Why you can't trust measurements

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Windows X said:

 

They're still objectivists but they probably realize something and stop making comments they used to perhaps. I haven't seen any highend objectivists besides me here too. If there's there any objectivist who uses $30k CD Player or Transport + DAC at least, please say hi. I miss you guys. Thanks.

 

Regards,

Keetakawee

 

Is $30k the entry level to exit objectivism? 

[Windows X]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Is $30k the entry level to exit objectivism? 

 

Since when did I mention about quitting? Technically I'm still an objectivist also. And my comments are written objectively.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Windows X said:

 

Since when did I mention about quitting? Technically I'm still an objectivist also. And my comments are written objectively.

 

Sorry, I apparently misunderstood.  I think this bit confused me:

 

Quote

And people who can buy only budget gears need to convince themselves they buy best bang of the buck product having measurements superior to more expensive product.

 

So there's some delusion in objectivity?  Or is it envy?  Or both?

[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)

[PeterG]

16 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

So there's some delusion in objectivity?  Or is it envy?  Or both?

No question that certain objectivists' posts indicate envy/resentment and also confuse best sound with best bang for the buck.  But it's not quite fair to assert that there is delusion in objectivity any more than it is fair to paint subjectivists with blanket statements.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, PeterG said:

No question that certain objectivists' posts indicate envy/resentment and also confuse best sound with best bang for the buck.  But it's not quite fair to assert that there is delusion in objectivity any more than it is fair to paint subjectivists with blanket statements.

 

Just trying to better understand the concept of "they're objectvists because they can't afford good kit like the rest of us"  To me, it seems like a permutation of "your system isn't resolving enough".

[Windows X]

47 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Sorry, I apparently misunderstood.  I think this bit confused me:

 

 

So there's some delusion in objectivity?  Or is it envy?  Or both?

 

If you check my first post in this thread, I talk about "measurement is the best selling point for budget product". And how can people who buy budget gears convince themselves to buy budget products? Most of them do blind purchase due to covid or being lazy to go to store and buy or fear their guilty conscience about  testing in retail store and buy online for cheaper price.

 

So, most people who decide to buy budget gears will rely on measurements and see what products have superior 'advertised' measurements which they can feel they make a good decision that I buy this budget gear that performs better than other expensive products based on measurement data they are informed from manufacturer.

 

I'm talking about scope of measurement being the best selling point in budget product and elaborate how it can convince most clients who target budget gears that way. I live in south east asia and English is not my native language so I apologize if some words aren't conveyed properly or culture from people here told me about buying budget gears maybe different from your place.

 

I started this hobby from being poor self supported student to successful business man owning highend systems so I went through a few highs and lows in this hobby myself and I don't mean to judge people with their spending choice. However, I don't quite appreciate how most objectivists are from people using budget gears and often berate people who spend a lot of money on something they think it's snake oil and be rude about it.

 

Regards,

Keetakawee

[Windows X]

And personally I hope statement about highend objectivist being wrong. I really hope someone will show up claiming he's an objectivist and own highend stereo system like I mentioned before. I still wait for people like him to show up one day. Because most people aren't foolish enough to throw a lot of money on something they don't do objective research on.

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, Windows X said:

And personally I hope statement about highend objectivist being wrong. I really hope someone will show up claiming he's an objectivist and own highend stereo system like I mentioned before. I still wait for people like him to show up one day. Because most people aren't foolish enough to throw a lot of money on something they don't do objective research on.

 

What if that "objective research" relies on subjective testimony from other people who own high end gear?  Is that objective?

[Windows X]

19 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

What if that "objective research" relies on subjective testimony from other people who own high end gear?  Is that objective?

 

By objective, I refer to reading specifications, opening chassis and see internal parts components. I'm going to install Esoteric K1X this month and I've been conducing research for about a year looking inside about parts they use and design choice. I also listen to unit itself and N-01XD with the same circuit board design with some parts changed. Well, stuff like voltage gain, impedance and sensitivity with preamp also.

 

Is this considered objective? I also have urge to change MUSES03 in Esoteric K1X with OPA627 or AD744 because I found those sounding better than MUSES03 in other highend DACs I modified before. Yeah MUSES03 has superior specs but I don't know why I can't get myself to like it wholeheartedly like good OPA627 design DAC or AD744. I guess it's similar to how people keep coming back from hires DAC chip to PCM1704.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Windows X said:

 

By objective, I refer to reading specifications, opening chassis and see internal parts components. I'm going to install Esoteric K1X this month and I've been conducing research for about a year looking inside about parts they use and design choice. I also listen to unit itself and N-01XD with the same circuit board design with some parts changed. Well, stuff like voltage gain, impedance and sensitivity with preamp also.

 

Is this considered objective? I also have urge to change MUSES03 in Esoteric K1X with OPA627 or AD744 because I found those sounding better than MUSES03 in other highend DACs I modified before. Yeah MUSES03 has superior specs but I don't know why I can't get myself to like it wholeheartedly like good OPA627 design DAC or AD744. I guess it's similar to how people keep coming back from hires DAC chip to PCM1704.

 

opamp rolling can be fun.  But that sounds more like a subjective pursuit. 

 

I was more interested in how one reaches an objective determination that the more expensive gear sounds better than the less expensive gear.  I mean, the people who own the expensive gear likely believe it is superior, but is it?  And how is that determined objectively?

 

 

[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

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, Windows X said:

Is this considered objective? I also have urge to change MUSES03 in Esoteric K1X with OPA627 or AD744 because I found those sounding better than MUSES03 in other highend DACs I modified before. Yeah MUSES03 has superior specs but I don't know why I can't get myself to like it wholeheartedly like good OPA627 design DAC or AD744. I guess it's similar to how people keep coming back from hires DAC chip to PCM1704.

 

Objective is measurements - you are being subjective here. 

[Windows X]

21 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

opamp rolling can be fun.  But that sounds more like a subjective pursuit. 

 

I was more interested in how one reaches an objective determination that the more expensive gear sounds better than the less expensive gear.  I mean, the people who own the expensive gear likely believe it is superior, but is it?  And how is that determined objectively?

 

 

 

It's not determination but I can't find less expensive gears that sound better. I mean I know some good gears are better than some others at cheaper price. But it's hard to find such things again and again. At some point you can see the top of food chain having like $30k DAC for flagship, $100k speakers for common flagship speakers. Well, some went beyond like $1m speakers too.

 

19 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

No

 

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

[Windows X]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Objective is measurements - you are being subjective here. 

 

Yeah. MUSES03 won objective measurements but lose to my subjective opinions after trying that in a few units. Let's think of it this way. Some DACs have filters to choose like fast roll off and slow roll off features. Sure some objectivists can claim more important parts of one is considered better than another objectively. Maybe MUSES03 has some they prefer on that part. But some specs on others maybe better than MUSES03 and it's unpopular opinion on that objective side. Who knows.

 

Anyway, you guys make it sounds like if I think this one is better than that one objectively from my observation, it must sound better?

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, Windows X said:

 

It's not determination but I can't find less expensive gears that sound better. I mean I know some good gears are better than some others at cheaper price. But it's hard to find such things again and again. At some point you can see the top of food chain having like $30k DAC for flagship, $100k speakers for common flagship speakers. Well, some went beyond like $1m speakers too.

 

 

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

 

It is not hard to find good sounding inexpensive equipment. Just look at my system. You are either not looking hard enough or are sticking your nose in the air and ignoring. 

[botrytis]

1 minute ago, Windows X said:

 

Yeah. MUSES03 won objective measurements but lose to my subjective opinions after trying that in a few units. Let's think of it this way. Some DACs have filters to choose like fast roll off and slow roll off features. Sure some objectivists can claim more important parts of one is considered better than another objectively. Maybe MUSES03 has some they prefer on that part. But some specs on others maybe better than MUSES03 and it's unpopular opinion on that objective side. Who knows.

 

Anyway, you guys make it sounds like if I think this one is better than that one objectively from my observation, it must sound better?

 

That is why both are important. Just because something measure well, doesn't mean it will work well with your equipment.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, Windows X said:

 

It's not determination...

 

So your selection of gear was not objective?  I understand you're invested in the notion that more expensive gear sounds better.  But it seems you arrived there through subjective thought processes.

[Windows X]

22 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

It is not hard to find good sounding inexpensive equipment. Just look at my system. You are either not looking hard enough or are sticking your nose in the air and ignoring. 

 

OK I look into your gears and I can see objectively better choice but can't be cheaper for most parts but I guess I can find some.

 

1. AMD A10? That's very noise processor and I also have laptop with that processor too. I'd say Intel Celeron/Atom/i3 will sound cleaner due to less EMI and noise from processor itself. Yeah you can buy cheaper computer that sounds better. Please don't use AMD processor for audiophile PC. I have a few clients asking to transfer license and came back after testing new AMD and back to Intel.

 

2. TEAC UD-501 is good value but UD-503 is objectively better, way better for little price increment. Maybe if you can find some good deals or good used price, yeah it can sound better than new UD-501 bought at full price. And Esoteric which is also from Teac but highend division will sound way way better at very high price.

 

3. If you use Rotel RC-1590 as preamplfier only, get preamp only product at the same price should sound better because at least it can save ~$100-200 of production cost on DAC circuit and greatly reduce noise from digital circuit to interfere analogue circuit board. I guess finding good new preamp is hard for this price range. I'd rather get integrated than buying preamp below $5k personally. Maybe you can some good used preamp instead?

 

4. I'd take any second hand good Threshold amplifier over Benchmark AHB2 amplifier, period. But for new amps to sound better, maybe Anthem would be OK? I'm not sure if that will fit your subjective tests but yeah it can be objectively better upgrade.

 

5. And I'd say any speakers around the same price as Revel can be objectively better also. New Audio Physic model doesn't sound bad. Maybe PMC or Fischer which can perform quite well for less expensive upgrade.

 

Well, I did try as you asked. I guess the only audio equipment I can find better at cheaper for real would be your amplifier and your speakers. As I told you before, it's hard to find good upgrade at cheaper price. Otherwise we all will ended up being budget audiophiles as things keep being better but cheaper. ;)

[Windows X]

19 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So your selection of gear was not objective?  I understand you're invested in the notion that more expensive gear sounds better.  But it seems you arrived there through subjective thought processes.

 

I use objective measurements to conduct research and check all gears I'm interested in and buy product with subjective experience based on my ears. 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.

[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

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Windows X said:

 

I use objective measurements to conduct research and check all gears I'm interested in and buy product with subjective experience based on my ears. 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.

 

Do you have test equipment that you test with?  Or do you rely on published test results?

 

And you're saying that, in the end, subjective determinations ultimately inform what equipment you purchase?

[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.

[Windows X]

3 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

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

 

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.

[Windows X]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Do you have test equipment that you test with?  Or do you rely on published test results?

 

And you're saying that, in the end, subjective determinations ultimately inform what equipment you purchase?

 

So what is objective determination that inform what you purchase? Can you define it?