Jump to content
The Computer Audiophile

Misleading Measurements

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

I never said anything about how well or correctly it functions. Do you not understand or believe that an undetected secondary effect of the app in question might affect its use and cause misleading results?  
 

For example, imagine using the app to add an anomaly we’ll call anomaly X to a music file to see if you can hear it.  But unknown to you and the creator of the app, it also compresses the output at one end of the spectrum enough to make an audible difference to you.  
 

You hear a difference in SQ between app off and app on, so you reasonably conclude that you can hear the effect of anomaly X on the source file.  What you’re actually hearing is the effect of slight compression, but you didn’t know it was added and neither did the app designer because it was never considered and not looked for during the validation process.

 

If you don’t understand this valid real world example and see that it’s a practical use cases for us as audiophiles, I don’t know what else I can add to help you.


The part I don’t understand is the demand to provide some sort of absolute validity testing.
 

The problem is that such proof cannot be provided, simply because no matter how much testing is done, there will always be something that someone will suggest as another test that wasn’t performed yet, and therefore the software is not valid until more tests are done. 

 

I’ve done my own testing to verify to my satisfaction that the app does work. Others done this as well. Look at the ASR thread. You can do your own testing to your heart’s content, or ask someone else to do it if you don’t know how. I might be able to provide test results if a specific test is suggested that I’ve already performed. 
 

This is why I’ve been insisting on using a specific  validity test rather than some nebulous, general “validation”, which is ill defined and cannot be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I will have to just survive the veiled slurs on my motivations and character #776 #780 #781 but that aside nothing here or in the other dedicated thread changes one inconvenient truth.

 

I see no evidence that the app in question has  "been validated through independent testing" as claimed. That is not to say it doesn't do as claimed.There is talk of self-validation and doing your own measurements and theory/fact about how Transfer functions work that produce a reliable model. I am open to this possibility.Trust but verify independently

 

The new development appears to be that the "independent testing" confirming validity is an Audio "Science" Review internet forum thread and additionally a blog site conducted a survey using the app. For now, let's just say this might be seen as questionable verification.YMMV


Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Share this post


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

Would any of you want a vaccine that was validated as effective against an infectious agent but was not validated to have a lack of deleterious autoimmune side effects? I hope not.

 

I would also want a vaccine that doesn't "self-validate" for efficacy, even if I could do my own IgG immunofluorescent antibody assays and feel I could interpret the results as inferring immunity. Call me crazy but I want independent testing before I get jabbed.


Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It seems to me that people like @Superdad cop a lot of flack from objectivists for using a self-satisfaction criterion based on listening. The end user hears a difference (which may be correct) and each end user "verification" adds to the anecdotal pool but they get admonished for not producing some kind of independent validation.

 

I see possible misleading measurements and a double standard emerging. If its good for the goose it's good for the gander.

 

The question I have is why aren't you pestering @Superdad for his independent validation data in the same way you are pestering Paul, especially considering that @Superdad is selling commercial products while Paul is charging nothing...

 

Seems like you're the one with the double standard.  👺


Everything matters... when brewing coffee.

Share this post


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

What I said, at least a dozen times, is that DISTORT will construct a nonlinearity and that the same non-linearity will generate HD when applied to a single tone, and IMD when applied to multiple tones. Any other conclusions again, are all in your head.

When I asked if you'd tested ("validated", a term at which you mysteriously took offense) your app to be sure it was not adding any distortions or other effects besides the desired one, you offered no answer other than that "DISTORT will construct a nonlinearity and that the same non-linearity will generate HD when applied to a single tone, and IMD when applied to multiple tones".  And you may well have said this "at least a dozen times" - I didn't count. 

 

You also ignored my request for any explanation, no matter how simple, of how you could generate harmonic or intermodulation distortion by adding a nonlinear transfer function to the signal path without producing any other effects on the signal.  Again, you ignored my question and gave the same answer.  Today, SoundAndMotion offered what I believe is a more accurate response - that "...if you want to add anomaly X, you have to be aware that the compression comes with it".  I, too, believe that you cannot add harmonic distortion to a signal without other secondary effects on it, e.g. compression, frequency response alteration, phase shift, etc depending on the exact transfer function used.  BTW, y=f(x) can be a linear equation depending on the function. That’s why I asked how you do what you do with your app.

 

I still do not understand how you can add a nonlinear transfer function to a signal chain with no resultant change in the signal except the production of harmonic / IM distortion.  You still haven't explained it, if it's even possible (which, from what I know, is not the case).  And compression is only the first unintended "side effect" that came to mind - there are many more. 

 

I'd hoped to learn something new from you - but that hasn't happened yet.  I still live in hope, but I'm not as optimistic now.  I'm sorry you choose to take umbrage at what I truly think are reasonable questions that are also very relevant to deciding if a measurement is useful or misleading.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The "objective data" lacks independent testing beyond anecdotal reports from arguably questionable sources.

 

 

 

may I suggest that this and other assertions/slurs made earlier about me are in your own words, " missing some basic etiquette in communicating"

 

 

Paul, maybe in your opinion but again using your own words "your opinion is not better than enyone else's"

 

 

I don't, point to where i keep on rehashing it apart from mentioning it in a thread which cites misleading measurements , double standards and hypocrisy.

 

 

Let me fix that for you:

There's something similar between uncontrolled, subjective reports of "many satisfied customers" and the uncontrolled, subjective reports of measurements resulting from non-independent satisfied testers.

 

All the easier to arrange independent testing.:)

 

 

You'll continue to argue to death that any objective result is anecdotal and from arguably questionable sources, without knowing who the sources are or what the result was. Why should anyone listen to you?

 

You're wasting my time. Talking in generalities, and not providing a single fact or objective result to back it up. Why are you posting in an objective forum, by the way?

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, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

..or you could just tell us.

 

Thus far we have an anonymous guy on the internet referring to Audio "Science" review as verification and an implicit endorsement on some other guys blog with a survey of 67 self selected internet respondents that used the App (but don't even address it's accuracy that I could see)

 

 

I don't, or you?

 

 

That's simple, I am asking for independent objective data from an objectivist who claims it exists. Why should that be so hard?

 

The ignore list is really getting a workout today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

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?

 

There's an old objective practice of tying up hands and feet and throwing the one being tested into a large, freezing body water. If they are pure of heart the water will support them and not let them drown. I suggest you start with AN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

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 claim?

 

I agree it was an unsubstantiated slur made by @pkane2001. I understand he doesn't like what I am saying, but I believe he feels he is right.


Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

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

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...