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
@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.

Perception is just another high falutin’ word that’s supposed to mean something more that what it means. Perception of sound and hearing are the same thing. Anything that influences your perception will influence the sound you hear. There’s no difference. It’s not neuroscience or rocket science. 🚀

Erik, when I was in "mid-fi" Harmon and Bose were my favorites, but after I got into "hi-end", everything changed; meaning more objective than subjective, and I don't regret it.

I know you remember "graphic equalizers"; they were the thing in my Harmon, Bose days, but I discovered I was rearranging the music; did I want to hear the band, or be a part of the band?

Now I'm 180 degrees from what I was; I only want neutral components that will faithfully reproduce the music. What's most important is the truth of the equipment that reproduces the music; my pleasure must be derived from the music as it is, not as I want it to be.


"High falutin", reminds me of my days watchin festus haggen and jethro bodine.  Sure miss Miss Jane.