Thanks for this article.
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/learn/research/distortion-audibility
Take it on faith: A cease-and-desist letter to those who only believe in measurements
Faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith). Faith is often considered to be distinct from and even contrary to science. I argue science is based on faith. Specifically, it is faith in the belief that measurements are always correct, and they alone can reveal the world around us. However, there is no evidence that this approach will always provide a correct and complete depiction of our environment.
I am not anti-science. In fact, I am all about science. I was a science major in college. I taught high school biology and chemistry. I employ science every day in my current career. I also use it to make decisions when it comes to audio, and I can point to a scientific basis behind my equipment decisions, speaker/listener locations and room treatment. I believe John Locke’s scientific method is a wonderful boon to mankind. But although data may rule my life, I know that science has its limitations.
The scientific method is an empirical approach and relies on our eight senses or extensions thereof to measure phenomena, enabling us to better understand and control our environment. People who embrace this approach believe if something cannot be measured, it cannot exist. They have total faith in this approach and deny the credibility of others whose senses do not or cannot yield something in units. In essence, these disciples take it on faith that measurements are the only true way to make sense of the world. However, we just may not have developed the instrument that enables us to measure the event. Early digital is a good example of our senses superseding the limitations of our understanding of the technology and hence, our measurements. Other examples of this include our past beliefs that we could destroy mass, that the earth is flat, and the universe is not expanding. And cables and amplifiers all sound the same.
Others find their senses can reveal events that are not apparent to some and may not even be measurable. Some people can smell faint odors or feel a slight breeze that others cannot. My wife can find a Petoskey stone on a beach out of thousands of rocks; I cannot see it even when I am standing over it. Different cables, fuses, amplifier topology, or cartridge design may or may not result in the same or even any data points and may or may not sound alike. But just because you cannot hear a difference nor measure a difference does not mean there is no difference. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as good sound may be in their ear.
Some of us have at least as much faith in our ears as we do in our REW software and associated hardware. I start room setup with acoustic theory and then confirm with measurements, but the final placement is always a result of what sounds most pleasing. I would not know how to determine speaker toe-in using a microphone.
While I will always have to trust my senses, I am not handicapped by relying solely on those that are associated with a number.
“…not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” William Bruce Cameron, 1963
Thanks for this article.
|
Valid points. I see physics from a technical viewpoint rather than a more philosophical one. Just my nature. I have read a bit about the history of physics. The debate about Heisenberg's principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics began almost right after he published it. CI says that a system not disturbed by outside influences can be described by waveforms (a la Schrodinger equation). Solutions for this equation (for example: a single electron orbiting a single proton) indicate that there are many states the electron can occupy. An "observation" causes this electron (and its wave equation) to "collapse" to the result we see. There was a huge fight over this. Einstein was horrified. Schrodinger, the inventor of the equation, did not go along with this interpretation. It is still the most accepted explanation and continues to be taught today. One of the most promising alternate explanations is the "Many Worlds" hypothesis which postulates that all possible solutions can and do exist. However, we can only experience one solution. The others, although they exist, are not accessible to us. Schrodinger's "Cat in the Box" thought experiment illustrates this conundrum quite nicely. Physics has a hard time with this one. You'd think we would have figured this out after 100 years, but no, we haven't. It is one of the most puzzling topics in physics : What is an "observer"? A Human? An Instrument? Ethereal Spirits? My Dog? The current thinking is that anything that disturbs a system is an observer. This remains contentious. Quantum Mechanics does a wonderful job explaining microscopic phenomena. It provides accurate, useful calculations that match observations. Some theoretical calculations have predicted observed phenomena (damn, that word again) to six sigma accuracy. It is the best theory the scientific community has. We need @mahgister to sort this out for us! |