"Things that cannot be measured"

[j_j]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you talk about positive and negative controls but it doesn’t address my main criticism related to the blatant confirmation bias done by those that are dogmatically convinced that any difference will appear in the measurements.

Wow, you certainly do NOT know anything about subjective testing. None the less, you make professional accusations. I suspect you don't belong in a scientific forum.

 

[DonH56]

Well I see I’ve struck a nerve given the long winded attack aimed at my post.

This is typical of the kind of arrogance and sheer bullying frequently displayed in this forum.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you talk about positive and negative controls but it doesn’t address my main criticism related to the blatant confirmation bias done by those that are dogmatically convinced that any difference will appear in the measurements.

If you wanted to set up a proper test then you would need to include a device which measures in a way that should sound different along with the devices that shouldn’t. This would address any observer (listener) bias and validate the trial methodology. No serious experimental protocol would ever allow a simple listening comparison when the biases of the observer are so blatant.

The fact that many of the hard core objectivists even mention their listening experiences as confirmation of their “measurements tell all” theory is laughable.

JJ's post went step-by-step through your post in an attempt to counter misinformation and explain what and why it was incorrect.

JJ has set up more than a few proper tests. He's also a Fellow of the AES and the IEEE, titles that mean something to technical folk, and his expertise garners respect from those who know him.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37302284200

AES Member Profile » James Johnston

This is the member profile of an AES member.

www.aes.org

 

[Spkrdctr]

JJ was doing audio testing before many on here were born! I tend to listen to a guy who literally wrote the book on a lot of this stuff. That is my word to the wise. Same for talking with Amir on a lot of audio topics. Many videos on this site that Amir has made allow people to watch and learn. The free resource for the layman known as ASR!

 

[DonH56]

We have a number of folk who come here, throw out some outlandish claim, get called on it, cite the hostility of everyone here, leave in a huff, and trash ASR on other sites. I suppose people must find meaning in life somehow; I have music and a Jeep.

 

[j_j]

I’ve never accused objectivists of cheating.

Except you did. Etc.

 

[Beave]

I’ve never accused objectivists of cheating.

My original post wasn’t even under this thread.
It was in response to a post by an individual who claimed to hear no differences in level matched listening while at the same time overtly stating that there couldn’t be any difference based on the measurements of both devices. My point had to do with listener bias, not cheating. It wasn’t an indictment of the entire objectivist community and all professionals working in the area.

As for the history of jitter, I recall numerous articles in the issues of the Audio Critic (the objectivist periodical of the time) years ago ridiculing the whole issue of jitter as a factor in digital performance (if I recall correctly they called them jitterphobes) Consensus has certainly changed.

The other issue I mentioned had to do with the notion that current measurement protocols capture ALL that is needed to know about how an audio device will perform. There are many respected audio engineers, not just audio hobbyists, who believe this isn’t so. In science there are only theories and these can be challenged.

I’m not sure why this prompted such a fierce attack, but I suspect it’s a message to anyone who dares to challenge the orthodoxy.

Anyway, I will take my leave of this forum, no doubt to the delight of those who were offended by my posts.

It has? Please elaborate.

 

[AdamG]

Your absolute ignorance of experimental design is why you should study experimental design.

I spoke facts. You speak libel. It's not arrogance nor bullying to simply point out the facts. You openly, in plain text, accused "objectivists" of cheating, and completely misrepresented each and every thing you brought up.

The fact that your drivel was rejected as a matter of fact is not bullying, it is educational.

Wow, you certainly do NOT know anything about subjective testing. None the less, you make professional accusations. I suspect you don't belong in a scientific forum.

Well give the man some credit. He really chose well whom to argue against. I have sad news. Unfortunately our new Troll member has been relocated to a different bridge in a far away land. Mail service is scant and it remains doubtful that he will be responding. At least under this current incarnation.

 

[AdamG]

We have a number of folk who come here, throw out some outlandish claim, get called on it, cite the hostility of everyone here, leave in a huff, and trash ASR on other sites. I suppose people must find meaning in life somehow; I have music and a Jeep.

We send them “I survived ASR” momentarily. T-shirts. Reincarnation attempts they get lapel pins and Chinese finger puzzle.

 

[solderdude]

Do you guys honestly not hear sound stage? Do your systems all sound like the sound is coming from the speakers themselves when you close your eyes?

A silly (ignorant) question concerning stereo speaker response - advance apology!

Recently in my late night insomniac wandering around the ether I found a comment concerning a Billy Joel recording. Joel´s piece - “Innocent Man” has a ´finger-snap´ that reoccurs in the background. The theory propounded suggested that if one perceived the finger snap to be consistent in...

www.audiosciencereview.com

responses from to the left to the right on (presumably) the same recording .... room acoustics (incl applied damping or not) ? headphone ? speaker response (directivity/FR) ?, distortion ? perception (incl. ears and brain) ? used recording/master (MQA may have had an additional remaster), amps used that have a tonal balance issue or impedance dependency ? room correction/EQ ?you tell me.

How do you hear headphone 'soundstage'

This poll is born out of a 'soundstage / imaging' discussion. I am just curious how people hear headphone 'soundstage'. Note this is with 'normal' recordings so NO binaural recordings and without any processing/plug-ins like crossfeed, stereo enhancers and 3D emulators. Just a plain...

www.audiosciencereview.com

In the end, I agree that in the end all we can describe is how we hear (perceive) things but the moment you start swapping electronic components it is not wise to contribute perceived changes to that with the same certainty without testing blind properly; level matched, only changing one thing, with statistical relevance and not just use your 'hearing' as is. It is notoriously bad to use hearing this way.

 

[Galliardist]

It has? Please elaborate.

I'm sure you know the answer. The new consensus is that we can hear differences using faster and faster, more and more expensive clocks and special circuitry. That consensus is based on our old friend, uncontrolled sighted "testing".

The sick joke is that after those "new consensus" "engineers" have finished, and the golden eared subjectivists have given them the big tick - all their fancy and very expensive equipment often still shows worse measured jitter than a modern entry level SMSL or Topping box. Funnily enough, they hear those boxes as being - what's the word they use - oh yes, "sterile". Oh dear.


The old consensus, that one based on measurement and testing, still applies.

 

[solderdude]

How you go about measuring perceived changes in sound

This is a totally different can of worms... it involves rigorous testing changing only one aspect at a time under controlled conditions (measurements), without knowing what is playing but could be with knowledge what to 'look' for in a statistically relevant way.

Changing an amp or DAC or something else and reseating yourself in a chair knowing what you changed is not how you are going to prove anything to others.

Here's the thing... if you change things and get more enjoyment that way that's perfectly fine. I welcome that. Don't think the changes will always be correlating to technical changes... they might, they may not.
Even if its placebo and brings you more enjoyment in one way or the other it is fine. Does not make it a fact. It is just your personal experience which makes it factual to you (because you heard it).

Enjoy your system. That's what we all care about. Most just go about it in a different way but leading to the same result. Enjoyment of reproduced recordings.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Changing an amp or DAC or something else and reseating yourself in a chair knowing what you changed is not how you are going to prove anything to others yourself.

FIFY.

Jim

 

[Haskil]

What is the relevance of jitter measurements when it comes to digital devices?

About fifteen years ago, I took part in an ABX test with a device specially manufactured for this by QSC. Among the comparisons made, there was "what effect does jitter have on sound quality", because this device could generate it in an adjustable way.
We heard nothing qualitatively as the jitter was increased until the audio was cut off. In fact it was: there is sound and whatever the rate of jitter generated the sound is unchanged or there are no sounds at all when the jitter is too important for the DAC to “lock in” with the signal .

 

[Haskil]

First, things like "liveliness" and the like are effects that are much more energetic than the measured accuracy of very many amplifiers. If an amplifier has actually different sensation at that level, either it, or it's pair in the comparison, is broken, full stop. This will show up in an in-situ measurement like a blinding searchlight. Now, make sure your comparisons are level matched, because that kind of "feel" is often attributed to something that is a pure level difference.

As to the "damping factor" thing, almost all modern speakers are built with the idea that the amplifier is very close to a pure voltage source. As such, there really should be no effects of that sort AT ALL. If not, again, something is just plain broken.

What remains of the damping factor after 3 m of speaker cable, the banana plugs, the speaker terminal block, the filter with its resistors, its chokes and capacitors, its small cables to connect the filter outputs to the HP?

Doesn't it make sense when a speaker is actively filtered and there are only a few centimeters between the amp output and the connectors of each bass driver?

 

[DonH56]

For digital audio, the main jitter issue occurred with early DACs (and AVRs depending upon HDMI clocks) that did not buffer the incoming clock from the DAC's output clock. That has been a solved problem for decades.

For digital links like PCIe, SAS, SATA, USB, Ethernet, etc. jitter is a design parameter and is an issue when the error rate exceeds the links ability to properly correct and recover the data. At that point error messages fly and the effect is immediately obvious. A digital cable could induce noise into a poorly-designed component, of course, but that is not jitter.

 

[ahofer]

About fifteen years ago, I took part in an ABX test with a device specially manufactured for this by QSC. Among the comparisons made, there was "what effect does jitter have on sound quality", because this device could generate it in an adjustable way.
We heard nothing qualitatively as the jitter was increased until the audio was cut off. In fact it was: there is sound and whatever the rate of jitter generated the sound is unchanged or there are no sounds at all when the jitter is too important for the DAC to “lock in” with the signal .

There's a decent online test for that

DEMO / MUSINGS: Let's listen to some jitter simulations with sideband distortions...

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[shion_ca]

This is a totally different can of worms... it involves rigorous testing changing only one aspect at a time under controlled conditions (measurements), without knowing what is playing but could be with knowledge what to 'look' for in a statistically relevant way.

Changing an amp or DAC or something else and reseating yourself in a chair knowing what you changed is not how you are going to prove anything to others.

Here's the thing... if you change things and get more enjoyment that way that's perfectly fine. I welcome that. Don't think the changes will always be correlating to technical changes... they might, they may not.
Even if its placebo and brings you more enjoyment in one way or the other it is fine. Does not make it a fact. It is just your personal experience which makes it factual to you (because you heard it).

Enjoy your system. That's what we all care about. Most just go about it in a different way but leading to the same result. Enjoyment of reproduced recordings.

You respond to me like you think I have said anything different than you. My point was simply that one should not mock folks who ask if an amplifier will give them an improved sense of soundstage or liveliness for simply having used those terms.

That if you care to actually use science for understanding instead of denigrating, you might find that what folks refer to as liveliness in a system is quite demonstrable to say frequency response above 15khz. And that the "audiophool" apparently term of sound staging is the relative perceived position of objects relative to the speakers. That this also could be measured with various amounts of rigour.

So yeah there can be science applied to the perception of soundstage and perceived sensation of liveliness.

I did not argue an amp would change soundstage. I did not argue you would prove it by re-seating yourself. I simply explained basic science that can be performed around the perception of sound stimuli.


The arguments people had with me were literally saying things I had never said. Like that I had said an amp could change soundstage. or that I had asked questions about how the amp sounded wondering if I should buy it. I was the person who owned the amps. They were jumping over themselves to try to find some straw man fault with an argument that they constructed for me. I simply explained science.

Note: perception is of course relative... and so someone with one ear won't behave the same way. So not everyone will agree at exactly what frequency roll off l"liveliness" is affected or exactly where in the soundstage a given system plays the violin. But there will be commonalities in general to changes and their impact on these factors. Enough so to be useful for discussion when one person describes the changes relative to them.

 

[shion_ca]

And to be technically exact because someones going to call me on the pedantic... I do believe an amp could affect the perceived placement of instruments in the room. This is because if you play quieter (ie. have an amp with too little power) that can affect where the instruments seem to come from. But this is the first time I've stated this, and it is also quite true and necessary if you're going to purposefully try to avoid common sense when reading my previous comment. Having a broken amp that doesn't play will also affect your soundstage.

 

[Purité Audio]

Yes tiny soundstage, non existent in fact with a broken amp,
Keith

 

[shion_ca]

Yes tiny soundstage, non existent in fact with a broken amp,
Keith

Exactly... this is what I've been reduced to.