The question "Is there more to Audio Measurements" is a rather open question to start with. I mean, let's face it, tomorrow we may have measurements that we don't have today, so in that case the answer is yes. OTH, if this is a question whether measurements is everything, then ho-hum and yawn, let us then spend more time measuring than listening?
So if Bill would like to state the case for the 'other side' being the measurement side, please tell what it all means and why we need to have it shoved down our throats.
One of the better phrases I came across recently was 'militant science' and that some persons wants to have a never-ending war on, whatever it is, maybe their perception of 'ignorance' and that these other poor people have to be saved from whatever they reckon is some kind of peril: Tomorrow you will die if you don't get this right! I somehow doubt it.
I will always say the measurements are important, they at least tell me whether something works or is faulty. Correlation between what we measure and what we hear, that is a tenous connection at best. Or else I will substitute my ears for two oscilloscopes strapped to the sides of my head and then If I can like the colour of the x-y plot and if it's pink I must be, you know what? I will never be satisfied.
This never-ending war does seem to me to be waged by one side alone, the 'militant science' side - hey, this forum is not about religion, so stop preaching!
BTW, no answer yet on my speaker questions?
Cheerioh, Joe
Last edited:
It's a non-question open to interpretation, whoever dreamed it up didn't do a very good job of it IMO, or had an agenda of their own, now, who could that be I wonder...........
Yes, measurements are of importance but they don't currently come near to the job that auditory processing performs on the same waveforms - this is the crux of the matter. Trying to extrapolate from limited measurements with rudimentary test signals to how a sophisticated auditory processing system will analyze & perceive a complex, dynamically changing waveform such as music playback through our stereo systems should give everyone pause for thought.
No, for some it can be bliss because I know for a fact that there will be cases when even you would look the other way. I want complete ignorance of diapers.
Again, what you say is an example of 'militant science' and I don't indulge. Turn off the aggro; I am reminded that putting other people down is actually just bragging, elevating yourself above others, it's all about egos.
This is diyaudio.com and was never meant as a ideological battle ground.
This was about sharing and having fun, two thousand years ago somebody wise said "there is more happiness in giving than in receiving" and that is in fact the truth - because it works for both sides.
You do realize that your response works on 2 levels. The logical fallacy attempting to prove some aspect of audio signals which are yet to be measured. Also, the logical fallacy that diyaudio.com and was never meant to be an ideological battle ground.
Last edited:
Groupwise belief in a definition of science constitutes already an ideology.
There should be no change of ideology in science, but we know from history of science that there always was. Otherwise it would have exist a fixed set of rules, that define what science is, right from the beginning.
Instead of that the set of rules was/is evolving, which means "changing ideology" .
The ongoing discussion about the replication crisis in science (more precisely in certain fields) illustrates the problems introduced by sharing a partly flawed "ideology" .
I´m sure it was already mentioned in this thread, but the problem of audio measurement is to interpret any data the same way our ear/brain tag team does.
The system is nonlinear, can be working quite differently on an individual basis, and can create/attribute the same impression from/to different physical stimuli.
So, what you need is constant refinement by doing combined physical measurements and listening tests and there is imo indeed still a lot to explore.
To discover which/what measurements are relevant? If so I can appreciate that.
However, if the signal is being as accurately reproduced as possible, which surely can be measured, what is the problem?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.