2. misc-audio
  3. 174426-96572

True or False?

The following is a common sentiment from some who claim to be audiophiles.

If you hear something but can’t measure it, you only think you heard a difference.

 

This notion is also common among people who claim to possess an accomplished understanding of audio, especially when achieving a high level of performance for a minimal investment.

So who’s right? On the one hand we have Objectivists who claim if you can’t measure it, you can’t possibly hear it or if you do, its expectation bias and self delusion. Are these people correct? Do they get as good as a sound, or better for far less money by ignoring cables, power cords, mechanical isolation, basically any accessory that many have found to dramatically improve performance despite a lack measurements? Do those who dismiss expensive digital to analog converters as being no better than rather common digital components with decent measurements get just as high a performance level as those of us with MSB and DCS? Do people who claim it’s all about finding perfect speaker placement, do these people outperform those of us with systems that cost multiples more than what they pay (Who also pay close attention to speaker placement as well as everything else)? Or do those of us who pay attention to cables— digital, analog, and power, what we set our components on top of, how we place our speakers, acoustics, and tweaks, expensive DACs and the like, do we get better sound? Who’s right? And how do we ultimately determine sound quality?

 

 

 

128x128ted_denney
russ69's avatar
russ69
3,501 posts
 

I do not understand why one would spend $x on audio gear and not, at the very least, spend 2-3 days with REW, listen and measure as to extract everything out of your room and system.

Thanks for the well thought out post. I'm not sure I can respond with a reasoned answer. The only thing I can say is I learned a long time ago that you can't make a deficient loudspeaker do what it physically is not capable of doing. So electronic correction has its limits. I also like clean simple systems so adding ANY device into the signal path has a downside. Then finally, I've been doing this a long time and even though I use trial and error, I usually stumble upon a workable solution in the end. I'm not against measurements, I just find their usefulness, in home audio systems, very limited.  

Post removed 
milpai's avatar
milpai
2,374 posts
 

I have never met an Measurementista that had a high-end system.

+1 on this one. Show me a system that these measurement freaks have that has proper and careful placement. There are a few on this site. But notice how uneven or carelessly placed those systems are. Now if you ask me to show them - I don't recollect one top of my mind. But search for users who side with the measurement freaks and then check their system page. Most measurement freaks think that they can simply buy stuff, put it in a room and be done. Yeah, right.

 

My measurement devices were refined by natural selection over thousands of years and are responsible for the survival of multiple generations.

Exactly. Point is that measurements freaks don't trust their hearing. Hence they seek to validate.

Every ear is different, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Glad you feel that way. You are probably a rarity in the measurement freak world. For rest of them, only measurement OR their opinions matters.

ted_denney's avatar
ted_denney OP
286 posts
 

Reading some responses above, I need to point something out. Nowhere in my original post do I say anything of this being an either or where acoustics are concerned. I actually state that along with paying attention to cables and other accessories, we also pay attention to acoustics. Lots of attention and that also includes running rudimentary programs like REW. This is how great systems are made, by paying attention to everything.

decooney
1,972 posts
 

@ted_denney "And how do we ultimately determine sound quality?"

By what sounds good to my ears, not others.  

More to discover