|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.81.91.100
In Reply to: RE: "place no credence in ... uncontrolled tests" - fair enough. But why would you place any credence.... posted by carcass93 on July 02, 2015 at 12:41:37
Yes. I do think Archimago's is using "adequate" tools for the job. What is wrong with them? But, I am happy to keep my mind open to any critique of those tools or methods. And, I am certainly open to anyone else attempting to do a "better" job of measurement, which essentially does not exist on the Internet as far as I am aware.
I am quite convinced that sighted listening testimonials under unspecified conditions by unknown listeners with their choice of music recordings are inferior to Archimago's attempts to provide more objectivity and repeatability. Subjective listening may convince a poster that his own "tests" provide proof of some benefit, but why should I personally believe them? As I said at the outset, I am a skeptic. I have the same problem with most reviews in high end audio mags, by the way. There are some of USB cables in the current The Absolute Sound, for example, that are garbage in my opinion.
Whose approach about the applicability to everyone else are you referring to? Archimago's? I have never seen that in writing from him. I do not generally see it from subjective testimonials either. So, what is your point?
I looked but I found no measurements by Thorsten. As I said, I would welcome them as opposed to pages and pages in threads here and in CA about how much better XYZ sounded in their system. Or, I could just believe Lavorgna's review of the AudioQuest Diamond Ethernet cable, one of his advertisers, as the end all, be all sonically, even though he eventually was discovered to have induced a noise problem via EMI on the analog side of his system during his careful " listening tests".
Follow Ups:
They are simply not adequate for what he wants to measure. Hence the same results again and again. It's all a great waste of time and effort for him and 'believers' like you.
So, you believe his measurements are inadequate, and I believe, without further hard evidence which you have not provided, that they are. It seems to me we are both just "believers" in something, you just as much as me.
Just because you do not like the results that he gets does not mean his measurements are "inadequate". Maybe digital playback is in fact generally the same in sonic terms, and the claimed sonic differences are myths in people's minds, for example because of expectation bias. Maybe it is sighted and uncontrolled subjective listening that is inadequate. How can you say for sure?
There may be lots of useless idiots with cheap tape measures. It does not mean they are competent carpenters.
If someone presents measurements, it is up to him to specify the accuracy and precision of his measurements and to provide plausible arguments supporting his position. It is not up to other people to prove him wrong. Furthermore, if his measurements tend to go against another person's prior knowledge or belief it is reasonable for that other person to be highly skeptical of the measurements.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I know, so do inmates here who are competent.
He is measuring his inadequate instruments.
"Yes. I do think Archimago's is using "adequate" tools for the job...."
Pretty fumy stuff. Much easier not having to think and just go by some useless fake technology.
Measurement tools are adequate only if they are 10x better than the devices being measured. Otherwise, one needs to be an experimental genius to make sense out of the results.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
10x? Where did that come from? Do you mean to say that the 180 mph speedometer in my car is no good above 18 mph?
This shows that you don't know anything about measurement systems.
I actually gave specific advice to him on what needed improving but he seems to insist on using the same stuff.
Waste of time.
That would be most interesting. Do you have any links to such a discussion?
So do you still think USB cables all sound the same?
I guess you might not understand the meaning of the resolution? Are you traveling 18mph or 17.999999?
I was being facetious, of course. And, resolution was not explicitly stated as an issue in Tony's post, to which I responded.
Now, here is a question for you. What is the difference between accuracy and precision? It seems to me that something can be very precise in the sense of having many decimal places in the answer, but it still might be wrong - off target.
Precision does not answer the accuracy question, and accuracy does not answer the precision question. Can an analog voltmeter with its swinging needle not be just as accurate in getting the magnitude right enough for purposes of comparison as a digital one with many decimal places? Aren't both speeds in your 18 mph example equally as accurate, with the many decimal places in the digital representation being useless for the purposes of driving the car?
I am completely open minded and just as ready as anyone else to jump on poor Archimago if indeed his measurements can be proven to be inaccurate. I am not seeing that proof, though. Do you have it? I am seeing a dismissive wave of the hand by many that seems motivated by a distaste for his results rather than the reason stated, which is his "bad" testing equipment and procedures.
I listen, too, and I do not make measurements, except for room acoustics, and I do reach my own conclusions. I do question those listening conclusions, especially if there is a perceived small difference, and try to avoid at least conscious bias. None of us can do much about eliminating unconscious bias in listening, except to try to design listening experiments or measurement protocols that reduce the possibility of unconscious bias, which is known to be pervasive in many fields from a host of experiments.
But, are anecdotal listening reports under uncontrolled conditions the gold standard? That is what many here seem to want to be the case. My own listening is often good enough for me, but I do not presume it to be good enough for anyone else unless I can offer more objective proof.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: