The Objectivist Audio Forum: Post #5 : Is Is Possible To Hear Something That Can't Be Measured? - Page 5

What we call "sound" is actually allways our perception of it. We actually think backwards when interpreting sound. We perceive something (as an activity in our auditory brain area) and start looking for the cause: "where does this sound come from?" Because our experience tells us that it usually means something is causing it. Interpreting back: what could it be? What is it that caused this? is what we are good at (survival mechanism since the dawn of mankind).
Our brains are very good at building a convincing, life-like representation (interpretation) of the cause of the sounds we hear.
But remember: our brains make it up, using the clues it gets (in the form of stimuli, vibrations in the air, we call sound)
What we are discussing here when we talk about measuring sound quality is the quality of the stimulus (audio signal, electrical signal, vibrating driver). And how well it matches the original stimulus (symphony orchestra).
While when we talk about listening to music (via our audio equipment) we talk about how well our brains make up the picture (representation) of the original source.
We don't know a lot about the connection (mapping) of the audio signal with the "making up the representation of the source" - mechanism of our brain. We know the latter can even work without an actual signal.
And there our brain introduces a lot of things we cannot measure in the signal.

I was pretty much trying to say what Kees is. Ironically, in this view, reality isn't perception. There are some facts (read: a reality) about the stimulus, the sound wave. But it is not the only input into the process which results in our perception of said stimulus. There is versimilitude between the stimulus and our perceptions of it, or so I'd argue, but there's no 1:1 correlation (more rightly, 1.0 correlation). Still, the question is meaningful: In principle, will we be able to measure all there is to measure in capturing a perception? I should be optimistic about this, since I'm in the field. But while I think it's possible in principle, I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think "some facts" make reality. They are only the things we use to build a model (crude estimation of a representation) of reality.
Our reality is still what our mind makes of it....

No need to be sorry, man, you've hit the nail on the head! It's not that it's too hard to describe, it's that many who observe it ("it" in this example, is "soundstaging") lack the experience in how to describe it.

See the previous posts that refer to this particular auricular phenomena.
The nail you hit so well on the head is the fact that this particular phenomenon is, in part psychoacoustic. Everyone perceives it a little differently because everyone's HRTF is unique to some degree.

Does this make sense? Or do I need a cup of coffee before I post?

Hey! Welcome aboard and good job! You're on to something!

Well put.

And we are all different. Furthermore: perception, not signal, is what we pay our money for.

So the answer is listening tests -- carefully designed and analyzed. You do not aggregate over listeners, since everyone is different, but you can make statistically valid conclusions nonetheless. Very helpful ones.

For example, in a listener-blind test, we learn that people who prefer HP A to HP B also like amp X over amp Y. What a wonderful piece of knowledge for someone who likes A and has no amp yet.

Try reaching that conclusion from engineering measurements!

And it would be interesting to know that most people prefer A to B, although some prefer B to A ... proven with consistent, blinded tests, with well-thought-out bait-and-switch tactics to smoke out people who can't hear or who try to unblind themselves by feeling the weight or clamping of the HPs.

I'll gut a pair of D1001's and put rat shack pillow speakers in them, then tell people we are blind testing Denon D1001's vs AT ES7's for a "moderate priced closed-phone bakeoff". Or tape over the sceens of my Senn 600s after the blindfolds go on. You get the idea. Will this be fun, or what?

We can really make a difference here and put this hobby on a sound scientific footing ... but it will take a lot of people and dedication at the meets ...and manufacturers will listen to the results we post.

Ah, but this confounds theory and reality. But your reference to "our reality" bleeds colours of either postmodernist relativism or some sort of social constructivist epistemology mast on your sleeve. As a realist, I'm committed to distinguishing facts from models, things in themselves from things as perceived or "known." (I'd have though even relativists and social constructivists would've bought this distinction.) Furthermore, qua realist, I'm committed to holding that our perceptions have versimilitude to facts/reality.

So, where are we? Is there something we can hear, but not measure? Again, the sound wave is not the only something that "goes into" our hearing (or perception) of it. There are physical processes between out ears and our brains to consider. In principle, all these things are measurable. There's no magical property of sound waves that interacts with ome magical property of our ears and brains. At least, that's the claim of a physicalist. If you're a dualist and a Platonist with respect to music, things might be different, but I'm neither and can't tell you much about either.

Also, wavoman is spot on. I smell a dissertation in the works...D1001 or ES7: Experimental Audiophilia. Good thing I've not started my PhD., time to consult my supervisor.

Anyway, she's spot on in that the question of measurability or even objectivity is a bit of a red herring for practical purposes. (As I'm sure the OP realizes, from his very early comment that this is a theoretical question.) For headphones, "truth by majority" is a good heuristic. Maybe truth is too strong a word. But by induction, we may rationally infer that if the vast majority of posters prefer D1001 over ES7, then we have a higher probability of onjoying D1001>ES7. Of course, no one here is making independent posts...all our posts, our expressed opinions are coloured by everyone else's. Hence, the need for a double-blind experiment. That reminds me of both the Coke v. Pepsi thread AND an experiment done with Coke v. Pepsi. Look that one up, it's a laugh.

Let me attempt to clarify further. I suggested that we discuss soundstaging as an example because it is somewhat poorly understood by the general public, yet we do have somewhat of a handle on it.

Soundstaging is fairly well understood by those in the know, so, the measurable electrical attributes upon which it depends are measurable as individual parameters, but there exists no single integrated "measurement" of soundstaging capability.

Further, when we digitally model an average HRTF, the effectiveness of that model is effective perceptually in only a certain percentage of listeners, due to the fact that the actual HRTF is individually unique to every person on the planet.

Some of the attributes, or characteristics that contribute to a believable and stable soundstage image have been modeled via analog filter methods by companies such as Headroom before most of us could spell digital.

However, even though our understanding of soundstage attributes has been a developing body of study since the before inception of stereophonic sound, there still exists no single "measurement" of that characteristic. You cannot stick a pair of meter probes in a circuit to measure the quality or quantity of soundstaging. Yet, all of the attributes that contribute to soundstaging are individually measurable, quantifiable, and qualifiable.

Does this exploration of soundstaging help illustrate and illuminate the dichotomy of being able to hear/perceive something wholly within the normally understood and measurable spectrum of human hearing, and yet there exists to this day, no single means of measuring either the quantity or the quality of soundstaging?

Why trying to quantify and measure the soundstage just as one single parameter in audio??? It is closer to reality, IMO, to understand that the soundstage is indeed a combination and a result, of several measurable parameters, all combined into one single word just to define it...

Oay! Why not?

I'm trying to illustrate the concept brought up by the OP, USG. See first post. Open your mind, grasshopper!

I have a worry about this. The word hear refers to the perception of an audio signal. It seems like if you don't want to discuss the perceptual experience, then "hearing" is a red herring. Is this closer to your question:

Are there are any unquantifiable or immeasurable qualities in an audio signal?

But I'm not sure you mean this, because you often refer to others' reports of their hearing experiences.