Why you can't trust measurements

[Iving]

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/just-got-banned-by-asr-for-pointing-out-the-inconvenience-truth.1144772/

 

The OP is not me btw!

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Didn't realize he got banned! Too bad, he isn't a bad guy, just a bit annoying, posting the same things in nearly every thread, including the latest one he started, where he demanded that Amir prove him wrong by inviting him to his house for a blind test :)

 

I'm guessing that Amir didn't take to the idea, based on the above..

 

 

Yeah - I imagined the human factor hardly absent!

[Iving]

26 minutes ago, Windows X said:

I haven't seen any highend objectivists besides me here too.

 

"elite" cognitive dissonance (some delusions being more equal than others)

[Iving]

9 minutes ago, Windows X said:

By objective, I refer to reading specifications ... opening chassis and see internal parts ... and design choice.

I also listen to unit itself and N-01XD with the same circuit board design with some parts changed.

I also have urge to change MUSES03 ... because I found those sounding better

I don't know why I can't get myself to like it wholeheartedly

Is this considered objective?

 

No

[Iving]

16 minutes ago, Windows X said:

what about reading product's specifications and checking internal parts then read datasheet about it?

 

Reading specs / checking against parts / reading datasheet - these are not objective pursuits - they are what you do with your brain - and how you interpret them is very much a subjective activity.

 

If you mean to imply that the people who created spec and datasheets can be relied upon for the accuracy of their work, then you are nearing the threshold for what might be considered objective.

Even then there are all sorts of problems potentially in play.

Commercial motives are seldom completely isolated from epistemological ones.

Then you have the problem of relevance (of a given measurement to what a given audiophile expects to get for her or his money).

And the problem of sufficiency - have you looked at everything that is relevant (to a buying decision).

 

Measurements - of themselves - are not the whole story. If I am not mistaken, that is the whole point of this Thread.

 

Objectivity - in a nutshell - is that upon which we all (at least to a good extent) may rely. It is the antithesis of personal opinion (no matter how correct a point of view may seem to its adherent).

 

We never get to the bottom of the problem in Hi-Fi.

 

Measurements purported to speak to SQ are a "bottom up" objective approach.

 

Differences in SQ reports - from multiple subjects - correlated with experimentally isolated changes in the level of some independent variable (e.g. different valves) - and which reach a level of significance statistically - are a top down objective approach. We never (or very rarely) do this sort of thing. It's expensive - and audiophiles/phools cannot co-operate.

 

All in all - your efforts may demand technical knowledge and experience (for all we know) - but there is nothing objective, as such, in what you say you do.

 

In that respect you can find many high end peers on this Forum. You are not alone x

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, Windows X said:

I don't know any audiophile who spend large sum of money on highend gears from objective data more than his ears from actual listening experience.

 

Seems to me you have much in common with most of us here.

[Iving]

10 minutes ago, Windows X said:

I see. I guess using calculation on your head is not objective until I use calculator then. Thanks for telling. Yeah modding a few hundred of audio gears with tons of checking with oscilloscope doesn't seem to be objective enough to say why I should read all those.

 

What you quoted of mine covered quite a lot - and had nothing to do with calculators.

 

I thought we were talking about our buying approaches - and whether yours - as a rare "high end" objectivist - is better/more reliable than the common-or-garden chiffon objectivist.

[Iving]

10 minutes ago, Windows X said:

It's only from some people that use the word objective and measurements to divide what most common practices we all audiophiles do but you don't do the way I approve to be good enough.

 

The case is yours to yet be made - that your high end approach is truly exclusive (and actually objective).

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, Windows X said:

Before this escalates too far and people forget the point of this thread. I'm speaking about content in this video as shown in original below.

 

 

He clearly said "Some companies such as Schiit audio have even begun releasing products with completely different design philosophies because at the moment particularly in the more budget market segment measurements sell a lot more products than subjective feedback does."

 

Yes "measurements sell a lot more products than subjective feedback does.". Try to stay in this topic, please. Maybe you guys can explain why measurements sell a lot more than subjective feedback in budget market segment. Or maybe you guys can disprove his claim that subjective feedback actually does sell more in budget market segment.

 

I think deep down you guys know the truth already and try to avoid confronting bitter reality of whatever you have in mind. How about you guys discuss whether measurements sell a lot more products than subjective feedback does or not instead?

 

I think Golden and Amir have had problems in the past. I tried to help them stay cool. There's only so much that one man can do.

[Iving]

12 minutes ago, Windows X said:

Their issues has nothing to do with "measurements sell a lot more products than subjective feedback does". Please don't try to bring personal matters from 3rd-parties into this. I'm asking you guys to discuss about this topic. You guys seem to have some issues with me elaborating this point on so how about clarifying about this matter on the right point?

 

If you don't agree that measurements sell a lot more than subjective feedback on budget market segment, elaborate your point why. I'm listening.

 

OK - well - since Golden took you seriously by upvoting you:
1. Golden's reported assertion that "at the moment particularly in the more budget market segment measurements sell a lot more products than subjective feedback does" is not supported, here anyway, by evidence. It may or may not be true. I don't know. It has never applied to me when I bought "budget" equipment. I would go by reviews maybe. And my own ears. Rarely if ever measurements.
2. Anyway this issue is not why I joined the conversation. I joined it to explore whether you were as alone as you felt you were - as an objectivist at the high end - and then it seemed that your approach may not be so objective after all. I think we are done on that one.

[Iving]

Just now, GoldenOne said:

The video is not about amir.

Nor do disagreements between Amir and myself have anything to do with why certain market segments sales are heavily influenced by objective measurements

 

I know this full well.

 

You may recall I supported your position throughout that difficult "gauntlet" episode. See my record on ASR.

 

I meant to suggest - lightheartedly only - that you would be aware of the play of budget equipment measuring "well" on ASR - and that Schiit were part of that equation.

 

I favour a Mani phono over a Cambridge one. Nothing to do with measurements.

[Iving]

but wait

 

there's more

 

yes - perceptual anomaly one possibility - means a subjective difference but no actual difference in pre-ear sound environments - whether measured or not

 

yes - sensitivity another possibility - a subjective difference accountable to a difference in pre-ear sound environments which was not measured

 

also -

 

even if subjective delta matched a measured objective delta - the two are not necessarily causally related.

 

they could be unrelated co-phenomena.

 

there could be a third hidden factor aetiological to both.

 

only an intervention study where sound environment manipulated to observe a corresponding subjective delta starts to establish causal relationship.

 

convincing data near impossible with single reviewer - 

and multi participant studies all sorts selection and expense problems.

 

thus people can say what they like and cannot be conclusively contradicted.

 

all the uncertainty makes a lot of room for individual hobby fun, forum conflicts - and industry confidence trickery.

 

antidote to all above is education of all types - and learning to think for ourselves

[Iving]

7 minutes ago, Iving said:

only an intervention study where sound environment manipulated to observe a corrrsponding subjective delta starts to establish causal relationship.

 

This ^ the starting point for development of theories about how sound accounts for subjective musical enjoyment.

 

and even if this high ambition approached experimentally, we have only measured pre-ear. What the brain does with sound deltas we can barely fathom.

 

there is no advanced explanation of human consciousness.

 

we have a long way to go and a lot of scope for disagreement before "truth" eventually revealed.

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, Confused said:

if he could do this "blind". If he could, this would be convincing data from one reviewer

 

it would

 

blind tests v unlikely to get a false positive

 

but all sorts explanations possible for negatives

[Iving]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

The whole thing falls in the same arena as the massive, personal cosmetics industry

 

no it doesn't

 

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

very little trickery, in the normal sense

 

confidence trickery - believe what i say because of the way i say it - don't examine merits 

 

it's clear what i mean

 

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

do you want to send all the executives of these companies to prison

 

don't be silly

 

all goading and off topic

[Iving]

@fas42 since you are quoting me haven't you got anything interesting or worthwhile to say about "why you can't trust measurements" - particularly mapping your remarks to my incisive breakdown of the whole subject in 3 posts. all you have to offer is an off beam unjustified parallel with lipstick, a childish imprisonment gambit, and a pick over what's meant by confidence trickery. the only contribution you ever make you made "decades ago" - and now you are just hijacking and spoiling another thread.

[Iving]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

An iterative process. Simply put, it's the best you have ever heard the recording sound;

 

Correct -

You are also referencing on an activation threshold basis -

just as a recently heard or used word is more likely to be spoken than one long since experienced -

against all the musical sounds you have ever heard -

your brain "hunting" -

probably more for hedonic harvest (brain loves reward), but also realism (= match to historic sensory experience) -

the two (pleasure and realism) overlapping overwhelmingly.

 

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

the Nagra system at the recent Munich show is an example of the sort of thing that is usually needed to fully realise this goal.

 

But you weren't there. Chris was. But you weren't. And YT is no substitute.

 

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

I prefer a system to be accurate. And it's quite easy to find how badly a rig has fallen off the track by using various, 'testing' recordings. The good news is that the most accurate playback is also the most satisfying to listen to, .

 

Agree -

See above

 

11 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 ... ?

 

No - not Okay - very unhinged - needs a lot of qualification - "able to discern" does not sound Objective at all

 

11 hours ago, kumakuma said:

I would consider anything that can't be measured to be subjective.

 

Subjective is the realm of personal experience. It is difficult to deny or contradict by way of proof, no matter how preposterous it may seem. An experienced philosopher might not care to challenge assertions about Subjective experience.

 

The Subjective is not necessarily controversial. If we all experience something in common (that shared experience likely communicated via language), that something has an Objective flavour, but is still experienced Subjectively.

 

Measurement is far and away the easiest way to establish a reference upon which we all may agree. This is what Empiricism / Scientific Method is all about. Developing yardsticks - yes measurements - such that *we can agree on a given thing* - rather than pitch our Subjective experiences against each other in a no-win battle, exhausting for all protagonists.

 

Things that "can't be measured" are not Subjective unless they are experienced. They may not exist at all. They may for all we know. If we can measure them, they very likely exist. If we can measure them reliably, they are in the realm of the Objective.

 

Ultimately we don't know whether something (conceived) "can't be measured". It is theoretical until it is measured (reliably).

 

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

Someone plays back a digital capture of a vinyl recording; and someone listening says, "Gosh, lots of pops and crackles in that one!" ... is that a subjective, or objective assessment?

 

Subjective. Unless everyone agrees about it. Then it has an Objective flavour. The pops and crackles are not Objective phenomena - as such - until they are reliably measured.

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

One observes that a vinyl recording has pops and crackles, or that a traffic light changes from green to red - are these subjective impressions

 

Yes - they are experienced Subjectively.

If they are experienced by everybody (as we may agree informally via language) they have an Objective flavour.

 

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

is one entitled to drive through the intersection, because you haven't received "factual data" that the light has changed?

 

No. There is a consensus amongst the engineers who built the lights, the lawmakers, the cops who watch out for felons - and the population at large - that green is green and red is red. There is a very strong Objective flavour to traffic light properties . The wavelengths of the light emitted by traffic controls can be measured readily enough - but not the way the brain responds - especially in a language-facilitated, behaving social animal. Fortunately only the colour blind would be confused about things. Colour blind people discover their unusual response to visual stimuli early in life - and learn to be careful with electric wires and traffic lights etc for obvious reasons.

 

The short answer to "why you can't trust measurements" is that reliably measuring everything (Objective) relevant to what audiophiles want to and think they hear (Subjective) - establishing causal effects along the way - is too enormous a prospect in the early 21st century. I doubt it will ever happen. Paradigm shifts shall render audiophile pursuits (and all these attendant conversations) ridiculous.

[Iving]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

The rub of what, for pete's sake? ... There is no point in continuing with this waste of bandwidth.

 

crepuscular pseudo-alfa ultimumbler (cpu) syndrome

[Iving]

13 minutes ago, JoshM said:

Neil Young would like a word!

 

https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/neil-young

 

as would Rod Stewart!