Originally Posted by sokolov91
Audio does no such thing... audio existed before we did, it has nothing to do with us, other than we have developed sense to perceive it in an imperfect, and limited way.
Ha! Said with such authority. On what basis, my friend, do you make such a bold statement? It's a complex one indeed. A lot of ramifications there.
Such statements arguably reinforce my argument that it is the work of inflated human egos (on some level) that allows people to think their personal, unique, and flawed perceptions supersede those of objective measurements in any way.
In any way? .... Ah dear.... youthful exuberant pontificating here. Nothing to do but read in wonder. Talk about inflated ego? You don't happen to know anything about that do you?
Our perceptions are less real than measurements in the sense they are less accurate, subject to personal and cultural biases and many, many other factors. Measurements are not subject to any of this, they simply give you unfiltered information.
And this forms the basis for making what conclusion?
The interpretation of said data, however, is subject to all the same factors of our perception... because you are perceiving the data. For you to perceive something, it must pass through all the psychological filters you have, machines do not have this process, they simply spit out pure data, instead of pure conjecture like some of humans do sometimes. THE WHOLE DAMNED REASON WE HAVE SUCH MACHINES IS BECAUSE MANY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUALS REALIZED THAT THE INFORMATION THAT LIFE HOLDS ECLIPSES OUR SENSE IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE. That is why we have machines, to aid our imperfect biological sense. Ultrasonic, infrasonic.. ultraviolet, infrared... do you really understand how little of the picture we work with on a daily basis? Apparently you don't.
Machines are simple devices. Far less sophisticated. Give a human a simple task and he will reliably, within the scope of his senses give a reliable result. Listening for differences in cables the way that pro-cablers do is not a simple task and no wonder, there are issues amiss.
Measurements are more real than our perception because the data, for arguments sake, is flawless.
Flawless, but all too often limited. This is why these measurements turn out to be helpful rather than the source of all information required.
Machines are not emotional creatures (which by the way often gets in the way of logic). Our perceptions are more human, not more real. They are more real on human grounds, because we associate human emotions with our stimuli, like we are supposed to. Said stimuli however are not supposed to have an emotional context, they simply are. Does the sun shine on you so you can feel warmth? Does the wind blow so it can cool you down? Do cats exist because you find them cute and cuddly? Does air exist so we can make music?To think so is an extremely ignorant and selfish thought.
IMO, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water here, and big time. It's a wonder we get along in life. It's a wonder that we can converse in a meaningful way. It's a wonder we integrate so well and interpret our scientific experiments and take ourselves to greater heights the way we do. Afterall, we have such broken and unreliable perception. If it's the main way we interact with our environment one wonders how we managed to this point?
So we aren't perceptually perfect. So what? Should we now take on an attitude that totally discredits our perceptual abilities. Your senses fail you in one way, so you throw out trusting them in any way and in any context? This cable issue nicely uncovers our perceptual weaknesses. Fine. Maybe it's time we discuss ways in which our perception runs rings around our limited measuring devices... cameras vs sight, smell vs sensors, etc. There needs to be some balance here since we are way too much into what our little measuring devices will pick up that we cannot and not the other way around.
Music is the emotional response/feeling that a human derives from vibrating air, in and of itself, there is no feeling because it is a human abstraction. So, if you cannot hear feeling in a song, then why do you listen to music in the first place? Feeling is the whole reason why we have music, so the premise music is not musical without expensive cables is the most ridiculous, and self defeating argument there is. If you need cables to enjoy music, you do not enjoy music. End of story. You enjoy a hobby related to cables, that uses audio as its benchmarking system (which it just so happens DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK). You are not a music lover.
You're joking here as usual right? We take you seriously and you claim you're joking. I really don't know which one to believe at this point.