Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 29, 2020 I was thinking about this the other day and came to the conclusion that measurements are almost always published in a misleading way. Here’s why. Objectivists believe they know the threshold or level of audibility with respect to measurements. Any anomaly below that level is thus meaningless for people listening to music. It stands to reason that objective leaning people who are truly out to follow the data and help people unearth the truth, should only publish a pass fail style of measurement. If a component has no issues above the threshold of human hearing, it can only mislead people if these measurements are published. Components without issues should be given a stamp of approval and that’s it, if the true goal was objective info and to stop people from wasting money like is so often said. I would love to know why objective people are interested in anything below the threshold of human hearing and why they are interested in this info given that it can cause the same issues they rail against with respect to subjective opinions. Perhaps I should ask @Archimago why he publishes measurements below the threshold of human hearing. audiobomber, fas42, Josh Mound and 1 other 2 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 I’m seeking input from objective members of the community on this topic. Their logic is incongruous to me and I want to understand it. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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. Superdad 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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. Teresa 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 29, 2020 4 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. As an example, @Archimago and I just ran a blind test to determine audibility of harmonic distortion. We ran it not because we believed it was inaudible at -50dB or audible to the -180dB level (as some in the industry will claim), but because we wanted to find out. There's a large contingent on ASR that will tell you that harmonic distortion at -120dB is much better than -115dB. In an engineering sense, this is true: lower distortion is more transparent than higher, more 'pure'. But is this difference really audible? And could it be that we, audiophiles, prefer a little distortion to none? That's why it's important to study these things, and running tests and experiments is the way to do this. Proper engineering has a lot to do with lowering distortions and producing better measurements, even when these are well below audibility. Some of us prefer better engineered products, especially if they are less expensive than some high-end ones that are engineered poorly. Measurements are the way to determine this. Not if it sounds better, but if the design is sound and engineering is done well. The point of doing measurements is that they allow anyone to interpret the results based on their knowledge and understanding, which may change over time. Measurements do not include bias and personal opinion. I know you take issue with Amir's subjective recommendations. I do too. I don't find them useful, as I don't believe he's completely free of bias (no one is). But his measurements are, and this is confirmed by others producing the same results. 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 if the reason for components is to listen, then it makes zero sense to care about that which is inaudible. 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. Teresa, kennyb123, Superdad and 1 other 4 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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 | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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 | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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 | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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 | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 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. Josh Mound 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 29, 2020 Author Share Posted June 29, 2020 51 minutes ago, Summit said: 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? We don't need to go around the loop again and state that not all objectivists believe etc... Of course not all of anything is one way. Nobody is suggesting manipulating measurements. Teresa 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted June 30, 2020 8 minutes ago, JoshM said: I could be wrong, but I think Chris’s point is that if we take “beyond audibility“ seriously, then it becomes a checked box rather than a “moar please” issue. There’s no “even more inaudible.” I’ve said before that I don’t see the point of someplace like ASR continuing to measure DACs. According to its own standards, a bunch of $99 DACs are “perfect.” But I do think there’s a danger in reducing DACs to one or two numbers, dumping them into a graph, then saying that higher is better. That’s especially the case if it’s really “all DACs with distortion below 80 dBFS are audibly transparent.” Even more so the case when, as Marv at SBAF has demonstrated, little issues with kinked cords, ground loops, etc. can make the same unit measure differently. This is not, of course, to say that measurements don’t have immense value. But I think the limits to measurement fundamentalism (for lack of a better way to make clear that I’m not lumping everyone who likes measurements together) are already being seen with ASR’s foray into speaker measurements. People are trying to reduce Amir’s speaker measurements to one or two preference numbers. Yet he’s saying in his subjective reviews that speakers with virtually identical preference ratings sound very different (and resorting to some of the biggest audiophile writing cliches in the process!). This is, understandably, vexing some of his most loyal followers. I believe Amir can hear differences between two 6.8 (or whatever) preference-rated speakers. But I also think there are some people who can, even in blind testing, hear differences between two “perfect” DACs. There are certainly some people who can’t hear either. There are even many people who couldn’t tell a 4.5 preference rating speaker from a 6.8 one, or a 60 SINAD DAC from a 110 one (or, if they could tell a difference, couldn’t say which is more neutral). I’m interested in measurements to catch major issues and to understand why we’re hearing what we’re hearing. I’m not interested in them as an arms race with no meaningful purpose. Absolutely. 100% I don’t care where people are on the continuum of subjective and objective views. I just hate double standards and people on high horses looking down at others. If someone is a “measurements or it isn’t real” type of person that’s fine. However, they must also use all objective information rather than cherry pick. There are serious limits to human hearing that are ignored when convenient but touted when needed. For example, saying high resolution audio doesn’t matter because humans can’t hear above 20 kHz is fine with me, but then one should also say measurements below the level of human hearing don’t matter. Currawong and Teresa 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, kumakuma said: This is unworkable because it would require everyone to agree on what this level is. Why everyone? Can’t we just used scientifically established objective data? Paul says it has existed for quite a while. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: I'm losing track of what we are talking about. What data? Audibility thresholds? Of course this exists. Yes. Audibility thresholds. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, kumakuma said: This wouldn't work for the many folks on this site that can hear things below these thresholds or hear the effects of sound waves below these thresholds on sound waves above them. Fortunately, this is in the objective sub forum and I'm talking about how objective people talk about items that are below the threshold. Surely objectivists can agree on a level of human hearing and below which nothing matters. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: This may be a good start, as a summary: http://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/ppt/other/limitsofhearing.ppt That was a good start, but I can't put the data into the real world with respect to measurements. Sure I understand this sentence and this one But I can't figure out how the rest of it relates to items below 0 dB. My understanding is limited and I'm susceptible to being swayed by measurements that I don't understand, that may have nothing to do with what I hear :~) Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, kumakuma said: Why do you believe this is possible? I've never seen any evidence suggesting that audiophiles can agree on anything. Because I believe people are generally good and don't seek to solely disrupt discussions with endless ands, ifs, or buts. There are always edge cases and those don't really concern me for this discussion. If objectivists can agree that human adults can hear up to 20 kHz, they can surely agree on other limits when presented real data. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted June 30, 2020 Author Share Posted June 30, 2020 18 minutes ago, sandyk said: FWIW, Barry Diament's wife was able to hear 23kHz which is above CD's limitations . FWIW, let’s not let the tail wag the dog. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted July 2, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Why does @Archimago publish measurements below the threshold? Could it be that many devices actually fall below this threshold with their distortion levels? I can say that he not only mentions the audibility thresholds in his reviews and measurements, but also runs public blind tests to try to get some objective data on how and what we can hear. Just listing from memory some of his recent blind tests: Harmonic Distortion, MQA, digital players, linear vs minimum phase filters, hires vs redbook, LP vs digital, ... Regardless of what you think his philosophy is, his tests, procedures, results and analysis are all publicly available for review and comment. Others can easily reproduce the same tests if they want to prove him wrong (or right). That's the objective approach. I love his work and agree that anyone with the skill, interest, and time can reproduce his results. That said, this thread has nothing to do with the accuracy of any results and everything to do with goals and what I see as a double standard. What’s the goal of telling a consumer that even though he can’t here the difference between DAC A or B, DAC A has a much better score? And, at the same time telling a consumer that he can’t here high resolution audio so it doesn’t matter? Teresa and Josh Mound 1 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 2, 2020 Author Share Posted July 2, 2020 52 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: The goal is simple: let the consumer pick a device based on features, build quality, engineering, price, esthetics, etc. As long as the consumers are aware that there's no audible difference, they can concentrate on other qualities that matter to them. There's no double standard in @Archimago's work, as far as I can see. What about USB cables? Do you put them into the same category as DACs if all the cables and DACs have no differences above the threshold of human hearing? Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 2, 2020 Author Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, pkane2001 said: Can you please show me where the highlighted statement has been made and why do you think that all objectivists think this? Of course there are poorly designed DACs and badly constructed cables that cause obvious, likely audible, distortions and errors. That's why measurements are useful. Armed with some knowledge about distortion audibility and with detailed measurements of a device, anyone can decide for themselves whether the device is fit for their consideration. I wouldn't consider a DAC with THD of 0.1% as transparent, for example. Hi Paul, I think I used the wrong terms in my question. I don't think anyone has ever said it how I wrote it. That was my mistake. I'll rephrase my question. What about USB cables? Do you put them into the same category as DACs if the cables and measured DACs have no anomolies above the threshold of human hearing? Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 2, 2020 Author Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, pkane2001 said: Hi Chris, USB cables introduce a lot less variability into the overall playback chain than the DAC, the analog stage, the amp, and especially the transducer, speakers or headphones. Usually this is well below the threshold of audibility. I've seen a few broken USB cables that caused obvious errors, but a cable that conforms to USB spec should just work. I hear what you're saying, but a DAC that measures below the threshold of human hearing must also be in that "should just work" category correct? Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 3, 2020 Author Share Posted July 3, 2020 Just now, Jud said: I was thinking along the lines of practical tutorials like "OK, you've got a ground hum. Here's how to find what's responsible and eliminate it." Even better, since I think hum and noise that isn't consciously audible may subconsciously affect enjoyment (cf. the Iowa gambling task experiment), what is the equipment and what are the measurements to take to determine noise levels when there's no audible hum or noise? As my friends and I used to say, with Spectral the added hum is a feature :~) Jud 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 4, 2020 Author Share Posted July 4, 2020 Enough nonsense. Back on topic folks. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 4, 2020 Author Share Posted July 4, 2020 8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Enough nonsense. Back on topic folks. Ahem Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now