How close to the real thing?

Atmasphere, maybe I did miss your point, but I did re-read your post . . . and I think my quote was verbatim. But the logical problem remains -- I'll see if I can't address it first via Mapman's quote:

Human ears (and brains)are complex sensors and information processors of an order far exceeding science or technologies ability to model exactly.

Given this truth, any hypothesis regarding being able to accurately predict the outcome of an individual's listening experience based on science alone, even in a properly executed scientific experiment or series or experiments, has to come into question.

This argument is closely akin to Progress ad Infinitum, one of the tropes of skepticism as outlined by Roman philosophers (Sextus Empericus?) in the first century A.D. . . . that is, anything that can be regarded as proof must in and of itself be proved, on and on to infinity. So under this line of thinking, knowledge in and of itself cannot advance or become closer to the truth . . . leading to the trope of Assumption, that all scientific knowledge is merely theory and not truth.

But our entire craft of audio is among countless obvious artifacts that indicate that our knowledge of the physical world is indeed expanding and becoming more precise, thus closer to the truth. Karl Popper dealt extensively with the logical basis for this through his concept of "verisimilitude", or the extent to which a scientific theory resembules the truth.

It is through this concept that we can look at the evolution of ideas from Copernicus, to Galileo, and to Newton . . . with today's knowledge that all their views of the physical world were false. But each of them was able to formulate ideas with greater verisimilitude, building on the work of those that preceeded them. And for the original topic of this thread, I think it's indeed undeniable that our ideas about the understanding of sound perception and reproduction have greatly increased in verisimilitude, and gotten us closer to the truth . . . especially when viewed over the span of the last 150 years or so.

It is on this basis that I fundamentally disagree with the popular audiophiles' notion that Mapman articulated. We can indeed use science to predict the outcome of an individual's listening experience, even though the extent to which we can is still significantly inconsistent and variable. But we are continuously improving our ability to do so, as the logical result of our scientific theories ever evolving toward increasing verisimilitude.

My point to Atmasphere is this: as people involved in the design and manufacture of artisan audio equipment, we are of course required to evaluate the "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert's word) of the performance of our own, and others', equipment. And we then use such an asessment to determine the verisimilitude of our theoretical ideas.

It's my impression from many of your past postings that there are a handful of conceptual errors in your understanding of the traditional application of negative feedback and its Nyquist stability criteria . . . to the point that a discussion of the associated theory and measurement performance is moot.

But I (very respectfully) remain curious as to whether or not you've ever had an auditory experience that pegs the needle on your own personal, internal "sonic truthiness" scale? And has it ever been delivered by equipment that has a design approach that's incongruous with your own? (Please note that the phrase "pegs the needle" is an important one, meaning that at the time of the experience, an experience closer to the truth cannot be imagined and/or is simply irrelevant).

My friend, a viola player ("violist") recently tried out for the "Marine Chamber Orchestra" (also known as "the President's own") so I asked him if he had ever heard a high end audio system. He said he once went to the home of a conductor who had a stereo system that "took up the whole wall" - (clearly fitting the description of the impoverished musician who is unable to afford high end audio!).

I asked him how it sounded and he said "Great!".

I then asked him if it sounded "real" and he looked puzzled and wanted to know what I meant by that. I responded that I wanted to know if it sounded like a live performance (knowing that he plays live, unamplified music in an orchestra) and he looked at me smiling and said:

"Are you kidding? Of course not! It can't, its not possible to reproduce those sounds and the sense around you."

Ed

Yup, not even 1000 Class A watts with zero NF is going to do that - "close" in so many ways, but it never really sounds like the real thing - even if the "gap" is small, it is unpassable for whatever reasons from recordings thru source thru electronics thru speakers to the way we hear. Which does not mean our equipment and recordings are not tremendously enjoyable in spite of that, or worth persuing with a spirit of fun.

I try to keep in mind that with recordings, the recording itself and how it was produced is the real thing that matters.

Remember recordings are reproductions. They can approach the real thing but probably never completely equal it. I've heard some come close enough, at least in my listening environment, that I do not care.

Most often, recordings are abstract reproductions conceived by its creators that bear little resemblance to the real thing, assuming it is even possible to ever experience that.

Are we getting somewhere?

Pubul57 states that "the "gap" is small", so I feel secure, now, in inferring that we're likely well beyond Edseas2's and other nay-sayers' 5%.

Let's look at it without prejudice: on an absolute scale, 5 of 100 per cent would produce a recording of a piano that sounded like Linus' toy instrument. We have far better playback than that today and have for many years.

The indisputable fact that we have no way to measure the more far-reaching and seemingly esoteric or obscure aspects of our marvelous minds' response capability does not reduce the joy of listening --or the pleasure of a fine and pointed discourse, for that matter.

'Progress', as Kirkus and Atmasphere describe it, *is* happening, whether Edseas or his violist friend accept it. We're beyond 5%, like it or don't.

Luddites were against technology on a religious basis: in philosophy there is no religion, nor is there, directly, religion in scientific reasoning (at least at our present level of understanding; there may be marvel or regard, but that is different: vis Hocking's "Into the Universe").

Edsea2's objection to the 5% solution appears unscientific, and though some of the more esoteric tweaks in our endeavor appear to revolve around witchcraft, I don't care: if my listening experienced is enhanced toward my goal of playback sounding more like live music, I don't care what kind of "weird sh*t" goes into, is placed upon, or comes out of my transducers.

If you can't quantify it, but it works with concensus or others' verification, that simply means our science lags behind our listening pleasure in the ability to measure what sounds convincingly authentic to the live source.

Is that a bad state of affairs? Not knowing why something works?

I submit that having something work --well beyond 5% efficacy-- is cause for celebration. I'm grateful for the pleasure and solace, not to mention the mood-changing opportunity that my music system offers me.

I've thought about it, been frustrated by it, and exhilarated as I learned to 'tune' it to [something approaching] its potential. I enjoy learning, talking and writing about it. The delight it gives me, however, comes from listening into the music, and out of myself.

Best Wishes for Festivus, whichever flavor you prefer. May there be satisfaction in your listening, and joy in your heart.

David