"Things that cannot be measured"

[rdenney]

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.

My response to those who claim such: Show me your data. If the difference is that clear, then show me that without prior knowledge of which is which, the claimant can distinguish between the two. Once they can prove with some statistical reliability that they can tell the difference, then let them choose a preference. All the usual controls are required.

Their claim is based on something subjective, and this is a subjective test but subject to controls. And it requires no EE theory one way or the other, or arguments about what the heck is noise correlation (which none of them would be ablet to answer, and those who could, won't).

Unwilling to do the work of collecting rigorous data? Throw the BS flag.

Rick "data speaks with its own voice" Denney

 

[krabapple]

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.

jj was addressing specifically speakers and rooms. You are generalizing. Audio hardware isn't all like food. Or it you must think of it that way, then typically, two DACs 'taste' like the same wine in different bottles. In both cases people will rhapsodize comically about the difference in their flavors.

 

[krabapple]

Meh. There's fun 'I'm trying sweetbreads for the first time"

ick

and there's the "let me explain why a McDonald's hamburger tastes the best".

It just doesn't.

It just does. Sometimes.

 

[JayGilb]

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.

Are hate calls before 5:00 PM okay ? Asking for a friend.

How utterly sad that anyone would pick up a phone and profess their hatred for any person over such a minor quibble.

 

[Holmz]

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

You’ve already done your share of the heavy lifting as you are a contributor and it was the patronage that got the gear.
Erin also has a Klipple, and some people patroenize both Erin and Amir.

 

[Holmz]

Are hate calls before 5:00 PM okay ? Asking for a friend.

How utterly sad that anyone would pick up a phone and profess their hatred for any person over such a minor quibble.

What’s his number?

 

[kemmler3D]

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.

Yes, this is usually acknowledged when it comes up here IME.

 

[egellings]

ick



It just does. Sometimes.

Bull's testicles? ick!

 

[thegeton]

Bull's testicles? ick!

Pardon my correction. Not testicles, pancreas.

 

[Mort]

Pardon my correction. Not testicles, pancreas.

And thyroid. Tasty. I've eaten testicles too. Better than a McDonald's hamburger.

 

[masterhw]

Hoping to learn here... what is the thinking if the claim were not "there are things we can hear which cannot be measured" but instead a more moderate "there are things we can hear and capture that we do not yet know to look for"?
I have to imagine there was a time before, say, IMD measurements became widespread, where two sources may have measured similarly on paper to what the understanding of audio at the time was, but were audibly differentiable. Obviously the repeatability of such an experiment would directly suggest our understanding of audio is incomplete, and I don't know of any such test in the 21st century.

But is it so unthinkable that our understanding of audio remains slightly incomplete? That there could become a method of analysis which isn't yet widespread today, and could retroactively reveal differences in otherwise similarly measuring equipment? Or might I live to the year 2100 and we'll still be using the same measurements and methods of analyses?

 

[rdenney]

And thyroid. Tasty. I've eaten testicles too. Better than a McDonald's hamburger.

In San Antonio, they were called calf fries. A guy in my section spent years (unsuccessfully) trying to get me to eat them. I suspect that being deep-fried made it tolerable, but psychology got in the way for me.

I think of McDonalds hamburgers as industrial eating. If that's what staves off starvation, so be it. It's not conceptually repulsive, just not better than almost any available alternative. I did have a mushroom cheeseburger at a McDonalds in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland that was actually pretty decent. But that is hardly predictive or instructive. It was Easter Monday and all the other alternatives were closed.

Rick "doesn't mind Egg McMuffins" Denney

 

[egellings]

And thyroid. Tasty. I've eaten testicles too. Better than a McDonald's hamburger.

I'll pass; you can have my share.

 

[watchnerd]

Pardon my correction. Not testicles, pancreas.

If one is going to eat testicles, I much prefer sheep's testicles.

 

[kemmler3D]

there are things we can hear and capture that we do not yet know to look for"?

I would say this is conceivable, at least in the context of speakers. For example, people seem to have a strong reaction to horn speakers with large woofers. I am not aware that we have solid experimental data that would explain that or debunk it. Good experiments on the audible differences between transducers are not trivial, which is why Toole and Olive are big figures in the industry. I don't think either has suggested there's no work left to be done in their field.

On the other hand... Just because I don't know something doesn't mean nobody knows it... The level of knowledge of some guy on ASR is not definitive.

In terms of recordings or electronics it's hard to imagine we're recording, playing back, and hearing something interesting without realising it. We measure fidelity at every step of the chain, it can be easily pushed beyond any known threshold of audibility, we can extract every difference with deltawave, so... there is really nowhere for novel features of audio signals to hide at this point.

Keep in mind that studio folks are messing with audio and visualizing it day in, day out. If there is a form of distortion that's interesting in any way, someone has probably made it into an effect by now.

 

[tmtomh]

Just because I don't know something doesn't mean nobody knows it...

This x1000 - the most common mistake or fallacy I see that props up the claim that measurements are of limited value is people conflating their own personal level of knowledge with the state of human or expert knowledge.

 

[krabapple]

Are hate calls before 5:00 PM okay ? Asking for a friend.

How utterly sad that anyone would pick up a phone and profess their hatred for any person over such a minor quibble.

Among the most vicious hangouts I recall from the early Internet were certain Usenet newsgroups. Some really hateful in-real-life stuff went down on rec.audio.*

 

[kemmler3D]

This x1000 - the most common mistake or fallacy I see that props up the claim that measurements are of limited value is people conflating their own personal level of knowledge with the state of human or expert knowledge.

Totally... I think if you just replace every instance of someone saying "Science can't tell us..." on an audio forum with "I haven't bothered to look up..." you will make the sentence more accurate 99% of the time.

The other big fallacy is "Science says what I am hearing is in my head and not the equipment... therefore Science must be wrong, not me."

 

[Leporello]

But is it so unthinkable that our understanding of audio remains slightly incomplete? That there could become a method of analysis which isn't yet widespread today, and could retroactively reveal differences in otherwise similarly measuring equipment? Or might I live to the year 2100 and we'll still be using the same measurements and methods of analyses?

Our understanding of anything is and will be incomplete. But appealing to unknown possibilities is not a valid argument.

 

[masterhw]

appealing to unknown possibilities is not a valid argument.

Sure, but it is also comparably ignorant to suggest there can't be a difference because all the classical measurements say its the same. Certainly too much faith in science is more forgivable than not enough, but I would have to believe a pragmatist arrives somewhere in between.

That despite enormous incentives to do so, no audio company has reliably demonstrated that their gear sounds better than the competition once controlled for known variables is probably the most significant thing in favour of our current understanding of audio science. They would love to sell intangible magic if they could. I'm just weary of becoming so overconfident in the current state of audio science that we can comfortably discard any suggestion to its incompleteness. Agree with others that my intuition suggests we have more or less 'solved' electronics and the most likely fields for major advancement are in loudspeaker and DSP.