Misleading Measurements

[botrytis]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's actually very simple ... no-one measures how robust audio systems are to resisting the influence of electrical interference, noise factors - these are just thrown into the "good enough to get a sticker meaning that it meets some EMC standard" box, and that's the end of it.

 

Highly "over-engineered" components actually do enough to mitigate these effects - they that shall never be mentioned, 🙂 - and the SQ, works.

 

The refusal of objectivists to take interference mechanisms seriously is a key factor of why so much nonsense exists in the audio world - at a practical level, this has to be dealt with, to get accurate reproduction of what's on a recording, irrespective of whether a rig costs $500, or $500,000 ...

 

Not so fast there. Subjectivists also refuse to show ANY data to prove that EMI does cause interference and it is large enough to do so. Right now is all in the urban legend/urban myth realm. Even on this board, there are a variety of threads on this topic without any data other than subjectivist listening results. That can be boiled down to, you wanted it to sound better so it does.

 

Both have to be dealt with. Can one actually measure the interference? If one can, is it large enough to make a difference? If not, how can one ameliorate what one cannot quantify?

 

 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Not so fast there. Subjectivists also refuse to show ANY data to prove that EMI does cause interference and it is large enough to do so. Right now is all in the urban legend/urban myth realm. Even on this board, there are a variety of threads on this topic without any data other than subjectivist listening results. That can be boiled down to, you wanted it to sound better so it does.

 

Because the interference factors that are crucial are difficult to measure - in terms of the usual quantitative results that people use to assess audio quality. I haven't had any inclination to try and get numbers, because everything I've read has indicated that people who have full access to equipment that should pick up something have had no success with trying to see correlations.

 

Anyone who takes audio even vaguely seriously knows that all sorts of noise inducing mechanisms matter - everyone who tries a power conditioner or filter, or considers separate power runs, or worries about the type of lights in the listening room is dealing with this. The ears tell the story - and that's what matters.

 

Wanting it to sound better? Interference makes it sound like crap - you don't want to keep listening ... solving these issues brings back the enjoyment factor; a relaxed ease to the sound which means you can run at high SPLs for extended periods without fatigue. And this is something that "good numbers" can never replace.

 

What's actually happening is that low level detail in the sound presentation is being corrupted, had had enough noise added to it to make it difficult for the listening mind to interpret the meaning of that detail - this is why the sense of unease with sub-par SQ builds ups, and hinders long term enjoyment of the listening.

 

Quote

Both have to be dealt with. Can one actually measure the interference? If one can, is it large enough to make a difference? If not, how can one ameliorate what one cannot quantify?

 

 

 

The ears tell you. If a sense of irritation with what you are listening to keeps intruding, then you have an issue ... so, indeed it makes a difference. Simple experiments are often enough to identify a cause and effect link - the hard bit is often to work out a fully comprehensive solution, that is 100% robust; workarounds are often a decent alternative

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Because the interference factors that are crucial are difficult to measure - in terms of the usual quantitative results that people use to assess audio quality. I haven't had any inclination to try and get numbers, because everything I've read has indicated that people who have full access to equipment that should pick up something have had no success with trying to see correlations.

 

Anyone who takes audio even vaguely seriously knows that all sorts of noise inducing mechanisms matter - everyone who tries a power conditioner or filter, or considers separate power runs, or worries about the type of lights in the listening room is dealing with this. The ears tell the story - and that's what matters.

 

Wanting it to sound better? Interference makes it sound like crap - you don't want to keep listening ... solving these issues brings back the enjoyment factor; a relaxed ease to the sound which means you can run at high SPLs for extended periods without fatigue. And this is something that "good numbers" can never replace.

 

What's actually happening is that low level detail in the sound presentation is being corrupted, had had enough noise added to it to make it difficult for the listening mind to interpret the meaning of that detail - this is why the sense of unease with sub-par SQ builds ups, and hinders long term enjoyment of the listening.

 

 

The ears tell you. If a sense of irritation with what you are listening to keeps intruding, then you have an issue ... so, indeed it makes a difference. Simple experiments are often enough to identify a cause and effect link - the hard bit is often to work out a fully comprehensive solution, that is 100% robust; workarounds are often a decent alternative

Ears can be fooled. The number one hallucination is auditory. Ears are also subject to emotional bias. So, I do not trust 'Golden Ears'.

 

Maybe there is a reason it is hard to measure, it doesn't exist. Playing Devil's advocate here. The underlined part is important. If they can't measure it, maybe it is all in your head.

 

Something to think on.

[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)

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 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)

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

[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 

[Josh Mound]

On 9/22/2020 at 3:01 PM, Blake said:

Speaking of the topic of this thread, I'm not sure if this has been posted about and discussed here on AS, but I found it to be an interesting read as I have always had some suspicions about ASR:

 

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/audio-science-review-review.9827/

 

IMO this is a pretty devastating critique. 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

Ears can be fooled. The number one hallucination is auditory. Ears are also subject to emotional bias. So, I do not trust 'Golden Ears'.

 

Maybe there is a reason it is hard to measure, it doesn't exist. Playing Devil's advocate here. The underlined part is important. If they can't measure it, maybe it is all in your head.

 

Something to think on.

 

Key word is "maybe" ... ears don't have to be "Golden" - just, 'trained'. A good exercise is to get a recording that is marginal, on one's particular rig, that is, depending upon the phase of the moon, etc, it can sound good - or quite "off". Then, organise some severe form of interference source - an arc welder plugged in to the socket next to those of the audio components, and operating, can be a juicy one, 😁. Now, unless miracles do happen for some audio rigs, one should notice a change in the SQ - that with, and then without interference.  You now have a marker, and can scale back the severity of the test setup 🙂 - this is a way of attuning your hearing to what's going on ... of course, the down side is that from then on you will become aware of this factor in play, 😉.

 

People who have a philosophical need to disbelieve that this can happen will muck up doing the exercise, unfortunately ... it's more important for them to sustain their belief system, than to learn more about what matters, 😜.

[Teresa]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 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...

 

5 hours ago, botrytis said:

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

 

Actually, it's not their job. Most subjectivists don't own or know how to use testing equipment, that's the job of Electronic Engineers as Alex @sandyk stated. So if you require data ask an Electronic Engineer to measure it or do it yourself if you are qualified. 

 

IMHO playing music is supposed to be an enjoyable leisure pursuit not a job. Electronic Engineers went to school for a reason so that is their job. Just saying.

 

Happy listening.

[botrytis]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

 

Actually, it's not their job. Most subjectivists don't own or know how to use testing equipment, that's the job of Electronic Engineers as Alex @sandyk stated. So if you require data ask an Electronic Engineer to measure it or do it yourself if you are qualified. 

 

IMHO playing music is supposed to be an enjoyable leisure pursuit not a job. Electronic Engineers went to school for a reason so that is their job. Just saying.

 

Happy listening.

 

The point is, if they can't prove something, doesn't mean it is there. And visa versa. So this is an impasse since it obvious that subjectivists will still claim that there is noise, etc and the other side will say prove it. 

 

Sounds like US politics right now.

[pkane2001]

10 hours ago, JoshM said:

IMO this is a pretty devastating critique. 

 

Depends on what people expect to find when they go to ASR and read Amir's reviews. I personally don't have any interest in his subjective opinions, relative SINAD rankings, or recommendations. These are just as fallible as anyone else's, and I have no way to verify that they are correct, regardless of how many times Amir claims he's better at hearing differences than anyone else :)

 

Measurements and teardowns, on the other hand, are extremely valuable and give me a lot more information that I normally wouldn't have for most equipment out there. To me, that's the value of Amir's reviews and why I read them. If you don't understand measurements and come to ASR for a subjective opinion or recommendation, then you are looking in the wrong place, IMHO.

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Sounds like US politics right now.

Except the consequences of HiFi are nothing. 

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Except the consequences of HiFi are nothing. 

SO True....

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, botrytis said:

SO True....

It's always good to have perspective :~)

[botrytis]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's always good to have perspective :~)

 

I am a scientist in RL - it is what we do :D .

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, botrytis said:

 

I am a scientist in RL - it is what we do :D .

I love it. 

 

I also like to stop and look around once in a while and ask what the hell I'm doing. Getting off course is easy and taking things too serious can be slippery. A touch of self deprecating humor usually goes a long way as well :~)

[wbh]

The 2005 Stereophile debate with John Atkinson and Arnie Krueger is worth listening to (search YouTube). 

Atkinson's comment -- on evolving from a young objective know-it-all to an older (more mature) scientist that came to terms with the fact that there is so much that's still unknown (about science and psycho-acoustics) - -is spot on. That's the hard-reality lesson many, many hard-core objectivists can deal with ...  so they lash out with "you're guilty of falling for [this or that logical fallacy and/or cognitive bias]"

The objective crowd at hangouts like ASR and hydrogenaudio tend to be younger ... or perhaps too many BSEE's but not enough Phd EEs. Know just enough to be stupid ... but not enough to be philosophically open (the Ph in PhD). I think this is why the founders of many, many high-end audio companies are highly educated and trained. E.g., Rob Robinson (Channel D), Keith Johnson, et. al. One really does need to think outside the textbook.

[Josh Mound]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Depends on what people expect to find when they go to ASR and read Amir's reviews. I personally don't have any interest in his subjective opinions, relative SINAD rankings, or recommendations. These are just as fallible as anyone else's, and I have no way to verify that they are correct, regardless of how many times Amir claims he's better at hearing differences than anyone else :)

 

Measurements and teardowns, on the other hand, are extremely valuable and give me a lot more information that I normally wouldn't have for most equipment out there. To me, that's the value of Amir's reviews and why I read them. If you don't understand measurements and come to ASR for a subjective opinion or recommendation, then you are looking in the wrong place, IMHO.

I generally take the same view you do. I’m happy he’s measuring speakers, in particular. There’s a real paucity of good speaker measurements on the internet. 
 

However, I have doubts about some of his other measurements, based on critiques and contradictory measurements at SBAF and elsewhere. He also seems to subject unfavored brands to critical teardowns, but not favored ones. 

 

The main issue seems to be that many people at ASR take the measurements as gospel and think the SINAD chart conveys something important. They don’t seem to realize that getting good measurements is as much an art as a science, and that it’s easy to make mistakes. And that’s not even getting into the question of what’s audible, what’s not, and what other non-standard measurements might be valuable. (The SBAF post about the JBL speakers’ amp is crucial in that respect. If Amir couldn’t tell how “bad” that amp was, why are we worried about every point in SINAD on DACs, etc.?)
 

Amir also has encouraged people to take his subjective reviews as truth by claiming he can hear things other people can’t, despite the fact that he has serious hearing loss and did not score high enough on Harman’s listening software to qualify as a trainer listener by Herman’s standards. 
 

I have no problem if he wants to offer subjective reviews. But he can’t claim, as he does, that his subjective reviews are the product of enlightened hearing while other people’s are garbage. 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I love it. 

 

I also like to stop and look around once in a while and ask what the hell I'm doing. Getting off course is easy and taking things too serious can be slippery. A touch of self deprecating humor usually goes a long way as well :~)

 

I do all the time. It is how we do things. Review, review, review. 

 

Then there is the statistical testing methods and double blind tests that us scientists use all the time. 😁

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, JoshM said:

I generally take the same view you do. I’m happy he’s measuring speakers, in particular. There’s a real paucity of good speaker measurements on the internet. 
 

However, I have doubts about some of his other measurements, based on critiques and contradictory measurements at SBAF and elsewhere. He also seems to subject unfavored brands to critical teardowns, but not favored ones. 

 

The main issue seems to be that many people at ASR take the measurements as gospel and think the SINAD chart conveys something important. They don’t seem to realize that getting good measurements is as much an art as a science, and that it’s easy to make mistakes. And that’s not even getting into the question of what’s audible, what’s not, and what other non-standard measurements might be valuable. (The SBAF post about the JBL speakers’ amp is crucial in that respect. If Amir couldn’t tell how “bad” that amp was, why are we worried about every point in SINAD on DACs, etc.?)
 

Amir also has encouraged people to take his subjective reviews as truth by claiming he can hear things other people can’t, despite the fact that he has serious hearing loss and did not score high enough on Harman’s listening software to qualify as a trainer listener by Herman’s standards. 
 

I have no problem if he wants to offer subjective reviews. But he can’t claim, as he does, that his subjective reviews are the product of enlightened hearing while other people’s are garbage. 

 

It's the case of caveat emptor:  do your own homework. Anyone who blindly buys into what is said on ASR or AS or SBAF, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever, is likely to be making a mistake. Do you really think the guys at SBAF have no favorites and are completely unbiased? Or reviews or recommendations posted here, on AS? ASR is just another web forum.

[Josh Mound]

46 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's the case of caveat emptor:  do your own homework. Anyone who blindly buys into what is said on ASR or AS or SBAF, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever, is likely to be making a mistake. Do you really think the guys at SBAF have no favorites and are completely unbiased? Or reviews or recommendations posted here, on AS? ASR is just another web forum.

I do think Amir had a very unique set of biases and a very large ego. And, in my experience, AS, SBAF, GearSlutz, etc. all tend to allow a wider array of viewpoints than ASR does. 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, wbh said:

The 2005 Stereophile debate with John Atkinson and Arnie Krueger is worth listening to (search YouTube). 

Atkinson's comment -- on evolving from a young objective know-it-all to an older (more mature) scientist that came to terms with the fact that there is so much that's still unknown (about science and psycho-acoustics) - -is spot on. That's the hard-reality lesson many, many hard-core objectivists can deal with ...  so they lash out with "you're guilty of falling for [this or that logical fallacy and/or cognitive bias]"

The objective crowd at hangouts like ASR and hydrogenaudio tend to be younger ... or perhaps too many BSEE's but not enough Phd EEs. Know just enough to be stupid ... but not enough to be philosophically open (the Ph in PhD). I think this is why the founders of many, many high-end audio companies are highly educated and trained. E.g., Rob Robinson (Channel D), Keith Johnson, et. al. One really does need to think outside the textbook.

 

There are three sides to everything related to this hobby: the hard-core objectivist view, the hard-core subjectivist view, and the truth which lies somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.

 

[pkane2001]

33 minutes ago, JoshM said:

And, in my experience, AS, SBAF, GearSlutz, etc. all tend to allow a wider array of viewpoints than ASR does. 

 

On that we'll have to agree to disagree.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

On that we'll have to agree to disagree.

The only viewpoint I actually didn’t allow once was Sandyk’s droning on about bit perfect identical MD5 hashed files sounding different. So, I guess there could be a site that allows a wider array of viewpoints. 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The only viewpoint I actually didn’t allow once was Sandyk’s droning on about bit perfect identical MD5 hashed files sounding different. So, I guess there could be a site that allows a wider array of viewpoints. 

 

So what viewpoint was banned by Amir on ASR?