Pleasurably better, not measurably better
I have created a new phrase: pleasurably better.
I am giving it to the world. Too many technophiles are concerned with measurably better, but rarely talk about what sounds better. What gives us more pleasure. The two may lie at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I use and respect measurements all the time, but I will never let any one of them dictate to me what I actually like listening to.
"Measurements" seem like it refers to a unified set of practices. But it's a plurality; measurements are of different phenomena, with different scales, all with variable bearing on audibility, let alone "pleasing" audibility. Imagine if cooks just took "pro-seasoning" vs. "anti-seasoning" positions -- without any further qualification. It would be laughable.
|
Agreed. I was enjoying things a lot and then I decided to try measuring the reflections and frequency curve in my room. After mitigating some peaks and troughs and eliminating some reflections, I enjoyed it more. Measurements facilitated more enjoyment. That’s why I like measurements and why they are also important. |
@ghdprentice You got at the heart of it, first, when you said, "The problem is the measurement problem is so oversimplified… it does not come close to characterizing sound as heard." In early psychology, there is the idea of "minima sensibilia," roughly the threshold at which some phenomenon can be sensed. If we had that for audio measurements, it would help -- somewhat. I'm convinced that there is much we hear that no one knows how to measure for, yet. Skeptics will say this is just "subjective bias" but that catchall move just ends inquiry, cold. There's more at work, I'd expect. |
