Obviously there can be no colors without someone to see them. We’ve already covered that earlier, actually. Remember? “There can be no subjective reality without a human being there.” Your argument is a Strawman. I suspect you are the only one who doesn’t see that.
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
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. |
@cleeds 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'm sorry if you can't comprehend the clear and obvious differences between a phenomenon of stimulus and a phenomenon of perception. That's what I'm talking about. Pretty much everybody but you gets it. You're arguing against widely accepted science here. I've already directed you to excellent sources in this field. If you choose to not bother looking it up just a little, thats on you. If you think you're right, then take it up with the experts in the field who totally disagree with you. |
- 174 posts total