04-Aug-2020, 10:29
@thumb5 ,
I have no problem with measurements but the question is what measurements would capture differences in some aspects of sound quality. For example, say the claimed difference is in the quality of the soundstage and/or imaging within the soundstage. What measurements are you going to rely upon?
Some things such as frequency response, distortion, signal to noise ratio, are easily measured but for others there are currently no agreed measurements. This is not something new. I started getting interested in audio back in the '60s and specifications and test reports gave a measurement for THD but did not include any details of the overtone structure of the distortion. There were arguments about whether there could be an audible difference between 2 components with identical THD measurements which were not resolved until we started to see measurements for the overtone structure of the distortion. When CD players were introduced in the mid '80s the specifications and test measurements for distortion were for THD and IMD but no one was measuring jitter and we saw similar arguments about the audibility of differences in players with identical THD and IMD measurements which were not resolved until we started to see jitter measurements.
The simple fact is that measurements are only useful if you measure the right thing and we often don't start measuring the right thing until some time after there's a solid base of anecdotal reports of a difference which cannot be explained by the measurements being conducted. Listening reports have been the triggering factor for the development of tests which reveal that there is a basis for previously doubted claims that there was an audible difference.
You said that flight is an objective, ie measurable and repeatable, phenomenon but that this is not what we have here. If we don't have the appropriate measurement, which as I have shown is not an unknown situation, we can still show that the phenomenon is an objective fact with repeatable listening tests conducted under controlled conditions which can establish the objective nature of the phenomenon. Repeatability is often much easier to demonstrate than measurability.
I pointed out that designing a good scientific study to prove that the claimed difference in this case is not a simple thing, not a "non-trivial effort" in your words. We are in agreement on that. If such a test has not been conducted, and I'm not aware of such a test in this case, that doesn't mean that reports of the difference are mistaken or unfounded, just that no one yet has done the test and, if there is no commercial advantage to proving the difference, then it is quite possible that no one will ever do such a test and all we will ever have is less reliable test results and anecdotal reports. Given that proving that the suggested change in connection method doesn't help sell either speakers or cables, given that anyone with single wire cables and a pair of speakers with biwire terminals can implement it in a matter of minutes by simply changing their existing connection at no financial cost, and given that the only people who would benefit if there is a difference perceived as an improvement are the listeners, there is probably little incentive for anyone to conduct a well designed and executed test in this case.
In summary, we still can't measure everything we regard as a quality of reproduced sound and it is possible for differences to exist and not, at least not yet, be measured. When a claim can't be verified by measurement then the only way to verify or dismiss it is by listening and well designed and organised listening tests don't usually get conducted until there is a solid base of anecdotal reports.
As for Kittyhawk, no one needed measurements to prove the Wright Brothers claim. A number of reliable eye witnesses and a couple of photographs is all that was needed, and doubters could go and watch a subsequent flight. That's a pretty good reason for why measurements aren't needed to prove every claim. Verified observation often precedes measurement.
I have no problem with measurements but the question is what measurements would capture differences in some aspects of sound quality. For example, say the claimed difference is in the quality of the soundstage and/or imaging within the soundstage. What measurements are you going to rely upon?
Some things such as frequency response, distortion, signal to noise ratio, are easily measured but for others there are currently no agreed measurements. This is not something new. I started getting interested in audio back in the '60s and specifications and test reports gave a measurement for THD but did not include any details of the overtone structure of the distortion. There were arguments about whether there could be an audible difference between 2 components with identical THD measurements which were not resolved until we started to see measurements for the overtone structure of the distortion. When CD players were introduced in the mid '80s the specifications and test measurements for distortion were for THD and IMD but no one was measuring jitter and we saw similar arguments about the audibility of differences in players with identical THD and IMD measurements which were not resolved until we started to see jitter measurements.
The simple fact is that measurements are only useful if you measure the right thing and we often don't start measuring the right thing until some time after there's a solid base of anecdotal reports of a difference which cannot be explained by the measurements being conducted. Listening reports have been the triggering factor for the development of tests which reveal that there is a basis for previously doubted claims that there was an audible difference.
You said that flight is an objective, ie measurable and repeatable, phenomenon but that this is not what we have here. If we don't have the appropriate measurement, which as I have shown is not an unknown situation, we can still show that the phenomenon is an objective fact with repeatable listening tests conducted under controlled conditions which can establish the objective nature of the phenomenon. Repeatability is often much easier to demonstrate than measurability.
I pointed out that designing a good scientific study to prove that the claimed difference in this case is not a simple thing, not a "non-trivial effort" in your words. We are in agreement on that. If such a test has not been conducted, and I'm not aware of such a test in this case, that doesn't mean that reports of the difference are mistaken or unfounded, just that no one yet has done the test and, if there is no commercial advantage to proving the difference, then it is quite possible that no one will ever do such a test and all we will ever have is less reliable test results and anecdotal reports. Given that proving that the suggested change in connection method doesn't help sell either speakers or cables, given that anyone with single wire cables and a pair of speakers with biwire terminals can implement it in a matter of minutes by simply changing their existing connection at no financial cost, and given that the only people who would benefit if there is a difference perceived as an improvement are the listeners, there is probably little incentive for anyone to conduct a well designed and executed test in this case.
In summary, we still can't measure everything we regard as a quality of reproduced sound and it is possible for differences to exist and not, at least not yet, be measured. When a claim can't be verified by measurement then the only way to verify or dismiss it is by listening and well designed and organised listening tests don't usually get conducted until there is a solid base of anecdotal reports.
As for Kittyhawk, no one needed measurements to prove the Wright Brothers claim. A number of reliable eye witnesses and a couple of photographs is all that was needed, and doubters could go and watch a subsequent flight. That's a pretty good reason for why measurements aren't needed to prove every claim. Verified observation often precedes measurement.
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
