Jump to content
IGNORED

Misleading Measurements


Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Homebrew with Naim NACA 5 cable and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Homebrew with Naim NACA 5 cable and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Homebrew with Naim NACA 5 cable and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
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, 😜.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I have dementia. I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums.  I do a search in that file to find out what I said or did in the past.

 

I still love music.

 

Teresa

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Except the consequences of HiFi are nothing. 

SO True....

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Homebrew with Naim NACA 5 cable and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Homebrew with Naim NACA 5 cable and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :~)

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 😁

Current:  JRiver 26 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an AMD A10-5700 with 8 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Amplification - Bow Technologies Wazoo Integrated

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage - KEF LS50 - ELAC unifi UB5's - Linn Tukans - others......

Cables: Homebrew with Naim NACA 5 cable and DiMarzio Interconnects

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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...