dallasjustice
Major Contributor
If you ever change your avatar to this, I'm out of here!
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Measurements of Sonore microRendu Streamer
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
If you ever change your avatar to this, I'm out of here!
Hey! I am helping that guy with his back problems.. I am.. Chiropractorbot..
Oh seems Doctor spazmatron has his Lego alter ego too..
Those Lego guys never told me they made a Doctor spazmatron , I going after royalties Michael, can you help with that?
Last edited:
Intresting take on amirs measurments here from a technically component guy who has no love for the device or its designer.
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=189466
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=189466
OP
- Thread Starter
- #704
Who? Andy? If so, he is not reading the measurements and full report when he says: "The accusation I was objecting to was that the mR was 30dB worse. Clearly this new measurement shows that it isn't."
That "new" measurement was with lab power supply. As you all know, with iFi Power supply it does this:
At low frequencies, the distortion/noise is heavily increased. Let's remember that every 6 dB means double of noise voltage. There is heck of a lot of increase there. None of it is defensible when one uses the power supply recommended by the manufacturer. The first rule of any digital tweak needs to be, "first do no harm." Harm was inflicted on my DAC and it is crying in pain!
As these guys don't won't to come here, I will seek out all criticism and post it. We can't be accused of dodging anything
.I think if someone was interested in splitting hairs regarding the measured performance between the Laptop/DAC and the MR it may be easier to see the results if they were puked out into an MS Excel spreadsheet so that each sample/data point for each device could be viewed numerically side by side.
Using this method, in addition to performing the same test multiple times spread over the course of a 12-24hr window then averaging the results would put a nail in the coffin of anyone intending to discredit the results in the end.
Using this method, in addition to performing the same test multiple times spread over the course of a 12-24hr window then averaging the results would put a nail in the coffin of anyone intending to discredit the results in the end.
BobShermanEsq
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2016
- Messages
- 73
- Likes
- 1
You are a smart person. What do you honestly think about the whole process of measurements vs listening?True
An individual has a steadfast belief system and uses "measurements" to help reinforce these beliefs. Vs listening...???
How can we account for all of the listeners positive experiences? Is everyone just stupid, deluded? Foolish?
There comes a point that we must hopeful realize... maybe everything is not just black and white, and there is allot of grey we must look at also.
I sincerely hope it is ok to ask this in the spirit of furthering an honest discussion.
I think the human is vulnerable to so many attributing factors we can't be trusted on the conclusions we draw from listening alone, our subjective impressions.
So the objective measurments are the only way to see the wood from the trees, is it perfect ? Hell no! But like our justice system and indeed democracy it's the least imperfect system we have to save ourselves.
Those of us that realise how inherently corrupt and fallible we are tend to lean towards wanting a objective confirmation and/or understanding of what's going on, how we are perceiving our music at home.
Certainly everyone here that would endeavour to establish a truism or deal a fact will only do so when backed by objective data or at the very very least confirmed or very well respected theory.
Where your missing the point is we don't think we are better than anyone, the opposite in fact. We know we are fallible, silly humans who can't be trusted.
Our reality is made up by assumption, its how the mind works as far as I understand it. It takes a snippet and assumes the rest via a complex system that's informed by our early developing years ( but not restricted to such).
Audio and indeed audio forums are dominated by lay logic, worse still caveman logic where we assume then blindly with no real actual understanding try and justify that assumption. We get in a awful mess doing this, but it can be fun and people find a creative release, a freedom when expressing themselves this way. No harm done, I do it too. Indeed half this post is my unconfirmed understanding of mankind but you won't find me arguing with professors of psychology or experts in neuroscience based on what I reckon. This is not because I don't believe myself to be correct, it's simply because I have my own theory in perspective. It's true to me and my experience but I know that's not the same thing as a objective fact, a scientifically verified known.
Now some times the human scientists are spectacularly wrong, and indeed the world might end up realising Doctor spazmatron was actually right all along but I am not going to put my house on it and nor should any of you put your house on your subjective listening impressions.
Of course the first thing you got wrong and indeed can be verified by science was me being 'smart'. No objective data to confirm that, well non those government research scientist will let you see it's all top secret
So the objective measurments are the only way to see the wood from the trees, is it perfect ? Hell no! But like our justice system and indeed democracy it's the least imperfect system we have to save ourselves.
Those of us that realise how inherently corrupt and fallible we are tend to lean towards wanting a objective confirmation and/or understanding of what's going on, how we are perceiving our music at home.
Certainly everyone here that would endeavour to establish a truism or deal a fact will only do so when backed by objective data or at the very very least confirmed or very well respected theory.
Where your missing the point is we don't think we are better than anyone, the opposite in fact. We know we are fallible, silly humans who can't be trusted.
Our reality is made up by assumption, its how the mind works as far as I understand it. It takes a snippet and assumes the rest via a complex system that's informed by our early developing years ( but not restricted to such).
Audio and indeed audio forums are dominated by lay logic, worse still caveman logic where we assume then blindly with no real actual understanding try and justify that assumption. We get in a awful mess doing this, but it can be fun and people find a creative release, a freedom when expressing themselves this way. No harm done, I do it too. Indeed half this post is my unconfirmed understanding of mankind but you won't find me arguing with professors of psychology or experts in neuroscience based on what I reckon. This is not because I don't believe myself to be correct, it's simply because I have my own theory in perspective. It's true to me and my experience but I know that's not the same thing as a objective fact, a scientifically verified known.
Now some times the human scientists are spectacularly wrong, and indeed the world might end up realising Doctor spazmatron was actually right all along but I am not going to put my house on it and nor should any of you put your house on your subjective listening impressions.
Of course the first thing you got wrong and indeed can be verified by science was me being 'smart'. No objective data to confirm that, well non those government research scientist will let you see
it's all top secret
dallasjustice
Major Contributor
I think that's a good question.
I think this is where there's a misunderstanding between the two camps. There's well settled placebo effect research which goes back many decades. This is not controversial. ALL people are subject to the same biases. The difficulty with that word for lawyers is that a witness or potential juror could openly identify a bias. I've tried hundreds of jury trials. I've disqualified several hundred jurors who couldn't serve on a jury due to a self-identified bias or prejudice. They usually admit to it in Voire Dire.
Placebo effects are NOT like the above described bias or prejudice. They are perceived as REAL observations. So no person familiar with this science would ever say you are a fool or an idiot because you perceive something which is technically impossible/very unlikely. The fact that many others hear the same thing may only reinforce the same plecebo effect.
This is why objectivists get miffed with subjectivists. The subjectivist will acknowledge the plecebo effect is real, but only as applied to someone else. In other words, subjectivists lack self-awareness and objectivists acknowledge reality.
The controversy gets ramped up to whole different level when the subjectivist views their subjective observations as a real "test" or "data" along with many others on a forum and then makes a claim of actual specification based on unscientific impressions. (Eg. The forum circle jerk).
I think this is where there's a misunderstanding between the two camps. There's well settled placebo effect research which goes back many decades. This is not controversial. ALL people are subject to the same biases. The difficulty with that word for lawyers is that a witness or potential juror could openly identify a bias. I've tried hundreds of jury trials. I've disqualified several hundred jurors who couldn't serve on a jury due to a self-identified bias or prejudice. They usually admit to it in Voire Dire.
Placebo effects are NOT like the above described bias or prejudice. They are perceived as REAL observations. So no person familiar with this science would ever say you are a fool or an idiot because you perceive something which is technically impossible/very unlikely. The fact that many others hear the same thing may only reinforce the same plecebo effect.
This is why objectivists get miffed with subjectivists. The subjectivist will acknowledge the plecebo effect is real, but only as applied to someone else. In other words, subjectivists lack self-awareness and objectivists acknowledge reality.
The controversy gets ramped up to whole different level when the subjectivist views their subjective observations as a real "test" or "data" along with many others on a forum and then makes a claim of actual specification based on unscientific impressions. (Eg. The forum circle jerk).
Yes, that's what I was getting at but you articulated in a superior fashion ... ThanksI think that's a good question.
I think this is where there's a misunderstanding between the two camps. There's well settled placebo effect research which goes back many decades. This is not controversial. ALL people are subject to the same biases. The difficulty with that word for lawyers is that a witness or potential juror could openly identify a bias. I've tried hundreds of jury trials. I've disqualified several hundred jurors who couldn't serve on a jury due to a self-identified bias or prejudice. They usually admit to it in Voire Dire.
Placebo effects are NOT like the above described bias or prejudice. They are perceived as REAL observations. So no person familiar with this science would ever say you are a fool or an idiot because you perceive something which is technically impossible/very unlikely. The fact that many others hear the same thing may only reinforce the same plecebo effect.
This is why objectivists get miffed with subjectivists. The subjectivist will acknowledge the plecebo effect is real, but only as applied to someone else. In other words, subjectivists lack self-awareness and objectivists acknowledge reality.
The controversy gets ramped up to whole different level when the subjectivist views their subjective observations as a real "test" or "data" along with many others on a forum and then makes a claim of actual specification based on unscientific impressions. (Eg. The forum circle jerk).
Well this face points at a whole other level of circle jerk open wide
points at a whole other level of circle jerk open wideBobShermanEsq
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2016
- Messages
- 73
- Likes
- 1
Good point... IMO This is why someone should be disqualified here as they bring with them some serious bias.
And honestly IMO there is a great deal of selectivity in the conversations, where it is ok to say SE tubes and horns sound cool... No measurements are needed, then in the next breath for different items measurement are a must to determine sound quality. A bit confusing, don't you think.
Last edited:
That's what objective data is for, to remove the potential for baias. Data has no ego.
No one here is qualified so disqualifying anyone seems to not make any sense
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 947
The other day I've read on the internet that audio measurements can be subjective. Is that evenly remotely possible?
BobShermanEsq
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2016
- Messages
- 73
- Likes
- 1
Be careful... This is how Renfield got himself in trouble.
dallasjustice
Major Contributor
Personally, I have no problem with someone expressing their opinion about whether they prefer one thing over another thing. I like VU meters. I even started a thread about VU meters. There's nothing wrong with having preferences for stupid things like that.
But that's not what this thread is about. Amir simply tested an objectively verifiable claim made by a manufacturer and numerous others. What if Amir harbors a secret hatred against ethernet cables? Who knows? Maybe Bill Gates once whipped Amir with a spare ethernet cable at a MS board meeting because Amir wouldn't stop talking. It seems plausible to me.
But the nice thing about objective data and measurements is that operator biases and prejudices don't matter. Anyone with the gear can confirm or refute his measurements. So far that hasn't happened. I sincerely hope others like BE can measure it as well. We will see.
Phelonious Ponk
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2016
- Messages
- 859
- Likes
- 216
It is ok to say tubes or horns sound cool. It's wrong to say they sound more like real music if they are distorting the reproduction of the recordings, which is the only real music they have anything to do with. With that said, believing they sound more like "real music," whatever that means, is not stupid or delusional, it's human. Bias is human, common, well-documented, and audiophiles are far from immune. Given all the time, money and heart they have invested in music reproduction, it is logical to expect them to be much more susceptible to bias, when it comes to music reproduction, than most people.
Tim
OP
- Thread Starter
- #719
It is trivial to show that they are mistaken. I will put forward $2,000 of my own money as travel expense to go visit anyone who says they readily hear these differences and test them without them knowing what they are listening to. If they are right, I will be out $2,000. If they are wrong, they get to pay half of that, $1,000, to my favorite charity. This is how I back my "belief" system. Let me know if anyone is willing to do the same. The cost to me is twice as much as it is for them to be wrong.
Until then, if you went through school, took all the exams and then gave yourself scores, what are the chances that a) those scores are right and b) you actually knew the material? The society doesn't let you self-score your exam but here, in audio, you like to do that. Not only that, you like to say the fact that you gave yourself a score of A, that means you are right, and what you perceived is representative of sound waves hitting your ears. Problem is, everytime someone else who knows the answer but you don't, tests you, you get a score of F. Not B, not C, but F.
I have had the above apply to me and I too have received an F at times when I thought for sure I had aced the test. After a dozen F scores, you become sober and no longer walk around saying, "I trust my ears." And scuff at others saying that, when you have scored them an F more times than I can count.
.So here is what it nets out to if you care about being right:
1. Does the engineering/theory of operation say the device claims are likely true? The answer in this case is no. And this is considering issues beyond "bits are bits." I can get more experts in the field to say this than you can get listeners who say they heard a difference.
2. Do the measurements back what they say the device does? Answer again is a no. Not only did it not make a difference in my testing, it actually made things worse in one case. This demonstrates that designers did not even verify what they thought they had designed.
3. Does it sound different in a controlled test. Given #1 and #2, I am convinced it does nothing audibly and hence my offer above.
BTW, the elephant in the room is that you are asking us permission to believe in products against what proper evaluation of engineering/science tells us. You don't need to do that
. Go and believe. Just don't ask us. That gets you a post like this. 
The subjective approach has value when the objective means fail - it's trivially easy to put together a system of extremely well measuring components that sounds awful, miles from being convincing. So something significant is not being measured, and until that occurs subjective appraisal is the best way out. Real music has certain qualities which are easy to identify - when was the last time you heard music and were sure it was coming from a hifi, but actually it was acoustic, live? - and a good target is the closeness of the reproduced to live, in terms of subjective impact, irrespective of whether there was some "naughty distortion" helping it along.
Tubes don't do it for me, there's an obviousness in the quality that says "Wrong!!" in lesser examples, and the better ones sound the same as competent SS - so you might as well use the method which has longevity in the parts.
Of course, if someone says they prefer hifi to live then good luck to them - if that does it for them then all my arguments mean nothing ...
Tubes don't do it for me, there's an obviousness in the quality that says "Wrong!!" in lesser examples, and the better ones sound the same as competent SS - so you might as well use the method which has longevity in the parts.
Of course, if someone says they prefer hifi to live then good luck to them - if that does it for them then all my arguments mean nothing ...
Similar threads
- Poll
