Misleading Measurements

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes, Frank, you are completely above the fray, believing in no magic at all ;)

 

 

Actually, I'm a great fan of good ol'  Arthur C. Clarke - you know, the 3 laws stuff,

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Elon Musk is a great practitioner in this arena, constantly doing things, that say NASA says, "can't be done!" ...

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Actually, I'm a great fan of good ol'  Arthur C. Clarke - you know, the 3 laws stuff,

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Elon Musk is a great practitioner in this arena, constantly doing things, that say NASA says, "can't be done!" ...

You do realize that ‘sufficiently advanced technology’ is a relative term, right? It has to do with the level of knowledge and understanding.  The less understanding, the easier it is to believe in magic. I’ve stopped believing in magic in audio a long time ago. It’s basic engineering and science. No magic.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

You do realize that ‘sufficiently advanced technology’ is a relative term, right? It has to do with the level of knowledge and understanding.  The less understanding, the easier it is to believe in magic. I’ve stopped believing in magic in audio a long time ago. It’s basic engineering and science. No magic.

 

That's right. It's engineering and science. Note that I left out the word "basic" - 'advanced understanding' is what's often missing in audio ... a good example is the hangup by the objectivists that the level of interference mitigation used in consumer gear is good enough - it's trivially easy to demonstrate that this ain't the case, if one knows how to organise this, and what to listen for. This is the 'magic' that needs to be dealt with, but pretending it's not there doesn't help things ...

[992Sam]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

You do realize that ‘sufficiently advanced technology’ is a relative term, right? It has to do with the level of knowledge and understanding.  The less understanding, the easier it is to believe in magic. I’ve stopped believing in magic in audio a long time ago. It’s basic engineering and science. No magic.

 

 

I have an EE degree, and work in a technical field, so I too am very comfortable with science and measurements, but what I also am fully aware of is that the science of human hearing (the other half of the equation of listening to music is the listener)... isn't as set in stone as the physics of electromagnetic behavior, so while we're very easily able to test the noise floor of a electronic component, or a dozen other tests using a high quality scope...   there isn't much we can do to test the subjective nature of some people's hearing ability ... some can detect extremely minor changes in timing, while others cannot.. some can detect frequencies better than others.. etc.. 

 

So to measure something purely by how it measures on a scope.... misses half the equation of how it measures to the subjective human ear, and that is something that couldn't be discussed on the other forum with any real balance.  

[plissken]

On 11/4/2020 at 8:30 PM, sandyk said:

require a vivid imagination to obtain any meaningful information from them

 

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

[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. !😜

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, 992Sam said:

 

 

I have an EE degree, and work in a technical field, so I too am very comfortable with science and measurements, but what I also am fully aware of is that the science of human hearing (the other half of the equation of listening to music is the listener)... isn't as set in stone as the physics of electromagnetic behavior, so while we're very easily able to test the noise floor of a electronic component, or a dozen other tests using a high quality scope...   there isn't much we can do to test the subjective nature of some people's hearing ability ... some can detect extremely minor changes in timing, while others cannot.. some can detect frequencies better than others.. etc.. 

 

So to measure something purely by how it measures on a scope.... misses half the equation of how it measures to the subjective human ear, and that is something that couldn't be discussed on the other forum with any real balance.  

 

Well, that partly true, but it's not the full truth. There's plenty known about human hearing. A lot is understood, studied, measured and well established. Psychoacoustics is also not magic, although the field is made more complicated because of all the variations and varied tastes among human subjects. Magic is only required by those who chose to ignore the advances that have been made in the past 30-40 years.

[992Sam]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Well, that partly true, but it's not the full truth. There's plenty known about human hearing. A lot is understood, studied, measured and well established. Psychoacoustics is also not magic, although the field is made more complicated because of all the variations and varied tastes among human subjects. Magic is only required by those who chose to ignore the advances that have been made in the past 30-40 years.

 

nonsense... one of the least understood biological and psychological fields is that of hearing and how it varies so greatly between people... especially people that are biologically very similar (read twins for example)...

 

What we don't know about how the human ear's eventual delivery of the signals generated by sound waves to the human brain (or various individual human ears), essentially how we hear, things like..  even and odd order harmonics can fill a book alone.. much less getting into the effects of jitter and how some are far more able to discern when jitter is high on a recording while others can't tell...  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..  So whereas you can measure the difference between the two files, the fact that even one person, much less many from a random large sample hear different things from the same recording says a lot with regards to the importance of measurements and the experience of hearing music, weather live and analogue, or digitally reproduced  back into analog via a HiFi system. 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

That's right. It's engineering and science. Note that I left out the word "basic" - 'advanced understanding' is what's often missing in audio ... a good example is the hangup by the objectivists that the level of interference mitigation used in consumer gear is good enough - it's trivially easy to demonstrate that this ain't the case, if one knows how to organise this, and what to listen for. This is the 'magic' that needs to be dealt with, but pretending it's not there doesn't help things ...

 

I didn't mean "basic" as in simple, rather as in "well established and well understood, requiring no magical thinking". Just like the general theory of relativity is basic science, and yet, it's not simple, and I bet most here will not be able to explain the math behind it. In all sciences, imagination and conjecture is just the start of the journey. Demonstrating, understanding, deriving the root causes, and explaining it in a way that can be used to make testable predictions is the harder part of the process that is mostly lacking in high-end audio. 

 

[992Sam]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I didn't mean "basic" as in simple, rather as in "well established and well understood, requiring no magical thinking". Just like the general theory of relativity is basic science, and yet, it's not simple, and I bet most here will not be able to explain the math behind it. In all sciences, imagination and conjecture is just the start of the journey. Demonstrating, understanding, deriving the root causes, and explaining it in a way that can be used to make testable predictions is the harder part of the process that is mostly lacking in high-end audio. 

 

 

yeah, but you (nor anyone) can explain white an identical set of twins can hear the same sounds and one like while the other dislike them... some handle certain frequencies better than others... some take pleasure from certain amounts of bass, while others prefer the mids or the highs...  this same SUBJECTIVE response translates to audio equipment that might measure as perfect in one respect, but not musical in another... while the opposite is true for a different item.

 

How many power supples, how isolated components both within a piece, as well as how that piece is isolated from interference such as RF, and Magnetic Fields has effects on some people's hearing that others don't hear...  and this is why trying to quantify all of this with numbers isn't ever going to work, because humans don't always respond the same way.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, 992Sam said:

 

nonsense... one of the least understood biological and psychological fields is that of hearing and how it varies so greatly between people... especially people that are biologically very similar (read twins for example)...

 

What we don't know about how the human ear's eventual delivery of the signals generated by sound waves to the human brain (or various individual human ears), essentially how we hear, things like..  even and odd order harmonics can fill a book alone.. much less getting into the effects of jitter and how some are far more able to discern when jitter is high on a recording while others can't tell...  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..  So whereas you can measure the difference between the two files, the fact that even one person, much less many from a random large sample hear different things from the same recording says a lot with regards to the importance of measurements and the experience of hearing music, weather live and analogue, or digitally reproduced  back into analog via a HiFi system. 

 

Of course hearing and sound perception varies among humans. Why would anyone argue anything else? But physics of sound, and the outer limits of human hearing abilities are well known.  So why invent new magical explanations for any of this when sufficiently obvious, well-established ones exist? Magic is not required.

[992Sam]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Of course hearing and sound perception varies among humans. Why would anyone argue anything else? But physics of sound, and the outer limits of human hearing abilities are well known.  So why invent new magical explanations for any of this when sufficiently obvious, well-established ones exist? Magic is not required.

 

One might call it magic, while  another might simply be able to hear a harmonic that the first one didn't in the same piece of music playing thru identical equipment ....   is it magic? of course not... but can't it be said that an amplifier with certain 2nd order harmonic distortions will sound different than one without them? yes... but only to those who can hear it!  And that's the rub... not everyone can hear things, and not all of those things register as pleasurable to everyone. 

[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 ? 😜

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, 992Sam said:

 

one might call it magic, another might simply be able to hear a harmonic that the first one didn't....   is it magic? of course not... but can't it be said that an amplifier with certain 2nd order harmonic distortions will sound different than one without them? yes... but only to those who can hear it!  And that's the rub... not everyone can hear things, and not all of those things register as pleasurable to everyone. 

 

Harmonic distortion is simply that. Distortion. Some may prefer their sound distorted and colored. Others may prefer clean, faithful reproduction of a recording that contains only distortions that are below audibility threshold. I've never stated that everyone can hear everything or anything specifically. Each person is different. But we are limited as a species, and these outer limits are known. Anything outside these limits is "magic", or your imagination, you pick.

 

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

[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 ?

 

[fas42]

I use a fairly simple metric - does the playback provide the same ease that live, acoustic sounds have in the listening ... an easy test: wind up the volume a few notches - do people in the room start to frown, move around edgily in their chairs, show signs that they would prefer to somewhere else; send you glances which mean "turn it down a bit ...". These are all giveaways that the distortion and noise levels are getting too obvious, too irksome - and so few rigs can do this, with any recording you happen to throw at it.

 

Saying, "Effortless listening!" is actually extremely meaningful, but no-one knows how to measure this, in conventional ways.

[pkane2001]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

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

[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.

[pkane2001]

29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I use a fairly simple metric - does the playback provide the same ease that live, acoustic sounds have in the listening ... an easy test: wind up the volume a few notches - do people in the room start to frown, move around edgily in their chairs, show signs that they would prefer to somewhere else; send you glances which mean "turn it down a bit ...". These are all giveaways that the distortion and noise levels are getting too obvious, too irksome - and so few rigs can do this, with any recording you happen to throw at it.

 

Saying, "Effortless listening!" is actually extremely meaningful, but no-one knows how to measure this, in conventional ways.

 

As you may have heard @992Sam say a few times already: everyone hears differently and prefers different aspects of sound and distortion. So, why would your metric of what sounds good to you apply to me? How do I know that you don't prefer an excessive amount of distortion that you think sounds wonderful and transparent to you only? It's perfectly fine for you to use your metric for your personal enjoyment. There's no reason to keep telling me about it, because I'll never experience it in the same way you do. That is the meaning and definition of the word "subjective".

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 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.

 

Alex, I've yet to see a single, properly documented controlled DBT published by you or the people you claim to have done them. Oh, and by the way, DeltaWave implements multiple blind test methodologies to help you with such tests.

 

What PM group are you talking about, John's? Why don't you ask him just how much change his process introduces into the recording. The differences are so far beyond noise that it's not even funny.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

As you may have heard @992Sam say a few times already: everyone hears differently and prefers different aspects of sound and distortion. So, why would your metric of what sounds good to you apply to me? How do I know that you don't prefer an excessive amount of distortion that you think sounds wonderful and transparent to you only? It's perfectly fine for you to use your metric for your personal enjoyment. There's no reason to keep telling me about it, because I'll never experience it in the same way you do. That is the meaning and definition of the word "subjective".

 

Right, so you can't distinguish live, acoustic music making from that produced by well measuring, ordinary audio gear - if the source of the sound is hidden from view ... got it!! 😜

[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 ? 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, so you can't distinguish live, acoustic music making from that produced by well measuring, ordinary audio gear - if the source of the sound is hidden from view ... got it!! 😜

 

I can, but I don't know if you can. And that's the point -- your experience is nothing like mine. What you hear is a mystery to most people, even though you keep talking about it all the time. There's nothing objective to what you're reporting or to your metric. It's purely subjective. 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 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.

 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 ? 

 

I contribute when I can, and usually not in the PM group that you're a part of.

 

The rest of your post are the usual rambling accusations that are not worth going over yet again.

[manueljenkin]

Let me share my thoughts on this topic. Most of this is a copypasta (with minor modifications) from my messages in another forum, so you might be having answers even before your questions 😜.

1. Most of the people from objectivist cult speak for themselves, but frame it in a way as if it were universal truth for everyone. Not everyone needs to have the same needs or interests as they do. Armchair opinions, thinking every audible parameter is covered with a limited subset of measurements (most of them static or steady state) form a major part of such conversations. Oh you prefer a different amp topology or design? They claim that you MUST be hearing and preferring distortion,  completely dismissing every other possibility. As of today, we can't CONCLUDE things, especially relating to audibility limits, with the limited set of measurements being done generally.

2. Science often can't prove that something can never occur. It's just a framework to predict the behavior and outcome of something using past experiences, experiments and reasoning. They may anytime be over written. For this, I get a counter argument of something like say planck's constant and speed of light is unlikely to be overwritten anytime soon. True, but it is important to remember that there were so much abstractions earlier before we got to the level of quantum physics understanding we have today. We are not sticking to the John Dalton's model anymore which probably was the best approximation a couple of centuries ago. Comparing audio system analysis to Planck's constant or speed of light is strawman-hat argument since they are direct physical phenomenon which have now been well understood to quite a good level, while audio is cognition related. There is still plenty of research happening on cognition, especially audio. Music isn't really a mystery, cognition is. It's quite hard to probe and correlate what performs what functions there and we only get a black box view, and ears being super tied to the brain doesn't help it much. Spatial properties and object detection is still something not well understood beyond a basic abstraction. The door is wide open in this area for potential changes.

3. Throwing the burden of proof on the one who hears changes. Well telling there shouldn't be a difference is a claim too! Burden of proof must be on either ways of claim. And again, you can't prove there will be no perceivable difference without getting cognition solved. Sure you got "some measurements" but as said above, they are not Conclusive and certainly doesn't grant you permission to demean someone else's choices and experiences.

4. Assumption of weights to different performance parameters (measured or un-measured). You certainly can't make claims on what measurements correlate to perceivable changes, the weights for different performance metric on audibility and what type of parameters need to be measured additionally unless you understand cognition properly. A big part of understanding cognition is to check what types of input it is responsive and not responsive to. Cognition is also relating to precision of detectability of different parameters (including non-desirable influences from parameters), and the location estimation is a use case for which the brain developed to this precision.