in case you haven’t noticed, science fails to fully explain many important things in life, in the universe - man is smart, but there is still a very long ways to go to explain everything that we desire to understand
Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.
Why is it so?
Why is it so?
238 responses Add your response
Consciousness is the seat of sound experience....No tool can replace it... And the ears is at the same time a tool and a learned conciousness of its own...The end point of all other tools in audio... I am not sure that Bach will be pleased to be listened to only by robots one day after the "singularity event"....They will finely comment the counterpoint i am sure, but about the main motif and motivation of Bach music, the adoration of God, i am less certain.... Oups! i forgot that for our "sunday club scientism skeptic boys" God did not exist, then the robot comentaries will be meaningful no doubt without the non sensical Bach theology.... "Intelligent" Tool producing music and listening to it will be perfect without "subjectivist" ears.... « Audiophile robots dont buy cables»-Groucho Marx |
There is no measuring device as sensitive as the human ear, among other things.I will say this in another way...because it is not "true" written like this... The ears is "sensible" to meaning in sound....The ears is less sensible than some tool for this unidimensional accuracy by numbers, but for accuracy of meaning, which is multidimensional, nothing replace the ears... Any tool live in ONE dimension which is the dimension of his use and parameters of his application... The ears live in many dimension at the same time, which are all linked together by "meaning" for our consciousness.... |
Science explains the music and the gear completelyThe gear yes .... The music not at all... Music is not only sound sorry.... No more than pitch perception is reducible to physical acoustic... Read about psychoacoustic= physical acoustic and neurophysiology of perception ... After that add music studies which is irreducible to any of the fields i just name.... Science is not a "superstition" or a belief in audio thread that explain anything and everything , it is a complex grid of fields studies without ANY alleged artificial unity save for his rigorous method..... |
Holy crap! This should be easy. Why am I not surprised nobody gets it???! Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?Because science is a METHOD not a RESULT! Science properly understood does not fail at all. That is like saying Newton "failed" because he didn't know what happens at relativistic velocities around black holes. Science is the method that helped us discover and understand both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. The fact we can reliably hear things we cannot reliably measure is no failure of science. The fact so many lack a firm grasp on what science even means indicates what has truly failed is our system of public education. Now there we have a genuine and profound total fail. |
Bingo! Not only music either. Many years ago, I want to say 1980’s or maybe 90’s, Japan decided to enter the high end wine market. The full resources of Japanese technology were brought to bear. Gas chromatograph, spectroscopy, every conceivable form of chemistry and agricultural analysis. It was a massive undertaking. Like I said this was a good 30 years ago. Look around. How many premium wines you see from Japan? I drink a fair bit, 8 cases or so in the cellar, can’t think of a one. Saki, different story. In a world we like to think has shrunk into bland conformity the truth is you can go country to country and find Russia/vodka, Mexico/tequila, Jamaica/rum, and so on. Not for lack of trying. Helluva lot of money to be made selling premium American tequila, yet the biggest "tequila" Jose Cuervo is actually gin with coloring and flavor added. Not to change the subject, just trying to make the same point another way. Science is a way of figuring out how things work. All the science and technology is no guarantee you ever will figure it out. Oh sure maybe some day. Probably there is some as yet undiscovered yeast or protein that explains why the sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France are better, and why Dom is superior even among champagne. Then again maybe not. Point being, don’t jump the gun. There are no grounds on which to say "science is incapable" that makes about as much sense as saying a car is incapable of getting you to work. It is totally capable. But you do have to drive it, and it does take time. |
I was trained and worked as a scientist for over ten years... but never stopped being one. When it came to high end audio, I learned about a few of the important technical aspects and I then quickly realized what a small part of the whole picture they painted. Thereafter I did not waste a lot time on trying to dig down deeper into layer after layer of variables. Over the ensuing forty years I have thought about this quite a lot, and of similar problems. I was also a a professional "inventor" (mechanical / electrical engineer) soon after college. I learned the same thing. Variables quickly add up to be an insurmountable obstical to using science to analyze and use as predictor. You would end up doing a PhD thesis after thesis and never get anything accomplished. There are too many variables to determine what a system will sound like or what components to put together to get the sound like. No doubt Transparent (the company that makes high end cables) has engineers using science and material experiments to create their cables and interconnects. But in the end it probably still comes down to pragmatically trying stuff at some point. It certainly does in component design. . Consider also the music you are listening to and trying to evaluate. It is not a single tone. If you were to listen to a single tone and compare systems that would be one thing. But music is dynamic... if you listen to a recurring drum beat...it is influenced by other instruments... also your minds eye (ear) bounced around. So even one note has arrival, decay, tone. There are harmonics influencing. This is why just listening to the music for an extended time to determine how much you like a piece of equipment is usually the best way for normal humans to decide. Flitting from sound to sound only gets you a sample and just compares some gross differences... unless you are a very talented and experienced professional reviewer. . Consider a system... multiple components, each influencing each other... and that includes cables influenced by magnetic fields induced by currents. Each component is composed of dozens of subcomponents and each brand of capacitor sounds different. The designer of one of the most expensive and prestigious high end electronic companies said, that he can make a component sound exactly like he wants... if he wants it warm... he uses these capacitors and these resistors and if he wants it this way...this brand... same capacity and resistance... different materials and construction. It is simply in the real world with this many variables it is not worth the time for people in companies and enthusiasts to spend the time and resources on developing incredibly complex models to encompass everything in assessing and predicting based on hundreds of interacting variables. I am sure as time goes on more and more understanding occurs. But for now. Everyone uses some basic variables and then rely on what they hear to develop and pragmatic working understanding of the electronics and what stuff sounds like. . Sorry to have composed this so quickly... but it is getting late. This is a topic one could do a PhD thesis on. |
Terrific post ghdprentice. The Anthem AVM 60 Preamp Processor is a good case in point. I've read where it could be considered a high end bargain. Then a scientist in a white coat tests it and awards it a headless pink panther. Are they both wrong or maybe they are both correct? Indeed they are both likely to be correct - it tests poorly but performs admirably. |
The Anthem AVM 60 Preamp Processor is a good case in point. If you understood the measurements you would see why it got a headless panther. You would also see where Anthem thought the unit might have been faulty so they sent another unit to be tested. You would also know Anthem is having numerous complaints and problems with the newer AVM 70 which they sent for testing to the white coat guys. Looks like it tests poorly and performs poorly. Get a Denon. |
Simple answer. Science is behind the curve because we do not know everything there is to know about sound, electricity, metallurgy, and how humans perceive sound. We know some things, but definitely not everything. Not even close. In short, we lack understanding. This is not a strange phenomenon. We have always lacked understanding. And thank goodness for that. It means we will never stop enquiring and learning as we try and come up with answers of what we observe. Why some "engineers" (roll eyes) on this forum think they know everything about human hearing and the measurement of sound and electricity is beyond me. That would mean there is nothing more to learn on this topic which is baloney. We know more than we knew 50 years ago, in after the next 50 years, we will know more than we know today. |
Not only there is too much variables and parameters to test for and pounder one against the other.... It is only half of the picture... But the audio system is evaluated in quality by a particular ears/consciouness... We do not know what is consciousness related to our world...We use consciousness daily, but why it is? what it is ?, we dont have a clue....For sure we know more than cavemen....I say that for the science cultist skeptic of anything out of his narrow blinders... We do not know what is water or light ultimately, we use them through the most sophisticated technologies for their specific properties, but why it is, what it is ,we dont have a clue....For sure we know more than cavemen...We know sometimes how.... My favorite example is the distribution of prime numbers, which is a "discovered" fact through the " invention" by men of the symbolic numeral systems, we use primes to lock and define our monetary technology and all internet flow security, for example, but why it is what it is, we dont have a clue.... The only one in this century to have a clueabout primes when asked by Hardy why it is what it is , has been answered by Ramanujan this is the will of God.... Then pretending that science will know, is premature, like for a caveman saying that one day he will compute the distribution of primes while flying to the moon, with only light for wings and only special water to feed himself... A beatiful story...But having imagination is not having a clue and knowing how, what and especially why.... Technology IS NOT science... Why is not HOW and how is not WHAT.... Consciousness is the only phenomena which is absolute for all the others to be manifested... Explaining the why of anything is equal to be able to explain consciousness... Those who knows are not scientist....Or if they are like Ramanujan or Swedenborg and if you asked for an answer they will say the answer is "love" or "God".... Ask Swedenborg, one of the great scientist on par with Newton for knowledge....Who even guessed in 17 century, holography and fractal geometry, i read it myself by the way, and who knows everything someone could know in his century.... Or like an ignorant you could disqualify the same answer of two of the greatest mind in the history of mankind : Ramanujan and Swedenborg....And laugh of their identical answer from 2 totally different culture.... And go on in audio thread pleading for measuring a dac or an amplifier to know how it will sound...Or better mock me when i put a piece of shungite on my central electrical panel... This is how stupid people could be... |
I've kind of covered this a few times recently. What you are describing isn't science, it is measurements and technology. For it to be science it has to evolve, and help connect the measurements to perception or desirability. Measuring distortion or frequency response is NOT science. It is 70 year old measurements. |
I’ve kind of covered this a few times recently.You said it better than me thanks.... Some dont even know that this CORRELATION between physical acoustic and neurophysiology of perception is one of the most fundamental science for audio: psychoacoustic.... Some more narrow minded even wanted to reduce the study of perception to only pure technology....They wanted to erase consciousness from the perception "equation" and make it pure physical science....... A.I. cultist..... |
Test tones are a good indication if your component is capable of delivering the musical signal in its entirety so you can decide how it sounds. To what end? If I am going to need to listen to the audio equipment to decide how it sounds, what possible value does the results obtained from test tones give me? I'd rather not know how a musical component test lest it clouds my judgement. I may find a component that perform badly with test tones more musical. |
@petg60 “Nature itself is stronger than science, though with the later we try to comprehend the former. Most likely one of the reasons we create art is the necessity to complement science.” I would put it a little differently. Nature is very complex and science is the tool to unravel it layer by layer. We work from the big close problems... Apple falls, Earth is round, coefficient of friction... layer by layer to more complex and detailed problems.. We are limited by time. The first stage of investigation of a new layer is observation and characterization with none mathematical prediction (try a bunch of different capacitors, see how each sounds). Draw broad generalizations... then test new stuff for conformance. It is this part we are doing to be successful with this pursuit.. It is just an earlier stage of science... like Darwin sailing around the world making observations and drawing preliminary conclusions. I think that is what I enjoy about it. I have learned enough to be able to navigate and buy the right components to get the sound I want with my own models mapped to my tastes. |
@pauly “Why some "engineers" (roll eyes) on this forum think they know everything about human hearing and the measurement of sound and electricity is beyond me.” Yes, I know. I have worked most of my career very closely with dozens and dozens electrical engineers from all over the country in high tech companies... amusingly that make components for high end audio...Burr-Brown Corp and Texas Instruments. I will say as a group they are pretty argumentative and egotistical (think they know it all)... also curious and very intelligent. But they have all read Jules Vernes’ Mysterious Island a couple times too many. Not all are closed minded to realizing they may not know it all... but as a group they are pretty ridged. These are the rolling eyes guys. They really have a hard time admitting they don’t know it all. . I have an old colleague that I worked with for 20 years that had written me suspiciously when I said I had an all tube system. He is coming down later this year... I will have him listen to my system and it will quickly convince him of my point of view... he is very open minded for an electrical engineer. |
Measurements are steady state tones in laboratory conditions and music is ever changing and ever evolving so measurements are for the equipment to meet certain criteria but the true test is to play dynamic music to really discover the true gems of the industry and they won't be the ones everyone talks about. |
Properly derived science contains only provable conclusions that are bedrock. All the rest is conjecture - interesting but not the basis for anything solid. The problem is bad science. This is in the ascendency. One reads the most obviously idiotic nonsense every day, often obtained by extrapolation. Extrapolation is always bad science. The one I like best was around 15 years ago. 'All the snow and ice on the Himalayas will be gone in 30 years. Palpable stupidity at the time; we're about halfway there and there's plenty left. I said at the time that if the entire Chinese nation went up there with blowlamps working 24/7 it wouldn't happen. |
To what end? If I am going to need to listen to the audio equipment to decide how it sounds, what possible value does the results obtained from test tones give me?Test tones can show distortion and noise better than music. Test tones are well chosen to stress the device under test. How much value you get from it is up to you. |
An interesting article pertaining to the "know-all’s" on the forum. Scientism | Psychology TodayVery interesting thanks.... I read it now.... And i must say at the end that all he say is truthful... |
Measurements and technology is science, not all science is theoretical it's also practical. Scientists use measurements and technology all the time to test theories and in audio to test what they hear. For instance Lars Risbo when developing a new driver found inconsistent measurements so along with his colleagues they decided they weren't measuring the right things. Did they throw their hands up and say well we can't measure everything we hear? No, they went about designing tests to find out why and came up with new tests that explained and showed where the problem was in order to go about resolving it. Science, it's why we can communicate over long distances and listen to recorded music in the first place. |
Pedro, science has not failed at all. The most significant factor contributing to the sound of the speaker is it's frequency response in your room. Next would be it's dispersion/radiation pattern. IMHO every audiophile should have a calibrated microphone and the appropriate computer program to run some basic tests. This is the one I use https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-OmniMic-V2-Acoustic-Measurement-System-390-792 I am extremely happy with it. It is simple to use, very accurate and the program has some very useful added features like an oscilloscope. In 30 seconds you can see exactly what your speakers/room are doing. You can manage problems by moving speakers, with various acoustic treatments and finally with digital EQ. It is always useful to start with a flat system which means +- 5 dB, yup 5 dB. Your system is lucky to be +- 10 dB! +- 1 dB would be amazing but you will never get there without digital EQ/room control. Once you have flat then you can adjust things to your liking. Next you can impulse test the system to make sure all speakers and drivers are aligned. Not only can you make your system way better but you can learn a lot about acoustics. This is an amazing value at $300.00 There is not other "tweak" that is as powerful. It is so powerful it is not a tweak. It is essential. |
. Science, it's why we can communicate over long distances and listen to recorded music in the first place.This common sense fact is invoked suggesting "strawman argument" against someone.... Sorry... Nobody is against science, it is the "zealots" non scientific attitude of suspending judgement that is a religious belief not science itself.. Anyway there is field of science studying life of consciousness after death for example... Science is not materialism, like suppose zealots here... Psychoacoustic study the irreducible meaning of human perception to acoustic law...And establishes new correlations between sound measurements and consciousness each day.... But the goal of psychoacoustic even with A.I. when reproducing human perception is not attributing meaning experience to robots and reducing consciousness to A.I. save for cultist zealots of transhumanism... Transhumanism is a RELIGION not science....And one of the most dangerous and powerful cult on the planet, way more than scientology by the way, who look like children play compared to it... |
The most significant factor contributing to the sound of the speaker is it’s frequency response in your room. Next would be it’s dispersion/radiation pattern. IMHO every audiophile should have a calibrated microphone and the appropriate computer program to run some basic tests.What you say is half truth... We can also study with our EARS the more large bandwith response of the room to the non-electronically modified speakers... Then instead of tuning the speakers response for a very limited range in millimeter FOR some location out of which all measures means no more anything, we can tune all the room at once FOR the speakers by using a grid of Helmholtz pipes and tubes which are by itself permanently a room tuning at NO COST.... I control all aspect of sound acoustic at will, like a piano tuner tune a piano...A room is not only a set of passive walls waiting for the frequency response waves to bounce on them and on the microphone , it is an organized set of pressure zones affecting the ears which we can modify at will ....I can use for each ear the wavefront of each speaker and buoy the room with each pipes and tubes for EACH ear differently making easier the creation of imaging, soundstage,listener envelopment, source width and improve timbre perception....I can use the tresholds timing of early and late reflections ratio increasing the perception of 3-d localization of the music... Science is truth not half truth....Science is NOT technology or one tool only like an electronical equalizer....Science is not only one answer, sometimes many answers are possible...It is Helmholtz the father of modern room acoustic and his equalizer was a mechanical one.... Read WIKI at least, not only your electronical equalizer manual....Try a handbook of acoustic... Any electronical equaliser had negatives, like limit of the tested frequencies, too narrow locations for the measures to be right, the Helmholtz grid dont have these negatives at all... It is less esthetical perhaps....Thats all...All made by recycled trash....I can listen music in nearfied position or regular position with 2 different extraordinary sonic experience .... This is science... Buying an electronic equalizer is consumers expanse for something which is less efficient than a mechanical equalizer... Learning how to tune a room with the ears, fine tuning the ratio diameter/lenght/volumes of each pipes, orienting the neck in the right spot, etc is PRATICAL course in acoustic in a way which reading the owner manual and gliding the cursors of the pre-arranged program of a piece of electronic is not.... An electronic equalizer is a complementary tool AFTER the room is tuned mechanically and with acoustic materials at best.... Not the main tool at all, no electronic equalizer could replace material passive treatment and no more replace the mechanical activation of the room.... |
The article on scientism is nonsense. I've read it, it's so full of holes to be useless. Simple example. True science means accepting that human knowledge is limited, and present theories are provisional and incomplete. True science means being willing to examine evidence on its own terms, outside the prism of the belief system of materialism. In other words, it means having the courage to look through the telescope.While this is true it omits pertinent information to suit the authors opinion. I'll fix it for him. True science means accepting that human knowledge is limited, and present theories are provisional and incomplete. True science means being willing to examine evidence on its own terms, outside the prism of the belief system of 《materialism, spiritualism, religion, psi 》 other words, it means having the courage to look through the telescope. In other words if you're going to be "impartial " don't simply exorcise the belief system you disagree with but those you agree with as well. What he fails to mention is science took these things seriously for years. It was only after many years of testing which showed no evidence any of it existed that it's been pretty much dismissed. If anyone cares to present any new evidence science would be more than happy to look through the telescope. |