Misleading Measurements

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Just check out my other software, DeltaWave (I hate to bring this up, as this will likely start another tangential argument). It does exactly what you want:

 

says who?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Good thinking - how about “tone sex” or “sine wave intercourse”?  The mechanics are almost the same.  Energetic pulses intertwine, and many deny the existence of the resulting offspring. 😝

Ahem....maybe "inter-tonal relations " suggests a marriage of greater harmony 👨‍👧‍👧☺

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, bluesman said:

Sine waves have feelings too. We just need a way to measure them.

 

Surely someone has an App. Have you checked Google Play Store?🤷‍♂️🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

12 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

says who?

 

Those who understand what it does, of course.

 

Understanding does not confirm validity or the truth or value of a tool. Neither does subjective or anecdotal appraisals nor the assertions of the App or tool creator. It's fine if you wish to make amusing toys but not fine for useful tools,  leading to unacceptable errors and misleading measurements/conclusions.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You're talking about musical instruments, and I'm talking about the playback system to reproduce recorded sound. There's a whole lot that's going in a musical instrument to produce a recognizable sound that we like and recognize. The discussion of music production and sound synthesis is an interesting one, but can I suggest that an audiophile forum and a thread dedicated to audio playback measurements isn't the best place for it?

 

Totally disagree.

 

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

And this thread is a discussion about misleading measurements.  If (as I believe and, to my mind, have supported well) the “interaction” among the notes generated by the instruments in a performance is captured in recording and reproduced in playback, then IMD measurement in the playback equipment may be misleading.  There’s so much more acoustic intermodulation (which is not distortion) being heard in playback that the minuscule added IM products from the equipment may well be immaterial to SQ.
This is firmly on topic. It just seems to be a difficult concept for many to grasp. That does not make it wrong.

 

Yes, and how better to understand what should be looked for in the audio signal and on playback of that signal but to refer to the gold standard reference, the music that is supposed to be captured in the first place. We want measurement tools that know what to look for and find what we can hear.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

No, of course not, but understanding what something does and how, is a good first step to having a rational discussion. Any discussion prior to it is just a waste of time.

 

I agree Paul that understanding of how a tool is supposed to work or what and how it does it, is a good first step. That does not equate with validity, which is the point here. Any rational discussion based on the use of a tool must be preceded by how valid the tool is. This has been a recurrent theme in audio fora in the quest against misleading measurements and faulty conclusions.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute 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.

 

You are entering another loop, as we have already mentioned ways of validating tools that is not dependent on the end user which is clearly inherently flawed.

.

You are clutching at straws. People who produce tools need to provide validity data, not some nonsense like 'hey, you wouldn't understand'. That's just another way of saying 'believe me because I say so'. Sorry, I don't.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

They do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing

 

Great, please provide this - that's all I have been asking. neither unreasonable or irrational IMO.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Take the first step.

 

The first step is not mine to make. You cannot or will not provide objective evidence that your apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing". It appears you have entered one of your loops to obfuscate this fact. So I'll leave you to play with your toys 🙂...../end loop

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Evidence is out there

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

David, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility.

 

Paul has generously created some free tools that some folks are finding useful.

 

Why does this bother you and Alex?

 

No hostility at all Tom, just a simple request for validity data. Just normal objective science in operation.

I think @bluesman said something about "black box" and "carnival toy" .

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Doesn't feel like that to me.

 

I'm asking for objective data in an objective thread. Not sure why that is difficult for "objectivists". "The evidence is out there" doesn't cut it. YMMV

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

What I said was neither pejorative nor directed at DISTORT.  I said that without knowing what is being done to the signal and how, any app that manipulates it is simply a "black box" - i.e. we have no idea what's being done inside it to create the output and whether there are other effects on the signal that are going unmeasured.  I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to find out more about the nonlineaerity that is said to add both IMD and THD.

 

I also said that without knowledge of what's being done to the signal, a box that adds distortion to a signal in an unknown way is simply an amusement ("carnival toy").  Again, I was trying to find out at least some specifics about what happens inside the black box.  Maybe DISTORT is a great thing that I'd find very useful to me - I don't know, because I can't find out how it does what it does. 

 

Please don't put words in my mouth or use my words out of context.

 

Sorry you felt I used your words out of context but "black box" and "carnival toy" are YOUR words.

 

I agree that for any app, and IMO that yes does include DISTORT (FWIW fitting the context), not being able to find out "what's being done inside it to create the output" or "whether there are other effects on the signal that are going unmeasured" ; and additionally in my words, how validly it achieves its purpose - that app/tool becomes "simply a black box". I also used the word "toy" (not "carnival toy").

 

I also said quite clearly that these tools may be valid but this would need to be confirmed, and if confirmed as claimed, shared. I do not consider this pejorative. Do you ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, Confused said:

Let's have a break for a tune:

 

 

Although not exactly pleasant to listen too, it is interesting to to hear the intermodulation as she varies the tone of her voice relative to the tone of the wine glass.  So you have a tone from the glass, a tone from the voice and a curious third tone that actually appears to be within you own ear.  

 

This is not really on topic, but it is a fun example of "real world" intermodulation.

 

This is my favorite intermodulation tone interaction tune but I don't think it will lend itself to transfer functions for linear time-invariant  systems 😄

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, Patate91 said:

 

It seems that you are misusing sceptism and science method for an unknown reason.

 

As said, I am open to the possibilities that DISTORT does what it says on the can. Asking for validation of a tool is neither misuse or skepticism of scientific method, it is a normal part of scientific method.

“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.” Richard Feynman

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counter-intuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. " - Carl Sagan

 

8 hours ago, Patate91 said:

You can simply use and verify the app to see if it works.

 

Already answered this but perhaps you, as an end user, can provide the verification the app is valid?

 

8 hours ago, Patate91 said:

Maybe you don't know how a plane works and can fly. You don't have access to all the data and how everything works. But still those planes are flying around the world.

 

I'll let this one fly by for now

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, bluesman said:

I just realized how to describe what’s missing here.  I have no reason to doubt that the tool in question does exactly what it was designed to do - so I don’t.  My question is whether and how we know that it does exactly and only what it was designed to do.  

 

The way I see it, they are two sides of the same coin.

 

 

7 hours ago, bluesman said:

And that’s why knowing how it does what it does would be useful.  No medication has only one effect, and I suspect this is true of essentially every other intervention into a system with more than one running process.

 

In this analogy one side of the coin is a) does the drug do what it says it does (efficacy) b) does it only do what it is supposed to do (side effects)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

There has been a lot of discussion on validation of a tool, device, gadget - does it do what it says it does accurately and reliably and does it do that without introducing other issues (lets leave it vague for the moment).

 

Getting back on topic is there possibility of both misleading measurements and double standards IF validation is demanded sometimes but not offered at other times.. beyond 'try and decide yourself'.

 

For me products like the ER are offered based on their subjective listening merits.It would be nice to have independent validation beyond anecdotal evidence but I am okay making up my own mind. Devices that do measurements or even indirectly rely on a measured input/outcome (introducing x% distortion, measured simulated distortion products, proper use of transfer functions etc) are a different beast. The subjective evaluation of the latter (listening to it) or interpreting what you see on screen, depends on the accuracy of the design and implementation of the device in the first place.

 

Does end-user satisfaction constitute independent validation of a device itself or only one persons subjective, possibly biased, evaluation ie can others rely upon this?

 

Depending on your answers then should not the same standard apply to things like Uptone's Ether Regen or is there a double standard at play here when it suits ?

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Patate91 said:

 

Look, distortions, numerical music and sound are well understand for a long time no. Software devellopment too.

 

So, maybe, so what ?

 

2 hours ago, Patate91 said:

For now it looks like you don't have enough knowledge to understand how Distort works.It's up to you to learn.

 

Why? I don't need to go anywhere near Distort or any other App for that matter to have it independently validated. To think otherwise is misguided.

 

2 hours ago, Patate91 said:

I know it sounds rude but it looks like you are looking for some magical effect or to prove that there effects about numerical music and sound reproduction that are still misunderstood.

 

Not magic, science.

If you are certain because it is as you say "all so well understood" please share with us the objective data or should we just believe you because you say so?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

To prolong the, ahem, medical analogy - what we have is a patient who is feeling somewhat unwell; some medical professionals will be heavily focused on diagnosing a particular cause, out of the many things that possibly are causing a specific symptom, and who will then hit that cause with all the medical knowledge, and pharmaceuticals at their disposal. Someone who is coming from a health coach angle will look at the big picture, and suggest major lifestyle changes, to encourage a better overall sense of wellness - and what is needed are measurements that tell everyone that the patient is going in the right direction, when following that regime, 😉.

 

Frank I have no idea what this has to do with anything ! If doctors find a problem they try and treat it. No surprises here. Doctors do look at the "big picture" and their treatments include lifestyle changes.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, Patate91 said:

There won't be any authority that will validate anything.

 

i think that's the problem not the solution 😄

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Patate91 said:

 

And for what I see aven if Pkane gives toi thé objective data toi won't be able to judge what it is doing?

 

please explain what you have seen.

 

Not sure why objectivists can't provide objective data in an Objective-Fi forum. if you have it, provide it, rather than making empty accusations.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, Patate91 said:

 

Let say I'm presenting you a hammer. 

 

What kind of objective data would you want? What kind of objective data do you need to be sure you can hit nails with it?

 

Then what kind of objective data do you expect from an application that "creates" all kind of distortions that you can add on music, tones, noises, or whatever you want? 

 

Another exemple? What kind of objective data do want for a tone or multitone generator to convince you that it generates tones? What kind of data do you need to prove you that a guitar distortion pedal really generate distortions ?

 

Let me ask you first:

 

Are there the times when objective data is irrelevant and just not required?

 

Could irrelevant data measurements be misleading?

 

Could there be a double standard asking for irrelevant objective data when none is needed and only if it suits the agenda of the person demanding the data ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, Patate91 said:

 

 

Yes, for simple things like what's the use of a hammer.

 

Only if you don't have the appropriate knowledge. It becomes  a personnal choice to learn, or to trust and use the tool and verify if it does what it is supposed too. 

 

The data is mostly irrevelant for simples things, or very Well known things. For more complex things it's always revelant. Bertrand Russell said that education is an end in itself  (sorry don't know if the expression is ok). There's no gain To have at keeping people ignorant.

 

Now anwser my questions before we continue.

 

FWIW Bertrand Russell said quite the opposite AFAIK - education is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

 

So,  what about listening to music and observing that one playback is better than another playback. Is that a "hammer" thing that needs no objective data to verify?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, Patate91 said:

What objective data do want from Pkane's Distort application? What kind of objective data do you want about a "simple" tool.

 

You seem to be saying that this App equates to using a hammer or it's truth is self-evident, no objective data required, correct?

 

.....I see our posts have crossed and now you are saying something different about hammers! Objective data is useful.You have changed tacks to pre-requiste knowledge.....

 

Yet So, Paul who invented the App says his Apps "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing".

 

So, in an objective forum I am asking any objectivist (or non objectivist) for the objective data that tells me it does indeed  "do exactly what they were designed to do and have been validated through independent testing".

 

This is separate and distinct from understanding how the App does it, or any other specific knowledge, or how to use it. "Independent testing" is by its very nature , well, independent of my understanding or knowledge and does not rely on my expertise or lack thereof, to validate the App.

 

Is that so hard to understand?🤷‍♂️

 

I suggest we have an intermission to let others have a say (if they're interested)

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

51 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I doff my hat to you gents ... I don't have the stamina anymore to indulge in intense wrestling matches like this - interesting to watch from a distance; eventually it will stop, with absolutely zero gained by anyone - and such has been the way of audio for decades now, of course ... 🙂.

 

Thanks Frank, my irony meter just exploded !!