In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold, or pain or pleasure. They're abstractions produced by the brain to allow consciousness to interpret them. There can be made correlations between quantifiable phenomenon, but there's no direct causal link between the phenomenon and the abstraction of conscious experience. 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.
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
- ...
- 174 posts total
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. |
| 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. |
- 174 posts total