Misleading Measurements

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Why so closed minded, Alex? In a less typical entertainment environment, it could make for a very interesting speaker system, as you can see below:

 Perhaps in Academic circles, however it has little if any relevance to the topic of Misleading Measurements.

 Perhaps you should start another thread in the General forum about your S/W just as John Dyson has done with his ?

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Perhaps, perhaps, but I'm not the one who keeps asking if air is non-linear in this thread.

So, perhaps you should ask them to start another thread? 

 

 

Do you want this to become another FrankenGeorge type thread ?  😉

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

And constantly raising questions about the validity of something you don’t understand, have not studied or even tried to use, is what you’re  doing here. If you want to have a rational conversation about validity, then let’s have it, but not before you take that first step.

 

 Can we please get off the subject of the tools that you have designed, and back to the original topic ? 

 You could always start a thread in the General Forum area and invite discussion of their uses and validity 

[sandyk]

Unless the Simulation Software is able to confirm the results of  a decent sample of carefully controlled DBT sessions in each type of measurement, it is of very little value.

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, opus101 said:

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

 

That's up to Paul to explain. If it can't then it is a just another measurement toy like DiffMaker which you rarely hear about these days and rarely achieved 100% confirmation, and that's when it didn't result in the dreaded BSOD.

 

DBT is still supposed to be the Gold Standard and trumps measurements every time.

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, botrytis said:

Subjectivists also refuse to show ANY data to prove that EMI does cause interference and it is large enough to do so.

 They don't need to !

 If Data is required, then it's  the job of the E.Es etc to measure it.. 

 The vast majority of Subjectivists are not technically qualified, and do not have the equipment or training needed to do so.

 One well known source of RF/EMI is poor quality LED lighting (cheap and nasty SMPS)

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Actually, that is the issue. They do. Ears can be fooled. So, data is needed.

Measurements can also be irrelevant and sometimes meaningless too, especially from some A.S.R members with an agenda.

Objectivist ears are more likely to be easily fooled, as their brains may not let them hear things that the old theory they have been taught at Uni many years earlier suggests is not possible.

 Rajiv's massive thread in Music Servers is a good example of this. Are they all imagining the differences that they report hearing ? 😋

 If Objectivists crave Data then they should create it themselves. Most Subjectivists are content with what their ears tell them under  non sighted conditions, as in the sessions attended by myself and a couple of other A.S. members.

 

Nevertheless, I still prefer to see measurements as a guide wherever possible, but not as the be-all, end-all 

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

As I see it, the divide is between those who want to believe and those who want to know.

And those that think they know.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

In audio, the entire picture is never  looked at. Which is why million dollar systems can sound bloody awful! ... 🤪

How would you know Frank ? 

You would probably need to go to Kuwait or somewhere to see those in solid gold cases, then pay an exorbitant price  to hear them !

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

LOL - listening on youtube is like listening to an AM radio presentation of a rock concert.

 It needn't be that way if you either pay for better audio or have suitable Video S/W where you can demultiplex the hidden A and V streams after downloading the videos. The hidden video is typically 75,000kb/s (max.)  H264, and the hidden Audio is typically 529kb/s .aac which is VERY close to CD uality

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

How many actually know about it and how many just listen to standard lossy youtube fair?

 

Just saying....

Very few other than some A.S. members (and readers) 😉know that with reasonable material to start with , that it is possible to even create better looking AND better sounding videos if you have the patience, and really would like to save that particular performance.

 (The attached was from Miley Cyrus-Malibu)

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

Sandy, they are talking about evaluation of high end systems by hot mic'ing them and then putting them on YT with lossy compression.

 

 Let's not get back into fas42 and a member from Malaysia's territory  .😜

 I was only replying to the comment by Botrytis.

  

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

He was pointing out that you can't evaluate high end systems by mic'ing them and uploading it to YT.

According to the 2 that  I mentioned above , you can, just as some A.S.R members probably do too 😜.

[sandyk]

38 minutes ago, plissken said:

Coming from you I'm not surprised.

  Why ?

 I have disagreed with both Frank and S.T. on this very subject on numerous occasions previously .

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

For YouTube video or even high resolution audio samples ( which is usually the case before it is compressed by YT), it will only be useful for system evaluation as heard in situ if it is recorded with binaural mics and played back using headphones. 
 

 All performance comparisons in this area on YouTube are a waste of time due to YouTube's <128kB/s .aac audio and require a vivid imagination to obtain any meaningful information from them, especially in the HF area and impact of drums etc. which also need wide bandwidth to capture the fast rise and fall times. Add to that typical affordable Binaural microphones which are unable to do high quality system performance justice. 

However, if you are able to listen to the normally inaccessible YouTube 529kB/s .aac stream, ( PID 0x0002) you may get a rough idea ONLY.

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Well that's not in short supply in some area's here.

And even more so from some who also participate in A.S.R. !😜

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, 992Sam said:

 for that matter, there are many who can't tell the difference between a mp3 and a FLAC 192/24 file of the same recording..

 Most A.S.R. members perhaps ? 😜

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

All I see is you arguing that some people prefer different amounts of distortion. Again, this is uncontroversial, at best.

 Then why the need for special Software such as DeltaWave Audio Null Comparator ?

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

So I can learn for myself what is real and what’s imagined.

 

 Properly implemented DBT sessions using a panel of trained listeners are a far more reliable indicator than any S/W to date.

You keep assuming that you are measuring the reasons for people reporting what they do, which may not be correct.

I doubt that you can even explain how somebody my age can hear the things that I report hearing in the PM group that you are also a part of, and have recently been confirmed by 2 prominent members of the group.

3 of us are now forcing a rethink of how much low level information may be obscured by what typical measurements appear to indicate is only noise.

Clearly, there is a lot more still to be learned about human hearing.

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

The differences are so far beyond noise that it's not even funny.

 Cat got your tongue ? 😉

You have the advantage of seeing all of the discussions, but rarely contribute when your own findings just might make a valuable  contribution.

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Alex, I've yet to see a single, properly documented controlled DBT published by you

 And you probably never will see any recent DBTs that meet the standards that you demand due to the cost of implementing them these days 

 If a highly qualified and well respected E.E. is unable to meet your standards , then who is , other than a well funded research department ? 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

If laptop speakers are good enough to make it quite clear that two versions of a track that by all respects should be identical, because the music data is identical, when played back via a very ordinary software tool, like Audacity - as I mentioned in another thread - then they are good enough to show up differences for more normal reasons 🙂.

See Frank's reply here :

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/60916-best-flac-converter-software/page/5/#comments

Quote

Well, Alex has done it again - those two files, mp4s, were loaded into Audacity, and output just using that software's playback function. One was clearly superior to the other, in terms of tonal qualities - it was unmistakable ... but when I tried comparing them, by inverting one and adding the other, I got a perfect null. Then used the command line utility "FC /B" to do an MS-DOS file comparison, byte by byte - and they matched ...

 

What's going on ... I'm certainly scratching my head ... 🙃

 I challenge Paul to show with his S/W what Frank and many others are able to hear.

 Even Paul should be able to hear the differences that Frank heard if Textbooks haven't brainwashed him into being unable to hear them !!! Want to prove me wrong Paul ? 

The Audible differences between the 2 files were NOT subtle, and neither were the Video differences if using a decent external monitor. 😜

 P.S. 

 The reply from Frank is 100% ON TOPIC

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Psychiatry is not one of my strengths, Alex, although I can certainly come up with a reasonable conjecture.

You don't need Psychiatry , you only need those apparently superfluous things either side of your head.😜

 

BTW,  I am happy to provide the links via PM to the files that Frank listened to on request, but I doubt that you will take me up on the offer, even though it would take very little time to try them.

Not that I expect that your brain will permit you to hear what many others in the forum have no problems hearing though.

[sandyk]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

No thanks, Alex, I’ve seen and heard your evidence before. I have no interest in going down this path again. But do ask Frank to do a blind test, if you really want to know the answer. 

Your answer is as expected.

 The files you listened to previously had only minor differences. I have been able since then to create much more obvious differences. BTW, you can always use your eyes with these, as well as others in MY Profile such as the Aurora Music Video, and Miley Cyrus-Malibu  where the differences in Brightness and detail should be quite obvious unless you are using a crappy Laptop.

 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Quite unnecessary - I had zero expectations of there being anything there; in fact, I queried Alex about the quality before I listened to a bar - Audacity was showing very severe limiting, clipping of the track, a "sea of red"; he said to proceed as is.

 

Just import both versions in, and solo first one and the other, while playing continuously - back and forth, back and forth; as obvious as someone pulling the leads off the tweeter, so to speak.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ak9tyqrpglq1w9/Tyros 3 - The Power Of Love (Instrumental)HF.mp4?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8koifix231idw3/Tyros 3 - The Power Of Love (Instrumental)LF.mp4?dl=0
 If you are using an external monitor, look at the Keyboard in both from the start.

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

But leave me out of it — this is not something I‘m the least bit interested in.

It should be, because it's a perfect example of MISLEADING MEASUREMENTS.

 

You appear to have a closed mind where only Measurements matter, just like most ASR members. 

 I will now exit this pointless thread before somebody complains.