If you can hear it, it must be measurable

Your ion deposition device reminds me in some small way of the ICP-MS instruments I used to work with.

Your right, they operate in the same fashion but with much more power (1Kw of beam power at 1Mev). I can program our machines to run a AMU sweep from 1 to 200 The sweep mode is mainly used for vacuum leak detection or energy calibration but an RGA (a type of ICP-MS) works better. http://www.mksinst.com/docs/UR/v1000i.pdf

We have SIMS tools for analytical testing. http://epswww.unm.edu/iom/SIMSgear.html
 
Agreed, but again, the subject of subjectivity is not the topic at hand. It is merely "if you can hear it, it must be measurable".

Have we come to any concensus on that?

My answer is "Yes", if we can hear it, it must be measurable.

You might be right there, at least in year 4097.........maybe.
;-)

Oh would you please measure what makes me hear the harpix on the violin bow in one set-up and not as much in another, and what units are you using for that?

"dolph"
 
You might be right there, at least in year 4097.........maybe.
;-)

Oh would you please measure what makes me hear the harpix on the violin bow in one set-up and not as much in another, and what units are you using for that?

"dolph"
I think the classic unit is angels on the head of a pin. :scratch2:

md_head.jpg


http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm
 
Last edited:
I guess we'll find out then the LHC finally gets back online and runs at full energy. The scale of the project reminds me of the old TV series "Time Tunnel". We are using energy to recreate conditions 1 second after a 'Big Bang" event. I have several low energy Ion accelerator machines at work that run up to 3Mev, this thing will top out at 7Tev.

I think the "Higgs boson" of audio is our enjoyment of all things musical.

I thought it was already back online again? What a catastrophe they had there...

Agreed, but again, the subject of subjectivity is not the topic at hand. It is merely "if you can hear it, it must be measurable".

Have we come to any concensus on that?

My answer is "Yes", if we can hear it, it must be measurable.

I agree, but like I said, I think there are things we don't yet know how to measure, and that's one of the reasons the cable subject remains so controversial, among other things.
 
I have been in measurement and testing for all my professional life and in my opinion referenced measurements, which is what electronic test equipment do, cannot quantify or model for human experience, at least to what test equipment manufacturers provide (Agilent (HP), Anritsu, LeCroy, Tektronix, B&K,...)

The measurements I take are for product compliance, they are to make sure the design meets the requirements with measurable standards, which are not based on perceived taste.

Just like the food industry, fine audio uses "tasters" to refine their products because measurements are very lacking.

In theory, it may be possible, but I assume this forum is for today's technology, and in this case I have to disagree. Actually, I can assure that it is only a very small portion of the listening experience that is correlated to actual measurable parameters, the rest (most of it) is unknown.
 
I have been in measurement and testing for all my professional life and in my opinion referenced measurements, which is what electronic test equipment do, cannot quantify or model for human experience, at least to what test equipment manufacturers provide (Agilent (HP), Anritsu, LeCroy, Tektronix, B&K,...)

The measurements I take are for product compliance, they are to make sure the design meets the requirements with measurable standards, which are not based on perceived taste.

Just like the food industry, fine audio uses "tasters" to refine their products because measurements are very lacking.

In theory, it may be possible, but I assume this forum is for today's technology, and in this case I have to disagree. Actually, I can assure that it is only a very small portion of the listening experience that is correlated to actual measurable parameters, the rest (most of it) is unknown.


My slightly modded question from another person about cables.

Just to make it clear: so you're constructing the hypothesis that fine audio works on a "non-sonic" level? That the ear is a receiver for a kind of energy that has not been discovered yet? That we record and reproduce this energy by accident.
 
I don't think that's what he was saying at all.

If a "taster" thinks something is wrong with a fine audio product how is it fixed? By changing a random electrical parameter that feels good due to his human experience?

I think the scope of his examples are very limiting and mainly off subject. The subject here is not perception or preference but measurement of audio.
 
If a "taster" thinks something is wrong with a fine audio product how is it fixed? By changing a random electrical parameter that feels good due to his human experience?

Exactly. Read any of the reports of any of the high end manufacturers building and testing gear and you will usally read reports of how they will engineer something and then go and do final tuning by ear.

What's so hard to believe about that?

We do all our listening by ear, not by reading needles or traces on a scope with earplugs stuck in our ears, don't we?


I think the scope of his examples are very limiting and mainly off subject. The subject here is not perception or preference but measurement of audio.

You cannot separate listening to audio gear from subjective observations...our experience of listening to music is one of the most subjective pursuits we can undertake when we do it in earnest, so why in God's name would you even want to?

Many of the parameters can be measured, but not all, not the ones that make a difference in any kind of quantifiable theorem that can be looked at as some kind of equation to plugin into a "problem" to solve it and tell us what it will sound like...such as:

Flamethreower 1000 amp x (MATHEMATICAL GIBBERISH) X Smegmata 300 MkIL cables X (MATHEMATICAL GIBBERISH) x Wind in my Shorts Deluxe Speakers divided by (MATHEMATICAL GIBBERISH) + (EVEN MORE GIBBERISH) = Sonic Quality

That's kind of like saying because a woman is 38" X 24" X 36" and 5'8" tall, then she's gorgeous....it makes no mention of her one stumpy leg, her goatee, her "manhands", or the hereditary baldness....

You can measure all you want, but until you actually look at her you have no idea if she's good looking or a butterface, or has green teeth...and yes, you can take such minute measurements that you can digitially reproduce her image, but, that's not life and what does looking at the numbers, the raw data, really tell you?

Same with audio, measure all you want, but what do you listen to?
Meters and o-scopes or speakers?

I will agree that some measurements are necessary, like knowing that if you have a set of speakers that are 87dB efficient, you're going to need something more than a 2.5 Watt SET 2A3 amplifier to drive them in any area bigger than a closet...but sheer wattage figures does not tell me why even listening at very low volumes and with amps of similar power and gain, why (or, especially, how to predict) a Bryston sounds different from a ModWright, a Pass, a Spectron, or any of a variety of tube amplifiers...none of which are even being driven to any more than a few watts output at the very most...there aren't any measurements today that can do that, that can tell us what things are going to sound like when combined, that can predict good or bad sound depending on pairing of components and cables, or how we on a more subliminal measure feel about what's being delivered by our system...or why each and every amplifier paired with different speakers of similar efficiency will sound different...

Or why preamps of such impeccable pedigree and superb measured performance, such as a Herron VTPS-3 vs. a Parasound JC-3, each have different strengths and change the total character of a system that they are used in....

It's like Grado Prestige cartridges, many out there think they're great, I don't, and totally agree with Art Dudley's subjective evaluation of the Grado Gold1....I knew the sound of this cartridge before I ever read his article as I have had one for a while, but he summed up in words all the things about the Grado that I thought were wrong...I could have looked at a graph of the cartridge's plot and seen nothing of why the things sound so bad in the subtle parts of songs or why it sounds like they shave texture off the music when compared to better cartridges...how do you measure that and make a universally understood display of just what is happening and show us how one cartridge portrays texture without being bright, while still portraying warmth, yet delivering tons of detail vs. one that doesn't?

Having someone who can listen critically and distill what they hear into universally understood terms is how we get the information that allows us to match components to our systems with a much greater chance of success...when you start spending real money on stuff beyond the mass market crap it is important to understand the sound characteristics of each and every piece to get an idea of how each component's strengths and weaknesses can be combined into something that is greater than just the sum of their parts would suggest...

After hearing this same argument over and over for the better part of three decades, only the actors have changed, not their cacophony of disbelief in anything that they can't quantify...and, very few new measurement techniques have been developed, and none that have any real universal system matching quotient ability...

Like I tell all neophytes and naysayers, suck it and see....IOW, try it and see if it makes a difference to you...if it doesn't then go about your merry way and leave alone those of us who care more about what we hear than what someone else measures...I will not tell you of all the one time non-believers that have taken home cables, etc., tried them on their own without having to buy them, and been astonished that something so simple could have such profound effects in their systems...

But, if you can't leave well enough alone, and just won't believe what your ears will tell you, then why don't you stop your bitchin' and go out and develop the measurements and instruments to finally deliver the great "Audio Equipment Unified Field Theory" that is unfailingly accurate and will always predict exactly how a collection of gear is going to sound, and be totally accurate, no matter what pieces and parts are used, in every instance...then all the measurements will actually mean a whole lot more than they seem to today.

As it is, the measurements we have today are only good for gross generalizations and can not be counted on to give us an accurate portrait of the subtleties that a trained observer's ears can discern.

It's like doctors looking at X-ray films...when I look at them, I don't see anything, but to them, and their trained eye, the world that is hidden is observed and laid out to them and they know what each little part of the image and it's anomalies mean...same thing with an ear that has been trained to listen critically..it really is tiring work to listen that intently, that carefully, that deeply into the music to hear the subtle clues that separate the good from the mediocre, but it can be done by just about anyone with patience and halfway decent hearing, and hopefully someone to help coach them in the earliest learning stages...

Trouble is, that if you do listen for enough years to get really, really good at it, then time and your aging is no longer your friend as hearing deterioration just due to getting old will be taking it's toll...

Then I guess it's time to sell all the good gear and buy some of the modern mass market crap that's horrible sounding, but measures good, from Best Buy...you won't hear the problems anyhow....

...
 
Exactly. Read any of the reports of any of the high end manufacturers building and testing gear and you will usally read reports of how they will engineer something and then go and do final tuning by ear.

What's so hard to believe about that?

Nothing.

Do you suppose they just throw a dart at the schematic and say let's try changing what ever component the dart landed on? I think not. Even though they may "tune" by ear, there is still science, if you will, behind their decision on what component to change and likely in which direction to change it.
 
Last edited:
Nothing.

Do you suppose they just throw a dart at the schematic and say let's try changing what ever component the dart landed on? I think not. Even though they may "tune" by ear, there is still science, if you will, behind their decision on what component to change and likely in which direction to change it.

And, don't forget experience...which is why you will see talk about changing one brand or series of capacitor for another, or the same with bulk film, tantalum, carbon composition, metal film or carbon film resistors being changed out...even for different brands of the same kind...like a Vishay vs. Caddock...in different positions...

I know my Bottlehead Paramours sound different when I change the main coupling cap....a Cardas does not sound like a Vitamin Q, which does not sound like an Auricap...all of the same value...I also know the parafeed capacitor makes a difference in sound quality...an oil cap does not sound like an Infinicap...simple things, but big changes if you know what to listen for.

But, these are all subtle changes in the bigger scheme of things and are things done to fine tune the final device...good basic engineering and measurements are necessary to even get a circuit to work, but just like cooking, the final recipe may need a little pinch of this, a dab of that, to really become something special...and that's where the measurements sometimes leave off and the art and experience take over.

.
 
How did you know about the secret dart technique? That is exactly what is done! Have you ever been in the design team of a new electronic product?

You know, everything looks nice, organized, and intentional when you looks from the front door, it is the "presentation", oh yeah "we do everything with the highest technology", yeah right. The engineers are just busy with the schedule and just do the bare minimum to stay hire and finish a dozen projects at the same time. Meanwhile the marketing folks are selling the rushed design as if it is the cutting edge of technology where every little detail was carefully design... to add more pressure the manufacturing engineers are complaining the design is hard to assemble. I guess you get the picture.

Talking about been able to measure anything that is audible is something that only the marketing guys will like to say while engineers roll their eyes and look at each other in disbelief :dunno:

We do make a lot of measurements, but is to comply with the sold/agreed specifications. They are more caveman technology than the level suggested by the poster of this forum.
 
Yeah, I'm fairly familiar with what goes on in product development (not stereo gear though) cycle from concept development and review, through the various development milestones, to and including aftersales support.

I work integrally with engineering, sales and marketing, parts and service, etc. on a daily basis.

I still believe that if you can hear it it can be measured. How the measurement relates to anything may be a different story, but it can be measured, IMO.
 
So... As far as I can follow, the general consensus here seems to be that we could measure everything needed to accurately display every single audible difference as statistical data, but lack both the technology (on an affordable scale) and the inclination to do so... Yes?

:scratch2:
 
Back to the original post, just because you can perceive a difference doesn't mean there IS a difference. If there is a difference it should be measureable, whether by current or future technology. Human perception can be clouded by many things including your most recent, or more important, your next bowel movement.

For defining terms, make up new words. When words you already know are used in an unrelated context, there will certainly be blurring of meaning from person to person based on preconception. Each person may perceive ramalamadingdong differently and that doesn't matter as long as they agree that this is ramalamadingdong. The way blue looks to you may be different than how blue looks to me, but we have been taught that when we see something that color then it is a blue thing.

The original poster referenced a previous post that I did not see, but it must have been about cables. If not, then it's amazing how quickly this thread jumped the track to land on cable. I've never done any blind tests, so take the following with a grain of salt. The difference in cables, for me, went from nonexistent to existent as the quality of my gear improved. Then again, if I pay more for this cable, I'd better hear a difference. Of course, I don't use expensive cable the likes of which you read about in the stereo magazines. I personally don't believe the prices of those things are justified by research and developement or manufacturing costs. It isn't that I don't believe there is a difference, but some of those one meter interconnects cost thousands of dollars. Thousands of dollars is .... well, it's thousands of dollars. Just sayin'.
 
I'll say it again

So... As far as I can follow, the general consensus here seems to be that we could measure everything needed to accurately display every single audible difference as statistical data, but lack both the technology (on an affordable scale) and the inclination to do so... Yes?

:scratch2:

Yes.
Even the little green guy agrees :yes:
 
I still believe that if you can hear it it can be measured. How the measurement relates to anything may be a different story, but it can be measured, IMO.

Exactly. More precisely, if you can consistently hear it, it must correspond to some physical parameter - but knowing what that parameter is, and what the most effective measurement set up is, is the trick.
 
Back
Top Bottom