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

Based on my observations of this controversy over many years I will attempt to elucidate the divide.

I cannot speak for all s, but at least a portion of us believe we can best achieve our goals for sound reproduction with audio systems by listening. We believe with experience and mindfulness, listening skills can be valid means to accurately convey to our minds and senses such that we can accurately choose components and systems that conform as close as possible to our aural memories of live non-amplified music. This being possible while at the same time understanding and acknowledging our sensory limitations and/or subjective qualities of them. We don't deny the validity of measurements, we simply believe current measurement protocol isn't capable of measuring what our ears and senses convey to us.

 

Again, I can't speak to all o, buy my understanding of their position is that as imperfect as present measurement protocol is, if that is even an admitted liability, it is still superior to the most skilled listener in ascertaining component and system sound quality. The senses are not and cannot be relied upon vs measurement.

 

If I have this right, I don't see the divide ending anytime soon. both sides are going to hang onto their beliefs. Some 0 may disagree with my use of the word belief attached to their argument, my retort to that is current measurement protocol doesn't explain everything, thus, some measure of belief applied to o argument.

 

I'll only make this one last argument to defend the s side. Again, I don't want to speak for all s, but I believe many, if not all of us live life to pleasure our senses. We enjoy good food to pleasure our palate, we love to gaze at esthetically  pleasing form to pleasure our sight, we love to hear music reproduced on audio systems that pleasure our hearing. In order to attain pleasure of the senses one needs to simply enjoy, not always second guessing or analyzing and/or doubting our senses. Yes, part of this is monkey brain, we have inherent needs for pleasure. While we are aware of the limitations of our sensory perceptions, we can trust in them enough to derive pleasure from them.

 

I derive great pleasure from my present audio system, I'm well aware of it's limitations, but it conforms close enough to live non-amplified instrument and vocal timbre, and also conforms in other parameters of sound quality enough to believe live performance is taking place in my audio room. And this doesn't take a lot of mind twisting and/or suspension of reality to achieve. I'm well acquainted with this aspect of stereo reproduction and perception, and I know the less work one has to do here pays off handsomely in pleasuring one's senses. Whether the pleasure  I currently experience from my unique audio system conforms to some other persons idea of what a system ought to be, frankly, doesn't bother me in the least.

This divide between O and S comes from the focus on electronic tools and components...

They together ignore the psycho-acoustic and acoustic impact which is way over some "taste" for gear or over some "measurements" evaluation of the same gear...

That is life, acoustic is more complicated to decipher and read about than a few electrical concepts charts about an amplifier...

A room was a hard task to master...For me....

😁😊

Some say: garbage in from the source ,garbage out from the source...

I will say if your speakers/ room is acoustic garbage your head will be too....Nevermind the source...

It is way more easy to afford a relatively good dac than a relatively good room...

And you dont know your room if you dont work it....

Again, I can't speak to all o, buy my understanding of their position is that as imperfect as present measurement protocol is, if that is even an admitted liability, it is still superior to the most skilled listener in ascertaining component and system sound quality. The senses are not and cannot be relied upon vs measurement.

I consider myself entrenched in using objective measurements and I agree you can't paint all with the same brush but this isn't my position as far as someone building a system they enjoy. 

@sns 

Touche!

Listening to music is an emotionally pleasurable experience. I'm very grateful  to be able to recognize and appreciate that it is truly a gift to mankind to enjoy. There is a music genre for every cultural and individual taste.

Charles