"Things that cannot be measured"

[MAB]

I know what I wanted to hear vs. what was actually there. I have to ask... why is it that the real world experience of someone who has been in this hobby for 45 years get dismissed like a wet pair of socks?

That doesn't seem like a really large number. Maybe you don't understand the membership here. You've been here a while, did you really think you get a free pass without even trying to sort out your biases? Do you also challenge meat eating at the local BBQ contest, then complain about getting dismissed? You flounce.

I worked in a high end audio store in the '80s where I began to form a strong impression that people really weren't any good at all measuring with their ears. The article on page 78 of the 1987 Stereo Review came out when I was working there. It was a test by David L. Clark of various listener's ability to actually hear the differences between amps.

https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

We sold Levinson among other nice brands, and I was only mildly surprised that nobody in the test could tell the difference between a range of amps that were working properly.

I later worked in a commercial audio company, got my first access to measurement mics and an analyzer, and finally realized how unfortunate some of my early impressions were. And how useful measurements are to actually pinpoint real audible differences. Even the simple and common problem of identifying a rattling vent in a room is trivial with a mic. The only thing about measurements, you do need to attain skill and experience to make meaningful ones. Unfortunately, many people tend to throw stones and dismiss them when they don't fundamentally understand, or lack the experience.

 

[krabapple]

Amps can and do sound different...

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

 

[krabapple]

Measurements are a fantastic tool and a fairly reasonable place to start. They do not reveal everything that the ear can hear. Over the past week, I have been running in-depth comparisons of my Mcintosh C2300/Simaudio 680d combo the new Mcintosh C2800 with the DA2 module. After some time spent level matching the two DACs, I was able to sync the same Qobuz tracks for playback. At first, it was easy... incredibly easy to hear the difference between the two DACs. I then started to experiment with the tone controls on the C2800 and after some very minor adjustments, the two sounded like virtual twins. This is all audible and could likely be verified through bench testing, but here is where it gets interesting...

I am having a very hard time putting into words what I am hearing .

Classic, just classic.

 

[krabapple]

Maybe someday measurements will exist that can quantify these nuances. Then even cheap mass-produced gear will be equal to great gear that is able to deliver flat frequency and phase response AND precise imaging AND that inky blackness that all the magic emerges from.

It already is, audibly so.

Maybe it's time for you to stop believing in 'magic'.

 

[john2017]

Classic, just classic.

I truly am here to learn and gain a better understanding, but the dismissive attitudes and condescension shown to people for the simple exercise of stating their experiences makes it nearly impossible to do so. I will show myself out.

 

[krabapple]

You can't just wave your hand and change the language.
Miriam Webster defines *objectivity* as...
the quality or character of being objective : lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias.

Nowhere does it say only machines can be objective. You dismiss a great number of experienced humans by saying they can't possibly be objective.

It's hilarious that you are interpreting that definition *subjectively*

objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Machines don't have feelings or opinions. Humans absolutely do..even when they assert that they are being 'objective'. That's is exactly why every reputable scientific investigation of audible difference, absolutely requires using blind methods.

 

[MAB]

I truly am here to learn and gain a better understanding, but the dismissive attitudes and condescension shown to people for the simple exercise of stating their experiences makes it nearly impossible to do so. I will show myself out.

You state things that are easily disproved. Yet complain about being talked down to. I'm surprised for how long you have been a member, you don't seem to have understood any of the forum's content.

 

[john2017]

You state things that are easily disproved. Yet complain about being talked down to. I'm surprised for how long you have been a member, you don't seem to have understood any of the forum's content.

I find it to be rather arrogant for folks that have never heard my system to tell me that I am not hearing what I am hearing, or that I must be wrong about how I must be flat out wrong about what the gear I own, some of it for years and built with my own two hands, is capable of. This is akin to me trying to tell someone that has built a fantastic car from the ground up that it must drive like crap because I don't agree with the tires he chose to put on it. I am not here to argue the value of science in testing and evaluation of audio gear. I have relied on some material here for picking gear in the past. There is wisdom in it. No argument whatsoever.

That said, there must be some room for the personal interaction between man and machine. For me, this hobby is a deeply personal and emotional connection to the sounds I hear. Music can transport me through time and space, right into the living room watching my mother dance with the vacuum cleaner in our old apartment behind the Ember's on Logan... Back to Iwakuni during my time in the 'Corps....

I get where you guys are coming from and I want to understand more of it so that I can get even more out of my rig. Is it too much to ask for perhaps a small modicum of understanding where others are coming from?

 

[solderdude]

The C2800 is a $ 15k pre-amp.
It has impressive connectivity, flexibility and even has tubes in it... and the blue meters !
I can see this amp sounding audibly better/different when using vinyl due to the wide adjustment range of the MM/MC inputs.

Despite the tubes the distortion+noise remains below 0.01% (80 SINAD) and becomes better (because of lower tube distortion) at -10dB FS for the DAC.
It lands in the good/very good tier and so it should for this kind of money and using tubes.

There is no audible roll-off in the audible band (using DAC) 20Hz - 20kHz -0.2dB so that's good too.

It is astounding though that people still believe perception + measurements have a (near) 100% correlation.
Perception and measurements appear to have a correlation when blind level matched statistically valid tests are done in lab conditions.
There is never any correlation when sighted 'level matched' comparisons were done though.
This means @john2017 can easily perceive differences even when technically the differences are below considered audible thresholds or aren't even there at all. (The latter has happened to many of us).
Chances are high that john could not tell any differences between those 2 pre-amps when statistically relevant blind and carefully verified (by testing) measurements were done.

We will NEVER know.
People forking out this kind of cash will NEVER do statistically valid properly controlled blind tests when comparing gear.
They will test it using their trusted ears and perception and as perception is everything (and enjoyment) they trust their perception.
Good for them ... enjoy the gear you prefer.

However, failing to recognize the pitfalls of sighted subjective listening tests (even when actually level matched), while understandable from their position, is the reason why 'debates' become so heated.
Sadly the realization that perception can be used rather objectively but requires a different test method than the one described by John is lacking here.
It can most certainly lead to the idea that perception is more discriminate than a few basic measurements numbers and in certain cases it may even be correct.
This we have even seen in the case of the DRE setting in a CS43198 chip and sometimes even becomes visible when Amir measures some gear in more detail than just the 'standard' measurements.
Note: this is about the electronic measurements not the acoustic ones.

One can measure every aspect but mostly this isn't done, just a few (often most telling) basic measurements.
Measurements can be accurate or not so accurate.
Simple numbers rarely say much about actual performance.
Connected gear may have issues that did not or only did occur with the single DUT.

but ... perception and measured results are not the same thing,
Measurements say something about the technical performance / signal fidelity.
Listening/enjoying music is a totally different thing because of perception and is why there may or may not be a good correlation. A fact of life.

 

[Ropeburn]

There's definitely things about music we don't hear, but perceive otherwise instead. Obvious example is bass from big drivers with the famous "gut punch", additionally perceived by the skin through bodyhair and clothing being moved around.

We can't measure that directly with a microphone, but have to extrapolate from frequency content/profile in sound, together with volume.

More generally, something being possible to be measured doesn't mean it's commonly done. Often a measurement set is incomplete and a classic case of "not having all of them", for the obvious reason of it being complicated, expensive, and a lot of work. Gladly, more complete sets are becoming more common. Distortion, compression, group delay for example, all important aspects of sound reproduction.

And finally, thinking "we have all the measurements already" is somewhat intellectually arrogant, as if we already knew everything and the science is complete. Most likely it isn't, it's perfectly possible we'll still find missing pieces, and either way it's the proper scientific attitude to assume there are many things we don't know yet.

 

[MarkS]

I get where you guys are coming from and I want to understand more of it so that I can get even more out of my rig. Is it too much to ask for perhaps a small modicum of understanding where others are coming from?

We do understand where you're coming from. Many of us were there ourselves. But we have moved on, because we learned that a lot of what we believed when we were "there" was wrong, provably so.

You're still in the phase where you insist that what you know from "there" must be right, because of your many years of experience. You do not yet understand that the most malleable part of audio is our own perceptions. Thus you are putting too much trust in yours.

You can verify for yourself that this is true by conducting properly controlled blind listening comparison tests (though getting the "properly controlled" part right is not trivial). If you've never participated in such a test, you may find it to be a rather humbling experience, as many of us did.

The reward of learning what does and does not affect the sound we can get from our systems is a much better sounding system, at typically much lower cost.

Up to you whether you want to start out on that road from "there", or not.

 

[ahofer]

There's definitely things about music we don't hear, but perceive otherwise instead. Obvious example is bass from big drivers with the famous "gut punch", additionally perceived by the skin through bodyhair and clothing being moved around.

We can't measure that directly with a microphone, but have to extrapolate from frequency content/profile in sound, together with volume.

More generally, something being possible to be measured doesn't mean it's commonly done. Often a measurement set is incomplete and a classic case of "not having all of them", for the obvious reason of it being complicated, expensive, and a lot of work. Gladly, more complete sets are becoming more common. Distortion, compression, group delay for example, all important aspects of sound reproduction.

And finally, thinking "we have all the measurements already" is somewhat intellectually arrogant, as if we already knew everything and the science is complete. Most likely it isn't, it's perfectly possible we'll still find missing pieces, and either way it's the proper scientific attitude to assume there are many things we don't know yet.

It's also the proper scientific attitude to presume the null hypothesis when a percieved difference contrary to known and well-established audiological science is asserted, and assert the null hypothesis when controlled testing fails to contradict it.

We can be open-minded, but still avoid the Russell's Teapot argument.

Big Foot *might* exist. But the probability he does is indistinguishable from zero.

 

[Audionaut]

What you can't measure directly is the fun of dealing with hi-fi devices, especially those that don't measure up perfectly, but perhaps look great or are finished like an armored cabinet.
It is also difficult to measure the pure joy of trying out and changing devices or the joy of what the end product of the whole thing is: pleasant music reproduction.
In short, much of what is important to me in this hobby is not directly measurable - and that's a good thing.
I'm quite fond of the finer things in life and it's rare that measurements make me happier.
Good conversations, beautiful music, good wine, nice trips and experiences in these. It's all very individual and very subjective.
We should keep this in mind from time to time during the sometimes heated discussions on ASR: All the measurements are servants to the ultimately completely subjective and individual experience of listening to and enjoying music.

 

[Petrushka]

A few years ago I drew up a wish list of features for an audio component. Imagine my surprise when WIIM produced it for sale under $600.

Now merge in Waxwing.