Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements

[andy_c]

What a bizarre thread.

The FFT is just a tool, useful in many situations, maybe not so useful in others. Depends on what you're trying to do.

As far as the subject of this thread, whether audiophiles fear measurements, I don't think this is true in general. However, there are fraudulent audiophile "manufacturers" who definitely fear measurements though, simply because said measurements reveal their incompetence.

Take Magnepan for instance. They have refused to supply Stereophile with speakers to review, because the measurements might reveal proprietary information.

 

[JackD201]

Uh oh, where's the green ink?

 

[jkeny]

I dunno jkeny, you're making FFT sound like it should be included in gun control legislation.

Sorry, if it's coming across like that - I'm only trying to ask questions about the most widely used tool that is used in audio measurements. Remember, we perform according to what we measure i.e. measurements are critical in determining the way our audio devices perform.

The danger isn't in it's generated measurements much less it's use rather than the sometimes overreaching conclusions derived from them. These are two separate things.

Perhaps, but I'm also querying the underlying nature of FFTs. We have an example from Tom below of feeding a series of sine waves into a device & analysing the FFT. this is based on the Fourier Theorem that "decomposes periodic functions or periodic signals into the sum of a (possibly infinite) set of simple oscillating functions, namely sines and cosines (or complex exponentials)." Now, if you look at this & ask - is all audio comprised of "periodic" signals? Secondly, does feeding sine waves through a device exercise it in that same way as feeding music through a device & therefore will FFTs based on this methodology reveal sufficient performance characteristics of the device?

FFTs don't kill people, People kill poeple.

It's not the bullet that kills, it's the hole

 

[jkeny]

..........
Jkeny is a blatant fraud, who has had to obtain information from diyaudio.com posters as to how to design a DAC. It's a case of the blind leading the blind. But I must say his marketing efforts on this forum have been effective. A fool an his money, and all that. Caveat emptor.

Thank you, Andy, I obviously have touched some nerve with you as resorting to this type of personal & business accusation is a low point in your posting history.Please retract this as I find it objectionable & without any evidence!

 

[FrantzM]

jkeny

You have yet to prove in what way FFT is flawed. It remains despite your rhetoric, a useful tool, that can, like any other tool, be misused.. You have shown nothing new to back up your overreaching positions on it hat anyone with a modicum of knowledge on signal processing wouldn't already know. If you intend on not using it and find ways to design better digital products without using FFT, more power to you .. I doubt it though..

I am off this branching of the thread: it has shown no purposes except to inflame...

 

[jkeny]

jkeny

You have yet to prove in what way FFT is flawed. It remains despite your rhetoric, a useful tool, that can, like any other tool, be misused.. You have shown nothing new to back up your overreaching positions on it hat anyone with a modicum of knowledge on signal processing wouldn't already know. If you intend on not using it and find ways to design better digital products more power without using FFT, more power to you .. I doubt it though..

I am off this branching of the thread: it has shown no purposes except to inflame...

I'm simply asking questions - I didn't know I had to prove anything in order to ask questions.

 

[FrantzM]

Jkeny

Likely my last reply on this line of the thread... You went several posts trying to show how FFT was misused .. This to me goes above just asking questions. You even tried to show (not very well I MHO) how limited FFT was .. That is not asking questions that is trying to make a statement, proving a point ... Once you state something though you must prove or at least try to ... Success is not a requirement a good show at trying however would be

 

[jkeny]

Jkeny

Likely my last reply on this line of the thread... You went several posts trying to show how FFT was misused .. This to me goes above just asking questions.

I was presenting evidence for my reason for asking these questions - that AES paper, for instance but I could give more, just didn't think it was needed.

You even tried to show (not very well I MHO) how limited FFT was ..

I asked how well FFT deals with transients & how it is focused on freq domain analysis rather than time domain (at least in most audio usage I have seen). I also pointed to The use of sine waves signals as input to audio devices for analysis rather than music & queried if this was mistaken (is using sine waves for analyis, a direct result of the Fourier theorem?). If any of these specific points could be dealt with, it would be more relevant than making evaluations about the general failure of my posts

That is not asking questions that is trying to make a statement, proving a point ... Once you state something though you must prove or at least try to ... Success is not a requirement a good show at trying however would be

Again, if you disagree with the specifcs, I'm interested in learning. I would hope that this is a discussion forum & not everything discussed needs to be scientifically proven before discussion can ensue (many here disparage Hydrogenaudio for just such an approach)!

 

[RBFC]

Folks, let's keep the discussion on the topic and away from personal slaps at other members. I've removed a few statements that violate the Terms of Service for the forum.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[Orb]

What a bizarre thread.

The FFT is just a tool, useful in many situations, maybe not so useful in others. Depends on what you're trying to do.

As far as the subject of this thread, whether audiophiles fear measurements, I don't think this is true in general. However, there are fraudulent audiophile "manufacturers" who definitely fear measurements though, simply because said measurements reveal their incompetence.

Take Magnepan for instance. They have refused to supply Stereophile with speakers to review, because the measurements might reveal proprietary information.

You could be right about Magnepan.
However there are other speaker technologies that can measure poorly when done traditionally such as Balanced Mode Radiator speakers but provide benefits overall in other ways - comes back to compromises most speaker designs have.
From what I remember certain planar/electrostatic measure better off axis but perform as well as traditional speakers when placed and positioned correctly.

The debate in these cases are do the currently used measurements accurately reflect the speaker performance and will readers interpret the results in a fully meaningful way.
Some of the measurements will be fine but some could possibly be misonstrued by readers or general posters on forums (not directed at you but some other forums).
Interestingly this comes back to what we are saying and agree upon;
I think you say it nicely with "The ---- is just a tool, useful in many situations, maybe not so useful in others. Depends on what you're trying to do."
Replace ---- with any measurement process.
I hope you did not mind me using your sentence as it fits well.

Cheers
Orb

 

[MarinJim]

Just curious, as I do not remember, does anyone know of a speaker or amp that measures off the charts, but sounds awful?

 

[andromedaaudio]

One mans awful is the other mans glory , i think everybody perceives things differently

 

[Orb]

Just curious, as I do not remember, does anyone know of a speaker or amp that measures off the charts, but sounds awful?

Off the charts being good or bad?
Cheers
Orb

 

[JasonI]

Hello, JasonI. This makes me think that some folks do not have ears worth much.

Hi, treitz3. It seems to me that this system in this room would be as sensitive to subtleties as any system this side of the NRC. If it is to be heard, this is the system to expose it. Perhaps Mr. Lavigne's hearing is shot. Perhaps not.

 

[treitz3]

Hello again, JasonI. Well, I can say this. I own about 5 or 6 different types of Monster Cable from my HT days and I currently have 3 different sets of Transparent Cables. I have tried all of them out in my various rigs, including my current rig. Personally, I have no interest in saying as fact that the poster does or does not have good ears. All I know based upon extensive experience with the cables I own, is that I can tell the difference. The differences are not subtle and there isn't just one thing I hone in on to tell me what those changes are. There are many changes all over the sound scape and sound signature that change.

Regardless, if he can't hear a difference? He's got it good and his wallet should thank him.

 

[JasonI]

Hello again, JasonI. Well, I can say this. I own about 5 or 6 different types of Monster Cable from my HT days and I currently have 3 different sets of Transparent Cables. I have tried all of them out in my various rigs, including my current rig. Personally, I have no interest in saying as fact that the poster does or does not have good ears. All I know based upon extensive experience with the cables I own, is that I can tell the difference. The differences are not subtle and there isn't just one thing I hone in on to tell me what those changes are. There are many changes all over the sound scape and sound signature that change.

Regardless, if he can't hear a difference? He's got it good and his wallet should thank him.

I mean no offense but I challenge your assertion. I'm not asking you to take action but the only way to be sure is to submit yourself a test such as Mr. Lavigne did. The sample size was small; just one subject in one room with eight successful iterations, but it counts as empirical evidence. This test was the most biased towards the subject that I have heard of and the success rate was exactly 50%.

It's in the best interest of the consumer that vendor claims stand up to scrutiny. If Transparent, MIT, and others claimed exclusivity there would be little or no argument. Their claims of perceived superior signal reproduction, however, are at odds with the test results.

 

[treitz3]

I mean no offense but I challenge your assertion.

Hey, Jason. No offense taken . I'd be happy to do the test at an audio event to where I will be hosting a cable workshop in September. I'll have to go back and re-read his post to see exactly how he performed this test. My only stipulation would be that the test be performed on my rig. It is of my experience that when testing like this, some other rigs may not have a certain resolution, sound staging and/or mapping of the images, frequency response or dynamic ability, amongst other things that would IMO, skew the test. Even though I haven't failed a test [yet, that is] before on an unknown system, the challenge can become extremely hard. Especially when some of the differences are something that the other rig can not do, or is not designed to do.

Tom

 

[jkeny]

Guys, I've mentioned this before & nobody seemed to notice (or maybe it was just ignored) - here's a way to prove to yourself without any great expense (about $15) if cables can make make any difference. Let me say from the outset, I'm was a sceptic when it comes to cables but I have to go with what my ears tell me (yes in blind tests) & what others tell me also.

Asynch USB devices should be immune to the clock timing on the computer, right? If the USB device is also not reliant on the USB power from the PC, we are at the next level of immunity form the PC, right? If we finally use battery power & ensure that here are no ground loops in the system we are at full immunity from the PC, right? That was my contention until people continually told me that different USB cables made a difference to the sound in such a device. I tried some not too expensive recommended USB cables & found no difference to a cheap, generic no-name USB cable & so I remained in my convictions. Still I kept hearing now different people telling me that the USB cable made a difference to the sound. I decided to investigate again but instead of taking pot-luck (& expense) in buying "audiophile" USB cables I decided to dispense with the cable altogether & see if I could hear a difference first. So I used two USB connectors ($10) together to connect my laptop to my USB DAC - so I have Laptop -> USB A male to A female -> USB A male to B male -> USB DAC. Was there a difference to the sound - yes most definitely. I won't go into details but it was more natural sounding in every way. I can give links to lots of descriptions of people who have tried this. did I do it blind, yes some one swapped this with a USB cable for me.

Here's a cable sceptic professional reviewer's comment

A few forum brothers had reported that directly connecting the DAC to one's computer sounded considerably better than having it USB-cabled. Say what?. A shorter signal path, yes, but to do so required a couple of eBay-sourced connectors (details here) - what quality those? I'd brought a large serving of cynicism to the table on this one…

Caetono Veloso's and David Byrne's 2004 performance at Carnegie Hall has recently seen CD issue. Here, Byrne's sinister Life During Wartime is stripped back to acoustic first principles. It still works. Cello thrust maintains the momentum and drive of the song; and said thrust is richer, more alert, more *there* without an intervening QED USB cable (AU$40). Direct connect has more jump factor and superior micro-dynamics. Most arrestingly, the improvement isn't subtle. Redolent of the difference between stock USB and an Audiophilleo-charged USB, a directly connected DAC is emphatically superior to its USB-cabled self. "Humble pie, Sir?". Two slices, my good man!

My changes are in bold & italics

So if you want to put this doubt to bed one way or the other you will need a USB audio device that is self powered (ie. no current on the Vbus wire in the USB cable) & probably one that uses asynch USB - both of these are probably necessary as they are first order distortions on *** USB signal path. But once they are out of the way & dealt with you are left with either ground noise of whatever form carried on the USB ground & another factor which is determining the sound of the audio that you hear emanating from a USB audio device. I am still trying to formulate what this other factor is but I have ideas. Anyway, the point is that you can prove this to yourself like some others have already done! it's up to you. If this works for a supposedly immune to distortion digital cable.......................

Now you have a benchmark to compare to USB cables & lo & behold it does seem like some of the expensive ones actually do match or sonically surpass this direct USB connection.

I am now retiring to my nuclear bunker where I have enough food for 2 years! See ya!

 

[NorthStar]

Guys, I've mentioned this before & nobody seemed to notice (or maybe it was just ignored) - here's a way to prove to yourself without any great expense (about $15) if cables can make make any difference. Let me say from the outset, I'm was a sceptic when it comes to cables but I have to go with what my ears tell me (yes in blind tests) & what others tell me also.

Asynch USB devices should be immune to the clock timing on the computer, right? If the USB device is also not reliant on the USB power from the PC, we are at the next level of immunity form the PC, right? If we finally use battery power & ensure that here are no ground loops in the system we are at full immunity from the PC, right? That was my contention until people continually told me that different USB cables made a difference to the sound in such a device. I tried some not too expensive recommended USB cables & found no difference to a cheap, generic no-name USB cable & so I remained in my convictions. Still I kept hearing now different people telling me that the USB cable made a difference to the sound. I decided to investigate again but instead of taking pot-luck (& expense) in buying "audiophile" USB cables I decided to dispense with the cable altogether & see if I could hear a difference first. So I used two USB connectors ($10) together to connect my laptop to my USB DAC - so I have Laptop -> USB A male to A female -> USB A male to B male -> USB DAC. Was there a difference to the sound - yes most definitely. I won't go into details but it was more natural sounding in every way. I can give links to lots of descriptions of people who have tried this. did I do it blind, yes some one swapped this with a USB cable for me.

Here's a cable sceptic professional reviewer's commentMy changes are in bold & italics

So if you want to put this doubt to bed one way or the other you will need a USB audio device that is self powered (ie. no current on the Vbus wire in the USB cable) & probably one that uses asynch USB - both of these are probably necessary as they are first order distortions on *** USB signal path. But once they are out of the way & dealt with you are left with either ground noise of whatever form carried on the USB ground & another factor which is determining the sound of the audio that you hear emanating from a USB audio device. I am still trying to formulate what this other factor is but I have ideas. Anyway, the point is that you can prove this to yourself like some others have already done! it's up to you. If this works for a supposedly immune to distortion digital cable.......................

Now you have a benchmark to compare to USB cables & lo & behold it does seem like some of the expensive ones actually do match or sonically surpass this direct USB connection.

I am now retiring to my nuclear bunker where I have enough food for 2 years! See ya!

Hey John, that is a very cool post! ...Thx for sharing. :b

Bob

 

[andromedaaudio]

I have tried to run my system with and without cables and i can tell you cables do make a big difference