1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 196617-90040

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
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,048 posts
 

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?

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,048 posts
 

I will add this i learned the hard way with low cost budget trying to reach M.A.S. T. :

 There is no absolute perfect sound experience in imperfect room with imperfect ears/brain biases...

There is no perfect engineering solution generally to audio experience only a set of  trade-off...

Marketing is the deceptive practice which result from  the necessity to sell any piece of gear as a "perfect solution" and this out of any acoustics conditions and room parameters and out of any psycho-acoustics biases...

I prefered to understand by reading acoustics basics about these trade-off sets of choices...I prefered to experiment than  racing toward upgrades

I could not afford  these gear upgrades anyway,sad I had no choice: I could either settle for a poor, low-cost system which frustrate me or optimize it and see if it will be able to improve . I decided to optimize it mechanically, electrically, acoustically, and also using DSP. My end result astonished me. There was absolutely no difference between my system before and after optimization.  ..smiley

In any system/room/ears  optimization process there is basic set of trade-off, you cannot improve one outcome without worsening another...This is basic...

This is why the balance ratio between all acoustics parameters, all psycho-acoustics parameters,all gear specs etc is an optimization between many  trade-off choices...

I learned that concretely  tuning by ears  my 100  specifically located resonators in my first dedicated room ...

My system was low cost but i was no more frustrated...

I lost  my dedicated room few years ago...

I now had an acoustic corner with synergetical gear for nearfield listening and my top system is headphone...

I am not frustrated even if i lost the astonishing soundfield i was able to create in my first room...

I am 75 and i cannot begin again tuning another  room... my acoustic corner is well done  DSP is more economical in time and price ...it takes me 2 years full time after retirement to design my first room... I will die in my second simpler one...smiley

 

smiley

The audio game is simple: it is not buying the best system in the world, it is learning to optimize any system at any price and be happy once this is done... Trust me any synergetical system at any price can be satisfying... Any high end system even the costlier one is frustrating if it is not well optimized ...

 

 
 

 

 

westcoastaudiophile
819 posts
 

“it is learning to optimize any system"

-problem is a defining optimization parameter to focus on! LOL 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,048 posts
 

Learning to optimize a system and the components working in a room is made  by listenings...

listening how ?

With acoustics concepts understanding... Then using mechanical devices or/and DSP  to optimize them..

Also using vibrations controls and  electrical clean channels and source...

Then for those who laugh without understanding a minimal  rule in audio experience:

There is no  single "defining parameter to focus to" but many parameters all interacting together inside your brain through your ears...

To act on the room for example you must use your ears  not just a "single acoustic parameter"...You must hears many interacting acoustics factors,the ASW/LEV ratio cannot be thought with a single parameter because it is the result of many parameters not only acoustical one but mechanical,electrical and at the end DSP one...

When someone design an amplifier he is guided by standard  parameter he can adress one by one for sure...

But designing an amplifier is not the same as optimizing his working with other gear pieces in a specific acoustic room ..

 

 Why do you think people ignoring how to optimize what they have enter in perpetual frustration and in an upgrading race ?

Because they ignore the basic optimization process which cannot be defined by measuring a single parameter but only by acoustic and psycho-acoustic concrete experience...

 Then why laughing? 

You are laughing for what or at whom ? 

You think designing a dac is the same process as optimizing a system /room ? 

it is my turn to laugh... smiley

 Small system/ room acoustic optimization has nothing in common with great Hall acoustic architecture, guess why? ...

 

it is learning to optimize any system"

-problem is a defining optimization parameter to focus on! LOL 

 

 

 

 

tommyu
45 posts
 

+1

Mahgister

 

The audio game is simple: it is not buying the best system in the world, it is learning to optimize any system at any price and be happy once this is done... Trust me any synergetical system at any price can be satisfying... Any high end system even the costlier one is frustrating if it is not well optimized ...

 

More to discover