Perception is just another high falutin’ word that’s supposed to mean something more that what it means. Perception of sound and hearing are the same thing. Anything that influences your perception will influence the sound you hear. There’s no difference. It’s not neuroscience or rocket science. 🚀
The invention of measurements and perception
This is going to be pretty airy-fairy. Sorry.
Let’s talk about how measurements get invented, and how this limits us.
One of the great works of engineering, science, and data is finding signals in the noise. What matters? Why? How much?
My background is in computer science, and a little in electrical engineering. So the question of what to measure to make systems (audio and computer) "better" is always on my mind.
What’s often missing in measurements is "pleasure" or "satisfaction."
I believe in math. I believe in statistics, but I also understand the limitations. That is, we can measure an attribute, like "interrupts per second" or "inflamatory markers" or Total Harmonic Distortion plus noise (THD+N)
However, measuring them, and understanding outcome and desirability are VERY different. Those companies who can do this excel at creating business value. For instance, like it or not, Bose and Harman excel (in their own ways) at finding this out. What some one will pay for, vs. how low a distortion figure is measured is VERY different.
What is my point?
Specs are good, I like specs, I like measurements, and they keep makers from cheating (more or less) but there must be a link between measurements and listener preferences before we can attribute desirability, listener preference, or economic viability.
What is that link? That link is you. That link is you listening in a chair, free of ideas like price, reviews or buzz. That link is you listening for no one but yourself and buying what you want to listen to the most.
E
Let’s talk about how measurements get invented, and how this limits us.
One of the great works of engineering, science, and data is finding signals in the noise. What matters? Why? How much?
My background is in computer science, and a little in electrical engineering. So the question of what to measure to make systems (audio and computer) "better" is always on my mind.
What’s often missing in measurements is "pleasure" or "satisfaction."
I believe in math. I believe in statistics, but I also understand the limitations. That is, we can measure an attribute, like "interrupts per second" or "inflamatory markers" or Total Harmonic Distortion plus noise (THD+N)
However, measuring them, and understanding outcome and desirability are VERY different. Those companies who can do this excel at creating business value. For instance, like it or not, Bose and Harman excel (in their own ways) at finding this out. What some one will pay for, vs. how low a distortion figure is measured is VERY different.
What is my point?
Specs are good, I like specs, I like measurements, and they keep makers from cheating (more or less) but there must be a link between measurements and listener preferences before we can attribute desirability, listener preference, or economic viability.
What is that link? That link is you. That link is you listening in a chair, free of ideas like price, reviews or buzz. That link is you listening for no one but yourself and buying what you want to listen to the most.
E
Showing 44 responses by geoffkait
kosst_amojan @geoffkait You’re the guy who’s always trying to inject quantum mechanics into everything. And then you pin it all on me or other people to make ridiculous strawmen to crucify. Are you the guy for whom your last quote was written? I honestly can’t figure out what side of things you’re on. >>>>>Huh? What are you ranting about? I bring up quantum mechanics when it’s appropriate, like in this discussion. Consciousness and quantum mechanics and perception all go hand in hand in hand 🤝, as I’ve described. It has nothing to do with you. Don’t be such a drama queen. 💃 There is no definite line separating quantum mechanics and classical physics any more. “The fault is not in the stars but in ourselves.” |
There have been many authoritative books on the subject of physics and quantum physics of the mind, including but not limited to, The Emperor’s New Mind (sir Roger Penrose) and Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (Henry Stapp).The quantum physics of the human mind can now be demonstrated thanks to the Psyleron Mind Lamp, developed by former members of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group, including the former head of the Princeton Engineering School. The random nature of the operation of the lamp can be influenced by thoughts of people in the room, making the lamp display colors non randomly. The Mind Lamp from Psyleron demonstrates the power of the mind over matter as well as how the mind interacts with local inanimate objects (mind-matter interaction). Curiously, the lamps have been shown to “communicate” with each other. 😬This all does lead to the observation IMHO that perception is to some degree a result of Mind-Matter interaction, conscious or subconscious. The mind is not so ephemeral as people oft suppose. http://www.psyleron.com/lamp.html There is also this for your consideration, “Quantum mechanical terms are commonly misinterpreted to enable pseudoscience. Phenomena such as nonlocality and the observer effect are vaguely attributed to consciousness, resulting in quantum mysticism. According to Sean Carroll, "No theory in the history of science has been more misused and abused by cranks and charlatans—and misunderstood by people struggling in good faith with difficult ideas."[2] Prominent scientific skeptic Lawrence Krauss also conveyed that "No area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics."[3]” |
Be it sight, sound, smell or touch There’s something inside that we need so much The sight of a touch Or the scent of a sound Or the strength of an oak With roots deep in the ground The wonder of flowers to be covered And then to burst up Through tarmac To the sun again Or to fly to the sun Without burning a wing To lie in a meadow And hear the grass sing To have all these things In our memories hoard And to use them To help us To find.....God |
mapman15,614 posts01-16-2019 11:45amBeauty is in the ear of the beholder, AND it changes all the time for countless reasons. Predicting it is futile. Good science and engineering in the gear making the sound however is the only practical means to help ever realize it. Measurements done properly help educated people make good decisions but alone still guarantees nothing. Its all a puzzle that some will master and enjoy, others not so much. Knowledge is always the key. Obfuscation and disinformation inevitably encountered along the way only hurts. Gotta be able to sort through the nonsense and focus on the facts. That’s pretty much all one has to rely on. >>>>>Sadly, perhaps, but definitely ironically, knowledge is what’s left after you subtract out all that stuff you forgot that they taught you in school you never found a use for anyway. But if you want to be the Decider, be my guest. By the way the reason disinformation and misinformation is so effective people don’t know the difference. Apologies in advance for making mincemeat of your carefully worded post, Moops. Maybe if you quote scripture or Shakespeare next time it will be more convincing. |
stevecham What I was trying to convey, and obviously failed, was to simply state that such emotions, perceptions, thoughts, intentions, etc., are all subjected to the same physical properties that govern the universe. We just don’t have all the details (yet). Look, if we can imagine something, it can (eventually) be realized, simply because all thought follows the same mechanisms, forces, fields, enegetics, albeit in combinations that are highly, highly complex. The laws which govern the baryonic (observable) universe mandate it. The laws of thermodynamics shall not be trifled with. >>>>>Be that as it may, what is missing is the *subconscious* interaction of the brain with its surrounding, the evolutionary development of conscious and subconscious extrasensory perception and conscious mind over matter abilities. When you sitting there in your chair there’s a lot going in your brain - that is beyond your control - other than interpreting acoustic waves. This is why colors are important for (perceived) sound quality, and shapes, and books, and CDs and newspapers, as I’ve already pointed out. The more CDs and or LPs and books one possesses the worse his sound will be. The irony is that those audiophiles who perceive themselves as High Enders can never enter the gates of Audio Nirvana. They dug a hole so deep they can never get out. But they get used to the sound. Modern neuroscience and physics is lagging behind what some audiophiles already know. I don’t reckon NASA or AES or MIT will be scrambling to study these audiophile ideas any time real soon so don’t hold your breath. People are so hung up on physics and electricity and the “science of hearing.” That’s so 1980s. Can’t see the Forest for the Trees. |
Speaking of the color BLUE, especially with respect to the whole subject of human perception, can anybody guess what color is best for room walls, you know, in terms of sound quality? And what about the ceiling? Anyone want to hazard a guess? Most people think it doesn’t matter or that because prisons decided a long time ago that industrial green has a calming effect on prisoners that’s the best color for sound, too. No, I’m not hot doggin ya. 🌭 |
Well, of course nothing would exist if you were not here. That’s pretty obviously. On the other hand people see reality differently. While people may sometimes agree on what that reality is, especially for subjective reality like hearing and vision, they oft disagree. When I visit hither thither and yon and listen to people’s systems, or I’m going around to bug systems at shows, I’m oft tempted to say something unkind as regards the sound quality. Usually I hold my tongue or bite my tongue. 😛 I must hear things they don’t. I know I see things they don’t. I find that audiophiles as a general rule are 1) very high on the sound of their own systems and 2) get quite offended at any suggestion that their system sound is in any way lacking. So, sometimes silence is golden. |
Addendum, just to drive the point home a little bit more, taking CDs, LPs, newspapers, books - any media - completely out of the dwelling restores the TV picture quality to what it is supposed to be - noiseless, without grain, with solid and saturated colors. I.e., all senses are affected, not just the sense of hearing by deep sixing the media. The superb TV picture was there the whole time but you couldn’t see it properly because of the “noise” produced in your brain by the aforementioned media. The more CDs or LPs you have the deeper the hole you’ve dug for yourself. I hate to be the bearer of bad gnus. 🐂 🐂 🐂 |
Jea48, No matter how you store them taking CDs or LPs out of the house improves the sound. Quite a bit, actually. Very shocking. What does that Mean? It means CDs and LPs are bad for the sound. Is that ironic? Yes. Is that a contradiction? Not really. But it has nothing to do with resonance or damping or any such thing. The better sound was in the room before, you just couldn’t hear it properly or completely. Of course, we don’t want to talk about this sort of thing too much. 😛 in any case, you would almost certainly be unable to measure any differences with an SPL meter .....or anything else. You can’t fool Mother Nature. That’s why I oft say perception of sound doesn’t necessarily lend itself to measurement. And when I use that term perception of sound I use it synonymously with hearing. There’s no difference. It’s all hearing. |
Three things to try at home before passing judgement on what affects perception of sound and what doesn’t. 1. Remove all telephone books from the house or apartment and listen again. 2. Remove all cell phones from the house and listen again. 3. Remove all old newspapers and magazines from the house and listen again. 4. Take as many CDs and or LPs as you can carry outside and listen again. You be the judge. You are the decider. |
I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears from what you say the young Turks at CES are more interested in pro audio than high end audio or audiophiles. Which makes sense, really. Young dudes and dudettes can’t even identify countries on a map of the world these days, much less grasp the physics behind vibration isolation or magnetic field absorption. The signal, by the way, is not a magnetic field so your example of mu metal is a little bit lame, Michael. However the signal is *distorted* by magnetic fields, hence the mu metal. Capish? |
Suddenly everybody’s a brain specialist or neuroscientist. What’s up with that? The interaction of the environment with the brain, at far as audiophiles are concerned, anyway, has been thoroughly and sufficiently explained by PWB over the course of the past thirty years. You can throw away all those Psychology Todays and Journals of Hearing Science you’ve been hoarding, guys. And can I suggest a check-up from the neck up? 😛 |
Oopsy, Daisy, it was brucenitroxpro! @brucenitroxpro - the questions I asked of erik_squires were intended for you. Can you please respond. Since you are a teacher of experimental psychology and you do not see that background too much I thought I would ask you, by any chance are you familiar with the now defunct group PEAR 🍐 Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research? Also, how about Rupert Shekdrake, author of Dogs that Know When their Owners are Coming Home? 🐩 By the way, I used to work in submarines and heard some good stories. |
@erik_squires, since you are a teacher of experimental psychology and you do not see that background too much I thought I would ask you, by any chance are you familiar with the now defunct group PEAR 🍐 Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research? Also, how about Rupert Shekdrake, author of Dogs that Know When their Owners are Coming Home? 🐩 |
erik_squires My point is, we perceive something, then we find a way to measure it, then we use that measurement to tell us something. That doesn’t mean all perception has been measured. >>>>PWB Electronics (The Belts) in UK spent thirty years or so developing audiophile products that do exactly that - change your perception of sound (hearing) but cannot be measured. Some of my products operate via mind-matter interaction and information fields, changing the way you hear sound. I’ve been involved in this sort of thing, things that go bump in the night, for twenty years. The sound you want is in the room the whole time, you just can’t hear it properly. Things are much worse than people realize. |
kosst_amojan As far as audio systems go.... If the speakers produce mathematically perfect output, and if the source provides a perfect signal to an amplifier that perfectly amplifies it, and the sound is heard in a mathematically perfect environment, then the result will be indistinguishable from the live event. There’s very little guess work in this. We make art out of the compromises actual parts and materials force us to make. The best we can hope to accomplish is to creatively juxtapose failings in such a way as to mitigate their obvious nature. To understand those failings we must measure them and quantify them. Only then can we understand them and manipulate them. That’s how engineering works. >>>>>Actually that’s NOT (rpt not) how engineering works. The input is not perfect to begin with and the output is always a distorted and noisy facsimile of the input, at least to some degree. Not to mention sometimes the *best sounding* device has the highest degree of distortion. How can that be?! 😛 It’s a BIG mistake to think of an audio system as a closed system. It’s a mistake to think that a device must be in the audio signal path to affect the sound. We know there are many independent variables that affect the sound we hear. Some of those variables can be controlled but many can’t. If the weather interferes with your listening experience you can wait until the sun comes out or if you don’t like the sound during the day you can wait until nighttime. You have to know what all the variables are to have a chance of controlling them. I do not even have to broach the touchy subject of things that go bump in the night. It’s a mistake to think for audio systems we are ruled by mathematics or engineering. Beauty is not created by mathematicians or engineers. Beauty is not objective. It’s subjective. Beauty is in the eye 👁 of the beholder. |
How about a little philosophy? There are a variety of philosophical approaches to decide whether an observation may be considered evidence; many of these focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis. Carnap recommends distinguishing such approaches into three categories: classificatory (whether the evidence confirms the hypothesis), comparative (whether the evidence supports a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis).[10] Achinstein provides a concise presentation by prominent philosophers on evidence, including Carl Hempel (Confirmation), Nelson Goodman (of grue fame), R. B. Braithwaite, Norwood Russell Hanson, Wesley C. Salmon, Clark Glymour and Rudolf Carnap.[11] Based on the philosophical assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis, a mathematical criterion for evaluation of evidence has been conjectured, with the criterion having a resemblance to the idea of Occam’s Razor that the simplest comprehensive description of the evidence is most likely correct. It states formally, "The ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized."[12] According to the posted curriculum for an "Understanding Science 101" course taught at University of California - Berkeley: "Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science." This philosophical belief in "hypothesis testing" as the essence of science is prevalent among both scientists and philosophers. It is important to note that this hypothesis does not take into account all of the activities or scientific objectives of all scientists. When Geiger and Marsden scattered alpha particles through thin gold foil for example, the resulting data enabled their experimental adviser, Ernest Rutherford, to very accurately calculate the mass and size of an atomic nucleus for the first time. No hypothesis was required. It may be that a more general view of science is offered by physicist, Lawrence Krauss, who consistently writes in the media about scientists answering questions by measuring physical properties and processes. Concept of scientific proofEditWhile the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ’proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".[14][15] Albert Einstein said: The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16] |
Not to be confrontational but math is not the same thing as measurement. And mathematical proof is not the same as scientific proof. Things can be proven mathematically and math can support scientific evidence but math cannot prove a scientific theory. Measurements are however evidence for scientific theories. For example, measuring the velocity of light. Or, in the case of the relativity theory, measuring the anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. |
Jitter is not the root cause. Jitter is the result/manifestation of several independent issues/causes. Bit stuffing presumably occurs when errors occur during the optical read process that can’t be corrected by Reed Solomon EDEC. What’s curious, though, as far as I know and please, someone correct me if I’m wrong, when the input bit stream and the output bit stream are compared *for normal uncorrected conditions* there are very few errors. If that’s true then why is it so audible? |