[jagwap]

1. Yep, my bad. I should have said "rationally undeniable" or "logically undeniable".

2. No PCM (or any other digital audio format) of any quality can capture or store any audible sound whatsoever, let alone "perfectly"! All PCM can store is data which represents the fluctuating amplitude and frequency of an electrical current, that's it, no audible sound OR ANYTHING ELSE!!



1. The measurements were NOT novel, the principle of those measurements was not novel, the fact those measurements could be used to create a transfer function was not novel. The only thing that was novel was demonstrating those already known facts to those specific ignorant audiophiles.

2. The nonsense you're making up is now reaching truly ridiculous levels! As I've already stated that we do not know everything, how can my position be that we do know everything? Doesn't that sound truly ridiculous, even to you? Do you really need me to repeat what I've already stated?

3. Yes there are and in fact I've actually been part of developing one of them (albeit a very tiny part). And, I use that measurement quite often. It's a measurement of loudness, something which VERIFIABLY AND REPEATABLY exists in blind (and sighted) tests but which exists only in our perception!

G

My understanding is that you are telling all these ignorant people that we can measure all there is in audio. The above sounds different to that. Please clarify so we can continue.

 

[Niouke]

I really like the home cinema exemple in the burn-in argument, as it is a widely used system...

If burn-in was real, home cinema owners would have to recalibrate their system regularly. As dynamic microphones are pretty close to speakers, their factory provided calibration data that we rely on would be actually useless.

 

[gregorio]

[1] My understanding is that [2] you are telling all these ignorant people [3] that we can measure all there is in audio. [4] The above sounds different to that.

1. Your understanding appears to be fatally flawed.
2. What "all these ignorant people"? With a few exceptions, most of the people participating in this thread don't appear in the least bit ignorant of the basic facts.
3. All that actually exists in recorded audio is frequency and amplitude both of which we can measure. If we can't measure it, then we can't record it and therefore, by definition, we can measure all the properties of recorded audio! Can our brains interpret these two real properties (frequency and amplitude) and create the illusion of additional properties/attributes? Yes, there are numerous examples and I've already given you two; loudness and music itself.
4. What I've written here, in my last post and in my posts previous to that, is entirely consistent and effectively the same. In fact, I'm just repeating myself!

G

 

[Ramblinman]

I would go a step further. I cannot possibly trust my "own ears" because I cannot hear my own ears! The only thing I can hear is my brain's interpretation of what my ears are sensing. That interpretation can, as you say, define what I find pleasing but it's not necessarily true to what even my ears are sensing, let alone true to the source!

G

Yet the sole purpose of the peice of equipment is to produce sound pleasing to your ears. Crazy right?

 

[jagwap]

1. Your understanding appears to be fatally flawed.
2. What "all these ignorant people"? With a few exceptions, most of the people participating in this thread don't appear in the least bit ignorant of the basic facts.
3. All that actually exists in recorded audio is frequency and amplitude both of which we can measure. If we can't measure it, then we can't record it and therefore, by definition, we can measure all the properties of recorded audio! Can our brains interpret these two real properties (frequency and amplitude) and create the illusion of additional properties/attributes? Yes, there are numerous examples and I've already given you two; loudness and music itself.
4. What I've written here, in my last post and in my posts previous to that, is entirely consistent and effectively the same. In fact, I'm just repeating myself!

G

Recorded audio is technically just a representation of amplitudes, as I stated before, and digital is a sequence of amplitudes. Frequency comes from the repetition of the signals. But because we are not understanding each other, the pedantry grows to tie down the definitions.

We can measure aspects of equipment's behaviour beyond what we can record in some metics, but we do not have all measurements for other aspects of what we perceive, yet. This was my point, and you keep saying no, yet you point out you are working on new measurements you consider valuable (loudness). As I keep saying, we do not have all the measurements we need, yet.

 

[Haris Javed]

Why are you all still wasting time responding to Ramblinman? He is a drone. Drop the topic and move on please. There are people who still believe that the earth is flat and if you talk to them you will start to pull out your hair. It’s not worth the effort - let’s move on.

 

[Ramblinman]

So it seems as though the folks pressing the purely scientific way of selecting electronic equipment allege that differences are imperceptible to the human ear/brain. If so, why bother? What is the point?

 

[Ramblinman]

Why are you all still wasting time responding to Ramblinman? He is a drone. Drop the topic and move on please. There are people who still believe that the earth is flat and if you talk to them you will start to pull out your hair. It’s not worth the effort - let’s move on.

As hominem attacks like yours are a clear indication you cannot debate your point if not an outright admission of defeat.

 

[Ramblinman]

The question is not whether I trust my ears or not, it's whether others should trust my ears over a graph.
Ears are bilogical tools and so are our brains. We are susceptible to all kind of variables like pathogens and even expectations.
This is why machines, which are less affected by variables, were created to obtain consistent, usable data.
Would you trust living in a house built by a builder that didn't use measuring tape but instead only his eyes to measure its dimensions?

He trusts his eyes to read the tape, does he not?

 

[Niouke]

Yet the sole purpose of the peice of equipment is to produce sound pleasing to your ears. Crazy right?

I beg to differ, the purpose of HiFi is to render a record with the highest fidelity possible. If one want to alter the rendering to fit his taste is another topic.

 

[Ramblinman]

I beg to differ, the purpose of HiFi is to render a record with the highest fidelity possible. If one want to alter the rendering to fit his taste is another topic.

So finally we have a poster who refines his point. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I also know that measurement techniques are both imperfect and incomplete.

 

[Haris Javed]

As hominem attacks like yours are a clear indication you cannot debate your point if not an outright admission of defeat.

Sheesh sir - yes I concede, and I am done. You win! Good luck

If you really want a debate, let’s get it done. I will gladly respond to your claim in a video response. PM me and let’s setup a real Skype debate.

Haris

 

[Niouke]

I also know that measurement techniques are both imperfect and incomplete.

I don't share this knowledge. After all the theory and measurements currently used are the basis for all the wonderful equipment and records we have access to, and since decades. If anything was fundamentally false it would have showed up. Not necessarily in the audiophile world as the theories we use are also used in much more delicate applications such as defense or aerospace, not Joe Audiophile that thinks his tubes sound a bit bright in his living room.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

So finally we have a poster who refines his point. I don’t necessarily disagree, but I also know that measurement techniques are both imperfect and incomplete.

In the sense of being able to reliably measure e.g. 10-16khz performance on heapdhones, I agree it's hard with normal equipment. But it's not as if it's impossible. In the sense of being able to measure the output of DACs, amps, and other electrical components of an audio system, I don't agree, with access to the right equipment, people can measure much more than any human could possibly perceive.

 

[Killcomic]

He trusts his eyes to read the tape, does he not?

Yes, because he's reading standardised data which is presented in a manner which is difficult to misread. That's why measuring tapes are in use throughout the industry, because they can be read with little difficulty. The builder is not measuring the measuring tape.