On 08 Nov 2004 09:20:43 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I think this has been a useful thread for raising some of the issues about
measurement and non measurement. Just to go over this ground again, we know
that this ng is used both by those with measuring equipment and those without.
At the moment I'm without - not by choice particularly, I just haven't made
time to learn how to use my scope. I'm far from against measurement, and indeed
I take my gear round, once finished, to a friends to have it measured by quite
sophisticated equipment. Anyway, the point I'm making is that there are those
on this ng without access to measuring equipment and they have as much right to
make comments about their systems using the measuring equipment they do have,
which is their ears. In return the engineers needing measured data are quite
entitled to dismiss the results as unproven. I have no difficulty with that.
But this is not the whole story. Let us now take the case of a person who makes
a statement on the ng "I hear phenomenon A". If the response is "If you don't
have mesurements to prove it I won't believe it", then that's fine. But that
frequently isn't the response. If the response is "If you can't measure it you
should not have made that statement". Since we know in advance that there are
those on the ng wthout measuring equipment, to imply that they should not have
made a statement without measured data would be effectively to gag them. They
have as much right to make observations as the next man, so I would regard
gagging ng members as wholly unacceptable, even elitist. And if in the same
post we have "the poster should abide by the Scientific Method" and "the poster
is an idiot", we know that posters are not idiots so we must further level the
charge of hypocrasy to add to elitism. To recap these points:

1) this ng is for those who measure with equipment and who measure with their
ears

Both are valid techniques, which I don't believe has ever been argued.

2) anybody has the right to disbelieve anything

Indeed so, and it would be instructive if more people raised their
disbelief thresholds! :-)

3) to imply that somebody without measuring equipment should not post opinions
that can't be measured is elitist

I don't recall anyone having posted any such suggestion.

4) to simultaneously ask for scientific methods and make fundamental mistakes
in measuring the intelligence of others is hypoctitical.

That would be 'hypocritical'................... :-)

But again, I don't recall anyone having posted any such suggestion.


So, let's cut to the chase:

Despite much whining and strawman-building by their opponents, the
'engineers' do *not* demand 'measurements', they simply request that
anyone making claims which fly in the face of 'common knowledge',
provide some *proof* of those extraordinary claims. This need not
involve *any* measurements in many cases, and in others will only
involve a simple voltmeter to equalise levels in a *listening* test.

Please note that the 'objectivists' in actual fact always ask for
*listening* tests, i.e. not objective tests at all, just subjective
test which are controlled to eliminate bias problems which
psychologists have known about for more than half a century. Bottom
line, the 'objectivists' are the ones who are asking people to
*really* trust their ears. We remain surprised that the
'subjectivists' steadfastly refuse to do this. Why do they so refuse?

In the context of this particular thread, it's certainly been
suggested that technology be employed to compare digital files
produced by the transport under various conditions, but that's because
the output of a CD transport is *entirely* definable by examination of
its digital datastream, given a competent jitter-crushing DAC.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering