[Mathieulh]

1. You can argue human ears are not as good as equipment in the measurements they are designed for, but those equipment are not capable to explain why people prefer some audio reproduction over another;

2&4. I, and many people here won't bother to do such a test, to be honest, placebo effect or not is not most important matter, enjoy or not is. You can try it out, come back and tell us your finding, though.

As always, you are entitled to your opinion. At the same time, please respect others' observation about their own preference in sound, even if you think that is non-sense (to you).

About 1:

In regards to this specific argument, it is not about saying "This destination J or E or whatever sounds better than XYZ" it's about proving, through measurement, the sound in destination J (or E or whatever) is different from the sound in destination XYZ)

Ie. We don't care about the quality of the sound signature here, just whether the sound in both destinations, using the same equipment, is identical (margin of error notwithstanding) or not. (you compare both curves and see if you have a match, it's as simple as that). It has nothing to do with how each curve sounds or if one sounds better than the other, since the first step is to find whether or not both curves are different in the first place (that's what the argument is all about).

This can 100% be measured.

 

[INGRAMLI]

It has nothing to do with how each curve sounds or if one sounds better than the other, since the first step is to find whether or not both curves are different in the first place (that's what the argument is all about).

This can 100% be measured.

I would argue this way, the sound can be different even if they have the same curve (ie. you have measured the wrong thing).

 

[Mathieulh]

I would argue this way, the sound can be different even if they have the same curve (ie. you have measured the wrong thing).

Err... How exactly?

You would be using the same device, same cables, same track... Heck, you can even shield your test lab against interference using an impromptu faraday cage if that's your thing and you want to minimize samples (that's totally not required for this btw), how would you measure the "wrong thing" short of not measuring the sound output comming from your device?

I am keeping an open mind here, but, I just don't see how that's practically possible.

 

[unifutomaki]

As a researcher, I will say this: to assume that science can explain any and all phenomena, and that everything that cannot be proven by science is not real and should therefore be consigned to the garbage heap, is a dangerous assumption indeed. The scientific method is by no means the only route to knowledge acquisition, and can even be a wildly inaccurate means of knowledge acquisition if misused and mishandled.

By its very nature, science is always seeking to explain phenomena that have not yet been satisfactorily explained. In order to achieve that, even the most hardcore objectivist must accept that there exists phenomena that is not understood, and that this phenomena is valid in some way and not just a hallucination. From there, the objectivist would hypothesise about measurements that can be used to test for the presence of said phenomena. Sometimes, the ability to test phenomena is limited by the measures that exist at the current point in time. So either new measurements must be developed, or more theorising is required regarding the potential causes of the phenomena. When all available avenues of inquiry are exhausted and there still isn't a conclusive answer, the objectivist has to accept that.

Science doesn't exist so that an elite minority can railroad people into accepting that they are uninformed and nonsensical. It exists so that we may better understand ourselves and the world we live in. For the record, I do not see how sound science as it pertains to music reproduction can legitimately ignore psychological factors, when the human brain and auditory perception is necessary for music. Ignoring and discounting human factors as "not real" is done at one's own peril.

 

[INGRAMLI]

Err... How exactly?

You would be using the same device, same cables, same track... Heck, you can even shield your test lab against interference using an impromptu faraday cage if that's your thing and you want to minimize samples (that's totally not required for this btw), how would you measure the "wrong thing" short of not measuring the sound output comming from your device?

I am keeping an open mind here, but, I just don't see how that's practically possible.

You need to define the correct parameter when it comes to measurements. As I said, the existing technology is far from capable to capture all the parameter(s) related to audio. You can put up tests showing the two samples have almost identical measurements, but that is not going to change my opinion between different firmware.

For me, the only justification is my own ears, not your ears or other equipment' measurements.

 

[gsiu33]

I’m now at 14 hours and still have all 4 bars so the recalibration has worked so it really does seem that the installation of these fw, at least on the A55, messes with battery calibration and a full discharge followed by a full charge is needed after installation. It feels like what the charge of the battery is at the time of installation becomes the new max until a recalibration has been performed

I installed the FE fw on 1Z when there is only 1 bar left, then recharged during that night. The battery just left 1 bar now after 13-14 hours listening. Seems no issue on 1Z.

 

[Mathieulh]

As a researcher, I will say this: to assume that science can explain any and all phenomena, and that everything that cannot be proven by science is not real and should therefore be consigned to the garbage heap, is a dangerous assumption indeed. The scientific method is by no means the only route to knowledge acquisition, and can even be a wildly inaccurate means of knowledge acquisition if misused and mishandled. By its very nature, science is always seeking to explain phenomena that have not yet been satisfactorily explained. In order to achieve that, even the most hardcore objectivist must accept that there exists phenomena that is not understood. That's the whole point of trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Not to tell people whether they are right or wrong.

I am not saying science can explain everything, I am saying we know enough to practically, with more than enough accuracy, determine if 2 different sound samples from the same test environment (same device, location, etc etc) are identical (within a small margin of error, and using multiple test samples); there is no need to "improve the scientific method" to get such results, this is something that's known, been done, and well understood, and the context of our the argument (the rest, therefore not being much relevant).

 

[Mathieulh]

You need to define the correct parameter when it comes to measurements. As I said, the existing technology is far from capable to capture all the parameter(s) related to audio. You can put up tests showing the two samples have almost identical measurements, but that is not going to change my opinion between different firmware.

For me, the only justification is my own ears, not your ears or other equipment' measurements.

Roughly translated:

"I don't care what evidence/data you produce, I'll imply your criteria/parameters are wrong (without proof), and I'll keep trusting my ears regardless".

 

[INGRAMLI]

Roughly translated:

"I don't care what evidence/data you produce, I'll imply your criteria/parameters are wrong (without proof), and I'll keep trusting my ears regardless".

Lame but true. My goal is listen to music, not measure it. Your evidence won't change what it sounds to my ear, as long as I am enjoying the music, all these are irrelevant to me.

 

[Mathieulh]

I guess I am done arguing about this, there is little to no point in doing so.

Measure, or don't, that's up to you.

 

[INGRAMLI]

DELETE THIS.

Just a friendly reminder. "Head-fi.org" is the name of the place. Not a research facility for sure. You may come up with some measurements to support your view, but scientific discussion is certainly not the primary purpose of the place.

Relax and enjoy yourself

 

[J Kelley]

I guess I am done arguing about this, there is little to no point in doing so.

Measure, or don't, that's up to you.

You were right to delete though. Your slip was showing.

 

[nc8000]

Yeah, because "it sounds better to my ears" seems to be so objective, right? Especially when I tell you the difference (or lackthereof) can be measured and how.

This makes me think of people claiming there's been election fraud, yet being unable to produce any proof of it, we are talking of a similar level of delusion.

As to your post, implying that I can only enjoy music looking at it through measurements, is not constructive, at best, and has nothing to do with the current argument either; other than being some kind of gratuitous personal attack.

I never said that “it sounds better to me” is in any way objective. What I and many others say is that most of us hear a difference, nobody has claimed this to be objective, just what most of us hear

 

[chico playero]

I installed the FE fw on 1Z when there is only 1 bar left, then recharged during that night. The battery just left 1 bar now after 13-14 hours listening. Seems no issue on 1Z.

Is 13 - 14 hours plus 1 bar a reasonable expectation for battery life on the Z1? I think I'm one of the very few 1A/1Z owners who doesn't use the players in a mobile application.I use them both at home,so I've never really worried about battery life.I only really took notice during long listening sessions on the 1Z with FE! Thanks.

 

[nc8000]

Is 13 - 14 hours plus 1 bar a reasonable expectation for battery life on the Z1? I think I'm one of the very few 1A/1Z owners who doesn't use the players in a mobile application.I use them both at home,so I've never really worried about battery life.I only really took notice during long listening sessions on the 1Z with FE! Thanks.

I get 20-25 hours play time and a weeks stand by playing 16/44 flac source direct