"Things that cannot be measured"

[mhardy6647]

Might be a topic for another thread. While I agree mostly with your statement it probably is closer to measuring amplifiers. You really need to measure a number of things to gauge Love.

Measuring love by sacrifice in an audio context puts one squarely in the realm of loudspeakers, I'd opine (with characteristic humility, of course!).

* "Heritage" Klipsch (the Sawzall of loudspeakers, to paraphrase Tom Brennan)
* Quad "ESL-57" (the perfect storm of low sensitivity, low power handling capability, an insane impedance curve and virtually nonexistent vertical treble dispersion -- yeah, I have a pair )
* Lowthers (oy vey)

 

[Frgirard]

Measure a stereo picture?

Let me introduce you to Google Search: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=measuring+stereo+visual+imaging&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4GGHP_en-GBAU866AU866&sxsrf=ALeKk00P2IKqabWtiC0USwyXzd6VxEAVbg:1618396429329&ei=DcV2YI3CE9KQ4-EP_tCEkAo&oq=measuring+stereo+visual+imaging&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAw6BwgAEEcQsAM6BAgjECdQzvMBWIbMAmDI5AJoAXACeACAAccBiAGDC5IBAzAuOZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjN_JnCxP3vAhVSyDgGHX4oAaIQ4dUDCA0#spf=1618396476536

That?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_stereo_vision

It's seems to me is out of scope? I will try to plug a ccd camera to my ears

 

[Wes]

I compare them using the a few sound clips at the same volume level, and make a determination as to whether I think there is a difference and if one is better than the other. The only standard it needs to meet is the "am I willing to pay for this" standard. That's it.

It's a personal decision and not something I'd try to persuade others about. I could not care less if power cords make a difference or not from an ideological standpoint.

that doesn't appear to be anything close to an "empirical experiment"

you are welcome to spend your own money on any legal product but please don't mislead other people

 

[ahofer]

The use of the term "ideological" in several places in this thread seems misplaced. Demanding that there be evidence from controlled experiments to show that a phenomenon might exist doesn't strike me as ideological. Grumpy, touchy, repetitive? Perhaps. Or perhaps where it becomes ideological would be if we considered others immoral to be subjectivists or attempted to organize society to eliminate it. I don't see that. Proselytizing? Perhaps. We do want to convert people, or, in our view, de-program them.

Conforming to a belief system without proper evidence is faith, or religion.

 

[rdenney]

The use of the term "ideological" in several places in this thread seems misplaced. Demanding that there be evidence from controlled experiments to show that a phenomenon might exist doesn't strike me as ideological. Grumpy, touchy, repetitive? Perhaps. Or perhaps where it becomes ideological would be if we considered others immoral to be subjectivists or attempted to organize society to eliminate it. I don't see that. Proselytizing? Perhaps. We do want to convert people, or, in our view, de-program them.

Conforming to a belief system without proper evidence is faith, or religion.

Religion is devotion to an observed practice, and isn't about faith, which is believing that which is not seen. Ideology is different from both.

If there is a philosophy difference, it's in the meaning of "musical" and "distorted". Subjectivists believe that pleasing distortions are not distortions, but rather musical enhancements. If these distortions are audible and pleasing, they might pass muster with controlled subjective testing (including blind testing), but they would still be distortions. Note that when it comes to empirical preference testing, we so-called objectivists are still doing subjective testing. We are testing opinions, not characteristics--that's what makes it subjective. Testing it in a way that separates the results from chance and sighted bias is what makes it controlled testing.

Most objectivists believe that only what the microphone heard (or what the musician and producer added as an intentional effect) is "music", and everything that changes that signal subsequently is "distortion". The ideological part is in the assumption that all distortion is bad, whereas only the lack of distortion is good. This is not an ideology that must be shared by objectivists. Of course, manufacturers often claim transparency while allowing or designing certain often-favorable distortions. Measurement reveals this strategy for what it is, but that doesn't mean some still won't prefer the sound of certain distortions.

The whole point of being objective is to inform users, which empowers them to do things on purpose rather than being a victim of a lack of information. What they choose to do with that information is up to them.

Rick "who doesn't mind if people prefer distortions, as long as they do it on purpose" Denney

 

[Robert394]

FIFY.

That's very clever.

 

[Robert394]

The use of the term "ideological" in several places in this thread seems misplaced. Demanding that there be evidence from controlled experiments to show that a phenomenon might exist doesn't strike me as ideological. Grumpy, touchy, repetitive? Perhaps. Or perhaps where it becomes ideological would be if we considered others immoral to be subjectivists or attempted to organize society to eliminate it. I don't see that. Proselytizing? Perhaps. We do want to convert people, or, in our view, de-program them.

Conforming to a belief system without proper evidence is faith, or religion.

The unproved assertion that everything relevant to the perception of sound quality can be currently measured is an ideological commitment. It's really a guess and cannot be proved.

 

[ahofer]

Religion is devotion to an observed practice, and isn't about faith, which is believing that which is not seen

I'd settle for 'heard'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

 

[ahofer]

The unproved assertion that everything relevant to the perception of sound quality can be currently measured is an ideological commitment. It's really a guess and cannot be proved.

No, describing it as a "guess", or "ideological", is loaded and inapt. It's a Bayesian inference, or working hypothesis. Objectivists will change their mind if the evidence suggests it.

Incidentally, if you search my posts, you'll find several where I say that there may be something audible we can't measure yet, but there isn't evidence yet to suggest it.

 

[JustJones]

Perhaps I missed something in one of the posts but who assumes or said science can measure

everything relevant to the perception of sound quality

?
Science does a pretty good job of measuring what we can record, reproduce and can hear.

 

[Robert394]

No, describing it as a "guess", or "ideological", is loaded and inapt. It's a Bayesian inference, or working hypothesis. Objectivists will change their mind if the evidence suggests it.

Incidentally, if you search my posts, you'll find several where I say that there may be something audible we can't measure yet, but there isn't evidence yet to suggest it.

You could call it loaded I suppose. But I'm really referring to the people who reject as illusory any reported observation that apparently can't be correlated with a frequency response graph or some other measurement technique. To me that's an ideological position.

 

[JustJones]

You could call it loaded I suppose. But I'm really referring to the people who reject as illusory any reported observation that apparently can't be correlated with a frequency response graph or some other measurement technique. To me that's an ideological position.

To me the ideological position is one who insists they can hear something even though they've been shown they don't through controlled listening tests.

 

[Robert394]

To me the ideological position is one who insists they can hear something even though they've been shown they don't through controlled listening tests.

And who is that person? It's not everyone who experiments with things like power cords. Most who do probably don't have the opportunity to set up truly controlled double blind tests like that.

Additionally, there's another factor to consider in the whole "controlled listening" setting.

My RME ADI2 Dac has a variety of filter options that do measurably produce different output. However, I'm not persuaded that I would always be able to detect a difference in a controlled A/B test. Sometimes I've changed the filter and forgotten to change it back to default (SD Sharp), and don't notice for awhile. Yet, there is a measurable difference in frequency or impulse etc.

So not being able to detect a difference in a controlled listening test is also not proof that no difference exists.

I tend to think it's better to stay grounded in measurements and science when evaluating audio components, but to also maintain a degree of open-mindedness that perception also matters and may tell us things measurements may not. Klaus Heinz, the designer of Hedd and prior designer of Adam speakers said something similar in an interview... basically, he uses classical measurement techniques when designing his speakers, but his ultimate standard for whether a speaker he designs is a good one is the collective statistical opinions of those who use it.

 

[SIY]

You could call it loaded I suppose. But I'm really referring to the people who reject as illusory any reported observation that apparently can't be correlated with a frequency response graph or some other measurement technique. To me that's an ideological position.

Said no-one ever. Demonstrate audibility in a controlled test. That’s sufficient.

Now of course, to date, no-one, NO-ONE has demonstrated the audibility of anything that escapes simple measurement. You can go down in history as the first.

 

[JustJones]

I guess I'm still confused. We can measure everything we can hear, we know the frequencies human ears can sense sound. Perception of sound quality is user dependent.

 

[MattHooper]

Religion is devotion to an observed practice, and isn't about faith, which is believing that which is not seen. Ideology is different from both.

If there is a philosophy difference, it's in the meaning of "musical" and "distorted". Subjectivists believe that pleasing distortions are not distortions, but rather musical enhancements. If these distortions are audible and pleasing, they might pass muster with controlled subjective testing (including blind testing), but they would still be distortions. Note that when it comes to empirical preference testing, we so-called objectivists are still doing subjective testing. We are testing opinions, not characteristics--that's what makes it subjective. Testing it in a way that separates the results from chance and sighted bias is what makes it controlled testing.

Most objectivists believe that only what the microphone heard (or what the musician and producer added as an intentional effect) is "music", and everything that changes that signal subsequently is "distortion". The ideological part is in the assumption that all distortion is bad, whereas only the lack of distortion is good. This is not an ideology that must be shared by objectivists. Of course, manufacturers often claim transparency while allowing or designing certain often-favorable distortions. Measurement reveals this strategy for what it is, but that doesn't mean some still won't prefer the sound of certain distortions.

The whole point of being objective is to inform users, which empowers them to do things on purpose rather than being a victim of a lack of information. What they choose to do with that information is up to them.

Rick "who doesn't mind if people prefer distortions, as long as they do it on purpose" Denney

Very well put!

Some of us (well...me!) come to a forum like this not specifically because we are seeking the lowest possible distortion in our systems, but rather to simply be in a place where audiophile b.s. and mush-minded/ignorant thinking about science and engineering is at a minimum. In other words, where are are to the extent possible not trying to bullshit ourselves or others, so our decisions can be informed. From there, preference is preference.

 

[Wes]

I guess I'm still confused. We can measure everything we can hear, we know the frequencies human ears can sense sound. Perception of sound quality is user dependent.

We're all confused.

What's the Blues?

 

[krabapple]

I compare them using the a few sound clips at the same volume level, and make a determination as to whether I think there is a difference and if one is better than the other. The only standard it needs to meet is the "am I willing to pay for this" standard. That's it.

It's a personal decision and not something I'd try to persuade others about. I could not care less if power cords make a difference or not from an ideological objective standpoint.

fixed that for you.

what's odd is that obviously you felt some inclination to 'methodically' address the question. You even auditioned them with short clips 'at the same level'. Yet you balked at taking the final crucial step. For ideological reasons, apparently.

 

[krabapple]

Because science cannot prove things (it can only disprove them -- proof exists in math but not science) the truth is we do not know whether there are qualities of sound that cannot be CURRENTLY measured but that are relevant to human perception of sound quality.

My sense is that there are such qualities because simply based on my own empirical experiments I have noticed differences with things like power cords

Except, your 'noticing' is tainted by your 'knowing'.

Unless you deny all results of research on perceptual/cognitive bias.

Your post doesn't show any evidence that you even acknowledge it.

 

[Robert394]

Said no-one ever. Demonstrate audibility in a controlled test. That’s sufficient.

Now of course, to date, no-one, NO-ONE has demonstrated the audibility of anything that escapes simple measurement. You can go down in history as the first.

fixed that for you.

what's odd is that obviously you felt some inclination to 'methodically' address the question. You even auditioned them with short clips 'at the same level'. Yet you balked at taking the final crucial step. For ideological reasons, apparently.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here but I think I've made my point and will bow out of this debate which, because people have such firm beliefs about, is sort of pointless.

I'd be happy to set up a truly double blind test with power cables and see what I find out but that's not practical at the moment. No need to blow it out of proportion as though I had a few people here ready to conduct such a test and decided not to.