Originally Posted by arnyk
Amir, I see that the evidence of your worship of numbers for the sake of numbers and your inability or lack of willingness to actually personally execute proper subjective or objective tests is now all around around us. You and JA appear to be twins separated at birth as related to interpretation of objective test results and subjective tests.
Well, looks like you don't need my help to prove your anti-measurement stance
JA gets points for actually doing a lot of good work in the lab.
Well, it is that "good work" that I am trying to get folks to listen to.
IMO it is a very self-serving for someone who sells equipment either directly or indirectly to put numbers on a high pedestal and instruct people how to worship them mindlessly.
I am an information driven guy. Measurements are data if you understand how to interpret them. I wrote my article explaining how to do that and what they mean. I do the same here. My very first post here warned OP to not necessary go by the numbers:
Originally Posted by amirm Both optical and HDMI tend to do worse in this regard than coax/S/PDIF and at any rate, will show differences in performance. That measured difference doesn't automatically result in audible difference.
I hope you appreciate that the inference in the other direction is sweeping major performance differences under the rug. A digital system is brought to its knees with distortion products that are 20 to 40 db better than it can do. And for what reason? It is not for money because another jack on the same equipment doesn't have this problem.
I think ultimately our goals in this area is different. Mine is to aspire to find the best, yours appears to be how bad we can make it when people cry uncle in listening tests. And to top that, you lack the listening tests that show that. So then you resort to an assumption that it is all good. OP can't have heard a difference. He must be mistaken as the song goes.
Hence the phrase "numbers for the sake of numbers". The sooner we get influential people to move away from the worship of numbers for the sake of numbers and seek actual audible improvement, the sooner people raise audio back to where it belongs. I regret to see that Dolby labs is now on the "numbers for the sake of numbers" bandwagon:http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/A...rmance.PDF.pdf
That's because they understand that lossy compression when limited to 640 Kbps as it is in Blu-ray for multi-channel audio, ultimately has its limits of performance. Of note, they give away TrueHD to equipment makers who already have a Dolby license so it is not a source of new revenue for them anyway. I am puzzled though that you put Dolby of all companies down this way. Here is what you said in our last conversation about jitter regarding the company:
Originally Posted by arnyk Amir, you've been challenged repeatedly to come up with just one proper listening test that we could compare to say the tests done by Dolby (what would they know about audio? ;-) ) that basically say "no problemo".
So when saying jitter is not as important they know something about audio but when they advocate lossless audio, they are worshiping useless numbers? Isn't it better to simply discuss the data instead of the person/entity behind them?
We live in an time when we can measure just about every known effect, electrical or acoustical, way down orders of magnitude under the noise. Without relevant explanation and interpretation, objective test result numbers are indeed just numbers.
Until you know enough about the science to put them in context as research does in the case of distortion levels as I shown in this graph and many others:
So all of a sudden numbers aren't just numbers. In this case, we see that we can demonstrate that distortion levels in a digital system are above threshold of hearing which itself is gathered from listening tests. You ask if I like correlating measurements with audio quality. Well, here it is
. But folks don't like such inconvenient truths. It is much better to assume it is all inaudible. I am good with that if we are talking about general public. I absolutely am. They do not and should not care. But for the select few who spend time sifting through these arguments to learn something about audio, dismissing measurements as "just numbers" is short changing them. Let's explain the science as we know it and then hope that a) they learn something and b) they go and conduct their own audibility test as OP here has done.
Trouble is, so many of the people who want to mint money based on questionable claims of audible improvements (not mere differences but worthwhile improvements!) kind of run out of gas in the science department.
That continues to be the difference between us as Terry said in his post
: "It's funny how hard *we* can go to maintain our rightness, and how quickly that line is crossed where we no longer wish to learn (despite our objections to the contrary) where we fight tooth and nail...usually because we know our position is so tenuous that the slightest 'loss' means the whole game is over.
FFS, Amir has sat here page after page and SHOWN how, and under what possible conditions jitter may be audible.
Hey, if it were a cable debate, and we showed with maths and sims that there could not possibly be a difference, well that would have proved it no?
So why the **** in an 'argument' where the shoe is on the other foot does it suddenly become irrelevant what the science says??
My take on what the fear might be is the worry of what might happen if we concede a point of argument. The 'other side' will drive a frickin lorry thru the door if we do."
Science needs to be about the science and not the individual or campaigns such as what you are advocating. If someone wants to know if there are differences in digital transports, we need o be able to convey that without fear that someone might run with it and say some audiophile cable is better than another. Censoring this conversation with the talk of measurements being "just numbers" and ignoring authoritative research into the topic is just not right in my book.
Anyway, we are getting argumentative again
. Since you are a man of listening tests, I am hoping your next post will outline the tests you have run that showed audible difference. I am sure you have documented them elsewhere so all you have to do is provide us with a link. Would you mind doing that? Thanks in advance.