Why you can't trust measurements

[fas42]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

You've picked something which is subjective ("in the zone") and argued that we should reject measurements as a whole because they can't measure this unmeasurable and highly personal characteristic of music.

 

By this logic, we should remove the nutritional information from food packages because they don't tell us how the food inside the package tastes.

 

"In the zone" may be subjective to you, but not to me. IME, this occurs when the signature of the playback rig becomes effectively inaudible; and you are only consciously aware of the characteristics of the recording. And many high end rigs fail badly in this regard. To put it into context, a CD I bought over 30 years ago will present identically in all the key areas, on my current setup, as compared to what I used back then, which was radically different in its make up ... if either have any pretensions to accuracy, how can it be any other result?

 

Of course measurements are critical when designing and assembling components to sell; consistency, and weeding out the faulty, are essential here. But until more revealing metrics are readily available to the consumer, then the whole thing is a lottery; as an example, if you were given what was typically measured for a modern DAC, and no identifying information, would you have any idea whether it was a winner, or something most audiophiles would get rid of as fast as possible?

[fas42]

Just now, botrytis said:

 

Stop playing schematics here, Frank. That is all you are doing. 

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

This is a highly subjective measure of SQ as proven by the fact that few agree with the (subjective) conclusion you have reached (sentence in bold).

 

Okay, if I listen to a couple of high end rigs, playing a specific recording, that I know well, and:

 

1) Their presentation of that is very different from each other, and very much from what I know of it

 

2) Each makes various aspects of that recording unpleasant, or sound downright distorted

 

3) Both miss making quite a few sound elements audible, or if they can be detected, they are very muffled and indistinct; lack being able to separate those parts of the mix from the whole

 

4) Completely fail to be able to throw up a convincing soundstage, with the sound elements clearly delineated within the whole

 

What conclusion should I come to?

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You can continue to play "schematics" all you want but articulating the reasons for an opinion doesn't make it any less subjective...

 

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, .

[fas42]

15 hours ago, GregWormald said:

I'd have to ask "How did you acquire the knowledge of what that recording really sounds like?"

 

An iterative process. Simply put, it's the best you have ever heard the recording sound; when the content of the tracks overwhelmingly dominates your listening world. And this could be on someone else's rig ... many people hear an album they think they know well on a highly optimised setup and get a shock at how much more of everything they're now hearing; 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.

 

Every time a recording sounds ordinary it's because the playback quality is ordinary. If it's your own system doing this, then it's because it's gone backwards - there is no magic in ultra special, expensive audio gear, that sprinkles fairy dust on ho hum tracks to make them sound good; it merely is allowing one to more fully appreciate what's really been encoded in the capture.

 

15 hours ago, GregWormald said:

 

At the same time I have heard very expensive rigs that don't match what "high end" means to me. "High end" is about my involvement in the music. Whether expensive systems are better to me (i.e. high end) is likely be purely subjective and about my preferences.

 

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, .

 

16 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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

 

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 ... ?

[fas42]

From https://www.dictionary.com/e/subjective-vs-objective/

 

Quote

Examples of subjective vs. objective

Let’s think about some scenarios in which something might be classified as subjective or objective.

 

Let’s say you’re a restaurant critic. There may be certain foods that you subjectively dislike—ones that are just not to your taste. But when critiquing dishes, you must leave your subjective tastes aside and be objective about what you eat—making objective judgments about things like how it’s cooked and seasoned and how the ingredients work together. Even if you’re served a dish that you subjectively don’t like, it’s your job to objectively assess its quality.

 

 

[fas42]

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?

[fas42]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, if I listen to a couple of high end rigs, playing a specific recording, that I know well, and:

 

1) Their presentation of that is very different from each other, and very much from what I know of it

 

2) Each makes various aspects of that recording unpleasant, or sound downright distorted

 

 

I said, I hear distortion ... do you think it would be impossible to extract supporting, objective data?

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

 

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

 

Quote

Welcome to the new space solely for objective audio discussions. Subjective impression threads, anecdotal or experience only based comments are not allowed here.

 

One observes that a vinyl recording has pops and crackles, or that a traffic light changes from green to red - are these subjective impressions, to be treated with great suspicion; in the latter case, is one entitled to drive through the intersection, because you haven't received "factual data" that the light has changed?

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Iving said:

 

Yes - they are experienced Subjectively.

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

 

 

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 ...

 

If some nasty god started, slowly, making the red spectrum of traffic lights move towards green; and the green towards red, then at some point terrible accidents would start happening. Nothing fundamentally has changed, merely the degree of "obviousness" of the situation.

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Perhaps you've forgotten that orange and yellow lie between red and green on the visible light spectrum, making a seamless transition from red to green somewhat difficult to accomplish...

 

 

Doesn't have to be seamless - all it needs is that a combination of factors, "in the heat of the moment", makes someone believe that the red light is actually showing green- it's a decision, is the light red, or green? Is the audio system I'm listening to, audibly distorting or not?

[fas42]

23 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

It is a subjective assessment that can supported by objective data.

 

Back to this ... objective data would declare that the red light was far closer to red than green; hence, it's red. Likewise objective data, using an appropriate metric, would find excessive distortion of a certain type in the playback. Just because many people choose to not to register that there is distortion - as another example, end of side tracking error of an LP - doesn't mean there is none there, as "factual data".

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

No, you believe (subjectively) that it would.

 

And you may be right...

 

Or you may be wrong.

 

Also, "excessive" is subjective. What you find excessive, may not bother others at all.

 

Which brings us back to, "why you can't trust measurements" ... what use is acquiring a set of numbers, if it's almost of no value in deciding whether a particular component will be acceptable or not, in the flesh?

 

[fas42]

14 hours ago, Iving said:

 

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

 

 

 

Talking of Nagra at Munich, 2022 ...

 

Luckily, Chris bypassed that 'orrible YT "crap",

 

Quote

Here is an iPhone video clip of My Romance from Gene Ammons. The track sounded stunning, even though I was far from the sweet spot for this one. I could've listened to this entire album without moving. The sound was realistic, enveloping, and captivating.

 

 

 

You see, you listen for what the playback is getting wrong ... not what it's getting right - if there are no audible flaws, then you are in pretty good territory ...

[fas42]

I've experienced the bizarre world of audiophile double think for too long, with regard to what they focus on when they listen, to be fussed about where they want to draw the line on the concept of "being objective" - if you're happy with your take on the matter, then all's good with the world ... .

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Posts like this beg the question why you spend so much time and energy posting to a forum full of folks you consider to be bizarre... and vice versa...

 

Logic 101 ... I've met some audiophiles who had bizarre thinking; therefore, all audiophiles have bizarre thinking ...

 

Luckily, in the presence of exceptional SQ there seems to be general agreement that it's at least acceptable - the frothing at the mouth normally occurs with discussions of how to get this.

[fas42]

Do you want to measure the interesting bits - or the boring stuff?

[fas42]

I went through a solid model train enthusiasm phase, when very young - Kleinbahn, from Austria. Current stuff gets pretty amazing, but you need deep pockets to do it properly ... another lifetime, perhaps ...