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.
Erik, when I was in "mid-fi" Harmon and Bose were my favorites, but after I got into "hi-end", everything changed; meaning more objective than subjective, and I don't regret it.
I know you remember "graphic equalizers"; they were the thing in my Harmon, Bose days, but I discovered I was rearranging the music; did I want to hear the band, or be a part of the band?
Now I'm 180 degrees from what I was; I only want neutral components that will faithfully reproduce the music. What's most important is the truth of the equipment that reproduces the music; my pleasure must be derived from the music as it is, not as I want it to be.
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. 🚀
After reading through this thread, my experience is that for measurements and math to fully and completely able to describe and define something in a predictable and repeatable way requires that the "problem" be properly understood and specified up front. As an example...and acoustic guitar played in your back yard and a well made recording of that acoustic guitar as pointed out by
geoffkait, with a mathematically perfect reproduction should be able to be played back through a perfect reproduction system in your living room and have the sound be indistinguishable from the original. Obviously, at least so far, we have not been able to identify all of the parameters that define and contribute to sound as we hear it in a way that we know everything to measure and then devise a way to measure it. If we assume that in the future, such measurements and reproduction capability exists...it will have to take into account many things such as individual hearing differences, different rooms, different perceptions of what things sound like....and it will somehow have to account for the fact that we usually see what is producing the sound...as well as feel it...and both of these senses will influence what we think we are hearing. Measurements may be the ultimate objective...but for now, no substitute for hearing in your room through your system with your music.
Temperature is +2 Fahrenheit but it feels like -30 with the wind chill factor. So, here's an example of measurement v perception. But who decides about the perception?
Humans have known about the octave at least since Sumerian times, i.e., that its sound is pleasing and harmonious. Chimps and some other animals enjoy it, as well. Perception first discovered the octave - perhaps even before there were homo sapiens - and Sumerians were sufficiently captivated to write about it beginning around 3,000 BCE.
Starting around 4,700 years later, the calculus was invented, the existence of sound waves was discovered, and devices to measure frequency were invented. Science was astonished to discover that the octave is a doubling of the frequency of a sound wave, and that the octave is the first harmonic in a series of overtones. The octave has been called "the basic miracle of music."
So, that is the short history of the octave, which was perceived to be harmonious, and has been used to tune instruments in most musical systems, long before it was measured. See this for more:
I *think* I generally understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you are rightly being taken to task because you are making a bit of a mess of it, but making mostly assertions, not arguments, and with some sloppiness involved in the assertions.
So....
"In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold, or pain or pleasure. "
This is off on the wrong foot, or at least it’s unclear. It could mean "according to our strictest science, these things don’t exist."
That would be wrong for the reasons people have pointed out. Science is about the quantifiable and testable, and things like color, sound, music, human perception, human reactions to those etc, can be and have been quantified. Comprehensively? Not at this point. But if we are talking about the strictest science we would by definition be pointing to the quantifiable/quantified aspects.
OR...you could have meant: "these things don’t exist in a way that can be quantified, scientifically." Which I think seems to be what you wanted to say? In which case it might have been more accurate to state "philosophically, there is no such thing as music...."
But in either case, the claim is dubious, as science does study these things.
They’re abstractions produced by the brain to allow consciousness to interpret them.
Really? How do you know that? Can you provide scientific evidence for the claim? If so, it seems we ARE in the realm of that which can be vetted with science.
If it’s instead a philosophical claim, I’m say we are still waiting for the argument to support it.
There can be made correlations between quantifiable phenomenon, but there’s no direct causal link between the phenomenon and the abstraction of conscious experience.
What’s your actual argument for this claim? Because it doesn’t seem acceptable prima facie. Why not? Because it at least suggests you are helping yourself to special pleading in how, just in the case of consciousness, you are demanding more than correlation.
There is an important lesson about drawing inferences in the old phrase "correlation does not imply causation," but it’s not the whole story.
After all, what are our inferences of causation drawn from, if not from reliable instances of correlation? (And prediction). We didn’t even need a chemical theory of combustion to have drawn the reasonable conclusion that fire causes our skin to burn if we hold our finger in the fire. When something is reliably correlated we infer cause. And in science, one seeks to control variables in an attempt to discern which "A" is RELIABLY correlated with phenomenon "B."
So, applied to human perception: we can find through testing for an individual, or group of subjects, that "light frequency spectrum or wavelengths spanning X" is reliably correlated with their perception of "Yellow." Hence we can posit it as a *cause* in the chain of causation resulting in the subjective perception of "yellow." And it’s a direct cause insofar as you can turn on and off the perception of "yellow" by presenting and removing that wavelength to the eyes of the subjects.This is evidence for a "causal" phenomenon in the same way we have evidence for any other causal phenomenon. So I think you need more justification for your claim that causation can not be inferred.
Likewise, the quantifiable conscious experience doesn’t directly correlate with the quantified physical phenomenon, only indirectly. The indirect nature of correlation leaves two questions to be asked. What is the nature of the correlation? And, what is the quantifiable value of the conscious experience. Those two questions need some sort of answer before the question of quantifiable measurement can take on any sort of meaning.
Again, this seems to contain some self contradiction. You seem to be saying on one hand "we don’t have scientific reasons to believe in the said causation," and yet you keep asserting claims about the nature of the physical world and our perception. Where are you getting this knowledge, if not from quantified science? And even in your last sentences you start saying the nature of the interaction of the quantifiable and the perception is unknown...and yet you started off confidently making claims about this: that we know that the things as we perceive them don’t really exist, and that we make abstractions.
So I do find that, at least as you’ve stated them, your claims seem to need better arguments.
stevecham, What I believe in is a thing called reading comprehension. The ability to read and comprehend the meaning in the writing. Comprehend means understand. Like, understand that "organism" does not necessarily mean "human" maybe it actually means, you know, "organism".
A forest is typically filled with life forms both large and small. Even bacteria respond to vibrations. Just because a human isn’t around doesn’t mean it’s not heard. I’d place my money on sound.
This anthropocentric view of what consitutes and supposedly defines reality is the crux of the problem.
Do you also believe that H. sapiens has a monopoly on music making and listening too?
Lot of nice posts here. Measurements are needed for development, quality control etc. It would be impossible to design and produce equipment based only on auditory results. Math is philosophy which is applied in measurements. Measurements quantify a set of known errors. Noise is assumed to be random. Depth of human perception have not as far as know been quantified. Thus measurements will tell what is wrong with equipment, not what is right, but is a good starting point. Digital music formats introduced a new set of errors old systems were not adapted to. Test signals are usually simple to make the math easy. That obviously does not paint a complete picture. How do you extract deviations in stochastic signals where complex intermods will happen? Pseudo random noise with a swept -130dB notch source signal measured with a corresponding analyzer rejecting everything but the swept notch? (I thought about that back in the early 70's but had no way to design and build it.) How much, or more importantly exactly what, is tolerable to a critical ear? Why not introduce quantifiable errors abd and guage their perceptability?
"In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold".
utter nonsense!
Oops!
Just the opposite. I'll explain by giving the one correct answer to a well-known riddle: when a tree falls in a forest, if there is no one there to hear it then does it make a sound?
The answer is no.
The tree falling vibrates the air. It does not make a sound. For there to be sound requires an organism with hearing. No organism, no sound. Nor heat, nor cold. Nor hardness nor softness. Its not nonsense. Its the truest most sensible thing in this whole thread.
HEA goes past what can be measured. HEA audio brands that have spent decades earning my respect is where I began the listening tests, I don't bother with the specs; that's for mid -fi.
kosst_amojan"
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"
This contributor to our forum is misinformed, confused, or disoriented, and deliberately interrupting, disrupting, or derailing the discussion through the use of personal attacks, ad hominem argumentation, or outright vituperative personal insult.
Hear is an example of kosst's essential, fundamental, religious belief, that establishes him as a Great Visionary and the sole, single, solitary expert here who shall not be questioned, challenged or doubted in even the smallest, slightest, tiny way:
"In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold".
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.
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.
Yup. That’s what pays the bills. But I’m considering nonsense as a career now too, just like you. Does it pay well? You are very good at it! You must rake in the dough!
Audiophiles do seem to often have a fondness for problems. Sometimes its just never good enough. Some will make it a hobby forever seeking better sound, never quite sure of what the actual target is. Most are smarter and figure it out or don't really care that much and find a different hobby.
Clearly we’re able to perceive things that don’t reflect physical phenomenon... Perception, buy nature, doesn’t reflect underlying physical phenomenon. I’m not saying the phenomenon of consciousness and perception cannot be quantified. We haven’t developed the tools, methods, or metrics by which to do it yet. But I’ve got Cleeds up there swearing up and down he CAN do such things, which I think you and I both agree is impossible at this point.
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!
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.
“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 skepticLawrence 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
>>>>>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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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: "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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
