In Reply to: "There is certainly no objective measure for it." posted by mlsstl on February 21, 2024 at 06:57:27:
It may be that there are things not measured that affect how we perceive sound in subtle ways. But a lot IS known about what we hear and what we DON'T hear. Take the perceptual coding for mp3 (I'll pause while you finish recoiling) - this uses knowledge of what we cannot hear and it works very well considering how much of the signal is discarded.If product A can be demonstrably shown to recreate a signal more accurately than product B but the audiophile prefers B it is always seen as a problem with product A - 'I just trust my ears' & 'you're measuring the wrong thing'. I think audiophiles should think more critically.
Reviews, huh, yeah
What are they good for
Absolutely nothing.
They are for marketing promotion and entertainment only. And yet someone can use them as the basis for an infallible argument about something they've never heard based on reviewers they've never met.Which brings me to the last point. When measurements are made the equipment is calibrated to make sure the numbers are accurate. Reviewers are never calibrated - we don't really know whether they heard what they say they heard or whether they only think they heard what they say they heard. I believe reviewers should be accredited by passing unsighted listening tests (or, at least, taking tests). I strongly suspect that in unsighted tests many of the reported differences between equipment would disappear. If you are a reviewer whose job as a reviewer depends on being able to differentiate between equipment you will find differences. If you are an audiophile whose self-worth is tied up with being able to differentiate between equipment the same applies.
In summary, what we do measure tells us something and maybe something important is missing. But, we measure zero about what goes on between the ears of those listening.
Edits: 02/21/24
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "The problem with measurements". Some thoughts .... - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 11:21:44 02/21/24 (15)
- RE: "The problem with measurements". Some thoughts .... - morricab 00:58:54 02/22/24 (14)
- RE: "The problem with measurements". Some thoughts .... - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 10:22:48 02/22/24 (5)
- RE: "The problem with measurements". Some thoughts .... - morricab 07:55:21 02/29/24 (0)
- An 'artifact' in case of single-component soundstage - Feanor 04:36:38 02/26/24 (3)
- RE: An 'artifact' in case of single-component soundstage - morricab 08:01:28 02/29/24 (2)
- So what "magic" accounts for the phenomenon? - Feanor 04:49:31 03/04/24 (1)
- RE: So what "magic" accounts for the phenomenon? - morricab 06:05:38 03/04/24 (0)
- Depends of the DAC (??) - Feanor 05:11:37 02/22/24 (7)
- RE: Depends of the DAC (??) - morricab 07:23:34 02/22/24 (6)
- How do FETs measure differently from bipolars? - Feanor 10:19:33 02/24/24 (5)
- RE: How do FETs measure differently from bipolars? - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 19:34:16 02/25/24 (1)
- RE: How do FETs measure differently from bipolars? - morricab 07:22:59 02/29/24 (0)
- RE: How do FETs measure differently from bipolars? - mlsstl 12:49:37 02/24/24 (1)
- Thanks for that, which I have seen before. Also ... - Feanor 04:24:12 02/26/24 (0)
- RE: How do FETs measure differently from bipolars? - morricab 11:28:45 02/24/24 (0)