Why you can't trust measurements

[Rexp]

19 hours ago, Speedskater said:

Very few audiophiles do ears only audio auditioning.

But if products do sound different there is a measurable testable reason for that sound difference.

What planet are you on.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

I've had run-ins with Amir ... he has a powerful need to have the last word, and will end up throwing everything he can possibly think of, so that he can come out on top ... when you realise the exchange has got to this point, the best option is to withdraw quietly; to continue will only cause the mud to get thicker, and more smelly ...

Please post on ASR more regularly than you do here, thanks!

[Rexp]

'To get an obvious question out of the way: Yes, I did listen to the Ayazi without the Master Time. By its lonesome, the Ayazi reproduced music with less resolution and timbral accuracy and created a spatially smaller, less lifelike sound. Music sounded duller and less compelling.' Alex Halberstadt

 

Overall, Ideon's Ayazi did well on the test bench. I didn't find any difference in its performance when fed USB data directly or via the 3R Master Time Black Star.—John Atkinson

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ideon-audio-ayazi-mk2-da-processor-3r-master-time-black-star-usb-clock

[Rexp]

35 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

There are at least two possibilities here:

 

1. Mr Halberstadt was imagining the improvement from the Master Time, hence the measurements correctly show no improvement in performance.

 

2. The improvement in sound quality from the Master Time is real, but the correct measurements to show why this might be the case were not performed.

 

If I was the editor of a magazine that planned to publish this, I would set up a blind test with Mr Halberstadt (and any other golden eared hacks that I had available) to see if he can reliably pick up the resolution and timbral accuracy and the spatially smaller, less lifelike sound, without the Master Time.

 

If he could not, I'd get him to rewrite the article. If he could, I'd get Mr Atkinson to take another look at how to perform his measurements.

 

As things stand, the article does not tell us much, apart from demonstrating that the audio press can be a bit useless at times.

The fact is the reviewer heard a significant difference which was not measurable. What fact(s) lead you to believe either the reviewer was wrong or the measurements faulty?

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

The first step would be to establish if the reviewer really did hear the differences that he reported. As mentioned earlier in this thread, this would be very easy to do.

 

The above could be repeated with and without the opticalRendu in the chain.

 

Assuming this provided a positive result, this would provide some reason to explore further in the measurements.

 

None of this would be difficult.

 

I agree that we are never going to get a a full blown scientific analysis; with every possible confounder evaluated, but the Stereophile review and measurements offer nothing, when they could very easily have at least offered something.

 

Or put it this way, don't let perfection be the enemy of good. What Stereophile offered was not good.

@John_Atkinson did you take a listen, are the sound differences real and not measureable or?