Amir and Blind Testing

Lols Amir is like religion to the the objectivists.

@tonywinga, there has not been a Bureau of Standards for almost 35 years. Bringing this up shows you don’t have any experience in calibration or measurements which is likely why you were "abused". Other than absolute gain, what exactly do you think a NIST traceable calibration would be on an audio tester? A large portion of the test gear for what I do is not NIST traceable for calibration. Why? NIST does not have any standard remotely applicable. It’s fine for basic things like current, voltage, weight, thickness, etc. but not for complex measurements that either don’t have a standard or are defined by other technical bodies.

This is why I don’t post often in audio forums. Conversations just end up as pages of whining because 1/2 the world does not believe what I believe and I am offended that they will not stop. What is worse, people will make things up to support their argument.

Take this piece below. This is so factually incorrect that I wonder if the author even visited the site? I don’t go to ASR often either, as most of their threads end up as technical fights about things I don't care about, but when I was planning my room, I asked a lot of acoustic questions there and I can state without reserve, that most there would never discount acoustics and would abuse you if you said acoustics did not matter.

Wow, another self proclaimed expert.  Spectrum and frequency analyzers do need to be calibrated.  Since I was an Engineering Manager for several years with one of my responsibilities being test equipment design, calibration and repair in a major Aerospace Company I know that first hand.  All test equipment should be traceable back to the Bureau of Standards or NIST for serious test work or analysis.  Nitpick over the name if you like.  And guess what- equipment loses its calibration.  Protocols were required to deal with product previously tested on equipment found to be out of calibration by more than a certain amount.

I use my iPhone or iPad apps to measure things but I treat is as comparative data, not absolute and I always qualify that as reference only.

deludedaudiophile

You quote me then i want to be understood clearly...

"Gear tasting brand name subjective fetichists" or " Measuring tool alleged Objective fetichist" focus, the two warring groups, on the GEAR PIECE ...They are gear obsessed...

One group trust ONLY their ears, the other group trust ONLY the numbers they look for...

The two group recognize the existence of acoustic and psycho-acoustic science for sure and give it a lip service for sure but my point is the two groups COMPLETELY UNDERESTIMATE the huge impact of acoustic treatment and especially of acoustic mechanical control of SMALLROOM  and also of mechanical vibration control of the system  and electrical noise floor level control of the house... The goal being AT THE END  how to reach the best S.Q./price ratio ...

They war each other ignoring that the only important factor in audio is not measured numbers alone or ears ALONE but their ongoing CORRELATION...

Then i am not a "deluded audiophile" like your avatar name suggest i may be, and i am not an Amir disciple either...

I used my EARS to tune my room by myself with a rigourous step by step process where location, reverberation  time, timing, intensity sound level, time delay differential between each ears from each speakers etc play a major role..

In this process ears listenings and objective measures and objective measures ratio between the mechanical device parts are CORRELATED one with another to make the tuning process a succeess... i made it at NO COST by myself with only homemade devices...

I hope to be counted in NONE of these two groups, but for sure i dont dismiss ears training like one of this group systematically  do...

My best to you....And welcome here....

And speaking of correlation, that is a big bugaboo.  Correlating test equipment is the biggest pain ever.  The question is; how can two piece of test equipment, both being calibrated give two different measurements for the same part?  The answer is yes.  That's it.  Yes.  So the old saying goes; "a man with two watches is never sure what time it is."  A lot of time and effort spent over the years getting test equipment in two or more locations to correlate.

Then we talk about subjective evaluations and the results will be all over the map.  Subjective evaluation is often used where measurements cannot give a complete picture.  We do it all the time in the audio world and I'm sure that most if not all audio equipment manufacturers do subjective testing as well.  A jury must be trained to listen for specific characteristics and typically receive very specific guidelines detailing how to rate a component or system.  In my experience, the environment is closely controlled and the subjective evaluations are repeated by the panel several times over a few days.  Our moods and previous environmental exposure can affect the results.  So we Audiophiles are typically self taught in the art of listening.  These forums and articles can provide instruction as well.  I'm not saying I'm a great expert at subjective listening.  I'm in my mid 60s now and recently I was at the Tampa Audio Expo with my son who is 31.  He could hear things in the various rooms that I just could not pick up.  And based on that I am telling myself now that I really need not spend so much on upgrades these days.  I have hit my limit of hearing.  But I have no doubt that others can hear differences that make sense to upgrade.  I have a 45 year history of that.