Why you can't trust audio measurements by GoldenSound

[Lambda]

Good video from GoldenSound explaining how measurements can be altered intentionally and unintentionally and how comparable they are.

 

[Katji]

"Why you can't trust audio measurements" that pales in comparison to why you can't trust the others.
...How comparable they are - the measurements... ......you know, how comparable are hi-fi reviewers perceptions of warm amps and clinical amps? ...if only they would measure it, and come up with a standard.

 

[Deleted member 46664]

I get quite the kick out of people comparing -120db to -125db when making buying choices ... neither will be audible!

Generally measurements are best used to weed out the stinkers ... so you can choose according to features and sound on your own.

 

[dadregga]

It isn't necessary to "trust" measurements for them to be useful.

It's just necessary to be able to reproduce them (or not).

 

[Vacceo]

Why should I trust Darko, Guttemberg and the rest of the gang that is not even aware that Black Metal and Grindcore exist?

All my test tracks sound "noisy", "cranky", "boomy", "nauseatingly distorted", "grinding", "opaque", "abhorrent", "nameless", and all the other Lovecraftian-based audiophobe terms you can imagine.

The problem is that if I retorted to Diana Krall for test samples, I may die, become depressed or fall asleep, so not much of a testing method.

 

[Lambda]

I get quite the kick out of people comparing -120db to -125db when making buying choices ... neither will be audible!

In this range the estimation / conformation bias from the person doping the test has more influence...
And things like inter sample clipping or ground isolation.

t isn't necessary to "trust" measurements for them to be useful.

It's just necessary to be able to reproduce them (or not).

have you even seen the the video?
the whole point is that you can not reproduce them if you have only the view dashboard screenshots.
Of cause you need "trust" in measurements this is normally done by giving an uncertainty estimation.

If the measurement goes up and down 2-3dB depending on of the time you take the screenshot this is worth mentioning.
quoting for example -133,424dB gives a false sense of precision without this information.

Why should I trust Darko, Guttemberg and the rest of the gang

Who says you shuld?



im wondering why we don't uses V/√Hz or dB/√Hz more.

https://www.ti.com/lit/an/snva515c/snva515c.pdf?ts=1650464399005&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F

very common in the industry since ever. by normalizing for √Hz the measurement get rid of FFT gain an bandwidth so they are directly comparable.

"Standard" FFT measurements are not comparable if bandwidth,size,fft gain,window function,and so on is not known

 

[dadregga]

It isn't necessary to "trust" measurements for them to be useful.

It's just necessary to be able to reproduce them (or not).

have you even seen the the video?
the whole point is that you can not reproduce them if you have only the view dashboard screenshots.
Of cause you need "trust" in measurements this is normally done by giving an uncertainty estimation.

Right, and a measurement that can't be reproduced because not enough information has been provided for it to be reproducible is still useful info, no "trust in measurements" required.

There are are measurements that

1. Have enough reproduction info to be successfully reproduced, and are reproducible
2. Have enough reproduction info to be successfully reproduced, and are not reproducible
3. Do not have enough reproduction info to be reproduced, and therefore indicate you're being presented info by someone who is sloppy or dishonest.

All three of those provide useful info. None of them require or involve trust in the measurements themselves.


Seems we have people conflating trust in measurements with trust in individual measurers, and assuming the two are inextricably linked. That is, thankfully, not how scientists work.

 

[SIY]

The key for AP measurements: project files.

 

[Pogre]

You can't trust ANY of them! They're ALL on steroids!!

Oh wait... wrong forum. Oops.

 

[diddley]

Damm now am I suppose to watch a video (clicks) from somebody who chickend out of a blind test and behaved himself like a turd.
Nah I am not gonna watch him and give him any attention.

 

[Vacceo]

You can't trust ANY of them! They're ALL on steroids!!

Oh wait... wrong forum. Oops.

That is the gain all cranked to 11.

 

[Deleted member 46664]

Damm now am I suppose to watch a video (clicks) from somebody who chickend out of a blind test and behaved himself like a turd.
Nah I am not gonna watch him and give him any attention.

Product reviews are advertising ... give that the weight it deserves. For me it's a way to find out something exists, not whether I want to buy it or not.

I'll check the specs and measurements, as I said, to eliminate the stinkers... then I will use my own judgement from there.

 

[lc155]

Damm now am I suppose to watch a video (clicks) from somebody who chickend out of a blind test and behaved himself like a turd.
Nah I am not gonna watch him and give him any attention.

Sounds juicy, what's the story?

 

[diddley]

Sounds juicy, what's the story?

Search this forum on Goldenone and find out..

 

[Deleted member 46664]

In this range the estimation / conformation bias from the person doping the test has more influence...
And things like inter sample clipping or ground isolation.

In that range it doesn't matter ... you're not going to hear either of them.

 

[amirm]

The key for AP measurements: project files.

Exactly. That is precisely what I use in the form of templates (so you can't overwrite them by accident). You load up the template and 99% of the settings are the same. Yes, there is some room for mistake like measuring unbalanced vs balanced (if both connected), etc. But vast majority of what he talks about is eliminated.

Some of the other issues he is talking about is brought onto himself. He has cooked up his own way of testing products that in some cases are the same as mine, and in others, they are not. So naturally you can't compare those measurements to mine. If he really wanted these problems to not exist, he should not be making the changes.

Finally, finishing the video with saying two headphone amps with the same SINAD "sound vastly different" is so absurd as to undo everything else he said up to that point. There is really no reason for him to test anything if he can't point to any test that identifies that "vast" difference.

 

[amirm]

In this range the estimation / conformation bias from the person doping the test has more influence...

Only if you are sitting there randomly messing with the dials to measure things. Doing so will quickly get you in trouble the first time a manufacture challenges your measurements. Then the truth comes out that you were gaming the measurements and you will be done with anyone trusting you.

In other words, there is tremendous pressure to do things right and the same across full range of products tested. Perfections can't be achieved but coming extremely close is all you need to ultimately determine one thing: "is the product well engineered?" That is what you want to know, isn't it? That for all the money you spend, someone cared to build a very high performance product.

 

[Vacceo]

Everytime I review data for my geography courses, I take a look at the source(s) and the methodology on how the data was obtained. I guess it is the same for any serious measurement on the engineering of a device: along with the results, you publish the methodology.

 

[USER]

@amirm: A response to this would make a great video. It would be helpful for people to understand that the idea that anybody can buy these things and post data is not so simple. And I'm not just picking on him, "Super" Hans likes to take advantage of all the equipment on his desk to fake authority too. It could even function as a "behind the scenes" type of video.

 

[formula 977]

All my test tracks sound "noisy", "cranky", "boomy", "nauseatingly distorted", "grinding", "opaque", "abhorrent"

Is it a coincidence that you describe the sound heard at every live rock concert I have attended.
Not being descriptions favored as having anything to do with accurate reproduction by most audiophiles it may be confusing.
I wouldn't have it any other way.