What covid research can teach us about audio measurements.
Recent studies in Canada for patients with so-called long covid show us on how science and measurements and research actually works.
Patients with long covid suffering from limited ability to exercise passed most "normal" tests but it took a new type of test to positively identify a mechanism that explained why the patients suffered.
Honestly there is a lot of snake oil and charlatanism in our hobby, and I don't claim to discount that fact. What I do want to say is that science doesn't rest with 50 year old measurements. It evolves to measure and explain constantly.
The reason I am personally dissatisfied with audio measurements in the common literature is exactly because of this stagnation, and when these fail us we trust our ears and gut for lack of better tools.
Anyone who runs the same 20 measurements on an amplifier or DAC and claims it is science and that these measurements are all that can be known is fooling themselves into believing that they are scientists or that we have reached the limits of understanding.
What has always seemed ignored in these debates is that human perception and brain science are incredibly young fields, relative to what there is still left to understand.
The supposition that acoustic measurement is adequate has to ignore the fact that half the equation -- our brain and even our ears -- is so poorly understood. Acknowledge that truth, and the sufficiency of acoustic measurement (objective, physicalist or subjective, listening testing à la Harman) is shown to be seriously incomplete (though still useful for some purposes).
A very interesting comparison Erik thanks for drawing it and let's hope the mention of Covid, or measurements for that matter, doesn't spark any nastiness.
Good news for those with Long Covid and those that refused the vaccine and thought they were okay because of their superior immune systems and not dying.
Why inject your politics into a discussion about finding new measurements? You just come off as angry and bitter. Try to stick to just audio for a few days. You may find it enjoyable.
I think that as long as there is a human race, we will find new things to measure and new ways to measure.
Sound is not an evolving virus so not sure how well the analogy applies practically. But it sounds good anyhow. Technology does evolve so there’s that FWIW.
Hmmm interesting erik. Been jabbed 3 times had COVID twice. I also am not a measurements are definitive guy either. Some of the worst sounding gear I ever heard also had spectacular measurements on paper. Science is not exact and there are always variables the question is if you can control them.
Audio Precision has an R and D department, so I don't think science stands still in finding new ways to measure audio gear. Anyway the analogy doesn't make sense to me. They weren't measuring the MRI machine.
I am not understanding the OP point here. How does a preliminary study measuring changes in alveolar diffusing capacity post Covid relate to audio measurements?
Trying to compare our hearing to any modern scientific measurement tool is folly to the Nth degree. Most audiophiles have no idea what they are listening too. They throw their systems together without measurement so they have no basis for comparison. If you are use to listening to a system that is boosted above 8 kHz a flat system will sound dull even though it is more accurate. If you are under the illusion that your system is flat it might be, but the room is probably not. Obviously everyone is entitled to set up their system any way they want but don't bark at me when I squint.
Anyway the analogy doesn’t make sense to me. They weren’t measuring the MRI machine.
Think of medicine, and that doctors and researchers repeatedly break into two camps. One camp always looks for more information and more ways of looking at disease.
Another group gets into a cycle of believing something is true, and that all that can be learned has been learned, until some new technique or tool comes along which forces a change.
Two instances I can think of is polio treatment and gastric ulcers. At some point we thought ulcers were caused by stress. For decades. Only in the late 1980s did a pair of curious pathologists come to discover it’s often caused by bacteria.
Audio measurements, those in the common publications (Stereophile, TAS, Hifi+, etc.) have been more or less stagnant for solid state devices for decades. Of course researchers may be working on more, or use more which we don’t hear about. Audio Precision has an R&D department, but how long has it been since we in the lay readership/press have heard of a new type of measurement which means something to a listener? Not more precision for old measurements but actually new measurements?
This is why medicine is a good analogy. Let’s not get stuck thinking measurements assembled 50 years ago are all that could be known.
There have been a few attempts at finding new measurements that better reflect what people hear. For example "transient intermodulation distortion" (TIM) or "slew-induced distortion" (SID) have been put out there to measure distortion caused by an amplifier's inability to respond quickly enough to abrupt changes in the signal level. This is a particularly interesting measurement because, in an attempt to reduce more conventional measurements of distortion, such as harmonic distortion, amp manufacturers may employ a lot of feed back. Feedback adversely affects TIM/SID measurement. I tend to not like amps that employ a lot of feedback so, perhaps, this less common measurement might have some meaning.
@larryi Thanks for bringing up those measurement metric. I had not heard about them.
(Clearly, a thread does not need to go "poof" just because someone gets triggered and someone else wags their finger. Posters who get back on topic can pull the boat back over and get the keel straight again.)
Why do those who dismiss measurements in audio not realize that even gear designed without measurements is made up of parts that must be measured and must meet spec? Your hand-built loudspeakers are made of carefully designed and measured parts as are your amps and all things audio. You may not think that measurements matter but they sure as hell do when anything is constructed. Even the plywood and fasteners must meet well-measured specs.
I do not think people are dismissing measurements wholesale. There are other influences or factors in audio. The ranges are more dynamic.
You can have carefully designed parts and measured parts that can sound awful together in execution. This is the case in any design and in general in engineering, this is why we validate, validate, validate. Design and build is objective, consumption is subjective, meaning there is more bias from the consumer or end user.
How could you be sure that any audio product matched its prototype without measurements? Don't audiophiles look at measured specs when buying? Or do those who disregard measurements as having any useful meaning just buy on looks and costs? Pretty sure many of those who dismiss are looking closely at published specs when buying.
@johnk People do look at measurements to qualify, regardless of what is written on these pages. Then the subjectivism comes in when making final decisions in the process.
You may not think that measurements matter but they sure as hell do when anything is constructed.
I certainly have never said measurements don't matter, only that in a scientifically driven world we'd be using new and different sets of measurements as our knowledge and research progressed. That we are still using 50 year old measurements in the common press should be a good sign that more can be discovered.
The problem is the measurements most manufacturers list aren't always that important, if they listed all the measurements it might be a different story.
The article cited by the OP discusses using MRI to visually observe Xenon labeled gases diffuse across the alveolar membrane. It's cool but not a breakthrough. We have been able to measure the same paramater for decades; Diffusion Capacity is a routine part of Pulmonary Function Testing that can be done in any hospital lab.
In audio terms this would be like measuring distortion. Imagine if a new technology came along that could tell you the same thing that old technology already tells you.
Not sure how this relates to any particular topic here. It doesn't begin to tell us if doing measurements are worthwhile, only that there is another way to do them
You noticed that too? You'll find that some here seem to have an inside track with Admin and get posts they don't like deleted immediately whereas the offensive ones they started with remain up even after being tagged as offensive.
My last two, which were responses to offensive remarks, were removed without email notification from Admin. Talk about a rigged election!
It's like dealing with the Harper Valley PTA on bath salts. They clutch their pearls so tightly, they have waffle patterns on their palms. And, to think, that a lot of the audio community reads these threads but don't dare post here because of them. If they could, this would be a much better place for audio enthusiasts.
Maybe a DM to Tammy can sort things out. The last time this happened, someone else contacted her and she was unaware of just who was doing this.
It really is something else and to your point, I commented on another thread where an Audiogon member wanted someone to setup a fake account on Steve Hoffman forums so they could troll. Guess who’s post was removed? Not the trolls....
I read through many threads and posts before I made my first post and how, to me, can an appropriately moderated forum allow all of these ghost accounts, like the ones I mentioned in my post that still resides in this thread. Yes, you may have guessed I had another post pointing out the absurdity of users with multiple accounts and it was removed.
If the term snowflake applies to anyone, and I hate the use of these stupidly assigned names to certain groups, well it applies to the thin-skinned here who post and then run to mommy moderator when another post makes them feel bad.
If the moral of the story is science and technology does not stand still, gee thanks Sherlock! Let’s see if this revelation helps convert any knuckle draggers into lesser knuckle draggers.
Audio measurements are becoming increasingly important as the success of sites like Audio Science Review indicate.
Never in the history of audio has the industry has moved in the direction of less data required.
The equipment and measurements being carried out today were simply beyond the reach of anyone outside of a prestigious physics lab 50 years ago.
What Covid research told us, of course is anyone's guess.
Suffice to say it took an enormous amount of political pressure to get Pfizer to cough up the truth about their Coof jabs.
I would expect more data to follow in due course.
Or, given the stance of the much of the media today, is the correct term "to be leaked?"
-------
Pfizer Covid vaccine has 1,291 side effects reveals official documents by RT Staff Reporters - March 7, 2022
This release of documents follows U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman’s decision on January 6 to deny the request from the FDA to suppress the data for the next 75 years, which the agency claimed was necessary, in part, because of its “limited resources.”
For the record, I've never reported anyone. And I never will. I said what I said above because I predicted this thread would go away based on the high level of hostility in some of the postings. I've had complete threads and replies removed for absolutely no viable reason, which most of you I'm sure have experienced. Why completely caustic threads/replies don't get deleted is a mystery to me. No biggie. Let it ride.
Good designs will generate the same data, whether DACs, speakers or amplifiers. It's boring because a lot of gear is competently designed, and why it looks repetitive.
If you hook up a computer to two different cars, can the data tell you which car is quieter? More comfortable? Faster? No. What it tells you is that the cars are engineered correctly and you can expect consistent use for a long period of time. That's how I look at measurement data in audio equipment.
Agreed. I've always been of the mind to leave everything up for everyone to see and decide for themselves, instead of all of this censoring. It's like they're trying to create a false narrative for posterity.
Moderators working under the cloak of secrecy, maybe try and contact so we understand. I read the guidelines, my removed post did not break any of the 'rules',
Conventional measurement data does not give one ANY meaningful information about the sound of the amplifier (except, perhaps output power). Any company reporting specifications will have an amp whose distortion and noise lie well below the supposed threshold of audibility. Does it matter if an amp has .02% harmonic distortion vs. another amp with half that measure? If, as a subjectivist, you insist on evaluating based on measurements, you have to also accept the extensive research and testing that shows that humans are unable to detect pretty high levels of harmonic distortion, particularly low order harmonic distortion. Levels like 10% or more of 2nd order harmonic distortion is undetectable at certain audible frequencies.
It would be easy for the measurement crowd to win the argument by simply doing an experiment that shows a statistical correlation between measured distortion at the levels seen in consumer amps and either listener preference or even listener ability to distinguish between two amplifiers. i have not seen that demonstrated.
The appeal to the old "science doesn't know everything yet" is one used as a partial justification by every pseudo-scientific/supernatural/fringe belief system.
It's an exceedingly weak justification for believing in dubious ideas.
The patent offices are full of patents for Perpetual Motion Machines by the folks saying "Science doesn't know everything!" It doesn't make claims for a perpetual motion machine an inch more credible. What WOULD make it credible is actual evidence such a machine could or does work! Otherwise you just join the extensive line up of people thinking "I've discovered a new reality" and grumbling about how science just won't recognize their claims.
So, take a conversation I (and others) had with an audiophile who spent over $1,000 on a "high end" HDMI cable to replace his off-the-shelf HDMI cable. He claimed it made the image obviously sharper, obviously richer in color and higher in contrast.
Now...this is literally impossible given how HDMI cables work. He had not upgraded from an old spec HDMI cable to a newer 4K spec'd cable, and hence this was not due to a variable like he was now passing through 4K/HDR images where he wasn't before. The claim was that these were the same spec cables, the original was working, but the new one, as claimed by the company that sold it to him, "improved" the picture quality. It was pointed out this was impossible (unless they had inserted an active chip to alter the image, and didn't tell anyone).
In evaluating such a claim, what is more plausible? That this individual had discovered that the very theory by which HDMI works, the very theory that has allowed the successful manufacturing and deployment of that technology the world over for many years...is actually wrong? Or...given the fact that every human being has the propensity for bias to affect their perception...that his perception was influenced by a bias effect? This is similar to choosing between the likelihood that someone had really made a perpetual motion machine in their garage, overturning basic physical theories, vs their claim being error or bullsh*t.
Nobody makes a dubious claim more likely by crying "But Science Doesn't Know Everything!"
And when you mention "50 year old measurements" that can be a feature, not a bug! If someone wants to say the electronic measurements that have, for instance for cables, been so reliable, and used with predictable results in such a truly vast array of situations around the world...that these ways of measuring are "wrong" or "insufficient" then they take on a substantial burden of proof!
Anecdotes of "I'm sure I heard something" will hardly do! They should at least offer plausible explanations to begin with (and not ones that can be easily undone by someone with expertise in the field) or failing that at least demonstrate that they CAN actually hear this difference they claim.
In other words, can they hear the difference when they are not peeking? In blind tests controlling for sighted bias? That's a component that your OP misses as well. Measurements aren't the only tool in the box. One can indeed demonstrate something can be heard that isn't showing up in measurements. But given the consequences of such a claim, it makes sense to first establish people ARE REALLY hearing this difference, under controlled conditions.
Of course, we can all think we hear whatever we do, and practice this hobby however we want!
But...if someone claims to hear things that are dubious under current theories of electronics and human hearing thresholds, and offers no objective/testable evidence, nor any testable claims (won't show it via blind tests), then they have only themselves to blame for just shouting in to the wind, and placing themselves in the long line-up of fringe theories which also have not passed any of the normal crucibles for reliable knowledge.
There is a big difference between doubting science and doubting that measurements tell you what they were never meant to tell you in the first place. Much of pseudo-science actually starts off with some modicum of truth or scientific fact and then goes somewhere it has no right to.
Those absorbed with a handful of audio measurements that are in the public consciousness are very much in this space.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
