Jump to content
The Computer Audiophile

Misleading Measurements

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

How I detect noise is by listening ... it's trivially easy for me to make a tiny adjustment to the electrical environment of the home in which one is listening, and hear the variation in SQ. Whether one wishes to call this noise is up to the individual, but what it really says is that the playback chain is not sufficiently robust to reject this input - why you should want to measure such I don't quite see; but if you want to make it really obvious, in some numbers, just hook up, say, a working arc welder into a nearby socket - that will give you plenty of juicy data to work with, 😁.

Since my hearing has never worked beyond perhaps 22kHz, and currently isn't even that good, I find that using only my hearing to detect noise problems - (such problems not always being in the audible frequency range), isn't adequate in a lot of cases.   Being able to use an objective measurement of some kind -- often the direct measurement being further processed so that the details are more clear seems to be more effective when available.  Properly presented details about the 'noise' can be helpful to pinpoint even unforseen problems.   Sure, there are cases where a direct measurement with technology might be too difficult, but having objective/technologically aided measurements available as a primary means can eliminate missing lots of potentially non-audible impairments.   Out of band impairments can indirectly cause in-band audible problems.

 

I am definitely not against listening for problems, but even primarily depending on listening might miss some unforseen issues.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Being able to use an objective measurement of some kind -- often the direct measurement being further processed so that the details are more clear seems to be more effective when available.  Properly presented details about the 'noise' can be helpful to pinpoint even unforseen problems.  

 During the development  of my DIY Class A Preamp I used a CRO at maximum sensitivity with an inline very low noise battery powered 10 x Preamp to highlight potential noise problems, which in this case appeared to be related mainly to nearby SMPS powered devices. Attending to these very low residual noise levels did result in an apparent Subjective improvement.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Since my hearing has never worked beyond perhaps 22kHz, and currently isn't even that good, I find that using only my hearing to detect noise problems - (such problems not always being in the audible frequency range), isn't adequate in a lot of cases.   Being able to use an objective measurement of some kind -- often the direct measurement being further processed so that the details are more clear seems to be more effective when available.  Properly presented details about the 'noise' can be helpful to pinpoint even unforseen problems.   Sure, there are cases where a direct measurement with technology might be too difficult, but having objective/technologically aided measurements available as a primary means can eliminate missing lots of potentially non-audible impairments.   Out of band impairments can indirectly cause in-band audible problems.

 

If the perceived sound changes, then there is an issue - the mechanism that allows this to happen may be hard to track down, and if the primary goal is to improve the SQ then IMO resolving that should be the first focus. In the long run a full understanding will of course be highly desirable - but a lot of energy may be wasted prior to that dealing with red herrings, simply because the latter may be easier to get numbers for.

 

Ultimately, what's going on when people complain that the SQ is not good enough will totally measurable ... we just haven't got there, yet 🙂.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

A few tweaks are okay, but tweak tweak tweak isn't instructive.  Studying a bit of technical background and learning why the attempt at 'design' requires so many tweaks, is MUCH MUCH more important.

 

Tweaking doesn't create learning -- ask Mr Edison about that.  I doubt that 100yrs of Mr Edison tweaking would have created Tesla's new ideas.   Tweaking is an intuititve physical activity -- it is only an adjunct to the more important learning.   Or, most ideally -- a finishing touch.

 

John

 

 

I think you may be being a bit bold about this John ! 🤣🙄 ^^^


Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sandyk said:
6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Because I tested one [Lush cable].

Other than a Subjective check  , are you able to post some of your measurements, including it's measured impedance, which is possibly the most critical for a high quality USB cable , which could illustrate why so many members favour this cable over most generic USB cables ?

 

Being somewhat OT, @pkane2001could these measurements be misleading?


Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 2:42 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Objectivists believe they know the threshold or level of audibility with respect to measurements.

 

Perhaps. But I don't think those objective leaning people know what's all going on for audibility, nor that they know what to listen for. They just don't listen at all, once their perception of that threshold is beyond their belief-of.

 

I don't need to be objective, nor do I need to be a subjective in order to clearly - wait - utmost clearly perceive that differences are there between "situations". So really, I work the other way around and this is quite explicit: I perceive differences and next I try to work out what they are caused by.

 

Also don't underestimate what trouble I go through to prove to myself (and the community) that a difference I perceive is not only between my ears but are for real. Most of these happenings have been written down in the Phasure forum by means of sometimes large essays. 

 

The essays describe how I deliberately applied a change, and perceive something from it which is explicit. Often it is about one perceived feature only, like e.g. the better attack of cymbals (envision a 100+ of such features more). So I did something, I perceive that better attack and next have to prove it is not for my ears only. And so I call out for my partner in crime, originally not an audiophile at all (but she became one during the process).

 

In 100% of cases she came up with the exact same feature (in this example "a better attack on cymbals").

 

I repeat : these really numerous happenings have almost all been written down, mostly as a commercial teaser for an upcoming software release, a DAC upgrade, or whatever it is we do over here (which is a lot).

 

Each and every situation I have described, is not measurable by any means that I know of (and I think I do have the equipment, or buy it if I think it is worth while).

Each and every situation ever went with hints what to listen for. Also no vague hints as "it is in the highs area". Only : "do you hear a change ?".

I have also described situations that for even 30 minutes a "I hear no change" was in order. But I (we) never gave up and in each end the verdict was there. In this regard it is good to know that during such a more difficult period of recognition, I may play a dozen tracks, me anticipating a whatever track emphasizing the feature better.

 

[maybe stop reading here]

 

The latter should not be underestimated; for me as well as for the auditioner, there is no such thing as A-B (really never). We only work with subsequent different tracks, but, they are selected by me because I (hopefully) know in which track what could be emphasized. This is not prepared. All I do, for example, is knowing that a certain frequency may be emphasized more and a better speed could imply more squareness; I may put up Since I've been Loving You (LZ), myself hoping for the squeaking of the bass pedal to be audible better, and wait for such a comment of in this case that partner, who has heard the track numerous time - so maybe the better squeaking (which I don't know myself yet !) is noticed.

I could hear it, but if she does not, I may hop over to a Mark Knopfler track, because to my expectations his voice my bear similar properties.

 

Never thing this is measurable. Also never think I am subjective. I work too hard to be not to.


Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Share this post


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

But I don't think those objective leaning people know what's all going on for audibility, nor that they know what to listen for. They just don't listen at all, once their perception of that threshold is beyond their belief-of.

 

There's an interesting discussion going on at ASR where Amir has against his and others' expectations found that a speaker which was favoured in a Harman study and produces beautiful Spinoramas sounds bad. Many are calling bias, so entrenched are they in their beliefs regarding audibility that they refuse to accept the obvious. They've been Tooled to accept that nothing other than tonal balance matters...

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

So really, I work the other way around and this is quite explicit: I perceive differences and next I try to work out what they are caused by

 

Good observation is good science. Ignoring observation is dogma.


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

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...