@millercardon:
Yeah, capiche. Since when aren't there organisms in a forest? Get real.
Yeah, capiche. Since when aren't there organisms in a forest? Get real.
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
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
- ...
- 175 posts total
| Post removed |
Humans have known about the octave at least since Sumerian times, i.e., that its sound is pleasing and harmonious. Chimps and some other animals enjoy it, as well. Perception first discovered the octave - perhaps even before there were homo sapiens - and Sumerians were sufficiently captivated to write about it beginning around 3,000 BCE. Starting around 4,700 years later, the calculus was invented, the existence of sound waves was discovered, and devices to measure frequency were invented. Science was astonished to discover that the octave is a doubling of the frequency of a sound wave, and that the octave is the first harmonic in a series of overtones. The octave has been called "the basic miracle of music." So, that is the short history of the octave, which was perceived to be harmonious, and has been used to tune instruments in most musical systems, long before it was measured. See this for more: http://proaudioencyclopedia.com/the-history-of-audio-and-sound-measurement/ |
@erik_squires After reading through this thread, my experience is that for measurements and math to fully and completely able to describe and define something in a predictable and repeatable way requires that the "problem" be properly understood and specified up front. As an example...and acoustic guitar played in your back yard and a well made recording of that acoustic guitar as pointed out by geoffkait, with a mathematically perfect reproduction should be able to be played back through a perfect reproduction system in your living room and have the sound be indistinguishable from the original. Obviously, at least so far, we have not been able to identify all of the parameters that define and contribute to sound as we hear it in a way that we know everything to measure and then devise a way to measure it. If we assume that in the future, such measurements and reproduction capability exists...it will have to take into account many things such as individual hearing differences, different rooms, different perceptions of what things sound like....and it will somehow have to account for the fact that we usually see what is producing the sound...as well as feel it...and both of these senses will influence what we think we are hearing. Measurements may be the ultimate objective...but for now, no substitute for hearing in your room through your system with your music. |
- 175 posts total