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

tcutter

@mapman 

I'd be careful with the value of what measures best. Sure is nice to have, but if that's all a shopper values, they will be in for a surprise because the measurements are not all-encompassing.

 

For example, flat speakers are claimed as the best. I say they are scientifically and certifiably wrong. The green line in the chart below is a flat speaker. The red line are recordings. If you look at the spectrum on your streamer screen, use software or even trust your ears, the science shows you hear 'nothing' in high frequency. Then advocates of those speakers claim they want to hear what's true to the recording. I say BS because they're hearing 'nothing' (exaggeration). This is scientific evidence that proves flat speakers are not the best and that school of science is wrong because it failed to factor the recording. Best is still an opinion, marketing BS, and not objective fact.

 

There's not much you can do to boost the treble of flat speakers if they're limited that way. Even with bright speakers it takes a lot of boost to restore what's lost in the recording. It's always possible to limit down, not up.

https://mega.nz/file/iA43CApB#XB0kOKfMS_ZPjFgQGZlPNzC3RVdLAJG2aEZh2RvZKm8

@westcoastaudiophile 

I appreciate Merriam-Webster’s definition, but I regard hypotheses and theories as being the same construct; they are merely at different points on the continuum of our beliefs.

There has to have been some evidence, albeit modest perhaps, that leads one to hypothesize, experiment and then "prove or disprove" the hypothesis. If it is "proven" correct, then the hypothesis graduates to being a theory. 

Theories are just hypotheses with stronger evidence and as with hypotheses, they can also be wrong.

Your definition is semantically correct, but many thesauri regard the two as synonyms.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=synonym+for+hypotheis&t=osx&ia=web

 

Audio is not just engineering or physics...

Acoustics also is not just engineering or physics ...

Then the concept of what is measured, how it is measured, and why it is measured change, the one doing measures may be also measured...smiley

It seems very few know nothing about acoustics...

They confuse measures with gear specs...

Not surprizing  if ASR draw a big crowd...

smiley

 

mahgister, reading your statement, "It seems very few know nothing about acoustics”, I am wondering what do you know about acoustics?

I know only the most elementary basics...

And by acoustics i means  the articles i posted here in different threads and discussions...

Those i read know a lot ...Not me...I read them only to understand a bit more than what is in audio magazine, mainly gear marketing...

The specks of  acoustics dusts or seeds  i sowed and harvested,few concepts, were not theoretical and experimental in a scientific sense as the scientific researchers  which i posted here, who inspired me, but  were only the seeds of few low cost powerful experiments that enlightened me about the power of speakers/room/ears-head-brain compared to upgrading a dac and this in my own dedicated past acoustic room made with low cost materials ( diffusion/absorption/reflective devices and surface and especially grid of tuned resonators )... smiley

 What we learn, reading about acoustics with an "s",  is that upgrading is a tool not an end and not a race toward absolute sound which is impossible anyway for most here ...The end is what i called M.A.S. T. : "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold " which threshold is defined by a balance ratio optimal for some specific ears/environment parameters and a given system...

 

mahgister, reading your statement, "It seems very few know nothing about acoustics”, I am wondering what do you know about acoustics?