized into right and wrong.
Yes, of course there are objective measurement results.
No, you don't have to subordinate yourself to these objective measurement results if you prefer a certain sound signature.
I think there are enough people on ASR who appreciate a very neutral sound and at the same time use a tube amplifier that they enjoy.
It's just completely stupid to keep pointing out to these people that a tube amp doesn't measure cleanly and produces distortion, because they know it themselves.

 

[Sal1950]

It's just completely stupid to keep pointing out to these people that a tube amp doesn't measure cleanly and produces distortion, because they know it themselves.

Not stupid,
Maybe they don't know it and teaching them good sound reproduction practices is a good thing?
There are tons of places they may have been before that wrote glowing reviews on that gear?
We're out numbered on the web and print media 50 to 1 or more.

 

[SIY]

I don't really know what they mean with that

“I’m desperate to find differences that go away when I can’t peek.”

It’s a pity that some fine technical work there is buried under mountains of bullsit.

 

[j_j]

There is no disagreement about this (with me).

What I wanted to get at: Despite all the correctness and knowledge gained through measurements, it is possible that someone prefers the sound (and appearance) of a Klipsch La Scala to the sound of a Genelec or Neumann studio monitor, EVEN though he knows that the studio monitors are far closer to the “acoustic truth” than the La Scala.

Quietly inserts thoughts about radiation pattern for all three of those speakers, ditto the direct/reverb ratio across frequency at the listening position.

 

[j_j]

In recent discussions on other media (oa diyaudio.com) some people said ASR measurements are not valid because they don't measure "corrolated noise" and that kind of noise makes class D amps and digital sound like shit. They say you can't measure it with "test signals", only with real music.

I don't really know what they mean with that and how to respond on that (i know it's bullshit). But what is the right answer on that (with science attached please), i would love to be able to debunk that, but i lack the scientific/theoretic background to do it.

That's a monstrously huge mathematical discussion, that bit about correlated noise, but since it's all in the measurement, test signals, Joan Jett, or Heifetz, the excuse that they can't measure it with "test signals" is just as ridiculous as you rather expect. What's more, even if there was sample-modulated noise, of course that would show up instantly in measurements, well, unless it doesn't exist, of course.

And for the most part, indeed, I think it does not exist.

Now, MP3 and most perceptual codecs have great heaping gobs of signal modulated error, and yeah, you can measure that.

Even in an acoustic environment, it is not terribly hard to measure the actual noise of the molecules of the atmosphere as they bounce off the microphone diaphragm. To those guys I just say "show me". What they show me is rude insults, accusations of professional misconduct, rumormongering, phone calls at 2AM telling me how much they hate me, and so on. Actually show me that they can hear (or measure) anything, nope.

 

[wwenze]

In recent discussions on other media (oa diyaudio.com) some people said ASR measurements are not valid because they don't measure "corrolated noise" and that kind of noise makes class D amps and digital sound like shit. They say you can't measure it with "test signals", only with real music.

I don't really know what they mean with that and how to respond on that (i know it's bullshit). But what is the right answer on that (with science attached please), i would love to be able to debunk that, but i lack the scientific/theoretic background to do it.

How to respond:

"Can you give an example evidence?"

The burden of proof is on the claimant, not defendant.

 

[Holmz]

Well, it's mainly Amir who is measuring.

^Yeah no.^
There is also Erin, and likely many others... especially in the headphone world, which I only see an iceberg’s view of.

Stereophile was doing measurements years ago, and all the test gear that is available for that, was created for a market of people that were ordering it.
Amir is just the one of the later prophet.

 

[Keith_W]

Well, it's mainly Amir who is measuring.

He's the one with the Klippel and the APX555. If he bought me one I would gladly do my share of heavy lifting