Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[ahofer]

In many countries, freedom of speech rights protect such expressions. In my country, the United States of America, the First Amendment shields citizens, allowing us to clarify that someone is metaphorically, rather than anatomically, an asshole, irrespective of the state of our faith or theirs.

I was speaking from an American legal (and citizen) perspective.

defamation

www.law.cornell.edu

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

 

[Itisawesome]

I have auditioned the benchmark ahb2 recently against the marantz pm10 and even though the benchmark measures better the marantz sounds better. My benchmark ahb2 is up for sale. There is more detail revealed by the marantz with a bigger sound stage and better separation between instruments. What surprised me the most about the benchmark is how ‘stunted’ or ‘cut off’ the very low frequencies are expressed that the marantz does much better on. Stronger tight punch on low frequencies by marantz. Another person auditioned with me and we drew both the same conclusions.

We both concluded that measurements are of lesser importance and sound listening is much more important.

We don’t know enough about what needs to be measured to draw valuable enough conclusions from that alone. Lesson learnt

 

[peng]

I have auditioned the benchmark ahb2 recently against the marantz pm10 and even though the benchmark measures better the marantz sounds better. My benchmark ahb2 is up for sale. There is more detail revealed by the marantz with a bigger sound stage and better separation between instruments. What surprised me the most about the benchmark is how ‘stunted’ or ‘cut off’ the very low frequencies are expressed that the marantz does much better on. Stronger tight punch on low frequencies by marantz. Another person auditioned with me and we drew both the same conclusions.

We both concluded that measurements are of lesser importance and sound listening is much more important.

Interesting, that kind of subjective measurements based comparisons are on the internet often enough, so I am not surprised by your results. "We", was it 2, 3, or more? I would think that out of 100 people doing the same would likely result in no consensus opinions, but who's going to do such things with 100 participants? so it may never happen, and any such "conclusions" may not be all that conclusive if we have larger sample size.

We don’t know enough about what needs to be measured to draw valuable enough conclusions from that alone. Lesson learnt

It's not rocket science, but even rocket science has been figured out long ago, people landed on the moon, even Mars... As far as "Lesson learnt", sure, just not sure different people would have learnt different "Lesson".

Regardless, I hope you will get good $ for your AHB2, wish I had one as I happen to like the measured results lol...

 

[Newman]

I have auditioned the benchmark ahb2 recently against the marantz pm10 and even though the benchmark measures better the marantz sounds better. My benchmark ahb2 is up for sale. There is more detail revealed by the marantz with a bigger sound stage and better separation between instruments. What surprised me the most about the benchmark is how ‘stunted’ or ‘cut off’ the very low frequencies are expressed that the marantz does much better on. Stronger tight punch on low frequencies by marantz. Another person auditioned with me and we drew both the same conclusions.

We both concluded that measurements are of lesser importance and sound listening is much more important.

We don’t know enough about what needs to be measured to draw valuable enough conclusions from that alone. Lesson learnt

This, like most of your posting history, is "a standard hifi story". How many times have we read or heard such a story? In the press, in every showroom, in countless loungerooms, decade after decade. It is tempting to be persuaded by it, even if for no other reason than 'how can they all be wrong?'.

So why should we doubt its validity? Actually, there is a very good reason: the standard hifi story is based on a test method that is not valid for drawing the conclusions that people draw from them: conclusions about "what the sound waves themselves sound like".

It can be a bit of a mental leap to 'get' this, because it seems intuitively obvious that the "standard hifi story" component comparison listening test is a test of what the sound waves sound like. Well, it simply isn't so. Whenever a standard hifi story about the sound of this amp vs that amp, or this PSU vs that PSU, it put to the test in a controlled listening test (ie a test where non-sonic factors and sound level differences are not allowed to intrude), then it fails the test unless the devices have different frequency responses that one would expect to be audible.

So the lesson to learn is not the one you say you learned. The lesson is not that we don't know enough about measurements. The lesson is that we have to do a valid listening test if we want to know what we think of the sound waves themselves.

cheers

 

[youdontmakesense]

Measurements are something for sure. But they may not be everything.

 

[Purité Audio]

For electronics they are everything.
Keith

 

[youdontmakesense]

For electronics they are everything.
Keith

What if it measures well, but you don't like the sound Keith?

 

[Purité Audio]

You don’t like it you don’t like it, ultimately hifi is subjective.
Measurements allow you to choose well engineered product, if you you don‘t enjoy transparency that is fine, but understand that if it isn’t transparent then you are enjoying added distortion, not more ’real’ not more ‘analoge’ just added distortion.
Keith

 

[StigErik]

What if it measures well, but you don't like the sound Keith?

I can only answer for myself, but is such cases the error is somewhere else in the chain in my opinion.

 

[youdontmakesense]

this assume everything you are listening to, all the time, is perfectly mastered and lossless delivery though. Sometimes transparency isn't a good thing with lower quality recordings.

 

[Purité Audio]

You can’t improve a poor quality recording, you can I suppose use equipment which adds distortion to every single record good or bad.
Keith

 

[StigErik]

this assume everything you are listening to, all the time, is perfectly mastered and lossless delivery though. Sometimes transparency isn't a good thing with lower quality recordings.

I can't agree with you on that. Adding more distortion will make things more distorted.

 

[StigErik]

this assume everything you are listening to, all the time, is perfectly mastered and lossless delivery though. Sometimes transparency isn't a good thing with lower quality recordings.

... and by the way - you won't believe how much distortion that has already been added to "perfect" audiophile recordings.

 

[voodooless]

We don’t know enough about what needs to be measured to draw valuable enough conclusions from that alone. Lesson learnt

Yet we do know enough about how humans perceive the world to know that subjective tests are worthless. You learned nothing...

 

[antcollinet]

but what science knows today can and will change entirely tomorrow

Pretty convinced you are trolling here, but just in case:

Yes, science evolves - but it doesn't throw out everything and start again. What we have observed in the past doesn't change. New observations that don't fit the model may come along, but then the model has to adapt to fit both old and new observations.

An example:
We have a limited understanding of how gravity actually works at the deep physical level. But we don't need that, to understand that if our leg is underneath a suspended anvil we don't want to release the rope.

We might one day improve our understanding and be able to develop an anti gravity machine. But the anvil/leg issue remains in the absence of said machine.


Similarly audio.

Audio is pretty much the simplest ever application of electronics. So much so, that it was the first application over 150 years ago. We've been doing it that long, we know how to do it, we know how it works. We know how to design it, we know how to measure it and we know what those measurements mean.

Everything we have scientifically measured, and tested about audio stands, and will not be reversed. Furthermore, audio signals are amongst the simplest of physical phenomena to measure. There is only amplitude, frequency and phase. And we have measurement equipment able to measure those to a sensitivity way beyond that of our ears.

You can measure everything from a DAC or AMP that impacts the sound coming from the speakers. And therefore if there is a difference between the sound waves created by two different devices - reaching the subjects ear.

 

[antcollinet]

Het is dweilen met de kraan open

(It is like mopping the floor with the faucet still running)

See also "teaspooning"

Like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

 

[antcollinet]

The fact is that science and engineering can take you so far.

Do you think that SpaceX and Boeing will improve their success rate by guessing? Or by listening to the random opinions of lay people?

Or by applying sound scientific and engineering principles, experimenting, testing, learning from failures, and moving on?

Do you even understand the principles behind the phrase "move fast and break things"?

 

[antcollinet]

Measurements are something for sure. But they may not be everything.

And yet - everything that can be heard can be measured. Not everything that can be measured can be heard.

(A rephrase of "our measurement gear is much more sensitive than our ears")


PS to all : sorry for four posts in a row, I've just been catching up here.

 

[bodhi]

What if it measures well, but you don't like the sound Keith?

That is a wrong question. Start with "do I actually hear a difference or just imagine it".

Majority of discussions ending here contain all kinds of explanations why certain devices sound different even when they shouldn't. In very few of them there has been controlled test to find out if there is a difference and some that have mention of "controlled" testing as in "I didn't think I would hear a difference but I did so there can't be bias".

Step two could be controlled test to find out actual preference. This is rarely done but I think they would reveal that there is less consistency there than we expect, even with devices that actually sound measurably and audibly different.

 

[ThELiZ]

The thing that always puzzles me about ‘measurements are not everything’ is, if measurements don’t tell you everything, then how the heck do you know which part of your design is doing what?

Do designers just throw everything in a box and hope and pray it ‘sounds’ good? Surely there are electrical principles that need following? How were these electrical principles founded? By listening? Or measuring?

For instance, you always hear some bollocks about Naim amps having PRaT. If you can’t measure PrAT (which they seem to say you can’t), how the hell does the designer know which component or design to utilise to insert said PrAT?

Makes no sense to me