Why HiFi Gear Measurements Are Misleading (yes ASR talking to you…)
About 25 years ago I was inside a large room with an A-frame ceiling and large skylights, during the Perseid Meteor Shower that happens every August. This one time was like no other, for two reasons: 1) There were large, red, fragmenting streaks multiple times a minute with illuminated smoke trails, and 2) I could hear them.
Yes, each meteor produced a sizzling sound, like the sound of a frying pan.
Amazed, I Googled this phenomena and found that many people reported hearing this same sizzling sound associated with meteors streaking across the sky. In response, scientists and astrophysicists said it was all in our heads. That, it was totally impossible. Why? Because of the distance between the meteor and the observer. Physics does not allow sound to travel fast enough to hear the sound at the same time that the meteor streaks across the sky. Case closed.
ASR would have agreed with this sound reasoning based in elementary science.
Fast forward a few decades. The scientists were wrong. Turns out, the sound was caused by radiation emitted by the meteors, traveling at the speed of light, and interacting with metallic objects near the observer, even if the observer is indoors. Producing a sizzling sound. This was actually recorded audibly by researchers along with the recording of the radiation. You can look this up easily and listen to the recordings.
Takeaway - trust your senses! Science doesn’t always measure the right things, in the right ways, to fully explain what we are sensing. Therefore your sensory input comes first. You can try to figure out the science later.
I’m not trying to start an argument or make people upset. Just sharing an experience that reinforces my personal way of thinking. Others of course are free to trust the science over their senses. I know this bothers some but I really couldn’t be bothered by that. The folks at ASR are smart people too.
Nonsense. There are many people striving to advance the audio arts. Some of them are right here on A'gon.
No one needs your permission to participate here. |
Oh no, not at all, you could not be more mistaken. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
If so, please be careful about whom you accuse of disdaining science.
What on earth are you talking about? |
More ad hominem, appeal to authority, and bandwagon fallacies from a measurementalist. As for the "chasing ferries" remark - you’re getting more and more colorful. Perhaps science is not your calling.
|
I’ve quoted the ill logic he increasingly employs. There can be no better proof than that! This is his latest use of ill logic in an attempt to conceal his previous use of ill logic:
Nope, it’s not my job to try and read his mind. |
Hey @prof that’s the logical fallacy known as the strawman argument. In fact, I’ve never seen anyone here make that claim, yet you put quotes around it. In your next post, you opine:
You commit the sin you blame on others. All your words can’t conceal that. |
Of course @kota1 is correct. What we experience very much matters. That is problematic for those who apparently want to define our experiences for us, as evidenced by their "arguments" in this thread that are increasingly subject to deletion. |
The fundamentalist measurementalists here have already made this into a matter of faith and religion, as others have noted, and you’re just piling on with a point of view (faith) that will "win" every time.
I don’t see any attacks on @prof, although I’ve seen some from him that were deleted. In any event, attacks aren’t allowed under the rules here so there’s no need to play the victim card. Just flag the post for the moderators. |
As @thyname also notes, those who behave that way typically are consumed with belief ("religion") and faith, by definition, requires no proof. The rigid, fundamentalist dogma leaves no room for the infidels who refuse conversion. As with religion, some of the fundamentalist proselytizers are soft-spoken, engaging, and even appear thoughtful. Some are harsh, brazen, and confrontational. Occasionally, one will slip up and reveal his agenda, as in this thread:
See, he has no personal agenda, he just wants to be the savior.
Absolutely yes, according the measurementalist’s faith doctrine. That’s why some component evaluations don’t even include listening. After all, listening is such a flawed exercise. |
That’s quite true.
Ahhhhh, but you make an exception for your favored shiny tool, for which I’m sure you’re willing to submit lengthy rationalization. Hey @prof, it’s clear you’re a smart guy. Do you not see your ill logic in this matter, or are you just funnin’ with us? |
That’s for you to decide. Sometimes, as can happen with a movie or music critic, you find someone whose taste coincides with yours. That gives their opinion more weight. In audio for example, listeners may often independently conclude that a certain speaker tends to sound "bright," and that can be useful.
I agree completely, although I spell judgment differently. Of course, as has been shown in this thread, some dismiss those experiences completely. While that’s fine, it doesn’t obligate anyone here to submit to their demands for proof. |
The specific instance - something we debated at the time - is immaterial. My opinion, which I need not justify to your satisfaction, is that a review of an audio component that doesn’t include listening is of little to no value. And we all know that Amir doesn’t always bother to listen, and has extensive, wordy rationalizations to justify that. He has lots and lots of words. |
That's the logical fallacy of the Exluded Middle. Don't be silly.
I've already done that. In my view, a test of an audio component is not complete without a listening evaluation. I understand you disagree, and that Amir disagrees vehemently. So be it. |
If that were true, Amir would be sure to listen to every component that he "tests." That he sometimes manages to avoid listening - and has a whole bunch of wordy rationalizations to justify that - undermines whatever science he’s trying to pursue.
This is a hobbyist’s group, not a scientific forum, so your "demands for good evidence" really don’t belong here. If you don't like the evidence presented, it's really your problem. No one here owes you anything. |
There’s a little more to it than that. For example, the logic and premise are examined, and that step alone would disqualify a lot of the "science" as seemingly practiced at ASR.
That is absolutely true.
Yes, both extremes exist: papers that have little or no value, and papers that have enormous value. What really happened to Pons & Fleischmann in the early ’80s (hint: the University of Utah really effed it up) explains what can happen when science goes wrong, even when respected researchers are involved. |
Quite so. Typically, a paper would undergo at least some informal peer review before it is even submitted for publication. When it is submitted, it’s then subject to a formal review before even being accepted for publication. When that part of the process is poorly done if often reflects poorly on the publication itself, so although mistakes happen, it’s exceptional. There are those who wrap themselves in science, then use the pick-and-choose smorgasbord approach in practice. You see some do this with religion, too. Measurementalism is rather like religion in that it is taken on faith (there’s no need to listen!) rather than facts. Of course other factors influence these YouTubers, too, as has been noted. |
Exactly. The measurements and data have little value if not correlated with what we hear.
I really don't think ASR has much power or influence at all. It's just a noisy group with grievances, which is very common today. |
