There must be some kind of way out of here...
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.
- ...
- 368 posts total
The way out is a dialogue out of the narrow mind set of few fetichist subjective people and also especially out of the objective obsession about electrical measures of few zealots, in a discussion appealing to more rigorous acoustic and psycho-acoustic concept and experience and experiments... After all the correlation between objective and subjective attitude must be a learned experience in an ongoing process in an experimental listening history proper to each of us... Then calling people "deluded audiophile" or throwing appeal to ban objectivist is not a sane mental behaviour... |
Seem to me that if a product measure worse in a parameter than another its objectively worse based on that parameter. But as I suggested before if one posits a given level of distortion is inaudible reducing that level of distortion a hundredfold cannot affect the audible experience The measurement it important from the marketing and quality control standpoint of course. To suggest a piece that measures worse cant sound good isnt sustainable after a minimum standard is met, If you cd establish level of distortion that is audible that might be helpful but wdnt necessarily mean the piece wd not sound good You wd need to be able to prove that an audible level of distortion was detectable to a large number of folk who wd independently agree it sounded bad to make the point And then you are back to listening test vs measurement no?
|
@mahgister @deludedaudiophile OP here. Let's give some others a chance to chime in. You must have said everything that needs to be said by now. Thanx. |
Great post! You are right but some dont understand what a "process" means...A process is a two way road between O and S perspectives... They want to reduce subjective experience to objective measures without being conscious that psycho-acoustic is a progressive science which cannot be reduced to electronics...
|
- 368 posts total