tweaks and proof

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
the person making the claims to prove them.

In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof,
an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
substantiates or proves nothing.

For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,
there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
effect claimed.

It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets
of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying
all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.

As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know
and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but
no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
better product than all of the guesswork done previously.

This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
unsubstaniated claims.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: "Rich.Andrews" bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org
>Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
>prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
>then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
>devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
>the person making the claims to prove them.
>
>In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof,
>an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
>indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
>substantiates or proves nothing.
>
>For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
>sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
>available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,
>there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
>effect claimed.
>
>It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets
>of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying
>all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.
>
>As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
>interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know
>and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
>using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but
>no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
>that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
>better product than all of the guesswork done previously.
>
>This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
>unsubstaniated claims.
>
>r
>
>
>--
>Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a
difference in the sound.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> >From: "Rich.Andrews" bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org
> >Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>
> >
> >With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
> >prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
> >then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
> >devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
> >the person making the claims to prove them.
> >
> >In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof,
> >an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
> >indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
> >substantiates or proves nothing.
> >
> >For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
> >sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
> >available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,
> >there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
> >effect claimed.
> >
> >It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets
> >of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying
> >all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.
> >
> >As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
> >interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know
> >and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
> >using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but
> >no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
> >that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
> >better product than all of the guesswork done previously.
> >
> >This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
> >unsubstaniated claims.
> >
> >r
> >
> >
> >--
> >Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a
> difference in the sound.

What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'?
Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?

And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

That is not true of acoustics unless the signal being measured is the
acoustic output (room + signal). In other words, anything that is done
to effect the acoustics (or mechanical isolation from acoustic
feedback in the case of equipment) could be considered a tweek if it
were not part of the original equipment but could also not be measured
as part of the electrical signal only. Basically the original poster's
(Rich's) idea is so broad as not to be able to be addressed. So broad
in fact that it is obvious without any tests that many things that
could be called tweeks would work well and measure well, while others
would not. Then we could go on and say of the ones that did "work"
(we'll say "have a real effect") that they may or may not have a
"beneficial" effect. Just because something is different does not make
it better, so we are left deciding what better means, ad nausem - a
real can of worms that has been dented to death here and elsewhere.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cao1tr0h93@news4.newsguy.com...
> >From: "Rich.Andrews" bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org
> >Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>
> >
> >With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has
been
> >prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or
hold even
> >then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not
one could
> >devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is
up to
> >the person making the claims to prove them.
> >
> >In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without
proof,
> >an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be
an
> >indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
> >substantiates or proves nothing.
> >
> >For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product
not just
> >sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 v
ariety
> >available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single
atoms,
> >there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify
an
> >effect claimed.
> >
> >It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in
cabinets
> >of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are
trying
> >all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.
> >
> >As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
> >interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They
don't know
> >and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and
tests
> >using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating
around, but
> >no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I
believe
> >that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to
produce a
> >better product than all of the guesswork done previously.
> >
> >This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
> >unsubstaniated claims.
> >
> >r
> >
> >
> >--
> >Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT
tapes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given
tweak makes
> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't
possibly make a
> difference in the sound.

 

[lasse]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rich.Andrews" <bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org> wrote in message news:<canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
> For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
> sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
> available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,
> there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
> effect claimed.

Measuring difference could be easy, but the measurements do not tell if
this difference is desirable or not. We cannot evaluate even speakers
based on measurements only, so how could we do this with tweaks?

Lasse Ukkonen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message news:<gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>...

>
> What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'?
> Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?

Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound.
It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when
one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter
measurement.".

I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then.

Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TChelvam <tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message news:<gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>...

> >
> > What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'?
> > Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?

> Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound.
> It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when
> one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter
> measurement.".

> I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then.

> Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.

AIUI, jitter had been known about before then, by the telecommunications
industry.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TChelvam <tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message news:<gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>...

> >
> > What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'?
> > Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?

> Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound.
> It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when
> one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter
> measurement.".

> I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then.

> Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.

AIUI, jitter had been known about before then, by the telecommunications
industry.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rich.Andrews" <bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org> wrote in message news:<canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>...
> With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
> prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
> then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
> devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
> the person making the claims to prove them.

Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed
journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply
saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim
is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to
another's sensory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:

>Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:<gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>...
>
>>
>> What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right
>thing*'?
>> Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?
>
>Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound.
> It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when
>one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter
>measurement.".
>
> I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then.
>
>Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.

Actually jitter was a known and solved problem in telecommunications 20 years
prior to that. The American public first used digital audio as early as 1962
when Westren Electric installed the first digital carrier systems in the long
distance network in Illinois.

As a former Bell Labs scientist explained to me about 1986; jitter can be a
performance issue when you have a call that is placed from New Jersey and
finally connected in Los Angeles after several alternate possible route-ings
and multiple analog to digital and reverse conversions but it isn't an issue
between your cd player and dac inboard or otherwise.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Nousaine wrote:

> tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:
>
>
>>Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:<gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>...
>>
>>
>>>What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right
>>
>>thing*'?
>>
>>>Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?
>>
>>Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound.
>>It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when
>>one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter
>>measurement.".
>>
>>I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then.
>>
>>Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.
>
>
> Actually jitter was a known and solved problem in telecommunications 20 years
> prior to that. The American public first used digital audio as early as 1962
> when Westren Electric installed the first digital carrier systems in the long
> distance network in Illinois.
>
> As a former Bell Labs scientist explained to me about 1986; jitter can be a
> performance issue when you have a call that is placed from New Jersey and
> finally connected in Los Angeles after several alternate possible route-ings
> and multiple analog to digital and reverse conversions but it isn't an issue
> between your cd player and dac inboard or otherwise.
>
But then, that would depend on the quality of the measurment. In phone
conversation, we aren't looking for audiophile quality, so any jitter
they find on the phone must be extreme. The jitter in audio is probably
high enough to be bothersome to those "golden ears" but more than
acceptable to phone conversations.

CD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>Date: 6/15/2004 5:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>
>
>S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>> >From: "Rich.Andrews" bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org
>> >Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>
>> >
>> >With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
>> >prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
>> >then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
>
>> >devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
>> >the person making the claims to prove them.
>> >
>> >In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof,
>
>> >an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
>> >indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
>> >substantiates or proves nothing.
>> >
>> >For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
>> >sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
>> >available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,
>
>> >there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
>> >effect claimed.
>> >
>> >It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets
>
>> >of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying
>> >all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.
>> >
>> >As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
>> >interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know
>
>> >and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
>> >using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but
>> >no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
>> >that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
>> >better product than all of the guesswork done previously.
>> >
>> >This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
>> >unsubstaniated claims.
>> >
>> >r
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
>> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly
>make a
>> difference in the sound.
>
>What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right
>thing*'?

Nothing I suppose. But one can always ask this someone what they think is not
being measured. Who knows, maybe in some cases such people are actually right.


>Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?

People can claim anything they want to claim. I believe everything that can be
heard by a human being can be measured. That doesn't mean it always is being
measured when some one makes measurements.


>
>And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.


Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound with
the same associated equipment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:z80Ac.115232$Ly.18026@attbi_s01...
> "Rich.Andrews" <bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org> wrote in message
news:<canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
> > prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold
even
> > then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one
could
> > devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up
to
> > the person making the claims to prove them.
>
> Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed
> journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply
> saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim
> is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to
> another's sensory.
>
Actually, we haven't gotten to the stage of having you prove to a third
party that they can hear a difference, we'll settle for you proving that YOU
can hear a difference.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cao1tr0h93@news4.newsguy.com...
> >From: "Rich.Andrews" bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org
> >Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>
> >
> >With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
> >prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold
even
> >then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one
could
> >devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up
to
> >the person making the claims to prove them.
> >
> >In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without
proof,
> >an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
> >indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
> >substantiates or proves nothing.
> >
> >For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not
just
> >sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49
variety
> >available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single
atoms,
> >there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
> >effect claimed.
> >
> >It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in
cabinets
> >of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are
trying
> >all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.
> >
> >As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
> >interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't
know
> >and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
> >using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around,
but
> >no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
> >that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
> >better product than all of the guesswork done previously.
> >
> >This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
> >unsubstaniated claims.
> >
> >r
> >
>
> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak
makes
> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly
make a
> difference in the sound.

In the digital domain this is a reasonable statement.

Alan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Uptown Audio <uptownaudio@rev.net> wrote in message news:<eEOzc.47487$0y.2739@attbi_s03>...
> That is not true of acoustics unless the signal being measured is the
> acoustic output (room + signal). In other words, anything that is done
> to effect the acoustics (or mechanical isolation from acoustic
> feedback in the case of equipment) could be considered a tweek if it
> were not part of the original equipment but could also not be measured
> as part of the electrical signal only.

Ironically I was thinking along similar lines, except taking it
farther to say that the only conceivable way to measure alleged
audible differences between Before & After "tweaks" would be to
measure the acoustic output of the complete sound system in the room.
It does no good (other than to assure some smug self-congratulatory
backpatting amongst the naysayers) to measure the electrical signal at
the output of a $200 interconnect cable & show that it is identical to
the electrical output of a $4 interconnect cable; the tweakophile who
claims he heard a difference heard it connected to the rest of his
audio system in his listening room through his ears, *not* through
some direct electrical connection to the cable. Perhaps that $200
cable interacts bizarrely with the rest of his components, causing
them to perform differently? If so, one would be hard pressed to argue
that difference is not a measurable difference. Time Domain
Spectrometry and FFT can map some fairly refined acoustic phenomena,
so why not measure the sum total net difference in acoustic output of
a sound system, both Before & After the application of a "tweak" &
compare the results?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message news:<cao1tr0h93@news4.newsguy.com>...

> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a
> difference in the sound.

Not supportable. What evidence do you have that 'everything audible'
is the same set as 'everything measurable'?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:17:03 GMT, mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

>"Rich.Andrews" <bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org> wrote in message news:<canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
>> prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
>> then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
>> devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
>> the person making the claims to prove them.
>
>Not exactly. A scientific 'claim' that is published in a peer-reviewed
>journal does require some supporting evidence, but if I'm simply
>saying that cable X sounds cleaner to me than cable Y, no such claim
>is being made, simply because it is not possible to have access to
>another's sensory.

While what you say is true in itself, you will find that claims made
within these hallowed portals are rarely couched in such terms. Rather
the claim will be that "cable X is cleaner than cable Y". That is a
claim of a very different nature, and does require proof.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> S888Wheel <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>From: "Rich.Andrews" bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org
>>>Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
>>>prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
>>>then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could
>>>devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
>>>the person making the claims to prove them.
>>>
>>>In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof,
>>>an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
>>>indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
>>>substantiates or proves nothing.
>>>
>>>For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
>>>sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
>>>available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,
>>>there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
>>>effect claimed.
>>>
>>>It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets
>>>of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying
>>>all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.
>>>
>>>As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
>>>interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know
>>>and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
>>>using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but
>>>no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
>>>that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
>>>better product than all of the guesswork done previously.
>>>
>>>This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
>>>unsubstaniated claims.
>>>
>>>r
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
>>absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly make a
>>difference in the sound.
>
>
> What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right thing*'?
> Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?
>
> And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.
>

And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured. No
researcher in sound or signal processing could be taken seriously if he
said otherwise, given the advances in measuring properties of the signal
that are made each week and reported in the journals. Now, on the other
hand, if two outputs produce exactly the same signal down to the 96 kHz
sampled bit, then they are indeed "the same". Comparing two digitized
signals can be done simply, just look at their matrices and see whether
the cells all have the same numbers.

But I don't think this is what people mean when they say there is "no
measurable difference," they are usually talking about staring at some
graph or chart or something that has been computed as a property of the
signals. And there is good reason to try this, since the bit-identity of
two signal waveforms is really not at all correlated with two signals
seeming to "sound the same." Drastically different signals can be
easily made which sound the same, because of the variety of effects to
which the ear is not sensitive.

But, alas, once you break away from simply comparing two signals (i.e.
their matrices) to see whether they are in fact the same (not unlike
using Unix 'grep' to compare two text files), you can no longer be
certain of your assertions to the effect that your failure to measure
any difference represents everyone's inability to hear any difference.

-Sean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Lasse" <lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrZzc.50078$0y.24971@attbi_s03...
> "Rich.Andrews" <bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org> wrote in message
news:<canuit01vmq@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not
just
> > sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49
variety
> > available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single
atoms,
> > there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
> > effect claimed.
>
> Measuring difference could be easy, but the measurements do not tell if
> this difference is desirable or not.

If the FR is flat within human hearing capability and the distortion
inaudible it is desirable. In fact it is as good as it need to be.

We cannot evaluate even speakers
> based on measurements only

We can't? Why not?
Isn't the job of any audio component supposed to be that it reproduce the
signal being fed to it without any audible distortion and with flat
Frequency response? That is the definition of High Fidelity that I use.

In the case of speakers you have interactions from the accoustic space they
are being used in, but those can be manipulated by EQ and such.

, so how could we do this with tweaks?
>
We could measure what they do to the sound. Does the tweak make the
response flatter? Does it redouce audible distortiion? These things are
measureable and knowable.

IMO there's far to much discussion of non-existing problems from the
electronics and not nearly enough about how to make better speakers.

My fantasy is that someday there will be a device that can measure the
inroom response of a speaker across the entire frequency range and adjust it
to flat so that we will finally be free to hear exactly what we are supposed
to be hearing. Naturally such a device would need to ber defeatable, if
for no other reason than comparison.

> Lasse Ukkonen
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
>Date: 6/16/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <caqhpg0319v@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message
>news:<cao1tr0h93@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
>> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
>> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly
>make a
>> difference in the sound.
>
>Not supportable. What evidence do you have that 'everything audible'
>is the same set as 'everything measurable'?
>
>
>
>
>
>

If one is hearing a difference then there is a measurable difference. Your ears
are in effect measuring it. There are microphones and measuring instruments
that are far more sensitive than our ear/brian. If the ear/brain can pick up a
difference so can the right mic/bench equipment, it is measurable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Sean Fulop <sfulop@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured. No
> researcher in sound or signal processing could be taken seriously if he
> said otherwise, given the advances in measuring properties of the signal
> that are made each week and reported in the journals. Now, on the other
> hand, if two outputs produce exactly the same signal down to the 96 kHz
> sampled bit, then they are indeed "the same". Comparing two digitized
> signals can be done simply, just look at their matrices and see whether
> the cells all have the same numbers.

> But I don't think this is what people mean when they say there is "no
> measurable difference," they are usually talking about staring at some
> graph or chart or something that has been computed as a property of the
> signals. And there is good reason to try this, since the bit-identity of
> two signal waveforms is really not at all correlated with two signals
> seeming to "sound the same." Drastically different signals can be
> easily made which sound the same, because of the variety of effects to
> which the ear is not sensitive.

Seems to me you have it backwards.

Two bit-identical tracks will very likely sound the same.
Tus bit-identity is correlated to aural identity; more
properly, it is *sufficient* for aural identity.

That does not mean that *sounding the same* correlates as well to
bit-identity. The relationship is not reciprocal, for the
reason you state. Aural identity is not sufficient reason
to conclude bit-identity.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus codifus@optonline.net wrote:

>Nousaine wrote:
>
>> tchelvam@hotmail.com (TChelvam) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:<gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right
>>>
>>>thing*'?
>>>
>>>>Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?
>>>
>>>Like what they said in 1994 or 1993 issue of The Absolute Sound.
>>>It goes something like this " ...the engineers must be laughing when
>>>one magazine claimed that they managed to do meaningful jitter
>>>measurement.".
>>>
>>>I guess they must be laughing now at their ignorance, then.
>>>
>>>Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.
>>
>>
>> Actually jitter was a known and solved problem in telecommunications 20
>years
>> prior to that. The American public first used digital audio as early as
>1962
>> when Westren Electric installed the first digital carrier systems in the
>long
>> distance network in Illinois.
>>
>> As a former Bell Labs scientist explained to me about 1986; jitter can be
>a
>> performance issue when you have a call that is placed from New Jersey and
>> finally connected in Los Angeles after several alternate possible
>route-ings
>> and multiple analog to digital and reverse conversions but it isn't an
>issue
>> between your cd player and dac inboard or otherwise.
>>
>But then, that would depend on the quality of the measurment. In phone
>conversation, we aren't looking for audiophile quality, so any jitter
>they find on the phone must be extreme. The jitter in audio is probably
>high enough to be bothersome to those "golden ears" but more than
>acceptable to phone conversations.
>
>CD

Even if that were to be true the original claim was

>>>Probably, prior to 1985, we do not know what a jitter was.

Which is patently untrue. Also note that Mr Pierce made reference to a bbc
paper published in 1974.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti)
>>Date: 6/16/2004 3:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <caqhpg0319v@news2.newsguy.com>
>>
>>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message
>>news:<cao1tr0h93@news4.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>> I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak
>makes
>>> absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly
>>make a
>>> difference in the sound.
>>
>>Not supportable. What evidence do you have that 'everything audible'
>>is the same set as 'everything measurable'?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>If one is hearing a difference then there is a measurable difference. Your
>ears
>are in effect measuring it. There are microphones and measuring instruments
>that are far more sensitive than our ear/brian. If the ear/brain can pick up
>a
>difference so can the right mic/bench equipment, it is measurable.

I'd generally agree.But, in your opinion, what is the measurable mechanism that
produces audible differences in amp/wire sound?

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>
>>And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.
>
>
> Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between two
> signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound with
> the same associated equipment.
>

The problem, of course, is that usually there is a measureable
difference between two components, since our measuring instruments are
so sensitive. Take two cables of the same make, one 3 ft long and one
3.1 ft long. There is a measureable difference. Heck, the lengths are
clearly different. And we can certainly resolve the 0.1 nanosecond or so
in delay. It would take an extreme subjectivist, however, to claim that
there is a sonic difference between those two.

The crux of the problem is in the disagreement on what differences are
detectible via listening only. Past research indicates that level
differences of less than 0.3 dB over the audio band are not detectible
by listeners. Let's be generous and tighten that to 0.2 dB. If we would
agree that this is the threshold of audibility, then we can prove fairly
easily that 99% of the cables and interconnects do sound the same.

 

[lasse]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:<kn4Ac.45987$eu.38549@attbi_s02>...
>
> We can't? Why not?
> Isn't the job of any audio component supposed to be that it reproduce the
> signal being fed to it without any audible distortion and with flat
> Frequency response? That is the definition of High Fidelity that I use.

Well, knowing what is perfect is way different than ranking two
imperfect measurements. Consider that there is two speakers with
almost linear FR. However, other has slight bump in 3k region and
other has similar bump in 5k region. How can we tell which is
better without listening?

Lasse Ukkonen