I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.


I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep. 

128x128russ69

The current type of measurements as practiced over at ASR and similar sources just are not predictive of how a product will sound. This is patently obvious,  no correlation to subsequent sound quality at all.

How can you possibly state this with such confidence without proving that you or anyone can reliably detect differences after 2 components have been tested by a sight like ASR or equivalent.

- THD+N from 100mW to max power at 20Hz, 500Hz, 1-5-10-15KHz.

- Power versus distortion single frequency from 10mW to max

- Frequency response at 4R, which would allow extraction of output resistance

- 32 tone inter modulation tests. This would represent real music.

- I saw a 2 ohm test on a recent amp from 50mW and up

ON DACs add:

- frequency response at various input sample rates and with the different filters the DAC offers.

- jitter test

- usually tests all the input types, but not consistent

 

I am aware of some videos highlighting some potential corner conditions (at least with DACs) that ASR does not test for, but which may also not be an issue with real music. This still brings me back to my first paragraph. With real music can you detect issues?

Ralph what you are referring to in terms of measurements is far removed from what we are presently being provided from these sites and their advocates. I would sincerely welcome legitimate and predictive measurements.

@charles1dad ASR is actually providing a lot of information, much of it quite useful. They don’t always hit the nail on the head (see the PSAudio regenerator review where Amirim pretty well missed the point). But they do graph distortion vs frequency and usually show the distortion spectra. I’d like to see the distortion spectra a -6dB of full power in addition to 1 Watt, and also see the distortion vs frequency at 1 Watt, -6db of full power and also full power. They could do all that if they caused their hands to move. So my opinion of them is higher than yours; and I think they can do better with little effort.

If you see distortion rising with frequency take that as a Bad Thing (likely bright and harsh, not what you like if my guess is right 😉). Your SETs don’t do that, neither do our OTLs or any zero feedback amplifier. Amps that run feedback need to not do that too. So right there you know something very useful that is routine on that site.

 

To me ASR does pretty good with DAC measurements and Speakers, especially since he got the Klippel. 

@djones51 

ABX and blind tests are the platinum standard. Sighted tests are dismissed as irrelevant, no way to have a control for bias. I fail to understand this idiotic aversion to science.  

 

This aversion to science seems to be endemic amongst throughout history.

Let's not forget that Galileo, Darwin and Freud have all been vilified for daring to even suggest that mankind is perhaps not the God created centre of the known universe.

As you might expect, most of the anger came from those that had a vested interest in denying the evidence that was presented, namely certain powers in the church.

With audio, you could argue that the reasons for denying science are somewhat less principled.

Here, amongst certain unscrupulous corners of the industry, it's not a question of a possible theological or even philosophical belief, but merely an attempt of sheer greed by deception.

 

As we already know, not even scientists and engineers can live in a world free of outside political and economic influence and temptation. Some can be easily bought and sold all too easily in this age of pragmatism.

 

Now as to the reasons why some consumers would reject scientific data, perhaps it's just a question of pigheadedness?

@cd318 Now as to the reasons why some consumers would reject scientific data, perhaps it’s just a question of pigheadedness?

I haven’t noticed any participant on this thread rejecting scientific data, who’s doing that? I would acknowledge that there are posters (including myself) who believe reliance on measurement is no substitution for listening. Ralph has eloquently pointed out that relevant measurements are rarely utilized and presented even though they’re available.

Speaking of scientific data rejection, why are some so seemingly narrow minded and dismissive of the research and information regarding the fascinating study of ear-brain processing of interpreting sound? Too complex to bother with? Science demands curiosity, humbleness and an open mind. Probably a lot simpler and reassuring to just cite data from a sheet of paper.

The effort to delve into the science of human hearing may just be too daunting for some, so it’s easily ignored.

Charles