“YouTubers” Haaaahaaaaa
Cables that measure the same but (seem?) to sound different
I have been having an extended dialogue with a certain objectivist who continues to insist to me that if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same.
In response, I have told him that while I am not an engineer or in audio, I have heard differences in wires while keeping the acoustic environment static. I have told him that Robert Harley, podcasters, YouTuber's such as Tarun, Duncan Hunter and Darren Myers, Hans Beekhuyzen, Paul McGowan have all testified to extensive listening experiments where differences were palpable. My interlocutor has said that either it is the placebo effect, they're shilling for gear or clicks, or they're just deluded.
I've also pointed out that to understand listening experience, we need more than a few measurement; we also need to understand the physiology and psychological of perceptual experience, as well as the interpretation involved. Until those elements are well understood, we cannot even know what, exactly, to measure for. I've also pointed out that for this many people to be shills or delusionaries is a remote chance at best.
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?
In response, I have told him that while I am not an engineer or in audio, I have heard differences in wires while keeping the acoustic environment static. I have told him that Robert Harley, podcasters, YouTuber's such as Tarun, Duncan Hunter and Darren Myers, Hans Beekhuyzen, Paul McGowan have all testified to extensive listening experiments where differences were palpable. My interlocutor has said that either it is the placebo effect, they're shilling for gear or clicks, or they're just deluded.
I've also pointed out that to understand listening experience, we need more than a few measurement; we also need to understand the physiology and psychological of perceptual experience, as well as the interpretation involved. Until those elements are well understood, we cannot even know what, exactly, to measure for. I've also pointed out that for this many people to be shills or delusionaries is a remote chance at best.
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?
74 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?I would say James Johnston but he says the opposite. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37302284200 |
extended dialogue with a certain objectivist who continues to insist to me that if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same. There is a large faction of todays people who are totally clueless about man's human nature. It shows itself in society & the way these people come to irrational conclusions. I would agree with the statement "if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same." But ONLY to a MACHINE which is CALIBRATED the SAME. People are NOT machines! We are not all Calibrated the same. Nor are we calibrated the same everyday due to emotional forces and other stimuli Then also, the question arises as to what scientific proof he used to come to his conclusion that equal measurements mean the same sound? |
I'm not sure you can find two cables that measure the same. Impedance of the cable will change with frequency. It is also very difficult to measure capacitance or inductance since it is "distributed" inductance and capacitance - one affects another. It can be done by measurements at different frequencies and calculations, but it might be not very accurate. Even such simple thing as DC resistance will change with temperature increase (with current). Metal and construction of the cable make a difference. After that you have other effects, like dielectric absorption or skin effect (that starts at gage 18 for copper at 20kHz). 12 gauge wire uses only 75% of it size at 20kHz (Belden data). In addition construction of the cable is important. Even speaker cable is electrical noise entry into amplifier. Twisting of the wire, including twist pitch plays a role. How do you measure quality of interconnects shielding? Of course, one can say "It measures close enough" or "it should not matter", but it is only an opinion and not a proof. IMHO, the only sure way to find two cables that measure exactly the same and have exactly the same noise rejection is to buy the same cable twice. When you hear a difference between cables it means they must be different (measure different, different construction etc.) The only other possibility is placebo effect, but there is nothing wrong with it, as long as it works :) I would not dare to tell other people what they can or cannot hear, especially when my hearing is not getting any better with age. |
Maybe best to look outside the usual fields of study on this question. While very valuable research is being done by some of the righteous electricians--work essential to the design and engineering process--efforts to quantify aesthetics fail repeatedly to explain what we hear. It often seems as though we Dionysians are considered insane or at least delusional by Apollonian standards. Here’s a good idea starter: "When cognitive scientists try to understand why people develop delusions, they . . . have focused on this notion of epistemic irrationality, underlining that delusions arise from faulty reasoning processes."—Anna Greenburgh is a PhD student at University College London. Her research investigates social cognition in psychosis and across the paranoia spectrum. PSYCHE 19 AUGUST 2020 So who has the faulty reasoning process? The listener, in the moment? Or the scientist, totally isolated from the musical moment? |
I believe Galen Gareis at Belden Cable has done extensive research and testing and the conclusion was that they can measure exactly the same but sound different. There are white papers and a looong video put out by the folks of Intellectual Peoples Podcast if anyone cared to read or watch for themselves. |
@denverfred "Maybe best to look outside the usual fields of study on this question." Exactly my thinking. @kijanki "How do you measure quality of interconnects shielding? When you hear a difference between cables it means they must be different (measure different, different construction etc.) Great question and as for "measure different" that's true, if we know what to measure *for.* Which artemus was getting at, too. Good start to this thread. Hoping Ralph/atmasphere chimes in. |
Why would I want to listen to somebody else for something I can listen and hear for myself so I can make a decision on a cable I like better? I wouldn’t, and I don’t. As for measurements for cables, what a waste of time. Do you go to a Porsche dealer looking for a car that is multiple times the price of a cable, with a compression tester or dynamometer? Do you think a 400hp Porsche is going to drive the same as a 400hp Toyota? Hell no. There is almost always going to be a difference in sound of a cable, not necessarily a better sound, but only you can decide that |
There are obviously, at least, 2 diverse opinions here, and various attempts at subjective and objective evidence. On the one hand people 'say' they can hear differences but most often when tested this appears not to be the case. Expert listeners rarely do better than chance in double blind tests. On the other hand we have an assumption that if two things when tested measure the same they must sound the same, this assumes that the test or tests actually measures everything we can hear. Is this true, for instance if I blind test soup with a thermometer then both tomato and chicken can measure the same however they sure as hell won't taste the same. |
It’s up to you to stand up for the facts: Different cables measure differently. People unwilling to pay for better cables, prey upon those that will allow themselves to bullied by misrepresenting the facts, to cover up the fact that they are poor cheapskates or skinflints. It’s not that they’re feeling great about "their knowledge" on the subject, they’re trying to cover up their knowledge at your expense and using "the best defense is a good offense" method of intellectual dishonesty (that’s taught in cults like Scientology). Keep allowing them to shove their BS your way and you’ll soon be asking others to join you for a bite, or at least drop by the little safe place you made on the Internet to discuss it. |
We measure what we measure. When we don't measure or at least account for the difference in what many people hear, does that make a difference? You look at an apple, quantum physics says there is more than just an apple.. What we see is not what is really there. Measured sound is as limited as what we measure for.. We are as limited as the information we have access to. Just because it isn't measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Limited information is just that... Limited.. I'll never forget the first time I heard aluminum with copper clad and plastic vinyl (something) ICs, speaker cables and power cables. It was in a car and the guy paid 4k or something.. Man was it loud. I change one speaker cable from one amp to copper and one RCA to copper on the left side, just like I always do.. Someone removed the BLANKET from the way they were, to the way they are. HUGE cables ALL worthless.. The installer with his messed up hearing could hear a big change in just one side.. The cost of copper was actually LESS. I recommended SOOW 99.999 OFC 4/4 for power and 4/12 for speaker cables.. 50.00 max.. RCAs Good copper or silver clad weaves now.. less than 40.00 each. Measure all you want... This guy was deaf.. Regards |
@artemus_5 What I find interesting in your post, if I am understanding you correctly, is that you acknowledge that things that measure the same would sound the same to a calibrated robot, but not to humans because we are not calibrated. It seems that what you're saying is that things that measure the same don't necessarily sound the same because of external forces that apply to humans. There's a big difference between thing sounding the same and humans not being able to hear them consistently. Our inability to hear things the same doesn't means that the sound coming out of the speakers isn't the same. Room acoustics are very dynamic and shifting the position of your ears will result in a different listening experience, so you'd have to be able to consistently differentiate between the expected differences in listening experiences from the unavoidable forces and what might be there from whatever physical change was made to the system. I'm almost certain that I've heard Paul from PS Audio say that he's heard differences in speaker wires that were clear, but not in interconnects. I find this statement quite curious as their website includes "Paul's Picks" that include increasingly expensive interconnects to match the price point of the gear in the package. What criteria did he use to pick them? The most likely scenario is that they are just using his name. I think that it's entirely possible that things like cables and such can make a difference in a system of high enough quality, but I've not personally had the opportunity to be convinced. |
I hesitate to wander into this treacherous country again but here goes. Measurements, e.g., resistance, inductance, capacitance, are, these days, easily made , recorded and compared but are gross and crude compared to the kinds of phenomena which may be discerned by the human ear and brain such as, say, timbre. The simple measurements aren’t going to help us predict how a device (cable) will contribute to SQ. So the only practical way I can think of in measuring the higher phenomena for comparison purposes is to recruit panels of experienced observers (listeners/audiophiles). Ideally, if possible, observers would be blind and a placebo control could be utilized if a certain device (cheap cable?) could be agreed upon as the placebo type. Hasn’t this kind of evaluation been done before in audio? |
If you believe in science(and I do) then if two items measure the same, they are the same. But that assumes you have measured everything that matters. And you don't know if some factor is missing from your measurements until you discover all the measurements. We usually discover new measurements when our observations are no longer predictable by our current measurements. |
From OP: “if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same.” I do not have an answer to OP’s specific question about which specific “learned people” in the field may have opinions about interconnects and wires. I would like to broaden the discussion a bit to include some additional thoughts about measurements, tests and the equipment and persons that determine whether or not differences are heard. OP does not specify what is being measured, how it is measured, what tools are used to capture the measurement or what the conditions for the test are. We have precious little to go on for a discussion. Assume the stated stable acoustic environment and several devices under test. We need calibrated test equipment. Both electronic and human. Obtaining calibrated test electronics and software is relatively simple. Choose a test microphone and associated acoustic test software and interface. Calibrating a human to be a test instrument comes with many unknowns and variables. Perhaps a possible test of human hearing acuity and accuracy vs electronic test equipment would be in order. Play back whatever test signals and program material desired. Have the listener evaluate and note their impressions. Capture measurements with the test equipment at the same time. Alter the test signals and program material in a known way. Repeat the playback and capture measurements and the human impressions of the test signals and program material. Continue this for many variations of the test signals and program material. Alterations in the signals can be anything, overall level, frequency response, distortions, latency changes between different frequency bands, pick your alteration and test it. This testing regimen will allow easy evaluation of both the electronic test equipments accuracy and a humans ability to evaluate changes. It would be interesting to see what if any differences there are between the electronic tests and a humans impression of the test signals and program material original test and the altered signal tests. Once we have a very good understanding of how electronic test equipment and human evaluations of tests correlate only then should we move on to actually testing those different wires and interconnects. |
Check out the forum thread on "Audio Engineering Society and cables" from June. There is discussion of peer-reviewed, published research demonstrating that cables that have an identical frequency response can still sound different and can be perceived as sounding significantly different under blinded listening conditions - even by untrained listeners. |
I won’t say there can’t be an audible difference, who knows there still are paramaters in play we didn’t measure (correctly). There also is this thing though that our ears fool us. Or actually it’s not our ears, they merely are the sensors, the transducers ... the real hearing takes place in our brain. And our brain fools us, greatly. For one, it fills in the gaps, our hearing is trained on how songs and music usually ought to sound, just like we can read a sentence where all vowels are left out prfectly well (w cn rd a sntnc whr ll th vwls r lft t prfctl wll). Our ’hearing’ is also greatly influenced by visuals, and by expectations. Google for the McGurk effect. So ... yes ... when you just shelled out $4000 for new speaker cables, that look thick and fancy and that have nice gold plated connectors on them (I never use connectors, the less interconnects the better), you WILL here a difference ... just because you just told your brain there SHOULD be a difference. And of course, if the first listening was a bit disappointing, you now hear a difference after some hours of ’running in’. Because the experts told you they sound better after ’running in’, your brain now expects a difference. Who knows what exactly happens with the molecules and atoms during running in? The interesting notice is statistically there’s a 50% chance they sound worse ... but no, they always sound better! And of course they again sound better after you placed your cables on the $400 floor spacers to avoid cable vibrations. Ever thought of using $2 kitchen sponges for that? It all becomes much more difficult with a blind A/B test. |
The sound that gets to the brain and is 'heard' is different to that entering the ears. Because there is a brain in between. The brain is like an AD converter. It adds and subtracts artifacts. Indeed it is much less compliant than an AD converter since it adds emotion (aka placebo effect). Psycho issues beset those who report differences. They don't like it but only consistent differences found in double blind ABX tests carry any validity at all. All other results are nulled by non sound-related brain activity. Yes @rudyb it does 'all become more difficult in a blind test'. Many report that emotional and nervous issues reduce their discriminatory ability. This is just a cover-up because they do not 'hear' the differences in a correctly implemented scientific test. There should be minimum delay between presentations of A B and X. I repeat: reports in circumstances where I listen to my system, spend 5 or 10 minutes changing wires, and then listen again 15 minutes later and report differences CARRY NO VALIDITY AT ALL. |
@avitacom vitacom "Measurements, e.g., resistance, inductance, capacitance, are, these days, easily made , recorded and compared but are gross and crude compared to the kinds of phenomena which may be discerned by the human ear and brain such as, say, timbre. The simple measurements aren’t going to help us predict how a device (cable) will contribute to SQ." Well said. FWIW: British Audiophile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Opv0Zx6Mc&t=929s&ab_channel=ABritishAudiophile Audio Excellence: https://youtu.be/SPBlWgNqK_g?t=620 @dynamiclinearity arity you don't know if some factor is missing from your measurements until you discover all the measurements. We usually discover new measurements when our observations are no longer predictable by our current measurements. Exactly. The history of science is (when successful) and expanding discovery of what exists. Science presents hypotheses -- this theory is the best explanation (so far) of the phenomena in question (so far) for the purposes defined (so far). @sdl4 -- Thank you -- I will! |
"Measurements, e.g., resistance, inductance, capacitance, are, these days, easily made , recorded and compared but are gross and crude compared to the kinds of phenomena which may be discerned by the human ear and brain such as, say, timbre. The simple measurements aren’t going to help us predict how a device (cable) will contribute to SQ." Timbre is the fundamental plus the harmonics and can be measured. I’m not sure why it seems to take away enjoyment from listening to music if we can also understand, explain and measure what we hear. Take a single electric guitar note with a fundamental 96.5 hz and the harmonics 96.5 x 2 x3 x4 x5 etc.. These can be measured and shown on a FR plot, different instrument different measurements different timbre. If the resistance, inductance and capacitance of the wire differs by enough to alter the FR then it will affect the timbre. |
djones51, your point is well taken. I was searching for a musical quality which could be discerned by listeners but not possibly measured by existing guages. “Warmth,” or “brightness,” would have been a better choice than timber. I believe that most of us would agree that state-of-the art instrumentation is insufficient to describe, wholly, the glorious, human experience of music. |
@hilde45 - even though the cables "measure the same" they can be vastly different inside
Hope that helps - steve |
I happen to be friendly with Scott Hull owner/chief engineer of https://masterdisk.com/ He states unequivocally that cables sound different. I have sat in the "master's chair" and listened to the system you see in the link above (page down a bit). Regards, barts |
The other side of the coin which I find almost completely nutz is when Paul McGowan states that he heard an amazing difference in the sound of PS Audio's reference system by changing the POWER CORDS that are feeding the Power Plant 20 regenerators that in turn feed the amps. I get lost on this one, I mean if its "regenerating" the power how in the world could a power cord to the device make a difference? Its a given that the original was a properly sized PC. So now, to me, the question becomes "what happens if you were to daisy chain several regenerators together?". And further, what if in the chain you inserted an original PC? As I said I'm lost on this one. Regards, barts |
This question has been raised often on this forum, so there's really little to add. But I'll try. First, by way of recycling a remark someone made some time ago. Until the early 20th century, science had identified four distinct taste receptors, and so four distinct tastes: salt, sweet, bitter and sour. Then a Japanese researcher identified a fifth: umami (savory). Did we taste this flavor before receptors for it were discovered by science? Undoubtedly we did. Lesson: the question of what can be "measured" depends on the state of the relevant science--and, as hilde45 (the OP) suggests a few comments above, science is continually expanding the horizons of our understanding. That said, I remain a skeptic regarding the underlying assumptions of many of our passionate convictions as audiophiles. How our brains process sound is such a complex matter that it seems to me essentially a fetish to place so much emphasis on any single feature, especially when that feature is of marginal impact. It's not even fair to appeal to A/B/X blind testing as the gold standard for answering such questions; I think we all know that, for many aspects of our quest for the Absolute Sound, sustained listening--not just over hours, but over days, weeks, years--is necessary. After all, a given individual's capacity for critical listening changes over time. Acuity of hearing diminishes with age while one's mental catalog of past experiences with music increases; emotional sensitivity is different at different times; physiological variables are relevant (degrees of relative health; the presence or absence of intoxicants--it's a long list); acoustics vary even with the weather in the same room. Most importantly, and not under the listener's control, the quality of the original recording (or the acoustics of the venue, if the musical experience is live) is the fundamental limiting factor on everything else. Cables and interconnects are one of these many variables, and not by any means (IMO) among the more important ones. But we're all control freaks. And we all want to make improvements to our systems for as modest an additional investment as possible. Hence, we hope to burnish our already shiny toys with "tweaks." That's perfectly understandable, even laudable. But it's also a distraction. At some point, you've got to decide what you're in this game for: the technology, and its near-miraculous abilities, or the music? A quote attributed to Alan Parsons comes to mind: "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen you your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment." That stings. Too often, I find myself choosing music because is well-recorded and sounds good on my system. If I'm honest, I'm inclined even to confess that my recent taste in "music" is partly determined by what sounds good on my system--even though I've lived with music all my life, I play several instruments, my wife and daughter are accomplished musicians. That's ass backwards. |
Sniff, I have the itmost respect for your “ass backwards” judgement concerning your personal listening experience. In my little listening universe, however, choosing recordings based to some extent on their compatibility with my system is perfectly OK and I have certainly been accused of listening to the equipment. I’ve been called worse. My dear wife, unlike me, is an accomplished musician and that is one of the traits which attracted me to her long ago. She is perfectly satsfied with her “downstairs” system of old JVC receiver, Sony turntable and old Meadowlark bookshelf speakers. BTW, I’ve read that musicians tend to invest minimally in audio. Forgive me for the digression. |
Just for a lark I decided to reinstall some monster speaker cables I had from a few years back. What a difference compared to my present Townshend F1 speaker cables! I couldn’t believe how crappy the sound was! Just think, this is what we used for so many years ago and thought it was an improvement over zip cord! I guess they would measure the same though... ozzy |
Just for a lark I decided to reinstall some monster speaker cables I had from a few years back. Yeah, danager was here recently and he couldn't see how a power cord could possibly matter so we pulled out one of my old freebies and then when we went back to the Supernova he gasped just to hear the lead-in groove! He is still talking about how the difference was so great he heard it even before the music started! |
Good posts. For an issue which many consider either fruitless or settled, its ability to endure is amazing. Listened to this podcast from just a couple days ago: https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2021/09/09/what-are-meta-materials-do-expensive-cables-matter-the-occ... They discuss the profit margin of cables, the different ways to listen to hear differences, the physics involved, the continued financial success for the industry despite the unending "snake oil" claims, and more. Possibly of interest. I'm gratified to see the example of umami mentioned. It's appropriate, I think. Many people hear differences; many companies are experimenting with designs and materials resulting in further differences heard. To my mind, there's a very good chance that scientific explanations are lagging behind; that's the history of science, right? The unexplained rises up in our experience and then we try to devise tools and measurements to measure, predict, and control experience. But even if that's not the case — let's say that we cannot find a tool & measurement approach to explain why differences are heard. Let's say we discover that, like currency, this is all a huge social construction — people inventing a symbol system with no basis in physical reality. Last I checked, language and money, sports and religions, are all considered real enough by most people. Anyone who considers socially constructed realities as fake is hereby invited to send me their money. (Friends and Family on Paypal is fine.) |
There's already tools to explain differences they're ABX and Double Blind listening tests. If a difference is heard by enough people better than chance then science looks for why. So far differences that are heard have been explained by existing measurement at such time if they can't be then science will find a way to measure it. Good example is the Purifi Transducers. The designers heard things they couldn't measure or explain so they invented a way to measure what they heard. |
This all reminds me of Japan trying to corner the premier wine market back in the 80's. Well they were good at everything else, it is after all just more engineering, right? They have the soil, they have the climate, they are the same latitude as all the best wine growing regions, how hard could it be? So they tested the crap out of the very best wines. Spectroscopy, gas chromatography, taste, smell, appearance, the works. All the very best wines, we are just gonna reverse engineer copy the crap out of em and beat em at their own game. Poured millions, hundreds of millions into it, and this is back in the 80's when a million was a big number not less than a rounding factor like today. Ten years later instead of leading the market they were sucking wind. Twenty years later they still had nothing to show for it but a lot of good looking numbers. Here we are now coming up on 40 years, what we call two generations and look around, it is all California, France, Spain, same old. They did the double blind science thing too. Turns out only people who actually have a taste for wine are fit to judge wine. Ultimately it does no good to insist on engineering and scientific testing. Either the people are buying it, or the people are not buying it. Far as I know they never did figure out how to test and engineer wine. Change one letter. What are the odds it will be any different with wire? |
The idea of "social construction" gets a lot of bad press these days but, as hilde45's example of a monetary currency shows, "real" things with "real" consequences can still be matters of social construction. The placebo effect is also real, at least insofar as the belief that a drug (for instance) will have an effect often can produce that effect. It's a common misunderstanding to suppose that this means the effect is NOT "real," but rather "all in the head." It is in the head that "reality" is experienced, after all! What's particularly fascinating to me is the extent to which certain theories in quantum physics seem to imply that consciousness is genuinely constitutive of the "external" or so-called real world. "Objectivity" and "subjectivity" are not nearly so easily distinguished as we like to think. But that's a topic far beyond the scope of an audiophile forum. |
@snilf Spot on. The terms "objectivity" and "subjectivity" and the hard dualism dividing mind and world are the root of a lot of mistakes in audio and other areas, but it's no simple matter to unpack and defuse those mistaken summations of what exists. The simplest way for me is to think of everything as process, involved in an interactive (or ecological) system. This way of thinking doesn't get rid of categories like "mind" or "matter" but it converts them into rough placeholders, sticky notes for present purposes but discardable as soon as the purposes of inquiry change. |
Where people get lost in the woods is easily seen in this thread. As I mentioned before measurements of equipment can't explain the human perception of music. Think of it as a two systems, when sound hits the ear our system of perception from ear to brain is in control. We decide what we like and don't, it's the system of subjective preferences. The system of mechanical reproduction of sound is objective as it's ruled by electricity, mathematics, electronics, circuits etc.. which we construct. Some audiophiles like to merge these two realities as if they're one system. Since we can't "yet" measure our perceptions then we can't measure our equipment good enough because they don't always align and obviously our perception system is better than the mechanical system. Any test these engineers design can't be accurate because the test doesn't always agree with what I believe. Science can measure music reproduction systems better than our ears, they can design tests that tell us if what we hear is a difference in the mechanical system or a preference of our subjective system. There's nothing right or wrong about preferring one cable or speaker, amp, etc.. than another. Claiming that equipment that measures the same doesn't sound the same offering only anecdotes as proof doesn't get us anywhere or teach us anything besides everyone has an opinion. If done with properly controlled testing then we have something to go on. The only way social constructs work is if we all agree on the rules, natural physical phenomena is oblivious to our rules, under the right conditions electricity will stop your heart whether we believe or not. |
A little while ago I received this direct message from a user who no longer wishes to post on the forum. I wanted to add it to the thread (despite the fact that it paints my question as borne of ignorance -- see: "If the test was not blind it did not happen. Period. Until you are willing to accept this, you are just wasting your and other people's time asking this question.") He approved of me quoting his direct communication with me. Here it is. QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.? |
@djones51 A good reply and, as usual, I’m learning from your posts. One thing which trips me up on this topic is the presumption that we know completely what to measure *for*. The flaws in human perception, bias, subjective attention, etc. are all really strong indications that the "subjective" assessment is less than perfect. But I cannot see how we can have a proof that the "objective" measurement side can be confident that every thing which can and should be measured is known. We cannot have closure on the objective side because it’s attempting to measure attributes which connect to a subjective-psychological side about which our knowledge is incomplete -- indeed, might never be complete. In this regard, measurement is like map-making. No map is ever complete, because maps are tools meant to serve purposes, and since purposes change and become more complex, maps, too, change. |