>>>>Finally, do we really have the hubris to believe that the resolution of test instruments devised in the last few decades exceeds that of human hearing acuity, refined through millions of years of evolution?
To my mind the problem with this statement is equating the purpose of evolution with the purpose of instrumentation. The first is refining "experience" and the second is refining "analysis."
>>>>>"As soon as we reflect, deliberate, and conceptualize, the original unconsciousness is lost and a thought interferes....The arrow is off the string but does not fly straight to the target, nor does the target stand where it is. Calculation, which is miscalculation, sets in...
>>>>>"Man is a thinking reed, but his great works are done when he is not calculating and thinking. 'Childlikeness' has to be restored with long years of training in self-forgetfulness." (35)
The above statements point out that experience and expression---the incoming and outgoing actions of consciousness---exists apart from objective measures. The realm of experience is completely outside the domain of objective measure. The more I learn about jazz music theory, the more I'm amazed at the fact that people untrained in music theory can make so much subjective sense and have such a strong commonality with other people of the listening experience.
Let's do a simple experiment: imagine sitting in front of a computer that has a FFT spectrum analyzer, an Oscilloscope trace, and an SPL meter running on it displaying a piece of music playing, but the speakers are turned off and you can't hear the music itself. You are now observing pretty much all of the music, just not with your hearing system. You are observing all the data, but you are not experiencing the music. Now imagine that you work long and hard listening to music and watching it at the same time. Someday, you would be able to look at the data and know what kind of music, and maybe even know what it would sound like, but I contend that even then you would not be EXPERIENCING the music. (I remember seeing a TV show one time that showed this guy who could look at the grooves n the record and tell what piece of music it was. My overwhelming thought was, "Get a life, dude!")
This experiencing of music is something quite apart from the quality of the signal. I sat at a table with a bunch of writers from SoundStage one time and asked the question, "Does the quality of reproduction affect the listeners ability to experience the art of the music?" The answer was a unanimous, but tentative, no. Unanimous because they had all been around long enough to know that Muddy Waters can be great on a piece of crap boom box; tentative because we all believed that meditation was possible on a bed of nails, but we would all rather do it in a La-Z-Boy.
I have made a practice, for years, of observing my experience of listening to music, rather than observing the music itself when doing subjective evaluations. I will often find myself choosing one device under test over another almost instantly based on how it makes me feel, only to confirm my feelings on a more conscious level after further hours of listening. This method of relaxing and letting the music come in, and then observing the quality of my experience has proved amazingly accurate.
But let me further say that this method can NOT be used alone in the process of developing an audio product. In fact, it is FAR more useful for objective measures to be used in product developement. Why? How can I say this after all the subjective blabber above? Because what we are talking about is the developement of an OBJECT and not a SUBJECT. The electronic device between me and the musician should be a clear pipe. I've heard products designed by people just by ear. Sometimes they sound okay under certain conditions, but they never perform great over a wide variety of music. I strongly believe that products should be developed first and formost by disciplined and objectively oriented design methodology. Then, once near the end of the design cycle, when the circuit is stable and well behaved, subjective listening tests can begin, and a somewhat intuitive process of tweaking can put the finish touches on the product. Even this final stage is a back and forth interplay between technologist and subjectivist observers, where, if they can work well together, they arrive at solutions in a strange dance as if dreaming half-asleep; where, after the process is over, they ask each other, "How was it again that we came to that conclusion?"
My caution in this talk is to remember that BOTH objetive measures and subjective experiences exist in the moment of listening and are not separable.
A dancer works endless hour preparing a practiced body only to loose it in the dance.
I think music is the most beautiful of mysteries. It's gift is a glimpse of finer spaces in consciousness somehow made tangible in the wiggling of air.
Put that in your 'scope and smoke it.
Cheers,
Tyll
