[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif [...]Consequently, [science] does indeed explain "all things audio."

Wonderful post. I agree with all of it except for above statement which implies a situation where science has reached its maximum and knowledge has ceded to grow.

---

Risking repetition, I just want to reiterate that the scientific method, which takes no claim to content, is not a dogmatic authority (which its opponents seem to disregard) but rather a method and therefore latent (because conventional) imperative towards the growth of knowledge for those interested in it. Science, or more precisely, the current state of science is not perfect but that's the whole point of its methodology, i.e. to improve upon it. And as it is, the scientific method is the only one (as has been stated many times) that can make it happen. It's not subjectivists vs. rationalist (the problem of experience vs. laws) but more like scientific "methodologist" vs. the voodoo man (the problem of how to set the demarcation line between our empirical world and everything else). "I think it sounds good" is empirical data but "I think it sounds good" after having undertaken a rigorous test (be it DBT, comparisons over time, etc.) is the more negative and therefore more meaningful empirical data. You can argue about a particular technical method (DBT, etc.) but it takes a lot more, although not impossible by definition, to argue against the concept of using scientific methods at all.


So basically I think that strictly seen, science does not explain all things audio. But the scientific method is our best shot at explaining anything (in audio) at all, and that, I think, is a goal worth pursuing.

 

[shigzeo]

this is why we don't discuss science here - it becomes a debate as to why basically it is ethical or unethical to use facts.

closing comment from me: the comment about hydrogenaudio overusing dbt etc only works if you were to correlate it with codecs, no one over there gives a log about what headphone is better. most of them own nice phones or at least decent ones but they just want to hear the problems inherent with codecs or the lack of problems without anyone just saying: it sucks because it is lossy. here, let me show you how much better (scroll to lossy track) "this sucks, here listen, its cymbals are all, uh fading away".

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe those things come from intersubjective relationships and language: an ideal world created by material beings in opposition to the traditional view that the material world is constrained by an ideal existence like God or Absolute Beauty or Truth, etc.

Here we jump closer to theology (which suits me fine but not the forum) and thus again I would just have to agree to disagree. You believe something that substantiates (in your opinion) the rest of your argument below. I simply don't adhere to this and thus won't be able to adequately debate it fully.

Quote:

But the physical event that lights those neurons and causes me to exclaim, "Beautiful!" is certainly something that science can measure and explain.

To an extent I agree. To give a comical and not so much of a theological argument as to break the rules...are you a proponent of midichlorians or the mystical force

Although I can't dispute Lucas on the former, it is his galaxy afterall, the latter is where most fans lie in that transcendental environment which something as sterile and clinical as a basic prokaryote (closer to a full on mitochondria really but I digress).

Neurons will fire, and I would think it would be a matter of neurons not firing in some instances rather than a different set firing when listening to music that doesn't move some one, yet for me, I don't believe it all comes down to electricity in the form of chemistry. Again, this is based on a different belief system. It might start with waves and appear to end with waves, but that appearance I believe is deceiving.

Quote:

I "believe" in science because it is awfully darn good at doing what it says it does when dealing with the material world. It even allows itself to be proven wrong, corrected and improved upon (which is the entire point of scientific methodology). So yes, you could say that science to me is no more than a form of faith, but it is an awfully powerful faith to admit its own weaknesses and change itself accordingly.

Absolutely! I agree! Of course, history has shown time and time again the scientific community is colossally slow at admitting its weaknesses and changing accordingly. Talking with some of my colleagues it is always great fun to chat about the school yard politics that goes on behind closes (and often wide open) doors. The method is pure the people though...

Which turns us back to music: there exists, independent of qualitative judgment, a completely physical process between the creation of music and the experience of it. Science is the only methodology that can evaluate and explain this physical process. To clarify the last sentence of my last post: I don't believe science alone can explain the reason why a qualitative difference exists which causes a tune to fire pleasure neurons in my brain and pain neurons in yours, but a difference does materially exist, so it can (and does) explain what actually/materially happens between the violin playing in the orchestra and the pulse of pleasure in my brain or pain in yours. Consequently, it does indeed explain "all things audio."

The two bolded sections are contradictory. You admit to not knowing everything and admit that science likely can't explain it all, yet you end with it can explain all things audio. If we limit "audio" from the pluck of the string to the stimulation of neurons in the temporal lobe, then yes, science can explain from start to finish all the processes that undergo change. The OP didn't fully define what he meant by "all things audio" but if we stick with straight acoustics, sure, I'm on board, once we head into pyschoacoustics though I believe the scientific method falls short.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif Risking repetition, I just want to reiterate that the scientific method, which takes no claim to content, is not a dogmatic authority (which its opponents seem to disregard)

and its many proponents seem to otherwise insinuate

Quote:

but rather a method and therefore latent (because conventional) imperative towards the growth of knowledge for those interested in it. Science, or more precisely, the current state of science is not perfect but that's the whole point of its methodology, i.e. to improve upon it.

Agreed.

Quote:

And as it is, the scientific method is the only one (as has been stated many times) that can make it happen.

This is ambiguous. Can make what happen? The growth of knowledge? Hogwash plain and simple. Go speak with any theoretical mathematician at any university and your argument will immediately be crushed.

Quote:

So basically I think that strictly seen, science does not explain all things audio. But the scientific method is our best shot at explaining anything (in audio) at all, and that, I think, is a goal worth pursuing.

For me, as I indicated in my post to Chris, that it can and does very well in acoustics alone but once jumping into psychoacoustics and beyond, one has to go all in and basically indicate their belief system. One person may be an idealist, another a realist and another an empiricist etc. It gets sticky at some point.

For me, I see music as something pure like mathematics, because in many ways music is a form of mathematics and vice versa. Something which will always remain untouchable for science because it falls outside of its capacity to discover.

 

[JadeEast]

I'll try and sum up my POV as tightly as I can.
Currently science can explain many off this functions of music in terms of physics and some in terms of neuroscience of the brain. The problem lies when science "over reaches" and delves into the quality of experience of music in the mind.
This isn't relegated to just music and in a way is just another aspect of the "hard" problem of consciousness.

No matter how much science can tell us about the physics of music or the neuroscience the experience is not lessened by this knowledge in many ways for myself it becomes even more amazing. Much like the knowledge of the theories of biology,physics or history of sex does not reduce it's power as an experience.

Here is a video that to me shows how a knowledge of science does not limit a sense of wonder or engagement. I'm not the biggest fan of the speaker but find it interesting that this speech was delivered by the man. YMMV

Richard Dawkins' jaw-dropping talk on our bizarre universe (TEDTalks)

 

[Zanth]

Great post JadeEast.

 

[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is ambiguous. Can make what happen? The growth of knowledge? Hogwash plain and simple. Go speak with any theoretical mathematician at any university and your argument will immediately be crushed.

If this is hogwash (man, you made me look up this word

), how else if not by the scientific method can the growth of knowledge be furthered? The world in question here is the empirical world, which is characterised not only by its logical form (like mathematics) but also by its distinctive method of using experience as negative tests. In math you can use all sorts of things that you can't do in the real world, such as induction and conclusively decidable verifications / proofs, etc.

Quote:

For me, I see music as something pure like mathematics, because in many ways music is a form of mathematics and vice versa. Something which will always remain untouchable for science because it falls outside of its capacity to discover.

Agreed. I just re-read some of your previous posts and I think that there may have been a misunderstanding on my part about what is meant by audio here. Science takes no claim to omnipotence, especially when it comes to the psychology of knowledge, e.g. how knowledge is created. I think all scientists will agree that most scientific discoveries contain an irrational element or creative intuition, or “intellectual love of the objects of experience” (Einstein). What I understand under audio is not music, but the rather the technicalities, the means to it, the hardware! The scientific method is not concerned with questions of fact but with questions of validity and justification. If someone says that an AKG 701 needs 500 hours of burn-in, he better back it up. Further, is such a claim capable of being tested, is it contradictory, is it falsifiable, etc.? Does the objectivity of such claims hold, i.e. are these statement inter-subjectively testable (here I don’t mean whether somebody prefers blue or black, but whether there really is a difference - how somebody takes a liking to this “difference” is not what science decides). Therefore, do the statements have any relevance for other people? This way we can actually advance in this hobby and not be held back by, at times, superstitious insanity. That is basically my whole point.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint.panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif In math you can use all sorts of things that you can't do in the real world, such as induction and conclusively decidable verifications / proofs, etc.

This is what I meant by hogwash, as in, if anyone thinks the only way to acquire knowledge is through the scientific method, they don't know what a priori is all about. You do however, and I see that you were referring specifically to the empirical, which I'm 100% on board with, the scientific method is the best we have at the moment.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is ambiguous. Can make what happen? The growth of knowledge? Hogwash plain and simple. Go speak with any theoretical mathematician at any university and your argument will immediately be crushed.

Frankly, I don't care if theoretical mathematicians can crush my argument -- I don't think they are any more qualified on the grounds of this discussion than I am, for the same reason I don't think theoretical physicists are more qualified than me to make ethical decisions.

If you haven't figured it out already, I don't believe science or math or logic can answer every question, which is what irks me when people lump me and several of my fellow travelers on head-fi into the "objectivist" realm because we believe science can tell us everything about audio. The issue is more complex than objectivism versus subjectivism, because that common divide misses what I think is the point (see below).

The ambiguity lies in my inability to clearly articulate meaning for me as meaning/sense to someone else, which is just another example of why I believe the problem of defining good/beautiful is a wholly separate problem from empirical study. (And why people like me don't agree with radical empiricists who believe even language and meaning, and therefore good/beautiful, can be described rationally given enough observation and logical analysis -- e.g. Stephen Pinker at MIT.)

To me -- and I believe in common English usage -- "audio" typically refers to the audibility of sound, not the quality of what is heard (and by that I mean "quality as in art" not "quality as in (re)production", two different concepts). And that is the root of the problem: there is a huge difference between "audio" and "music as art" that I think the audio enthusiast community often confuses.

"Music as art" is, I believe, outside the realm of science. But the audibility of sound is well within that realm. Science doesn't tell us everything about why many of us think that Sibelius composes beautiful music, but it does tell us 1) what happens in my brain when I hear Sibelius, and 2) why there is a difference between two recorded versions of his Violin Concerto I listen to. Everything in the latter series of events is in the material world and therefore free game for empirical study.

Of course there is a grey area here: If there is an identifiable difference between two audible sounds, then which sound is "better" lies outside the realm of science. The problem is, the claim that is bandied about in the audio enthusiast community often involves a qualitative judgment of two sounds with no audible difference -- leaving only the possibility that there is something mystical going on, or that current scientific analysis is way off track.

I, for one, don't think scientific analysis is way off track because professionals outside the audio enthusiast community (who take this stuff just as seriously as we do, and stand to profit by understanding these things better) don't believe such a glaring hole in current knowledge exists.

--Chris

 

[Zanth]

Chris, that quote was meant for saint.panda and I had quoted a bit from his post in the post you quoted from me. So I don't think the rest of the post applies. I wasn't trying to box you in there, just responding to saint.panda, which as the posts progressed, he and I ultimately agreed overall. I wasn't trying to address you in anyway, well, with regards to that bit you quoted.

 

[DNA Doc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Scientists/engineers don't know anything about music.

Speaking as a scientist who happens to know a little about music, I vehemently disagree with this.