Jump to content
IGNORED

Misleading Measurements


Recommended Posts

But the whole thing about objectivists is audibility. They rail against subjectivists for talking about things that can’t be heard, yet they do the exact same thing. 
 

If it’s problematic for people to discuss that which can’t be heard, it must work both ways. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites

The saying: lies, damn lies and then statistics comes to mind.

 

Scientists demand reproducibility
 

Think of a scientific experiment as: what will it take for me to convince you?

 

If you have a reputation for bias, or an agenda,  then I am not taking your measurements at face value. Kinda like I could care less what ASR measures a Pass Labs component at ...

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Putting on an objectivist's hat, I would argue that it's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety, an engineering safeguard to ensure that in all possible circumstances that the audibility will always lie well below what's borderline audible.

I don’t see how this relates to objectivists disliking that which can’t be heard but also publicizing that which can’t be heard when it fits an agenda. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don’t see how this relates to objectivists disliking that which can’t be heard but also publicizing that which can’t be heard when it fits an agenda. 

 

It's also an indicator of quality - that the design and manufacture is to such a high standard that they are well below what's necessary for what they believe to be "the threshold or level of audibility" - implying that other qualities which are not so easily measured are of a commensurate standard.

 

As an objectivist, I would want the best that's possible in performance, for peace of mind - I don't feel that I'm missing out of anything; that there's no chance that there is a better system out there that has better specs, which may give better subjective results, 😉.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

May be the specs are not published for one to hear rather they are there to be seen as a comparison or competition with the others.  Too bad if you cannot hear the difference even there is big difference in the specs however, if one can prove the specs are not accurate as claimed then there will be adverse consequences.  However, how many will take action if it still sounds good despite the deviation from the specs.

MetalNuts

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Chris, perhaps it's hard to believe, but not every objectivist is the same. We don't all think the same way and believe the same things.

 

 

And why I find this thread both pointless and insulting...

Everything matters... when brewing coffee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

And why I find this thread both pointless and insulting...

Please help me understand rather than just complain. 

 

If we all posted all the caveats and possibilities, there's be nothing worth reading. For example, objectivists who love measurements, except those who like them and don't view them as the end all be all, and except those who only go by measurements, and except those who only love some of them, and except those who continue to do experiments themselves, etc... 

 

It gets pointless. We have to have some leeway when writing and reading that allowed people to discuss topics without carving out exceptions for all possibilities. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Paul, thanks for the thoughtful comments. 

 

As you can imagine, I see this differently, not with respect to your opinions of course, but with the efficacy of some measurements in light of the objectivist party line that berates audiophiles for talking about stuff that they believe can't be heard. I just don't see how objective leaning people can have it both ways, with a straight face. 

 

Objectivists often hate discussions of things like USB cables, claiming there are no measurements that can show a difference between them. The discussion often includes that these cables are bad for the industry, scare people away and mislead people into purchasing stuff they don't need. 

 

I see the discussion of inaudible measurements as being the other side of that coin. A DAC that measures -130 dB is worse than a DAC that measures at -131 dB. The better measuring DAC will be put on a pedestal and listed at the #1 DAC. This will no doubt cause people to purchase the DAC over others that may measure at -129 dB, -128 dB etc... It's human nature and there's no getting around it. 

 

Personally I don't mind the measurements and think adults can make up their own minds and purchase what they want. It just irks me that objectivists, who have goals other than looking at graphs to satisfy themselves, eschew one thing they claim is inaudible but consider the other inaudible items laudable. 

 

If we are solely talking about engineering feats of something like the lowest noise floor, then by all means show the measurements. But, that reminds me of the car audio competitions for the loudest sounds within the cabin of the car. What's the point. I suppose some people could purchase equipment for reasons other than listening and that's OK, but

 

Surely the audibility of jitter is something that objectivists can agree on. There must be a generally accepted number, below which is inaudible. Take that number and go lower by 10%. All jitter measurements below that shouldn't matter and can only serve to mislead people, if the accepted party line of objectivists is true and inaudible stuff doesn't matter. Thus, showing a pass fail for jitter should be the prudent way to display this info. 

 

Note: I'm not arguing for this position. I'm only pointing out what I see as a double standard and I'm seeking to understand why it's pushed so hard.

 

Well, audibility thresholds are not some voodoo magic, they are not a new concept. These can be (and have been) studied. I myself invested a lot of time and effort to create tools to aid in such studies. I wouldn't waste my time if I believed that everything is known and there's nothing new to learn in this space.

 

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It just irks me that objectivists, who have goals other than looking at graphs to satisfy themselves, eschew one thing they claim is inaudible but consider the other inaudible items laudable. 

 

There's no accounting for tastes or preferences. A "true objectivist", if such a thing exists, would question any claims of audibility/inaudibility and look for real evidence to demonstrate that there is a correlation between some measurement and audibility, as well as measurements and preferences. Many of the papers I cite on the BIAS in Testing thread are designed to study exactly this.

 

33 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

if the reason for components is to listen, then it makes zero sense to care about that which is inaudible

 

Agreed!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Well, audibility thresholds are not some voodoo magic, they are not a new concept. These can be (and have been) studied. I myself invested a lot of time and effort to create tools to aid in such studies. I wouldn't waste my time if I believed that everything is known and there's nothing new to learn in this space.

I'm with you on this one. There are studies that the objective crowd accepts and that's totally cool with me. In essence, that's the basis for my entire topic here. 

 

I just don't understand why objectivists love some inaudible aspects of this hobby and eschew others. 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'm not at all complaining about this thread, I like the ability to have a rational discussion. But, I've experienced over and over again this attempt to lump all the objectivists into a single straw-man, with all the extreme views rolled into one. As if we are all one individual and all think the same. I assume that's what @kumakuma is reacting to. Perhaps it's human nature, because I see the same occurring on ASR, but in the opposite direction.

It's just not possible to carve out all the exceptions while maintaining some readability. I highly encourage people to read with their glass half full and realize All and None statements aren't meant to group everyone, they are just used to further discussion. 

 

If people don't want to have a discussion without all the caveats carved out, that's fine too but I believe they'll be looking quite a while to find an acceptable discussion. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I highly encourage people to read with their glass half full

As a flexible and rational objectivist, I focus first and foremost on what’s in the glass. Then I analyze the data to see if the level is stable, rising or falling.  If it’s stable, is it static or in a dynamic equilibrium?  If it’s falling, where’s the leak and where is the loss going?  If it’s rising, what’s the source and do I really want or need more of whatever’s in it?  
 

Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Summit said:

don’t get why presenting measurements "below level of audibility" would be consider misleading. To do the opposite and not show how a gear actually measured OTOH would be far more misleading and confusing IMO

Great point. 
 

If, as objective leaning people believe and according to studies, there is something below the level of audibility, what is the benefit to consumers to know this information? What is the possible harm to consumers?

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Sleepless nights wondering why they can’t hear a difference.

I certainly hear you but if there’s harm in unmeasurable USB cables then the same harm is there for unhearable measurements. 
 

I don’t see any harm, but the double standard is blatant. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Great point. 
 

If, as objective leaning people believe and according to studies, there is something below the level of audibility, what is the benefit to consumers to know this information? What is the possible harm to consumers?

 

Not all objectivists believe that. Many objectivists and subjectivist know that noise, jitter etc despite not being directly audible can have negative affect on other electrical devices and other audio gear downstream.

 

What’s the point to manipulate the measurements, it is literally like open a can of worms?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...