"Things that cannot be measured"

[Roland]

Of course they do. They tell us whether the system we have is capable of reproducing the original source material without any audible distortion. To use your car analogy, the data will tell you whether the car will transport a specific number of people over a given distance at a particular rate of speed - i.e. will it get me (us) from Point A to Point B and how long will that take.

Exactly the right analogy! A Kia Ceed will get 4 people from a to b in 30 minutes, as will a BMW 1 Series, and both will “measure” the same. However, the driving experience is quite different.

 

[Sal1950]

I agree, our ear and brain are an unstable measuring instrument, but in many cases it is the best we have and sometimes the only one because measurements say nothing.

Due to 1, I have given up the zero error theory and am looking for the solutions that give me lifelike sound/fidelity even if they should introduce slightly larger measurement errors.
Characterized by this form of work is that a large part of my choices are made via listening test, and with the measuring instrument as control, and no it is not blind test,

Once again you are completely wrong in your beliefs. The measurements will tell you everything you need to know about whats going on in the pre-speaker system. There is no magic dust, or things you can hear in DACs preamps, amps that can't be measured. A large portion of them today are audibly perfect and have been for a number of decades, a short time on the test bench will tell you which are or aren't.
Speakers vary largely from audibly transparent, the balance between the measurable parameters is wide. The measurements will tell you much about them but in the end it's a personal choice between the strong and weak points. But again detailed speaker measurements like done here tell you most of what you need to know, when you learn what the measurements mean.
My hope is that you will put away this subjective religion for a bit and continue to read and learn about the science of HiFi here.
It's up to you but I am at my end of arguing with you.
cent' anni
Sal1950

 

[brbsnacks]

Exactly the right analogy! A Kia Ceed will get 4 people from a to b in 30 minutes, as will a BMW 1 Series, and both will “measure” the same. However, the driving experience is quite different.

My line of thinking is the different types of headphones is the "car" and everything that measures well is the gas. 93 octane is 93 octane no matter what care its in. What you are paying extra for is features "additives" or maybe you just want to be seen at the name brand gas station instead of the run down family one selling the same gas.

 

[Wes]

BTW folks, Sonny Rollins in holland goes great with this thread!

 

[ahofer]

he last time I tried to get somebody to actually try a well-run DBT (automated everything including blinding), one of the individuals who was invited did his best to get me fired, arrested, and sued.

That sounds like a good story. Can you tell it? Or does that mean awakening your tormentor?

 

[Spkrdctr]

Well, you can check out the various MPEG Audio tests, the hundreds of reports from the Canadian Labs from Floyd and Sean from long ago, some reports from Harman, AT&T, other places.

Many tests do not make it to the press because they are part of internal research. But they happen.

Yes, and the automotive big three back in the 80s and 90s did massive testing and prototyping of speakers that were Star Trek tech compared to the day. The problem has always been that the companies spending hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on research and development never put their data in print for the general public. But, LUCKILY, I was there! We did tests that anyone on these boards would say was ludicrous. Tests so lopsided as to seem that anyone should have easily picked out a difference and they couldn't. No one ever did on everything except speakers. Speakers were able to be picked out by some people. We found out that the brain was easily fooled by just about everything. It also filled in lack of frequencies and just about anything else. I always say, if the brain is involved in an audio test than the test is most likely worthless. Blind tests are the bedrock of audio advancement. Anyway, BOSE came out soon after with the magic cubes. Those 2.5 inch cubes that marketing said sounded like a full range tower. Millions of units were sold to very happy buyers. The buyers were conditioned to believe that the sound was amazing and better than everything else. To those conditioned by that marketing, they were better than anything else. When you fool the brain, whatever the person perceives is in fact their reality. The brain is an amazing thing.

 

[Frgirard]

The progression in the audiophile art is the capacity to convolve the sound with his brain.
You cannot measure it.
Me i bend the light with my noise and you can't measure it.

 

[Spkrdctr]

There is a solution! Helps with alien interference, too:
View attachment 126226
https://www.amazon.com/Archie-McPhee-Tin-Foil-Humans/dp/B07CXZBRW5

It was your brain. Everything effects your listening and the brain is not static. What it likes today might not be what it likes tomorrow.

 

[ahofer]

Someone just pointed me to this: Stereo Review amp test from January 1987 - https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf ) - Although there are some details missing and more observations would be nice, there is a good deal of validity here - it looks like the kind of thing I was alluding to. So maybe no audible differences between amplifiers (again, I have always gone for low cost, good measurement amplifiers with roughly this belief).

Of course, Stereophile claimed an audible difference after that test, thanks to the right-skewed distribution of answers. However, I would point out two things:

1) They were comparing a VTL tube amp with a transformer to an Adcom solid state design. No measurements were given, but I'd bet the Adcom is linear and the VTL is not, and its FR varies with speaker load. So, there really *should* be an audible difference here, particularly for the golden ears. That it was so subtle is telling.

2) They mistook a bias to hear a difference between two selections for a significant audible difference. This is discussed in the footnotes and letters on the article.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I'm sorry but I hear this so often and so many people just seem to miss the whole point, it's called High Fidelity.
Back in the 50-60s when I started on this journey, it was all about the music and trying to hear it in a way that best reproduced what was on the record. It wasn't such an easy thing to do then, every component in the chain had minor to major failings in it's ability to be transparent. As time went by and the technology improved in all areas, most every component in the chain can now be obtained that is fully transparent with the sole exception of transducers, (microphones, turntable group, speakers).
So now we have this mantra that nothing really matters or is important as long as it "sounds good" to particular listener.
Is it any wonder why the whole industry has gone to hell? From the web and print media, to the manufacturers of snake-oil cables, magic dots, grounding boxes and all the rest. You can tell any lie, pull any scam, write so called "white papers" that are full of twisted technobabble, nothing really matters any more. There is no longer any respect for the thing known as High Fidelity because that is a identifiable and measurable quality against which lesser objects can be compared.
And you know you can't have that!
See my signature for a quote by Peter Aczel.

A breath of fresh air! Great post.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Can gullibility of individuals be measured accurately and repeatable ?

There you go... something that can't be measured yet is also audio related.

Actually some of it can.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Y
Also, the brain can't differentiate whether what it is interpreting is from the system itself or the interaction with the room, or the particular mood one is in when listening. Given the propensity of people to post photos of their systems on social media, I can't tell you how many systems I've seen with obviously tens of thousands of dollars of equipment in absolutely horrible rooms while they chase the next cable upgrade that will "lift a veil". <shudders> Your brain doesn't think your system sounds the same from one day to the next, it is so easily affected by things.

This thread is really pulling out the cutting edge of audio listening. I'm enjoying JJ and your inputs.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Exactly the right analogy! A Kia Ceed will get 4 people from a to b in 30 minutes, as will a BMW 1 Series, and both will “measure” the same. However, the driving experience is quite different.

But the "driving experience" is mostly about YOUR brain and any additional features or comforts of the car. These would NOT be analogous to the performance (measurable specs) of a hi-fi system but rather it's looks, features, build quality, etc. That may make your experience more enjoyable, but don't say they make your system SOUND better.

 

[Wes]

tens of thousands of dollars of equipment in absolutely horrible rooms would make a good thread...

 

[Roland]

But the "driving experience" is mostly about YOUR brain and any additional features or comforts of the car. These would NOT be analogous to the performance (measurable specs) of a hi-fi system but rather it's looks, features, build quality, etc. That may make your experience more enjoyable, but don't say they make your system SOUND better.

No, the driving experience is about a range of qualitative aspects such as how the car handles, its response to steering, accelerator and braking inputs, the balance of suspension spring and damping rates, or the way the car behaves when pushed to the limit. None of this is evident from the various measures we use for cars.

 

[BluesDaddy]

No, the driving experience is about a range of qualitative aspects such as how the car handles, its response to steering, accelerator and braking inputs, the balance of suspension spring and damping rates, or the way the car behaves when pushed to the limit. None of this is evident from the various measures we use for cars.

But those are not core functions of an automobile. Sorry, "how it handles" would be like the feel of the knobs, or how easily the menus are navigated. It's not about whether the car can get you from point A to point B at such and such a speed (which is analogous to the SOUND of your system). All the things you mention are INCIDENTALS to the primary purpose of the car, whether they make it more enjoyable or not. Plus, those are measurable as well.

 

[BluesDaddy]

BTW, pushing any analogy too far becomes both fallacious and farcical.

 

[Blumlein 88]

No, the driving experience is about a range of qualitative aspects such as how the car handles, its response to steering, accelerator and braking inputs, the balance of suspension spring and damping rates, or the way the car behaves when pushed to the limit. None of this is evident from the various measures we use for cars.

Actually car designers have good measurements for all of those. You rarely see them in magazine reviews. As should be obvious, if you can consistently design a quality in then you can measure that quality.

 

[Sal1950]

Actually car designers have good measurements for all of those.

Yep, they have numbers on top of numbers.
They never know when they'll have to go to court and prove or disprove some claim or another.

 

[j_j]

No but I have accepted at least two things about hi-fi.
1. That even the simplest circuit never becomes fully transparent / completely flawless.
2. even very small insignificant measurable errors can have great significance for what is heard, and very large measurable errors can have little significance for what is heard.

Due to 1, I have given up the zero error theory and am looking for the solutions that give me lifelike sound/fidelity even if they should introduce slightly larger measurement errors.
Characterized by this form of work is that a large part of my choices are made via listening test, and with the measuring instrument as control, and no it is not blind test, no one hears sound differences in blind test except Michael Fremer.

You've made a mistake. You must look at short-term error spectrum vs. short-term signal spectrum. Then error matters.