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

I will take my ears over any kind of measuring device. Sight,taste,sound are surely very subjective.  Can someone tell you what your favorite food should be? While we might be able to agree that a particular woman might be beautiful,do we all agree exactly why?  We also might all recognize the sound of a train. Do we all hear it the same? I think sometimes we might get a little too tied up with how something might measure,vs the reality of what our ears are telling our brains. Is it possible that a good measurement might cause a certain amount of expectation bias? It measures great,thus it must sound great?  

If you can show any of it, then it should be easier for us to grasp it

If they could show it,  they would. They don't even use their ears to listen but their eyes. If it really was

clear as day to hear the effect of digital cables

Should be like a walk in the park to sit and listen blindfolded while an uninterested third party tested this. 

Yeah, I know it's not a science experiment but a hobby, like magic 

 

How can the measurementistas assume that every possible measurement has been discovered? Even with existing measurements, few agree on the actual tolerances or hearing limits into which the measurements and tolerances fit. It’s also rare that any reviewer mentions humidity, atmospheric pressure, what they ate during their last meal, the blood glucose levels, blood pressure, mood, medications or any other variable that could impact earing acuity.

 

In the late 1990s, I was personally involved in a test of two absolutely identical models of preamps. There was a three millibel difference in the otherwise dead flat frequency response. 3 MILLIBELS, NOT 3 DECIBELS! Four listeners were involved. We were consistently able to identify a difference and to say which unit was the "A" unit and which was the "B" unit. The difference didn’t jump out and grab us, it was more of a subtle hardness. But we all agreed that the unit without the hardness was the winner.

The manufacturer that hosted this test built all his equipment to a much closer tolerance because of the results of that test. It required special instrumentation, very clean electrical circuits feeding the equipment and a lot of patience and understanding of his circuit and the components used in his equipment. He still enjoys a reputation as to top designed and manufacturer.

 

We can measure car for 0 to 60 and how it handle and study most popular paint color but can not measure feeling man gets while drive car.