Why no “Break in” period?

boxer,
No, I'm honestly representing what I argue for and believe.  Insofar as you would include me in your previous complaint:

boxer: They are the victims here. Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing. 

You are making a strawman.
I have been explicit in pointing out I'm NOT claiming: "you aren't hearing what you claim!"
I'm pointing out instead "You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume."
C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we, to understand another person's point of view rather than dismiss it with strawmen versions?

millercarbon,

That a high end audio designer gave up providing objective or reliable methods for vetting his designs hardly supports your case.  The Curl quote is just appealing to the same subjectivity as you are; it's assertion, not justification.

Pin it to the top of every thread where someone is trying to invalidate actual human experience just because it is beyond the measure of their silly primitive instruments.

Sure, if you just go about ignoring everything we know about sighted bias.


And it's hilarious to see you call measurement instruments "silly" and "primitive."  Did you stop for a second to consider why the instruments were developed in the first place?  Yeah...to measure things not only that our sense can detect, but that our senses can NOT detect - to go BEYOND the capabilities of our senses.   You do know that distortion profiles and various objective electrical phenomena can be measured that you with your Super Duper Golden Ears can't possibly hear, right?

Or...maybe you don't know this?

It's hard to tell, frankly.   I've actually had more coherent conversations with flat-earthers, who at least try to offer objective evidence for their claims vs constant repetition of personal assertions.

Wow! What! Is there such a thing as an Appeal to Honesty? Or maybe Appeal to Having very Good Beliefs, but not Weird Beliefs? How about Appeal to I’m just a Good Guy who’s Trying to Help People Out? Or maybe this is just another case of nobody else understands.

Humans hear and process sound in a non linear manner. Measurements can only approximate what and how we hear. They can even go farther and deeper into the weeds but by that time, out brains have already processed the sound and moved on, in real time.

One can capture the sound in real time and go back and retroactively process the values, signatures and other criteria of a sound and match it to what we hear. Again, our ears and brains have done it on the fly and are way past that, since they can differentiate and assess it with the help of millions of years of evolutionary processing prowess.

Before the advent of measurements, and our hubris, we did a hell of a job tuning instruments and playing music, as well as appreciating all the aspects of listening. 

It's second nature for a trained ear to pick out differences that others would scratch their heads at. Being able to pick out concussive phenomena meters away that would escape our attention is misleading.

Take, for example, an electron microscope. It can "see" a hell of a lot better than we can for it's intended purpose, but it's severely limited in what it can see. I wouldn't go so far as to say that since it can see better than I can, at the microscopic level, I would want to drive my car using it.

Can anyone here say that, 10 years from now we'll not have better ways to measure sound? That we will not be able to learn more? Or, are we at the height of our abilities and there's nothing left to learn?

As for an accu-timer, it can measure the value, duration and time signature of a note, but how does it differentiate between the different kinds of notes if they're played the same way?

All the best,
Nonoise

+1 nonoise 

Prof,
"You MAY be hearing what you claim, but the method you are using to come to your conclusion or argue for it isn't as reliable as you seem to assume."

Me,
Again, how is this any different than what I previously posted:
"Just trying to teach us that we can't possibly be hearing what we are hearing"  

Prof,
C'mon, we can do nuance around here can't we"

Me,
Let's see if we can find nuance in your last post to mill:

"That a high end audio designer gave up providing objective or reliable methods for vetting his designs hardly supports your case. The Curl quote is just appealing to the same subjectivity as you are; it's assertion, not justification"

"Did you stop for a second to consider why the instruments were developed in the first place? Yeah...to measure things not only that our sense can detect, but that our senses can NOT detect - to go BEYOND the capabilities of our senses.   You do know that distortion profiles and various objective electrical phenomena can be measured that you with your Super Duper Golden Ears can't possibly hear, right?"

And finally...

"I've actually had more coherent conversations with flat-earthers, who at least try to offer objective evidence for their claims vs constant repetition of personal assertions" 

It's easier to "Find Waldo" than "Nuance" in your posts prof