Why you can't trust measurements

[Allan F]

8 hours ago, Speedskater said:

Don't trust audiophiles that don't trust measurements.

 

Don't trust audiophiles who believe that measurements will tell them what audio gear sounds like. Measurements have their place, but they are no substitute for listening.

[Allan F]

2 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.

 

Not necessarily. You, incorrectly IMO, assume that there is a direct relationship between measurements and sound quality. Measurements may or may not explain the difference.

 

Very few audiophiles base their purchasing decisions on measurements. They consider them, but the final evaluation is based on listening.

[Allan F]

A very interesting view regarding measurements is to be found in Jason Victor Serinus’ review of the Meitner MA3 Integrated D/A Processor in the June, 2022, edition of Stereophile magazine. The following is an excerpt of the reply of Ed Meitner, head of EMM Labs and Meitner Audio, to Serinus’ question about how he felt about measurements.

 

“There is a reason for measurement up to the point that you reach a certain level of what I call “hygiene”. Beyond that you need to perform a voicing that produces 10 octaves of sound. It will always come down to the sound you hear. The measurement is the "hygiene" and the listening is the final performance...

 

I think some people think that a microphone hears the same way as our ears. So we have these room correction devices that fool you into believing that they create the perfect listening environment because the microphone tells you so. The same thing happens when you look at your distortion analyzer or whatever makes you think you are okay. You're far from okay.

 

There are sonic differences that cannot be measured.  I won't say that they never will be able to be measured, but as far as I know, there's no current measurement that will guarantee sound. I can give you an example. When solid state amplifiers came on the scene, people hated the sound because they used maximum power distortion measurements [to gauge success]. But all the problems were at zero-crossing distortion, which was a measurement that wasn't really included. As the level was going down, the distortion was going up relative to it. So, it was only after listening that the measurement was finally included. (bold emphasis added)

 

There will always be a new measurement that will be discovered. For example, the effect of jitter was initially ignored”.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Allan F]

11 hours ago, Archimago said:

Again, what does this mean "sonic differences that cannot be measured"? Since we're talking about a DAC, other than reproducing the intended digital data as analogue electrical waveforms, what does he think is still out there to be "discovered"?

 

11 hours ago, Archimago said:

Jitter has been discussed since the first decade of the release of CDs! Even if it was "ignored", that was just for a few years while there were other more pressing issues to deal with (like achieving a full 16-bit resolution)... "So, Ed, can you give me an example of what newly discovered measurement was found in the last decade?"

 

Re "sonic differences that cannot be measured", I believe that he means that listening to its sound may result in specific changes to a circuit's design that are not suggested directly by the DAC's measurements themselves.

 

Discover has more than one meaning. It can mean gain knowledge of, as in learning the significance of something that was previously ignored or unappreciated, e.g. jitter.

[Allan F]

15 hours ago, kumakuma said:

“Against stupidity we are defenseless....{R}easons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person...is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack..."

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

As edited, the above is a perfect description of the public position of a majority of both elected members and supporters of a particular political party regarding a former POTUS, both of which shall remain nameless, of course.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

A situation of my own making? ... Clarify, please.

 

In legal speak, it would be called res ipsa loquitur and, consequently, no need for clarification. 🙂

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

This does explain a lot ... why "audiophiles" can listen to a system which is distorting badly, and be totally incapable of registering that fact ... provided it's the right brands, in the right environment, and being controlled by some respectable person, then it must be performing well. Anything else would defy, well, the Laws of Physics, .

 

Your post fails to address the point that providing reasons for your opinion does nothing to move it from the subjective to the objective.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Objective is being able to discern distortion in some playback occurring, hear specific things that the replay is getting wrong. Subjective is either liking the type of distortion or artifacts you hear, or finding it unpleasant. Okay ... ?

 

Not within the meaning and context of this forum. Objective refers to factual data, not personal observations. The latter are the definition of what is subjective. It does not mean objective in the sense of not been biased.

[Allan F]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

Are you sure? In the first post describing the intent of the forum, Chris stated...

 

Yes, I am sure. What Chris stated is counter to all the examples you provide as "objective". Hopefully, after reading the above post by @Iving you will get it. If not, sadly, I'm afraid that you never will.

[Allan F]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This is the nub of it. If I get a cheap transistor radio, put almost dead batteries in it, and turn up the volume to maximum, "everybody" would agree it's distorting. In ambitious, high end rigs the current reality is there is strong disagreement about whether it's distorting  - purely because it's a matter of degree. The miserable radio is at one end of the scale; the expensive high end rig is towards the other end ...

 

The rub of what, for pete's sake? If you don't understand the meaning of "objective" as contemplated by this forum by now, you apparently never will. It's not "a matter of degree". It is not a continuum. The "everybody agrees" example is simply an exceptional one where measurable factual data may not be necessary in order for it to be considered "objective" or of "objective flavour" as described by @Iving. There is no point in continuing with this waste of bandwidth.

[Allan F]

8 hours ago, Confused said:

Can we measure Frank?

 

If so, presumably only to "a matter of degree".