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
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.
Post removed 
@kosst: "Any cognitive psychologist or neuroscientist will tell you that."

Sorry buddy, but that’s simply not true. I worked as a postdoc in developmental genetics at U. Oregon in the Institute of Molecular Biology for three years and was very close to neighboring labs, colleagues and faculty in the Dept. of Neuroscience. There are neurophysiological methods for quantifying sensory inputs (ion channels, action potentials, as with enzymes; ever heard about them either?) that can be interrogated and measured electrically, accurately and with precision. Look, biology is built on chemistry, which is built on physics, which is built on mathematics. These principles and mechanisms are all congruent. We haven’t even cracked open a tiny amount of understanding how the ultimate machine works (the cell) let alone mapped the quadrillion (by some estimates) synapses of the human brain, far from it. But, so far, not once has any biological, neurological or developmental principle stepped outside of the known physical boundaries of the universe, so the rules will and shall apply. There’s no "mumbo jumbo blah blah" going on here, and any scientist who so espouses such quasi-drivel nonsense is ultimately ignored by the scientific community. They certainly don’t get funded ha!
The funny thing is you don’t have to know any of that stuff. You don’t have to know math, physics, neuroscience, neuropsychology. None of it. Give me a break! You just have to be able to hear. And I’m not talking about how your hearing measures. It’s not rocket science. 🚀
I couldn’t agree more, Geoff. I would just add that you also have to be willing to listen.