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
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.
Post removed 
@kosst: "Unless you're telling me that those folks there can take their measurements and definitively tell the exact thoughts and feelings of a human being, you're not even close to understanding what I'm talking about."

You give an inch and they take a mile, so predictable.

Did I say that? Of course we can't (yet) quantify emotion, perception, thoughts, intentions...sheesh...

What I was trying to convey, and obviously failed, was to simply state that such emotions, perceptions, thoughts, intentions, etc., are all subjected to the same physical properties that govern the universe. We just don't have all the details (yet). Look, if we can imagine something, it can (eventually) be realized, simply because all thought follows the same mechanisms, forces, fields, enegetics, albeit in combinations that are highly, highly complex. The laws which govern the baryonic (observable) universe mandate it. The laws of thermodynamics shall not be trifled with.

Can we get back to measurements and perception please? Given that we have the same complement of cone cells in our retinas, the blue you see is the exact same blue I see.