[bigshot]

There is a little difference. He's pointing out that science is based on documenting observable behavior and coming up with a theory to explain it, not just selectively looking for evidence that backs up a preexisting theory.

 

[liamstrain]

duplicate post

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE  
 
A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
 
thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible." 
 

 
Aside from my point being about observation first... it also extends to the difference between audible and existing. Something may well exist, but if it is not audible, I am less concerned about whether it shows up on paper. If it is audible, it certainly would be measurable since human hearing is significantly restricted compared with measurement devices (and the ability to use computers to do dense comparative analysis between two signals). SO yes, I agree with your framing. If it cannot be shown on paper, it is not truly audible is a good summary of my feelings on the subject. 
 
Now - whether we know how to interpret the measurements and analysis, is another matter... but I guarantee it's in there.

 

[mikeaj]

Nevermind, liamstrain beat me to it.
 

Spoiler: useless%20text

 
Just to be clear...
 

A lot of people are attached to the idea data is total in all fields of science, so if it's not on paper = it doesn't exist.  I've tried to hit home this point with examples like subliminal advertising or human reaction times and it's just not working in[size=small] "› [/size]Sound Science[size=small] › [/size]Dilemma".

 
 

Wrong. We say if it is truly audible, it can be shown on paper. There is a difference.

 

While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE  
 
A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
 
thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible." 

 
 
No (to El_Doug), rephrasing as the contrapositive wasn't the only change made.  "it exists" is quite different than "truly audible".
 
Even on a macroscopic level—not even talking about Heisenberg uncertainty—there's a limit to measurement accuracy.  Furthermore, there should be a distinction between measurements that can be done easily, those that can be done if we theoretically had an infinite amount of time to run experiments, those that are impractical so aren't done in practice, and so on.  Many effects should exist yet not show up on paper; they could be attributes that can't be directly measured, or they can't be picked up by current instrumentation because of the accuracy.
 
 
A more proper or careful phrasing is this, though maybe somebody else has a better formulation:
 
If there is an audible difference or phenomenon, some measurement will produce different results.  [a measurable change, so it will show up in the data, or "on paper"]
 
(if the right tools are used and the correct measurements taken.  "audible" is a key word because the instrumentation may not be good enough for some other fields.)
 
or
 
If there is no change is detected in every possible measurement, there will be no audible difference.
 

 

[bigshot]

Thresholds of human audibility should be posted along with the specs for every piece of equipment. Of course then just about every CD player would be essentially the same.

 

[Tilpo]

Thresholds of human audibility should be posted along with the specs for every piece of equipment. Of course then just about every CD player would be essentially the same.

Now that would be something awesome.

Though you would still be stuck with approximates.

 

[bigshot]

No different than the suggested daily nutritional requirements on food.

 

[kiteki]

I think you guys need to study this.
 
Acoustic measurement - http://en.goldenears.net/388
How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/456
 
Digital - http://en.goldenears.net/405
How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/467

 

[Tilpo]

I think you guys need to study this.

Acoustic measurement - http://en.goldenears.net/388
How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/456

Digital - http://en.goldenears.net/405
How to read it - http://en.goldenears.net/KB_Columns/467

What of it?
It just describes how to interpret measurements. I think most of us already knew that.

The question is how significant the measurements are when using it to predict (some aspect of) real life performance.
And with amps and DAC's it is important to consider at which point the various specs become so high that we are unable to distinguish them from on another. The article just says stuff like 'smaller is better', but not to what extent it is better, or at what point you've crossed the border of audibility.

 

[kiteki]

While your point is coming across loud and clear, from a purely logical perspective, there IS NO DIFFERENCE  
 
A=>B is the same as ~B=>~A
 
thus, "If it is truly audible, then it can be shown on paper" is equivalent to saying, "If it can't be shown on paper, it is not truly audible." 

 
If it is audible, it certainly would be measurable since human hearing is significantly restricted compared with measurement devices

 
Human hearing in acoustic audio can detect dozens of variables more quickly and accurately than the $20,000+ equipment I linked above.
 
You and others are so adamant with "paper first - truth later".  I don't see why － other than some castle in the sky.
 
In theory you are correct that science can reveal everything which we can hear, however it's subject to ...
 

Even on a macroscopic level—not even talking about Heisenberg uncertainty—there's a limit to measurement accuracy. Furthermore, there should be a distinction between
 
1. measurements that can be done easily.
 
2. those that can be done if we theoretically had an infinite amount of time to run experiments.
 
3. those that are impractical [or lack incentive] so aren't done in practice.
 
4. Many effects should exist yet not show up on paper; they could be attributes that can't be directly measured, or they can't be picked up by current instrumentation because of the accuracy.

 
 
 

No different than the suggested daily nutritional requirements on food.

 
Medicine is a much better example here imho.  Especially since the placebo effect exists there and the scientific methods surrounding medicine.

 

[Tilpo]

Human hearing in acoustic audio [COLOR=0000FF]can detect dozens of variables more quickly and accurately than the $20,000+ equipment I linked above.[/COLOR]

You and others are so adamant with "paper first - truth later".  I don't see why － other than some castle in the sky.

In theory you are correct that science can reveal everything which we can hear, however it's subject to ...

Can you back the statement in blue up by a source?
Because honestly my knowledge of psychoacoustics predicts the opposite. That is, when talking about factors such as frequency response, noise, distortion, etc. (stuff that can be measured).
If you're talking about stuff such as soundstage then sure. Spacial perception of sound is very complicated.

 

[kiteki]

［／］
 The article just says stuff like 'smaller is better', but not to what extent it is better, or at what point you've crossed the border of audibility.

 
Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie?  In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.
 
Like I said there's no hope until you can record venue A, play it in venue B, and they sound identical, haha.

 

[Tilpo]

Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie?  In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.

Like I said there's no hope until you can record venue A, play it in venue B, and they sound identical, haha.

If you want to know that, then read up on basic neuroscience and then read a book on psychoacoustics. That's what I'm doing right now.

Just because the information isn't everywhere does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Exactly, is the -150dB distortion versus -100dB on a DAC or op-amp chip relevant?  Have they both crossed the border which we've drawn on thin air, or not?  If they have and Electrical Engineers detect differences via listening etc., where in the chip do the differences lie?  In the THD+N or somewhere else?  Where have the thresholds of audibility been defined?  Are the thresholds accurate?  Within which parameters?  Are those parameters total?  Via which evidence? Etc.
 
Like I said there's no hope until you can record venue A, play it in venue B, and they sound identical, haha.

 
Experiments indicate it's in their head...

 

[kiteki]

Originally Posted by Tilpo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Can you back the statement in blue up by a source?
Because honestly my knowledge of psychoacoustics predicts the opposite. That is, when talking about factors such as frequency response, noise, distortion, etc. (stuff that can be measured).

If you're talking about stuff such as soundstage then sure. Spacial perception of sound is very complicated.

 
Of course equipment is vastly more accurate in seeing exact FR and THD+N.
 
Talking about spatial stuff like Apple earbud versus STAX, or IEM driver placement like here
 
,
 
and this, this.