I am of belief that the complexity and sensitivity of the human ear can be trained to hear more variables than we currently are focused on in the measurement areas.
This is the Sound Science forum, where we rely on facts, not beliefs and you while you are perfectly entitled to your own beliefs, you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are:
1. We cannot train the human ear, what we can train is the human brain. We can train the human brain to focus on different aspects of the sound the human ear picks-up, train it to change it's perception.
2. EVERYTHING that we "hear" is a perception and there are potentially an enormous number of variables which can affect that perception. However, this fact has NOTHING to do with the reproduction of sound, which is simply the reproduction of an electrical current and the conversion of that electrical current into sound pressure waves. "Measurement areas" therefore cover the measurement of this electric current and the resultant sound pressure waves.
3. In other words: Today's recording technology is the act of measuring amplitude and time. If there is ANYTHING which is not covered by these two "measurement areas" then it CANNOT be recorded or reproduced and therefore it doesn't exist in any recording you're trying to reproduce!!
Their is another aspect or field that takes things with certainty.
The Audio Engineer must be certain about "how things sound" when he is mixing on the board, or placing the microphones position for best perceived sound.
The musician "must" know his keys if he is out of tune, or his/her timing when playing notes, and how to give the instrument "emotion".
These things are based on certainty.
This is the reason why we need a science/fact based forum! Audiophiles tend to have an unquestionable belief in their observations of their perception (of hearing) and because this belief is unquestionable, anything, any actual facts or demonstrated science which disagrees with those observations of their perception MUST be wrong. Unfortunately, they will manipulate, misrepresent or simply make-up facts, no matter how ridiculous, in order to maintain the unquestionability of their belief. The quote above is such an example, you've simply just made-up some facts to support your belief. An audio engineer is almost never "certain about how things sound", because any decent audio engineer knows that "how things sound" is entirely dependant on human perception (rather than human hearing) and as perception varies from person to person, an audio engineer can NEVER be "certain" how everyone will perceive his/her recording or mix. All an audio engineer (or musician) can have is a level of confidence, NOT certainty.
What can often be very annoying is that many of these made-up or misrepresented facts can be easily be checked. For example, rather than just make-up the above quote, you could simply have asked some audio engineers and musicians. A musician for example only knows if they are out of tune or time to a certain fairly loose tolerance and they only know how to perform their instrument in a way which creates "emotion" for some people. Likewise, an engineer only knows/guesses how some people will perceive their mix/recording. An engineer could for example create the most perfect mix of a piece of heavy metal that there's ever been, some people will perceive that fact but others won't be able to perceive that it's even music!
What's particularly frustrating about many audiophiles and their beliefs is that they will not question their unquestionable beliefs but will question pretty much every unquestionable fact. This of course is logically backwards and to make matters even worse, they'll then typically state that we should "keep an open mind". We should keep an open mind that proven/unquestionable facts are wrong but audiophiles should not keep an open mind that their beliefs are wrong? It's hard to think of a more hypocritical stance to take!
[1] Wire is not perfect or uniform.
[2] In an electrician field, wire can heat up in spots and break in other spots and corrode in other circumstances.
1. True, no one would rationally argue with that fact. But, that's NOT the fact we're arguing, the fact we're arguing is whether those imperfections or non-uniformities create distortions or some sort of differences which are audible. Maybe they can, if we look at cables made a century or more ago but today, we can not only can reduce those imperfections to well below the limits of audibility but we achieve this feat so routinely and on such a large scale that it only costs a few cents a foot.
2. Sure, if you run 20amps though a cable designed for 1amp it will heat up, even to the point of breaking and/or catching fire. HOWEVER, firstly we never that level of power with an audio signal and secondly, NO ONE is saying there is NOT any difference between cables. We are saying there is not any audible difference between different cables designed for the same task or has the same basic properties as a cable designed for that task.
[1] So the "real world" usage is not what's on paper.
[2] So similarly also in a micro-level there must be variables going on.
[3] Why does a cable manufacturer choose a specific winding or different materials aside from the insulation type, like cloth and such.
1. Obviously it must be, if it wasn't the modern world would not exist.
2. There are micro-level "variables going on", the question is: How do those micro-level variables relate to audibility? Andthe answer is: They do not relate at all, they are inaudible and not just inaudible but many times below audibility.
3. One of two reasons: A. Because scientific testing has demonstrated certain desirable properties from doing so or B. Appearance/marketing.
[1] I believe the sound-science forum is instrumental to knowing the many variables that can take place when your mind is interpretating all the information from the ears.
[2] My view is that a member must use all his/her audible "tools" they have to be certain, not uncertain.
[2] They just need to realise alot goes into play, (even placibo) at determining their outcome.
This "self-aself-awarness" will keep them more grounded.
1. Hmm, not sure I can entirely agree with this. Science has identified, demonstrated and proven that there are many variables involved in the creation of a perception but it's unclear if it has identified all the variables and it cannot measure or accurately predict what variables will come into play for each person.
2. Do due all the variables, most of which are sub-conscious biases and pattern matching processes, the only rational position to take is one of uncertainty!
3. Again, I cannot entirely agree with this. The facts and reality is that perception doesn't sometimes include "even placebo", perception is based on placebo! Taking the usual meaning of the term "placebo" (as used in the audio world) to mean anything created by the brain rather than inherent to the audio signal/sound waves, then without placebo there is no music in the first place and what is it that audiophiles are listening to, just semi-random noise?
The issue always comes back to what is unquestionable fact and what is unquestionable belief. It's easy to sit on this side of the fence and condemn audiophiles as just delusional and/or complete idiots but that's not entirely fair. Most, if not nearly all audiophile marketing in effect questions the unquestionable facts. If one exclusively inhabits the world of audiophile marketing and reviews, it's therefore virtually impossible to correctly identify what the actual facts are, how they relate to human audibility and therefore what facts are unquestionable. Most audiophiles are NOT complete idiots, they're just somewhat gullible. However, coming to a science/fact based sub-forum and then arguing for fallacious beliefs over the actual science/facts and even misrepresenting the science/actual facts to support their fallacious beliefs, is somewhat idiotic.
G
