Poor understanding of science is not needed

Oh man, don't let that stupid title bum you out. It's someone's idea of funny; I very much doubt there was any seriousness to it. Perhaps just ask the admins to remove the title. But don't take any of that personally. I thought you handled yourself well in that thread.

 

And props for volunteering for the How To Influence thread. The fact you've got the grace to do that indicates you should stick around.

 

All is not lost. Have a read of:

http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/what-is-sbaf-must-read-version-2.5555/

Lurk for a while, read the stupid shit we post, get over the love of nwavguy*, then come back more fabulous than ever, y'hear? Be well.



*Seriously, he is as full of shit in his own way as weebs like Synergistic Research with their sand dildos. Ineptly-implemented reference designs do not a messiah make.

 

Doubt feeds science as much as curiosity.
The purpose of science is creating useful models that can explain and predict reality in one way or another.

Your words:
"if you can't measure it, you can't hear it"

Lack that healthy dose of doubt that make science happen.
It sounds like something you want to believe or find comforting.

If you look back at the history of physics you'll find out plenty of scientific models that were great enough so many people considered them an undeniable description of reality, when they were just good models that were eventually replaced by even better ones.

Back to your words: "if you can't measure it, you can't hear it"

It's really hard to define 'what you can hear' in order to use it in such a general statement. Again, my un-asked advice is to leave some room for doubt and try to improve the model in use. That's what science is about.
As soon as you think your model is perfect, that becomes the end of your research.

Other valid way of looking at your statement is (by modus tollens) as follows:
"If you can hear it, you can measure it"

As you know there are various aspects of perceived sound that even very knowledgeable people have a hard time spotting clearly on measurements. So, it's not that simple. There's plenty of tech available and that means plenty of measuring power sure, but there's quite a lot that can be measured as well. Knowing exactly what to measure and how to look at it is the key to link what we hear and what we decide to measure. The problem is challenging because the understanding of our auditory system is not perfect and it's not the same from person to person and even changes its properties depending on multiple factors such as attention, volume level, age and so on.

Measuring for the sake of measuring means very little when you can not relate the outcome to an auditory experience.
I encourage you to start measuring and spotting what you can hear. That would be valued here.

Last but not least, this is a place full of very different people. You don't really have to like everyone here nor everyone has to like you. Just try to understand what's considered valuable here and try to make your inputs accordingly if you want.

With regards to your title ... Science is vast.
We all have a poor understanding of it in the big scheme of things.

 

And here I am breaking my word a bit. Good job me. And you. I can't help it. I think it all does deserve some clarification. I'd kinda feel bad just leaving it at what it is, and here I am, trying to clarify my view, one last time. You decide what you think of it.

Thank you for your kindness.

I read it first thing. I read all the tutorials, wouldn't come barging here like a rando idiot. I never said I think NvAwGuy is the infallible messiah. I said his stuff is amazing for the cash. I still stand by it. The only 2 times I spoke his name were: 1) Jude's measurements, lol - he's gonna proclaim he's NvAwGuy and 2) when I said his odac has a bad (or no) protection design, it broke twice, and I offered to help anyone with such a problem here, for free.

I should have known better than to use that phrase. Everyone's allergic to it.

I know ONE thing. I know nothing. In fact, my oppinion is, nobody does. Science is just the best tool to model the reality and try to understand it. THAT'S THE THING I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING xD people just can't see cause of the "If you can hear it, you can measure it" allergy...

I said that ONLY in the context of behaviour of the sound transducer. And made it very clear. Many times. People ignore that.
It is my belief that today, we have a sufficient understanding and tools to model, measure, and understand the behaviour of a transducer - driver, box, headphones, whatever, in it's fullest. And proper measurement will not lie - in the context of what it is! Is that so wrong? If it is, I'm a retard who really understands nothing and will now go to live under a rock together with nwavguy.

I never ever said it's the full story! I even said many times that listening is probably more important! Can you understand my confusion?

And to top it all, I get this title. Wow. Amazing, really.
And someone even said I said hearing is not perception, that was a crown jewel of something I never said or thought. People started throwing accusations that I'm speaking fallacies. Straight up evil or retarded. I tried to drop the subject after seeing what I created, but too late.

Absolutely, and without a doubt.


Edit:

One more thing I said. And still think. Ears, bones, membrana tympani. It's a TRANSDUCER. It cannot produce an electrical impulse, out of something that doesn't exist! And if the sound energy does exist, it can be measured. In this context, if there is not something to be measured, you won't hear it. Unless you imagine it. Then you will.

OOOOOOBOOOOOOOY Get the pitchforks all

 

Goodness.

 

Just relax, talk less, read more.

 

Yeah, I intend to talk less. Which is too bad. I wanted to post pics about measuring a TAD driver 2-way which my friend made, and also post pics of his many tube amps, but I guess I should shut the trap for now.

 

Keep posting. Exercise some discretion. I recall a guy who tried to change a rather audiophoolish forum by carpet-bombing it with facts. It didn't go well. It was never going to.

We have a number of what I might call real engineers here, and they too are prepared to stand up and say, Not in this universe about stuff. They are established, long-history, respected members. And even they cannot necessarily persuade everybody, all the time, that some netusbdonglesand thing is made of dragondream.

That's the world we live in. Contribute rationality: it is much needed. But even if this is one of the saner parts of town, you are in audioville. It takes all sorts. Take it easy on the less rational.

Or... join hydrogenaud.io. It too, has a valid part to play in the scheme of things, but... it isn't much fun!

 

@ultrabike
@Thad E Ginathom

I don't see why my ideas fall into the category of radical objectivism. But that's my point of view. If they do, then yeah. I'm a radical objectivist. I learned my lesson though. I'll never speak of such things again here. The overreaction does leave a bad aftertaste though.
I'll go check the hydrogenaudio, maybe. But I always thought that this place was way more fun.
Poor understanding of science. Still kinda hurts to have that label. I really love science.

And I forgot. Thank you for actually taking the time to talk with me.

 

If only it worked that way, sometimes love is not enough

 

Ah what the hell. Leave the title in place. At least I've got a custom title. And people will think I'm a full subjectivist. It's a good joke.

 

The only word I used was rational. I don't feel the need for any other word, or any categorisation.

 

I have no skin in the game... but as I understood it he said your eardrum won't pick up anything that a microphone can't. He further explained that audio processing beyond your eardrum up to your brain isn't yet fully understood. And subsequently clarified that he didn't mean to equate measurements to auditory perception.

With that said, I honestly don't get the fuss. What am I missing?

 

"if you can't measure it, you can't hear it"

The fuss is that no practicing scientist would assert measurements were comprehensive enough to include all that humans are able to perceive. Perhaps we have yet to develop better measurements, or measure different attributes, or pay attention to measurement results currently available but not evaluated correctly. But I am not willing to make such a bold statement to my AES and Acoustic colleagues, including those that worked at Bell Labs in psycho-acoustics.

 

I think the ambiguity is in what "can't measure" means.

• "None of today's measurements can detect"; or
  
• "No measurement that will be dreamed up any time in the future of measuring things can detect".

I read the OP as meaning the latter, which makes the statement uncontroversial (indeed more or less a syllogism).

The former would indeed be problematic but I don't think that's the intended meaning.

 

This is my, admittedly layman's, take on this measurement/perception debate which wastes so much time in Audioville...

Every recording is, in a sense, a measurement. With digital, you even end up with numbers, but even a recording made on a cutting lathe is still a measurement.

So, not minding what might impinge on the human-hearing systems from other sources, when listening to recorded music, we are listening to something than not only can be measured, but already has been. We are just "reading back" the measurements.

This is not to say that we can necessarily express anything we want in some neat set of units... but measured? It was already.

It is also not to say that every piece of equipment which reads those measurements does so in the same way, accurately, or precisely. Which leaves us able to discuss audio stuff. But can't be measured? It was already.

 

The former was my interpretation and elicited my objections. I would hope that in the future we find ways to measure and correlate attributes with perceptions that can be sensed today, but not well understood. A good endorsement for incorporating both measurements and listening panels in current audio designs, much as Harmon International, PSB, ATC, PMC and others have embraced.

 

Better to be a subjectivist than an objectivist by the way.... And by the way I dont have choosen also this Mr. Sorbothane title welcome to this club... I prefer it to some other though...