Jump to content

Misleading Measurements


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'm pretty sure that this differs person to person. You can try some of the easy to configure cross-feed plugins with headphones to get a sense of what is audible to you. 

 

I haven't figured out yet how to tell soundstage depth on headphones. Maybe there's a correlation with some parameter yet to be determined but I don't in general get a perceived image 'out of my head' enough to hear where the soundstage ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could simulation software confirm the results of listening experiments? Do please outline how it could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

This one, between AN and I, was started many years ago, long before DISTORT. By nature I'm a skeptic and so I ask questions, just like AN does. But that's where we differ: I don't ask questions just to prove the other side wrong. I ask questions because I'm really interested in finding and understanding the answer, and if I don't believe or understand the answer, I look for ways to learn and verify.  That's why I created DISTORT, that's why I created DeltaWave.

 

What I'm getting from this is that @pkane2001's motives are pure and @Audiophile Neuroscience's aren't. Since this is the Objective forum - is there like, um any evidence in support of this (implied) claim? Or did I misinterpret the implication?

Share this post


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

 I suggest you start with AN. 

 

Why? I've not seen a claim, implied or otherwise about his motivations from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Just a suggestion. 

 

But it wasn't merely a suggestion, it was also a deflection. So - any evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An engineered deflection is still a deflection. So there isn't any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sandyk said:

And those that think they know.

 

No, he's already mentioned them - they're the ones who want to believe.

Share this post


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

Measurement is a critical subset of observation.   Biases/imprecision creep in with the typically less disciplined, relatively ad-hoc  'observation', therefore it is best/easiest to depend on more reliable, intrinsically more accurate objective measurement when at all possible.  

 

Yes, I understand that but I disagree - substituting measurement for (admittedly subjective) observation leads to reductionism. The solution to biasses in observation is more impartial observation, not measurement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Dyson said:

 I am for both, but you'll waste lots of time (per experience) if you live in the world of the subjective.   Maybe some people like tweaking -- I don't.

 

I certainly have spent (I wouldn't say 'wasted' myself) a lot of time in the world of the subjective. There aren't any short cuts to putting in the hours in the world of the subjective. I conjecture (but have no evidence for) that substituting measurement for subjective observation is an attempt to find a short cut, an attempt to avoid 'wasting' time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

When you use a well considered 'measurement', it often does require more of an intellectual understanding of what is going on.   A quickie human observation is easy, but not always so accurate.   

 

I think it makes sense also to turn this around. To wit :

 

When you use a well considered observation it often does require more of an intellectual understanding of what's going on. A quickie human measurement is easy, but not always so accurate.

 

It seems (subjectively of course) to me you're saying that it matters how a measurement is done. Absolutely no disagreement there - the quality of a measurement is always going to be important. Just as the quality of an observation is. But that's my point really - quality matters, numbers don't.

Share this post


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

I agree --in our discussion a quicky human 'measurement' is the 'tongue' technique.

 

So, it all depends on how you define measurement -- I tend to see that (measurement) as with some clear 'measure'.   The using the 'tongue' as a measurement device, 'tongues' measure isn't very precise or stable.

 

I define a measurement as a subset of observation that produces a purely quantitative result. I.e. a number (or series of numbers). If the result is qualitative then the operation wasn't a measurement it was an observation.

 

The use of a tongue on a PP3 doesn't produce a number hence can't be classed as a measurement, at least to my way of seeing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like we are using 'reductionist' (or 'reductionism') in rather different ways.

 

I would agree theories do simplify, or reduce things to simpler things but they're not 'reductionist' in so doing.

Share this post


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

Geesh, subjective viewpoints are even somewhat dependent on metaphysics.

 

To me a 'viewpoint' is not at all the same as an observation. Rather its more akin to an opinion.

Share this post


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

Being subjective when not absolutely necessary  is like 'giving up' on actual engineering.

 

Well yes - a tongue in place of a voltmeter would seem to be an example of this. Though if a voltmeter isn't available, then a tongue could be the only way to attempt a 'measurement'. 'Necessity' in my experience is typically a subjective determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

Unchecked subjective review is almost the same as relying on a high priest, and is even less valuable than a random choice

 

Quite the opposite (though I am assuming 'review' here simply means 'reporting one's subjective observations') - the checking function historically was always the role of the priesthood. 'Go, show yourself to the priests' was said by Jesus after a healing for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd not point to 'qualifications' myself as those have the same status as numbers in my estimation😄

Share this post


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

always easier, if one doesn't answer the question ... 🙃

 

You ain't seen nothin' yet - just wait 'til the ducking stool comes out.....😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, March Audio said:

(+ 32768 for 16 bit).  

 

Point of pedantry - 16bit twos-complement signed numbers are limited to +32767 (or 0x7FFF hex).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...