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
erik_squires
You're being entirely arbitrary in your definition of what constitutes a measurement device.  You seem to be hung up on intent.  By that rationale a tree is not a measurement device, but to those who understand how information is encoded, it certainly can be.  Climatologist routinely use tree's growth ring as a record of past climate conditions.

The fact that we don't have a comprehensive model (and accompanying measurements) of some of the finer points of audiophile oriented music reproduction, does not mean such a model cannot exist.  You would really be hard pressed to come up with areas that are not capable of being studied via the scientific method.  Possibly the single greatest achievement of humans is to understand that the physical world is systematically understandable.
Apparently, on the inner sleeve of Famous Blue Raincoat it states, Recorded on Sony Digital Equipment. To me it makes a difference as I *perceive* analog tape as better than digital, in terms of fullness, timbre, air and musicality.


Erik - how do you figure 1 Ampere at 1 watt has a S/N of 90dB?   There is no S/N correlation between Amperes and Watts.  

@jea48 - Actually, if one were to measure the linearity of the amplifier without loop feedback from min to max, there is a very good correlation to the timbre of sound.  However, in order to do that, you have to be the designer of the amp and have it gutted on the test bench.   Not very practical....
Post removed 
You're being entirely arbitrary in your definition of what constitutes a measurement device. You seem to be hung up on intent.

What I'm trying to focus on is that a measurement (i.e. measure, number) has to be invented. They get invented when an experimenter needs a new way of thinking about a problem. Volts, Watts, Amperes. Even those don't really exist in nature.

Volta, Watts and Ampere all started from not having a number, to having a number. Those numbers made math and engineering possible. I love numbers, but just because I have a number, does not mean I have a quality associated with it.

That's the next step, and that's where I think we fumble.


Erik - how do you figure 1 Ampere at 1 watt has a S/N of 90dB?   There is no S/N correlation between Amperes and Watts.  

Sorry for the confusion, I meant Amplifier. :)

For instance, one amp at 1 watt has a S/N ratio of 90 dB.

Though I think when these are taken, it really should be at 2.83V, not 1 Watt.

Best,
E