[sridhar3]

Is it so hard to believe that there are things that exist that we can't measure?
 
Schizophrenics have auditory hallucinations, but nobody can prove that they're hearing things.  So I guess they're not hearing anything at all, since it's not measurable?  We didn't even have fMRI until the '90s, and that's a measure of brain activity, which may correlate with what a schizophrenic is hearing.  But correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
 
What about pain? We can't measure pain objectively, but we don't tell people that they're not in pain when they say they are.  It's unethical and unprofessional for a doctor to refuse to treat a patient's pain.  People who present with drug-seeking behavior, claiming they have pain, must still be initially treated for pain.
 
What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?  It's a published principle saying that if we know the momentum, we don't know the position, and vice versa.
 
It's theorized that something called the Higgs boson exists, but we don't have enough evidence to prove it does.
 
There are limitations to science.  Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's infallible.  The second you stop questioning science to at least the same degree to which you question subjectivism is when your science becomes a religion.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Why can't we just take ears out of the equation?
 

 
Take ears out of the equation? How would that work? Are we just supposed to "imagine" the music?
 
se

 

[sridhar3]

Quote:

Take ears out of the equation? How would that work? Are we just supposed to "imagine" the music?
 
se

 
No, you're supposed to hold circuit diagrams, FR graphs, waterfall plots and spec sheets up to your ears.  Apparently, if you do this for long enough, you can hear how a given piece of equipment sounds.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I was being sarcastic - I agree with you - but I'm also parroting what I have read many times from many people - they do believe that there are differences that can be heard that cannot be measured (or at least not measured reliably).  Because of that, I very much doubt they would ever accept a test that did not involve their own golden ears.  This is the heart of the subjective vs objective debate.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
No, you're supposed to hold circuit diagrams, FR graphs, waterfall plots and spec sheets up to your ears.  Apparently, if you do this for long enough, you can hear how a given piece of equipment sounds.

 
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up!
 
se

 

[IPodPJ]

Is it so hard to believe that there are things that exist that we can't measure?

Schizophrenics have auditory hallucinations, but nobody can prove that they're hearing things.  So I guess they're not hearing anything at all, since it's not measurable?  We didn't even have fMRI until the '90s, and that's a measure of brain activity, which may correlate with what a schizophrenic is hearing.  But correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

What about pain? We can't measure pain objectively, but we don't tell people that they're not in pain when they say they are.  It's unethical and unprofessional for a doctor to refuse to treat a patient's pain.  People who present with drug-seeking behavior, claiming they have pain, must still be initially treated for pain.

What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?  It's a published principle saying that if we know the momentum, we don't know the position, and vice versa.

It's theorized that something called the Higgs boson exists, but we don't have enough evidence to prove it does.

There are limitations to science.  Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's infallible.  The second you stop questioning science to at least the same degree to which you question subjectivism is when your science becomes a religion.

Actually, they did pretty much prove now that the Higgs field and at least one form of a Higgs Boson exists.... They're 99.998% sure or something like that. The LHC is amazing.

But I agree with everything else you said though, to clarify.

 

[sridhar3]

Quote:

Actually, they did pretty much prove now that the Higgs field and at least one form of a Higgs Boson exists.... They're 99.998% sure or something like that. The LHC is amazing.

 
I stand corrected.  And yes, it is a thing of beauty.

 

[IPodPJ]

I stand corrected.  And yes, it is a thing of beauty.

I'm hoping Peter Higgs gets the Nobel Prize.

 

[estreeter]

1, Thank you to whichever mod moved this into the asylum, er, Sound Science
 
2, I can now ignore it along with everything else in Sound Science, per my usual strategy for retaining some portion of my sanity. 
 
We now return you to your scheduled rants, 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

1, Thank you to whichever mod moved this into the asylum, er, Sound Science
 
2, I can now ignore it along with everything else in Sound Science, per my usual strategy for retaining some portion of my sanity. 
 
 

 
Then why didn't you simply ignore it instead of following it over here and on top of that, post in the thread?
 
It's like those silly people who go out of their way to tell you they're not talking to you anymore instead of simply not talking to you anymore.
 

 
se

 

[Draygonn]

Then why didn't you simply ignore it instead of following it over here and on top of that, post in the thread?

It's like those silly people who go out of their way to tell you they're not talking to you anymore instead of simply not talking to you anymore.

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkwHFVdFsJ8[/VIDEO]

 

[Magick Man]

At this point in time I think the sweet spot for DAC technology is around 1000USD. Xaborus therefore is, most likely, just attempting to get our collective goats.

My favorite right now is the Onkyo P-3000R that I picked up used for under $900, it has an excellent preamp section too.

Newsflash - the AMP shouldn't sound like anything either. Any coloration should be down to your speakers/headphones, and many people claim they are looking for a 'neutral' headphone. Audiophiles amuse me. 

That's a personal preference and why there are choices out there.

 

[Magick Man]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up!

se

Personally I prefer 24W linen over 20W cotton, there's a more pleasing texture and superior body, but you'll need a 500W amp and interconnects the size of a garden hose.

 

[joeyjojo]

Quote:

Is it so hard to believe that there are things that exist that we can't measure?
 
Schizophrenics have auditory hallucinations, but nobody can prove that they're hearing things.  So I guess they're not hearing anything at all, since it's not measurable?  We didn't even have fMRI until the '90s, and that's a measure of brain activity, which may correlate with what a schizophrenic is hearing.  But correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
 
What about pain? We can't measure pain objectively, but we don't tell people that they're not in pain when they say they are.  It's unethical and unprofessional for a doctor to refuse to treat a patient's pain.  People who present with drug-seeking behavior, claiming they have pain, must still be initially treated for pain.
 
What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?  It's a published principle saying that if we know the momentum, we don't know the position, and vice versa.
 
It's theorized that something called the Higgs boson exists, but we don't have enough evidence to prove it does.
 
There are limitations to science.  Let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's infallible.  The second you stop questioning science to at least the same degree to which you question subjectivism is when your science becomes a religion.

 
I strongly diasgree with everything in this post.
 
If something existed but wasn't measurable, it wouldn't exist! It's a contradiction. If fairies existed but were never witnessed, captured, photographed etc., they might as well not exist (very zen), and probably don't.
 
If you hear a difference, either the stimulus is different (sound waves) or you're tricking yourself. With good equipment it's far more often the latter than you might think.
 
With schizophrenics (or any hallucination) the exact same networks of neurons might be active as if they'd heard a sound, but it would be "in their head", not external. The same thing happens when we (humans) or some primates empathise. For example, if you (or a chimp) sees someone else (or another chimp) in pain, the very same neurons in your brain will fire (Mirror neuron) as if you'd felt the pain yourself. Feynman said something along the lines of "you mustn't fool yourself, you're the easiest person to fool". However I don't see how this example applies to this discussion. Pain is the same, it's not measurable because the physical basis of consciousness is still not fully understood (although I believe there is one, arrising simply from the topology of the large number of neurons in your nervous system). The experience is not measurable, because it's in the domain of "consciousness".
 
HUP is not a good example either in the context of hearing. If you are just using it as a broad example of "science not knowing everything", I think you're reading into the philosophy of it too deeply. Heuristically, the HUP says that if you want to know a particles position to high accuracy you need to hit it with a lot of energy, but this energy will of course knock it wildly off its current trajectory, so you will no longer know much about its momentum. The converse then is also true, that if you just gently probe it so as to get a good idea of it's momentum, you won't resolve well its position (if you're using a photon say to probe, the wavelength would be large for low energy and thus poorly resolving).
 
If you're using it more specifically as an example that quantum effects might somehow change measurements when you're hearing, I'd say that these effects are irrelevant and that the "transducer, the air, and your ear" system may be treated clasically.
 
The Higgs boson is theorised for reasons of symmetry which I don't understand, and a boson in the right mass range was recently measured to 5 sigma at CERN (one in a million odds). This is a particularly poor example for this discussion as it shows an experimental result borne out of a theoretical background. It's a case study in theory guiding understanding through experimental verification.
 
Returning to the discussion, if two pieces of audio equipment measure identically, then they can't be told apart by a human ear/brain system (my hypothesis). I don't believe that there's anything that your ear/brain apparatus can measure which a microphonic or electronic system can't (they're made of the same things really ain't they!).
 
I would then go further and say that an electronic system is considerably more sensitive than your ear/brain apparatus. For one thing it doesn't suffer from any masking. For  example, doing a hearing test with a single sweeping tone is easy, you just note when you first hear a noise (if going from high frequency to low). However a blind test of white noise and a low pass filter is much harder, as your ears are "startled" by the wide spectrum. Try it yourself http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php An electronic system however will resolve just as well all frequencies simultaneously.

 

[Magick Man]

More to the point, I'm sure there are things out there that we can't measure yet.