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.
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
175 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
kosst_amojanIn the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold, or pain or pleasure.Of course, there absolutely is such a thing as music. And sound, color, and hot and cold can all be measured. (Pain and pleasure can probably also be measured, but I'm less certain of that.) So to assert that there's really no such thing "in the strictest scientific sense" as music doesn't really make any sense. It's just a sophist's claim, and doesn't further science, or the art of music, one bit. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
@kosst:" In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold, or pain or pleasure." Do you even know what an enzyme is and what it does? In the strictest scientific sense, you’re way off base. I agree that the perceptions of pain or pleasure are somewhat subjective, but sound, light, color and temperature are all quantifiable physical properties. Why do you think an ordered system like the human brain would evolve to have very complex systems to sense thermodynamically defined properties that exist in the physical universe if there was no advantageous need to do so? After all, it’s energetically expensive to develop such systems and the universe doesn’t work that way. Typically, unless there is a closed energy system, like the earth/sun, entropy prevails. That’s just the way it is. Your sense of what consitutes science, is frankly, an utter joke, so please educate yourself on some basic physics instead of simply hand waving emotional conjecture that has no basis in anything other than your sorry navel gazing. |
| Post removed |
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. 🌭 |
kosst_amojan What exactly is the numeric value of blue?That depends on what shade of blue you're talking about. Any shade of any color can be numerically identified, however. I'm surprised you don't know this, but that reveals why you'd make this absurd, obviously false or misleading claim: In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold ... ." |
| Post removed |
kosst_amojan Then tell me what the actual quantitative value of blue is. Any shade, I don't care ...You can choose your own shade. Obtain a tristimulus colorimeter, and you can measure the exact shade of any color you choose. It's a science. Of course, you can argue all day long that it isn't a science. You can also continue your argument that in "the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound ... or hot or cold," but you'd be wrong there, too. |
| Post removed |
kosst_amojan
I don't understand what it is with you. I think everyone else reading this gets what I'm saying except you and Geoff.There is nothing "with me." But your claim that, "In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold," is false, as has been shown. Have a nice day. |
| Post removed |
@kosst: "Any cognitive psychologist or neuroscientist will tell you that." Sorry buddy, but that’s simply not true. I worked as a postdoc in developmental genetics at U. Oregon in the Institute of Molecular Biology for three years and was very close to neighboring labs, colleagues and faculty in the Dept. of Neuroscience. There are neurophysiological methods for quantifying sensory inputs (ion channels, action potentials, as with enzymes; ever heard about them either?) that can be interrogated and measured electrically, accurately and with precision. Look, biology is built on chemistry, which is built on physics, which is built on mathematics. These principles and mechanisms are all congruent. We haven’t even cracked open a tiny amount of understanding how the ultimate machine works (the cell) let alone mapped the quadrillion (by some estimates) synapses of the human brain, far from it. But, so far, not once has any biological, neurological or developmental principle stepped outside of the known physical boundaries of the universe, so the rules will and shall apply. There’s no "mumbo jumbo blah blah" going on here, and any scientist who so espouses such quasi-drivel nonsense is ultimately ignored by the scientific community. They certainly don’t get funded ha! |
| Post removed |
@kosst: "Unless you're telling me that those folks there can take their measurements and definitively tell the exact thoughts and feelings of a human being, you're not even close to understanding what I'm talking about." You give an inch and they take a mile, so predictable. Did I say that? Of course we can't (yet) quantify emotion, perception, thoughts, intentions...sheesh... 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. Can we get back to measurements and perception please? Given that we have the same complement of cone cells in our retinas, the blue you see is the exact same blue I see. |
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. |
kosst_amojan What I mean by "what’s with you" is you repeatedly come at me out of pure ignorance, such as now, or you’re just inventing a circumstance out of thin air to reframe something I’ve said, like you did the last we met on the Tekton thread with your "one complaint" silliness.I don’t know what you’re talking about. Frankly, you sound paranoid. Your claim that, "In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold," is absurd. Your notion that I suffer from "pure ignorance" for noting that is equally absurd. You have acquired a cherished religious belief, which is fine. But your fervor is proselytizing it, and insisting that your faith is an Absolute Truth, is where you run into trouble with those who think for themselves. Beware the audio guru. |
These discussions remind me of analagous discussion in epistemology except the study of listening is much easier than the studying of reading because a music listener doesn't have to think about the worldviews of the composer, intended audience, and players, (but maybe do for the worldviews of the HiFi manufacturers and audio engineers - <i>pace</i> Benchmark DAC).I find @khosst_amojan's arguments closest to the worldview of pessimistic realism, itself a depressing subset of modernism which has been replaced by post-modernism precisely because it collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. My own worldview identifies most clearly with critical realism which does allow for currently unmeasurable differences in waveforms to be audible after a critical dialog and yes I can hear the difference power cables make even though those differences are currently unmeasurable. That said I've yet to see any serious attempt to verify the Shunyata thesis that the first few feet connected to the transformer change the behaviour of the transformer? |
kosst_amojan"What exactly is the numeric value of blue? What is the quantifiable value of pain? What value is a D note? There aren’t any. The quantifiable values of the phenomenon have nothing to do with the actual experience. No part of our biology is counting wavelengths to determine blue or a D note, and those values don’t even come close to describing the experience of them. This is a widely accepted truth in neuroscience" It is apparent, demonstrated, and obvious that this posting genius is a graduate of Cheech and Chong University and it is most likely that his introductory courses in electronics were instructed by Dr. Timothy Leary and as for " widely accepted truth in neuroscience" the genius offers no data, evidence, or reference for his claim, assertion or belief. Nevertheless he is authorized, allowed, and permitted to post his beliefs here and others are free to consider, accept, or reject his claims which should probably be considered under the influence of the type of substances I have thankfully always avoided and suggest, recommend, and encourage you to do the same as these claims show, demonstrate, and reveal the consequences of polluting your mind with mind altering substances that alter, cloud, and confuse the user's sense of facts, truth, and reality. |
Beauty 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. Specs and 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. |
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. |
>>>>>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. OK GK. Only problem with that is it doesn’t matter what you think. Its all YOUR perception not ours. Checkmate!
Age old question....age old answers.... |
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 |
| Post removed |
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]” |
kosst_amojan Yes, I will swear up and down that I can accurately measure the temperature of virtually anything on earth. I can scientifically prove there is such a thing as music and with the help of an expert and a spectrophotometer or tristimulus colorimeter, can precisely measure the exact shade of any color you choose. Of course, this conflicts with your closely held religious conviction that you fervently proselytize here: In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold ...I can also, scientifically, prove to you that the earth is not flat. It’s very easy to do! Yet the hand-wringing continues: This quantification of consciousness is a real problem when it comes to really understanding what all kinds of measurements mean well beyond the characteristics of an amplifier....It’s a problem for you, and it is of your own creation. But some people enjoy problems, and drama, and preaching to others. So I hope you are having fun! |
| Post removed |
I guess this is what old men do to still show themselves relevant (no fault of the OP, the topic was legitimate). The proof on this forum is staggering. Topics that have been covered and documented in the 70's make their way back into discussion as if it is something new. I don't know about other readers here, but I recall learning about the color of frequencies two fold back in my photography and music theory classes. I question if some of these guys ever went to school, or even now with so many of them being Wiki-fied grads how they can turn these threads into two sided spin cycles for the sake of the spin only. I highly doubt anyone from outside these pages are interested in the intellect of the Agon aged. It is good entertainment on a lazy afternoon to cure boredom as Glupson would say, but really only a sign that these guys aren't listening to music as their main hobby. Agon forum lifers, an interesting bunch of folks indeed. |
