Misleading Measurements

[pkane2001]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You're sounding a little loopy 🙄🤷‍♂️

It just looks like that to you as you keep going in circles.

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don’t see it that way and that isn’t the crux of this thread. If measurements always win, this thread wouldn’t exist because objectivists would accept all products which measure better, not just those in certain categories.  

 

The objectivists will believe that the product with the best measurements in a category is the best. Full stop. Then they will decide if the cost of the item is reasonable, for them to consider for purchase. Excellent value for money, with all the measurements of an acceptable standard, will most likely be the winner, for their own systems. IOW, measurements beyond audible value will establish a ranking, on a selection list - something for them to aspire to; if they had the dosh to splash around, 🙂.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Getting back on topic.

 

The underlying physical reality of the ear/brain is that we can’t pick and choose what we can hear. We can however pick and choose which unhearable measurements we like to champion and which ones we write off as snake oil. That’s what interests me. 

 

I look forward to when AS can add measurements to its reviews. I always liked the way JA did this in Stereophile

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I look forward to when AS can add measurements to its reviews. I always liked the way JA did this in Stereophile

Working with AP now. 
 

 

[fas42]

58 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The point is that there can be no generalized correlation if individual’s preferences are involved. There will always be someone who will prefer something different.

 

It's the "prefer something different" that gets some people not strongly in the objectivist camp riled up - the refusal to accept that people's hearing can actually determine whether one version of a playback is more accurate to the recording content, than another.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The objectivists will believe that the product with the best measurements in a category is the best. Full stop. Then they will decide if the cost of the item is reasonable, for them to consider for purchase. Excellent value for money, with all the measurements of an acceptable standard, will most likely be the winner, for their own systems. IOW, measurements beyond audible value will establish a ranking, on a selection list - something for them to aspire to; if they had the dosh to splash around, 🙂.

I’m actually fine with however anyone wants to decide which product to purchase. I certainly don’t want anyone telling me how to purchase something and how to decide if a product is good for me. 
 

I just don’t like hypocrisy. 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Working with AP now. 
 

 

Make sure you get the right interface for it. Measuring with a poor or noisy ADC or DAC isn’t going to be useful. I’m sure AP can recommend a good one.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I just don’t like hypocrisy. 

 

In the OP, you said,

 

Quote

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

 

That post of mine was a direct answer to that - the hypocrisy angle is not relevant to that. . 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It's the "prefer something different" that gets some people not strongly in the objectivist camp riled up - the refusal to accept that people's hearing can actually determine whether one version of a playback is more accurate to the recording content, than another.

 

Yes, difference that measurements do not show and do not correlate with what is heard. Preference (not saying you believe otherwise) is irrelevant

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Yes, difference that measurements do not show and do not correlate with what is heard. Preference (not saying you believe otherwise) is irrelevant

Can you point to some objective evidence to support these claims?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

Can you point to some objective evidence to support these claims?

 

How can i point to a measurement that doesn't exist......but let's take soundstage, what measurement correlates with that? Amir did a whole thing about it (I really must start keeping records, not) which I described as no more than an opinion piece. An assumption that lots of measures taken collectively would somehow assure us of accurately hearing soundstage. 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

How can i point to a measurement that doesn't exist......but let's take soundstage, what measurement correlates with that? Amir did a whole thing about it (I really must start keeping records, not) which I described as no more than an opinion piece. An assumption that lots of measures taken collectively would somehow assure us of accurately hearing soundstage. 

Wait, there are perfectly reasonable findings by research scientists correlating measurements to preferences. So your claims are certainly not true in general. Do you have specifics?
 

Soundstage is perfectly defined by phase and level differences between the left and the right channel, plus reverb. In fact, most soundstage in recordings is artificially created using these tools in mastering, so we know exactly how it’s produced and therefore how to measure it.

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Soundstage is perfectly defined by phase and level differences between the left and the right channel, plus reverb. In fact, most soundstage in recordings is artificially created using these tools in mastering, so we know exactly how it’s produced and therefore how to measure it.

 

Incorrect. At a simplistic level, yes, true - but a high performing system reproduces very low level detail far more clearly, allowing the ear/brain to decode the meaning of this extra, usable information - anyone who has had a rig evolve into a state of tune allowing this fuller appreciation of the soundstage capture has an understanding of what is possible; and at least has an intuitive idea about how to move his setup towards this capability.

[pkane2001]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

Incorrect. At a simplistic level, yes, true - but a high performing system reproduces very low level detail far more clearly, allowing the ear/brain to decode the meaning of this extra, usable information - anyone who has had a rig evolve into a state of tune allowing this fuller appreciation of the soundstage capture has an understanding of what is possible; and at least has an intuitive idea about how to move his setup towards this capability.

I’ll ask you the same question: do you have any objective evidence for this claim aside from your personal experience 30 years ago?
 

Because I can certainly cite books and studies that support mine, having been looking into spatial hearing and how to reproduce realistic 3D sound for the past few years.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Wait, there are perfectly reasonable findings by research scientists correlating measurements to preferences. So your claims are certainly not true in general. Do you have specifics?

 

wait, Let's avoid that loop

 

 

Quote

 

 

Soundstage is perfectly defined by phase and level differences between the left and the right channel, plus reverb. In fact, most soundstage in recordings is artificially created using these tools in mastering, so we know exactly how it’s produced and therefore how to measure it.

 

Level can certainly influence left/right imaging and I agree phase manipulates certain aspects but can you provide evidence where "Soundstage is perfectly defined" by such measures. Presumably it must be reported in just about all measurement reviews like "soundstage was measured to be excellent, width was x, depth was y and height an exceptional 97.4" 😁

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

wait, Let's avoid that loop

 

 

 

Level can certainly influence left/right imaging and I agree phase manipulates certain aspects but can you provide evidence where "Soundstage is perfectly defined" by such measures. Presumably it must be reported in just about all measurement reviews like "soundstage was measured to be excellent, width was x, depth was y and height an exceptional 97.4" 😁

Channel level differences are measured all the time. I always measure phase aberrations. Reverb is not something introduced by DACs or amps, so no need to measure it, but it can be even using free tools like REW.

 

But please, provide SOME objective evidence for anything you  claim. Have some respect for the rules of this forum, and share something more than a personal opinion.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

But please, provide SOME objective evidence for anything you  claim. Have some respect for the rules of this forum, and share something more than a personal opinion.

 

Like you have done with actual confirmed , and generally accepted dB measurements of the levels of Audibility ,which iFi clearly believed that they had met with the crossover Glitch problem that turned out to be quite audible with a revealing system ?

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Like you have done with actual confirmed , and generally accepted dB measurements of the levels of Audibility ,which iFi clearly believed that they had met with the crossover Glitch problem that turned out to be quite audible with a revealing system ?

 

Huh?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Channel level differences are measured all the time. I always measure phase aberrations. Reverb is not something introduced by DACs or amps, so no need to measure it, but it can be even using free tools like REW.

 

Please show measurement values where "Soundstage is perfectly defined"  like "soundstage was measured to be width was x, depth was y and height an exceptional 97.4"

 

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

But please, provide SOME objective evidence for anything you  claim. Have some respect for the rules of this forum, and share something more than a personal opinion.

 

Huh. Paul, I am asking you for measures you say exist. I have said they do not, at least to my knowledge, in a meaningful way that correlates with what we hear.

Why is it that objectivists sometimes seem reluctant to talk measurements?

[pkane2001]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Please show measurement values where "Soundstage is perfectly defined"  like "soundstage was measured to be width was x, depth was y and height an exceptional 97.4"

 

Huh. Paul, I am asking you for measures you say exist. I have said they do not, at least to my knowledge, in a meaningful way that correlates with what we hear.

Why is it that objectivists sometimes seem reluctant to talk measurements?

 

So you want to measure the exact size of the soundstage in inches... why? I thought we are talking about equipment and not recordings. A DAC doesn't have a soundstage. A recording might. Measuring a recording is a completely different task than measuring a DAC, and while that can also be done, that's of less interest to most (although I've built software to do just that, anyway). 

 

Measuring how a DAC affects a recording is exactly what measurements do, including if soundstage will be affected. And that's what correlates with perception and preferences. Don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So you want to measure the exact size of the soundstage in inches... why?

Where did I say that?

Measures all have units of some kind tho, don't they?

 

Quote

I thought we are talking about equipment and not recordings.

 

Where was this discussed?

 

 

Quote

A DAC doesn't have a soundstage. A recording might. Measuring a recording is a completely different task than measuring a DAC, and while that can also be done, that's of less interest to most (although I've built software to do just that, anyway). 

Give me either where "Soundstage is perfectly defined" 

 

Quote

Measuring how a DAC affects a recording is exactly what measurements do, including if soundstage will be affected. And that's what correlates with perception and preferences. Don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

I get the concept. So where are the measures, not speculation or assertions?

[pkane2001]

 

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Where did I say that?

 

Here you go:

22 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Please show measurement values where "Soundstage is perfectly defined"  like "soundstage was measured to be width was x, depth was y and height an exceptional 97.4"

 

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Give me either where "Soundstage is perfectly defined"

 

As I said, in most recordings soundstage is artificially generated, instruments and voices placed at desired positions using level, phase, and reverb. The soundstage you hear is defined by those parameters. Perfectly.

 

[opus101]

32 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Measuring how a DAC affects a recording is exactly what measurements do, including if soundstage will be affected. 

 

Which particular measurements of a DAC are going to indicate if that DAC flattens the soundstage? Assume here a truly acoustic recording made in a concert hall not an artificially synthesized one.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Which particular measurements of a DAC are going to indicate if that DAC flattens the soundstage? Assume here a truly acoustic recording made in a concert hall not an artificially synthesized one.

 

Distortions between channels: crosstalk, level imbalance/nonlinearity, phase.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

I’ll ask you the same question: do you have any objective evidence for this claim aside from your personal experience 30 years ago?
 

Because I can certainly cite books and studies that support mine, having been looking into spatial hearing and how to reproduce realistic 3D sound for the past few years.

 

And I would say, of course the research is not out there - the problem is similar to that of the intent of LIGO; if you want to detect gravity waves the sensitivity, precision of the measuring devices have to be at least to a certain standard - all papers I've seen, in audio, make assumptions about how good the systems have to be to get significant results - and it's clear, to me, what they use are way under what's needed.