We can feel it.... via the skin / hair/ nervous system, and those are also related to resonances in the skull and even skeleton. There's so much more to our 'hearing' then just the ears.
This is probably your finest and most important video yet. Each of us has an internal aural model which is hugely responsible for what we perceive to hear.
Finally! A rational explanation. It doesn't take a genius to realize that our ability to measure something is limited by our technology. What we hear and yet cannot measure at present is simply an indicator that the technology we currently use to measure a particular phenomena hasn't progressed to the point where we are able to quantify what our senses are telling us is there. The history of science and engineering is full of such examples. Those who treat science like it's religion are almost never the ones who innovate. They insist on treating their understanding of science more like infallable religious dogma instead of understanding the obvious fact that human knowledge and understanding is constantly evolving as the scientific and engineering community discovers new ways to describe and quantify the world around us.
The people who tend to treat science as a religion are the religious, not the scientists. The fundamental basis of science is that our understanding of the universe and its workings is limited by the methods and data currently available to us. The religious fundamentalists wrongly assume that their dogmatic approach is the only way of thinking, and wrongly ascribe it to scientists.
The biggest issues are with both the people that are dogmatically interpreting science and the types of sciences that base 'facts' on correlations and patterns (coherentism) instead of real 1 on 1 causality.
I think this is one of the few examples when you can tell someone “It’s all in your head,” and not have it be condescending or an insult. It really is about what happens between the ears. Its never going to be exactly the same for everybody.
There needs a distinction to be drawn: between what is happening at an electronic level in the ampflifier, e.g. and what is happening in our brains. Confusing these to areas leads to the problem (to audiophiles like Paul it is an excuse) that there is no way to scientifically distinguish where perceived sound differences come from. Then every cable, every aspect might have "synergistically" influenced the overall perception. No, one can seperate and must seperate these to signal paths. From the amplifier and loudspeakers to the brain. Afterwards, what is happening in our brains is a whole other story. When we can't perceive differences among, let us say, three amplifiers in an ABX with sufficient statistical power, then this hole topic is irrelevant to the question whether or not what is being measured is perceived. We do not need to measure our whole integrities, our mind, body and soul to answer that. For the sake of hifi, what is happening in the signal chain up to the ears, is all we need to scrutinize. Otherwise, alleged differences in sound qualities coming from electronics is based on the unknown variable "brain" or biography or psychology, physiology etc. So here Paul applies another subtle trick to suggest, all the small differences in the perception of sound are relevant because the origin of it (amplifier design, mood?) is confounded with all sorts of different variables which are in fact NOT responsible for what is physically coming to our ears, for example DA converters or cables. Audiophile illogical unrefutable paradoxes just in order to legitimize relativistic theories. Again, I do not negate the influence of the complexities of our psychic systems but this very question about where differences in sound perception stem from is answered in confusing ways here. It obfuscates the scientific endeavor of experimentation which leads to causal assumptions only.
Paul has mentioned any number of times that varying the feedback on a circuit changes the sound. This is a problem for the 'they all sound the same' crowd. So the response is that the one with the lowest measured distortion is right, and the other is wrong. But the worse measuring unit may actually sound better, but that is subjective, and undermines the whole premise. So we are back where we started.
If measurements show the same picture we can't percept it differently. I mean if the test equipment doesn't "see" the difference between two wires then these wires will not make any difference on our brain because even much precise equipment doesn't see it. The only difference could be if you KNOW that right now you will be listening to much more expensive wires. Then your brain will make you believe that it sounds better now.
When I listen to a sad song on a great solid state amp, I get sad; when I listen to a sad song on a great tube amp, I cry. The tube amp probably won’t measure as well though.
Ive set up many different speaker systems,in the same room ,with software measuring systems RTA,etc etc,to be as flat as possible,every one of them when flat sound different from each other, I will always fine tune by ear.The only conclusion I have with measuring is it gets you in the ball park. BTW its the off axis response thats the main culprit.
I fall squarely in the "measurements can tell us all we need to know" category, but I have always maintained that the premise Paul presents here is accurate: we now have machines with far more sensitive and accurate abilities than humans, but they can only measure what we build them to measure. If we don't look for something, we don't find it, unless it's by mistake. However, I do also feel that we understand the physics of sound well enough to know how to measure all of what we can hear with our ears. Maybe there is something missing. If there is, I wouldn't know because it hasn't been identified and named, so it's very hard to recognize. The only reason I say that I believe we do know what needs to be measured is that we have created digital recording systems that are able to convincingly capture sound and store it. If we are wrong about the theory of sound, then those systems don't work, at all. A digital computer cannot do what was not programmed into it. If sound is not a series of changes in air pressure, then CDs are recording something imaginary and they don't work at all. If sound is something other than a rapid series of changes in air pressure, then what is it? So yes, maybe we are missing something that we know intuitively but haven't consciously identified yet, but I don't think so. Nonetheless, I think Paul's logic here is solid and I commend him for explaining it as well as he does in this video.
I'm proud of my fellow Dutchie asking that question the way he did. I myself will never understand why, even though we build audio rigs to please our ears, we'd doubt our ears. I know my ears are not easily fooled but even IF they were, why would a good placebo be a bad upgrade? You've got nothing to prove to anyone, you just want to enjoy your audio rig. You are completely right about the 'people in the middle'. And this goes for everything, they are the ones you may actually be able to take somewhere. This goes for audio, photography, cars, politics, anything. A guy who usually imports and sells speakers recently did a demo of his own speakers at our local audio club. The design on its own already made me doubt. Way too big a woofer, tweeter all the way at the top, super close to the edge, a midrange that may as well be a woofer too, weirdly chosen crossover frequencies. And my prejudice was confirmed, the speakers screamed without any transparency and there were massive gaps in the frequency range. Entire tones disappeared completely. Of course a little experience goes a long way, but this is one of those cases in which I had wished the guy HAD measured a little. This guy was deaf for sound quality, he didn't know how to listen or what to listen for and nothing you'd say would convince him. You'd say the speakers are 'a tad bright' (understating it because trying to be decent) and he's blame the recording. You'd tell him about the gaps in the frequency range and he'd blame the room. You'd tell him about the speakers sounding quite all right with classical music and he'd say that that is because all pop music is recorded bad. There was no way he would consider that his speakers may have been 'badly designed' (again; understating it). To me measuring is a great way to start designing something. Make sure you don't get it completely wrong. But after that, please listen and adjust as you see fit. That's obviously a rather extreme example, and I think Paul hit the nail on the head when he said: "We can't measure everything because we don't know much of what's going on in our brain". I sometimes think about this orchestra played by robots. It was perfect, there was no flaw there. It was objectively the best orchestra in the world, ever. Yet no one would like the way it sounds. There's way more to enjoying sound than factual sound quality. And then I wonder, how do you measure space, how do you measure the accuracy of the reproduction of 'wood', how do you measure the 'black' in between instruments? I'm sure this can all be translated to distortion levels, dynamics, phase and whatnot, but how do you translate those measurements to 'good' sound for most people? There's so many variables! That was amazing Paul. I do hope to buy you a beer some day, if you diet allows :D.
Hi, I’m Matthew from Malta. First of all thank you for all of your wise advices you’ve given us through all of these videos. Second of all, I am a student and am always constantly challenging myself to not go all out and spend all my savings on a sound system - I believe that music is a very dangerous drug and also the most beautiful thats why I do a lot of research before I buy anything, especially because the fact that here in Malta there are no dealers or shops which I can go to and learn my preferences- what headphones or speaker system with amplifier under $500 do you suggest? Thank you very much for reading this question
Engineer: If I can’t measure it, you can’t hear it. Me: Well, what did you measure and why do you think those measurements are responsible for the differences that people experience? Engineer: ... silence
@@theaudiophilebarista2424 I didn't claim to be an engineer, and I don't need to be to tell subjectivity from objectivity. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy in your original statement, which is your personal opinion. For example, take a 440Hz sine wave. We can measure its frequency (pitch) and amplitude (volume), which are its only defining characteristics: it's the note A, pure and simple. But how you and I perceive it is influenced by the shape of our ears, the sensitivity of our eardrums and how our brains process sound. You may like its tonal purity; I might find it irritating. The difference is us.
thisisnev My ‘fallacy’ was just repeating what many engineers say. Many of them wil say ‘if I can’t measure it, you can’t hear it’. Funny how you did exactly that with your 440Hz example. - Many of them wil then jump straight into ‘its all in your head’. It’s all just subjective (funny how you said that too.) - I must admit that you are the first to mention the shape of our ears. I’m sure that it could be part of the reason why we perceive differences. I do not believe it is the complete answer, but I like the idea. Thanks.
Paul and I agree on this one but for different reasons. If you can hear, see, feel, have a hunch about something but cannot measure that something then it’s not you it’s that the measuring equipment is not good enough to measure it. So you’ve got some design work to do on the instrumentation. That’s been the basis for Scientific Research Instrumentation for Millennia.
@@MrGorpm I’ve had the opportunity to work on the design of some pretty sophisticated instrumentation. The most being in the Nuclear field. To be even more direct. If I had designed an instrument that detected sound and it couldn’t detect that I am hearing a difference between A & B ( not better just different ) then it’s back to the drawing board for that instrument. Even if it’s a hunch and I think I’m hearing a difference.
@@MrGorpm Lemme try this. You’ve got an instrument inside of which is a standard source that puts out a perfect “5”. You point the detector at the standard and the instrument measures 5.0023. You have two external sources and you can barely hear a difference between them the instrument measures one at 4.8352 and the other at 5.1274. But if the instrument measures both A & B at 5.355 then you have a problem with the instrument.
@@thisisnev LOL. We all had to wear lab coats in one part of the working area. Once when I went through the radiation detector I set it off and they made me take the coat off and leave it as I exited the area. I'll never forget that.
The more appropriate question is can we perceive what is not measurable. Up until sound is turned into nerve impulses its a mechanical system. Once the nerve impulses reach the brain they are interpreted by the perceptual system. This leads to my point: what we perceive can be different to what we hear. Years ago ( more than 30) I recall a paper on tape hiss and Dolby noise reduction. what the paper suggested is the reduction of noise actually reduced the listeners ability to perceive harmonics that couldn't be heard( Harmonics beyond our ability to hear). I have hunted for the article for some time and just cant find it
4 роки тому+3
Information gathered must be processed. If you can hear what cannot be measured, and you are certain that you have done measurement correctly, then I have bad news! Your "processor" added the information. EOT.
I don't think we should confuse characteristic sound signatures of a piece of electronic equipment and different people's responses to those sound signatures as the latter will be dependent on the likes/dislikes of the individual aswell as their personality characteristics
The analogous example of people perceiving colours or patterns differently depending on the surroundings is probably the best example of how the brain alters incoming information. A meter gives you a fixed value. Your brain interprets colours differently depending on how much light is being received in the eyes or what they are contrasted against.
I think great example for this lack of measuring ability would be what kind of "images" some songs bring to your mind. Also how some images enhance your view of the song in question. For example i've listened to Pink Floyd for a long time... and only after i watched Pink Floyd The Wall Movie with my girlfriend she found many of the songs much more interesting and beautiful than she did before, and so did I. So I think atleast the one thing we can't measure in music is the overall feeling that is either intended by the artist, or not, but it's what makes the song great in many cases.
Measurement in audio is advancing all the time -- the latest Audio Precision gear for electronics, and the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS) for speakers are two prominent examples. The one thing that can't measured is what folks like to hear. Aside from speakers and headphones, near perfection as per the original criteria for high fidelity (great faithfulness) in music reproduction can be achieved without spending all that much money -- but as for what people will like to hear, everyone harbors a different personal view of the best balance between measurable adherence to the high fidelity ideal and subjectively euphonic (pleasant sounding) performance. The high-end sector of the industry is increasingly emphasizing the former, as exemplified by the vacuum tube and vinyl resurgences, which are actually less "hi-fi" than good examples of newer technologies but have certain sonic characteristics that seemingly appeal to enough folks to keep them alive and kicking well past their de facto obsolescence -- so alive that modern "high-end" designers often deliberately insert what amount to measurable imperfections in their creations for the sake of appealing euphonic effects. The use of transformers in the audio path of PS Audio's very sophisticated and pricey DACs is an example -- they actually degrade the measurable performance of the product, but many folks swear they sound better than far less expensive alternatives that measure up far better. So it goes....
Yes. What we hear ,see, feel, smell and taste is based on perception. We take in all kinds of sensory input, but the brain determines what gets processed. Your concept of reality is different from mine, even when we are experiencing the same event.
A situation familiar to DIY power amp builders is using one big power supply capacitor versus a number of ones with smaller value when designing the power supply. Given that both capacitance values in both set ups are the same, the set up using smaller capacitors winds up sounding with better pace, rhythm and timing compared to the one using just one large capacitor - even though both will measure the same voltage output wise. 🤔
Well there is something like parasitic capacity/inductivity esr...if you use multiple small caps (in parallel) you will have less ESR but more parasitic inductance because of more traces and longer traces. Now simulate this with LTspice and you will see a difference. So steadystate comparison is like comparing cars by their fuel tank size.
Our perception of art, music and feelings of joy and sadness will never be measurable. That's what makes us human. No machine will ever understand. Great video , Paul.
Paul you changed my oppinion on digital vs analog when i finally sat down and played some lossles files over a not as expensive dac and compared them to a record
I'm not sold on Paul's explanation. I'm still WAY in the camp that if you can't measure ANY difference, it will sound the same. It is like the difference in asking someone how they think about something as opposed to how they feel about something. Still, keep the videos coming, Paul!
We might be able to measure all aspects of audio reproduction, but we have not been able to measure everything and even if we do it does not determine its quality of sound. Cables are a prime example. You could measure technical aspects of cable technology but those measurements will not tell you if it sounds good. Your ears are the best judge of sound quality.
Jaco, you should watch some of Paul's videos on youtube. He has spoken to this issue, literally, thousands of times. Maybe this is the first Ask Paul video you've seen, but he covers this question over and over and over again in his Ask Paul videos on youtube. Hope that helps!
@@pangbangdang3672 At this point we can measure gravitational waves from distant parts of the universe. You need a better argument, preferably with some proof, than "I hear things, okay? You just can't measure it" cliche.
I interpreted Paul's specific "blue" example to more generally be trying to explain a different idea. Look up "The Tommy Edison Experience" on UA-cam. He's been blind since birth, and has said a couple times in videos that one of the things that blows his mind is that sighted people can describe depth in photographs, because they're flat to him. Apply that to audio, and I think that's closer to the point Paul was making.
@@mypulse9 We can do all sorts of things when the money is there. But since there's no big money going to the pursuit of measuring sound quality. We therefore still can't measure everything. So I don't get your point. Just because science has advanced in some areas. Does not mean it's advanced in all areas. And since we all know that the ability to measure sound quality hasn't advanced very much over the years, and still doesn't actually exist. What's the point of bringing up these specific examples, of very recent (and well funded) technology in other areas? How is this relevant to this discussion in any way?
I think the analogy is that machines not understand how the brain works by the mixture of frequencies interacting in the brain, it is analytical in a machine cannot determine the Harmony between different frequencies and how they interact and play off each other.
The day I don't learn something new, I stayed in bed. Even if I know how to accomplish a task, I'll be patient enough to watch and learn what someone else does. It might be a more efficient way. But when someone tells me something I may believe you, but I will verify for myself.
Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio just posted a great article on measurements vs subjective experence in "level matched blind listening". (TL;DR - both sides are right, and both sides are wrong): www.head-fi.org/threads/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up.701900/page-3798#post-15486474
I understand your viewpoint, and agree with the human emotional element. But, I have always been told that whatever can't be measured, cannot be improved upon. How would you know it was an improvement, if it can't be measured? Great topic.
Take a PS Audio product home for 30 days. Does it sound better than what you currently have? If so, and you can afford it, keep it. If not, you'll likely send it back. That was simple wasn't it?
@@exciter2506 Cool. I take it you switched out just the component with the PS Audio component and could hear differences? If so, could you please describe what differences you encountered? I'd love to hear what improved.
You're confusing things here. The question was can we hear things that are not measurable and the answer is no. What the brain comprehends from what it hears may be very different to the actual sound being made. No one can say with certainty that any two brains will perceive a sound the exact same way. Everyone's ears are different for starters. The size, inner dimensions and a whole host of other things will be unique to each person. A measuring machine on the other hand will measure precisely and accurately each and every time. So the question asked was - "Can we hear what is not measurable?" and the answer is no because if our ears can detect it, any sound recorder can measure it.
@@TheEchelon yes ...to complete the analogue we can talk about art but we can measure color gamut, chroma ...etc. UV is invisible for our eyes like some noises or frequencies.
We hear all sorts of things that can't be measured. Most of them are imaginary, but that doesn't change the fact that we "hear" them. I believe that a critical factor in audio equipment, one that is not often addressed by reviewers, even those who live and die by measurements, is phase linearity across the audible frequency range and beyond. When it is very good, the quality of sound is greater and the spatial effects are better than when it is merely adequate. How to achieve that is for the designer(s) of each component to deal with.
Talking about color blind. I'll just show him the prism and point to the fact the different colors appear in different places as they went through prism. The same about sound. There always are some measurable physical phenomena behind our ability to see or hear something.
Hey, if they can make equipment from Radio Shack parts to detect paranormal activity and make a TV show from that, then you can make anything to measure anything and everything. Anywho Denis responded perfectly already.
You almost can never cast doubt on another person's perspective and effectively present the alternative in the same session of a conversation. One needs to get the crack in the shell started, then let it grow on its own in the other person's mind and only later have any chance of introducing a new idea once that shell is broken wide open. Sometimes the presenter of the new idea needs to be a different person than the caster of doubt for the old idea, sort of a good cop, bad cop situation. :-)
If you are measuring actual changes in a speakers response then if it is not measurable it is not audible. Because in order for us to interpret a change in sound, no matter how subtle, there has to be some change in speakers response. However, literally nobody does this. Instead, they measure capacitors and resisters and cables and then say there's not enough difference in the electrical properties to make a difference in the sound. This claim is always made without actually measuring the response of a high resolution speaker in a controlled environment as upstream components are changed in one way or another. It would incredibly simple for Paul's speaker guru to measure the IRS V's playing a specific piece of music as a baseline, then make a change in one component that Paul and staff say yes, this makes an audible difference and then take new measurements. With the testing equipment we have today we should see some aspect of the response change. If there is a measurable difference when switching out, say, cables then we have to acknowledge there's a component of signal transmission we have yet to discover and subsequently have yet to discover a way to measure. If there isn't a measurable change in the speakers response then the upstream component didn't make a difference. But if you simply measure individual components and then make judgements about whether they will make a change in the sound or not then you're just guessing. And educated guess, perhaps, but a guess nonetheless.
The best speakers were made for machines and computers for they can only hear it all, people get emotion listening to music while machines do not. The best thing is just to enjoy yourself and if it sounds good play it loud.
Run a test to show the color blind person there is some difference. Put 3 squares in front of him/her, one square is blue, the other two are some shade of gray. Write the color blue on the back of the blue square. The color blind person agrees all the squares are the same color. Shuffle the squares. Now you pick the blue square out from the other ones. Shuffle. Do it several times. At least this tells the color blind person there is some difference that he/she cannot differentiate. I think the ear is actually very good at discerning differences in components. The only caveat is the person should be in familiar surroundings. I think that familiar surroundings increases the acuity of the ear as compared to a person in unfamiliar surroundings. It's similar to how too low or too high of a background light can obscure foreground colors. Unfamiliar surroundings can be too strong an influence and reduce the acuity of the ear. Familiar surroundings provide just the right amount of background "lighting" for the ear. Ideally to prove these differences exist, they can be exposed thru double blind hearing tests. Unfortunately, these types of tests can introduce the unfamiliar surroundings problem. OTOH, less than double blind tests can introduce the problem of perceptual bias (I paid a lot of money for this cable, it must be better). Thats why these "differences" are not always straightforward to determine IMHO.
Of course we can. Measurements have always been coarse, in the past ridiculously so. Today better and of course useful but measurements are as “life like” as robots. Always getting better but not quite “there”. “There” being life, not “life like”. I doubt there was an engineer/audiophile more dependent upon measurements than was Siegfried Linkowitz (famous for his crossover designs and speakers). He once told me “don’t confuse what we see with what we hear. Eyes are for viewing. Ears are for listening”. For those who insist we should not trust our senses over measurements and double blinds, do you think we survived over tens of thousands of years doing double blinds to determine from where the tiger was coming? Measurements and blind testing are useful but being led around by them is stupid.
The analogy between SOUND (music is no other thing than ORGANIZED SOUND) and a beatiful structured story is a very poor one. You cannot compare different magnitudes because you're comparing the container (reproduced sound) with the content (the ideas behind writen words). The tasks of audio equipment are to capture, to store and to reproduce SOUND as close to reality as possible, nothing more. EVERYTHING that can be heared can be measured, but EVERYTHING that can be measured not always can be heared. Please, put out of the equation the emotional factor: it's independent of the sound quality. You're confusing quite a lot what is an Art with the "photocopy" of said Art. (I'm guessing you really think what you say in this video, but I do not understand WHY you never accepted Ethan Winer challenge. So...).
Sounds like we're wandering into "tone woods" territory. I can clearly hear the difference between my mahogany-bodied acoustic guitar (warm) and a maple-bodied instrument of the same body style (bright) - but science says I can't hear what I know I can - or at least what a whole cadre of UA-cam posters say science sez. Same with the electrics - but that's where the "no difference" bunch start to lose their sh*t...
@@gerritgovaerts8443 I'm guessing you haven't ever been in the "tone woods" video and comment trenches on UA-cam - pretty much everyone participating is dead certain (many with various scientific devices in their corner as backup) and passionate verging on violent...
Unfortunately so much of our modern day high profile science is based on correlation of unvetted data points. This has thoroughly messed up things like dietary standards, climate analysis, safety standards, I could go on.
You can easily hear the difference between the wood used on a record player, so on a guitar the difference has to be way, way bigger. Science also says you cannot hear speed deviations below 0.5%. I guess that's why I always get my tapedecks to 0.1% just by knowing the music and adjusting. I love science, but hate talking matters of the mind/sense with scientists.
@@godfreydaniel6278 Well, that's what generally happens when you mistake UA-cam for a reliable source of information. The harmonics of different guitar body shapes and materials can be and have been measured. Physical modelling synthesizers use that raw data to create virtual instruments.
We can hear as far as humans hearing goes (13 to 20000 Hz ideally). We can measure as far as we know. Problem is that we make our equipment based on us & our abilities. So we cannot hear what's not measurable but we can hear what's not being taken into account when it whose measured. Ultra sound (which we can't hear) ripples for instance will have impact on the sound spectrum we can hear the same way water drops ripples on water surface which we don't see will have impact on waves produced by one's we do. That's DSD distortion effect which we do measure but concisely try to discard guided by the fact we can't hear above 20000 Hz & future more that digital signal has no whatsoever physical attributes so it cannot produce sound ripples.
Everything is measurable even if you have to take it to the subatomic level. But as for what a human can hear or see is a totally different animal. Take that brand new car off the showroom floor. The paint is factory new and looks perfect until you look at it with a microscope. Now it looks like the Rocky Mountains. Or frame rates for video. A good 1080P video is between 15 and 30 FPS. We can measure that but can we see each frame that goes by? Not likely.
Everybody's ears are different from lobe to conducting bones. Everybody's neural processing and conciseness is different. I doubt science will ever be able to account for this. Its amazing we can agree about anything regarding sound really.
If someone swaps your cables that "measure" no difference without you knowing it, and you can hear differences (and it happened to me before), it is not a just matter of emotion or psyche. It is that we do not know everything about what and how to measure. We do not know how to measure a lot of things. Currently, for example, I am working in a research lab (SNOLAB) with millions of funding trying to find out how to detect and measure dark matters and neutrinos. There are many things that exist that we do not know how to measure them. Science is about trying to find out what and how to measure and then interpret the measurement. That is why science is not a faith. Don't believe in measurements; do real science: i.e. if you hear differences, quantify and theorize what they are, and then find new ways to measure. Paul is wise.
This reminds me so much of a factory tour video from Hegel. "Sometimes measurements are limited by how inventive you are in what you measure for". ua-cam.com/video/2lrgoVGdKwU/v-deo.html So in general, I think that it is possible to measure everything, but sometimes what you need to measure to explain a particular audible difference is non-obvious. I suppose the counter-arguement would be that at a small enough level, you start dealing with quantum state stuff where measuring the state of a system inherently changes the state of said system, so we literally can't measure (at least not with our current understanding of physics) certain phenomena in a useful way.
If you wanna know if there's a difference between two different audio components, the only 99,9% reliable way to find it out, is a repeated blind test, with statistical analysis. The problem is that you need people who are already skilled and trained in discerning extremely small details, and that those people generally don't care if the difference is real or not, as long as they experience it as being real. And there's no profit to be made, from an extensive test. It's a lot of boring work, just to be able to say 'But i am right and you are wrong!' But if you take one audiophile with golden ears, and 70 out of 100 times (approximately, i don't know exactly how often you'll have to repeat the test for a standard p=0.05 significance level) he can correctly identify whether something in the set has been changed or not, you can with certainty say that some audio voodoo thing does in fact objectively change the sound, even if you can't measure it. Just like with medication with small effects, you need a large number of tests OR a large population to conclusively show it.
Blind testing? What does that mean to you? Are you informing the listener what to listen for and then they tell the tester whether sample A or B was higher or lower in that particular criteria? If so, that's blind enough for audio testing and is sensible. If not, than blind testing is largely useless. You'd be able to slip subtle differences past the listener because they don't know where they should focus their attention. True blind A vs B vs X testing in audio where you're only told to describe what difference you hear is an absolute ruse and a crock. The fact is humans can hear and see very minute differences when they know what to focus on. And after awhile, the differences add up and can inform a person what components to buy to build a complete setup.
Why wouldn't we be able to measure electronic components,? Surly they have been measured and given a specific value, otherwise what are the engineers developing,, a piece of equipment with no specifications,? On the other hand certain measurable levels of audio are not audible to humans, so what's the point in surpassing what we can't even hear.
Hi Can I ask questions via this comment area? If so: Can noise canceling headphones damage your ears. I've got a pair of JBL and when I turn of NC I feel a major pressure in my ears. I am 46 and can stil hear a bit above 15 kHz. And what did you think about Philips audio, when they we're still made by Philips back in those days. I had a CD player that sounded so warm and crisp by Philips. It was a lot better then my Deonn DJ CD players.
We can’t measure art forms no. That all comes down to personal opinion and preference. We can’t measure why we like certain pieces of music. However, we can measure the equipment we use to play back recorded material. The science behind all of that can absolutely be measured. So there are no reasons why there can be any artefacts are coloration which can be heard - but not measured. If a person has a hearing defect or perceives things differently, that has nothing to do with how we can measure the output of any audio equipment. This is not a way to validate selling audio products which do things that can’t be measured. If anything this just supports the placebo effect by telling people not everything we hear or perceive can be measured, so go knock yourself out no one can tell you that you can’t hear the wonderful effects from this power cable as a hypothetical example. As for the colour blue. It can also be scientifically measured in the visible light spectrum. So even for any one who can’t see colour, science can still prove it exists. If even someone was to swear that they see the colour blue as green, it doesn’t make it green.
The audiophile industry will do anything to protect itself. You would have to be a nut job to think you can't measure audio.😂 how do they know which end to put the sticker on a directional cable. How do the know what the temperature is when they freeze that same cable. How do they know if the rca plug is 75 ohms. The trouble is with the internet it now very difficult to pull the wool over our eyes.
I think you are mixing in subjectivity here, which doesn't belong in the conversation as I see it. It's not about measuring how good something is, it's about showing that anything actually changes, and if it's within the capacity of human hearing to pick up. It's then up to a subjective opinion whether the change is good or bad. Of course there is the possibility that the measuring is flawed in some way, but one must adhere to the scientific method in order to be credible. So if one wants to assert that something exists that we have failed to measure, it can still be proven through other methods, like proper blind tests (most audio blind tests tend to be too easy, although they still often weed out false claims). If you can show real consistency in such tests you might have something. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I disagree with his conclusion. I would say we cannot measure things we can hear because we chose not to try. Given the state of physical measurements science can do, I have no doubt that if we wish to investigate, measure, and explain a sound phenomenon, we can. There is just no real demand nor $ to do so. Long live snake oil!
I like to listen for the way a piano lid sounds. Is it there does it sound right ? How do you measure that ? I've heard recordings where it sound like the piano is upside down and it's legs are kicking in the air.
totally agree, and the proof is musicians do not in my experience care about hi-fi as they are only listening to the human aspects of the performance and a transistor a m radio will do that for them, my own answer to this is another question dowe know everything we should be measuring, I think not, for example, below 3%simply does not matter, but picoseconds in the time domain do mater, as the folds in our external ear are to cause variable time delays in high frequency by which we descern the height of a sound,strangely the problems most people have with digital are in the trebble and I think this is why many people including myself prefer analogue recordings, also having reached old age 56, the deteroration of my high frequency hearing means I find cd increasingly bearable 30 years ago I hated cd, these days I can even tollerate poor digital, like you tube, I can still hear how mediocre it is, but it no longer drives me away. rant over, so thank you for your well presented and thought out videos, I watch and learn, you don't change my opinion simply because we seem to agree on all things audio, am I willing to change my opinions, yes, old age and perfect hindsight has convinced me I am frequently wrong about many things, not that Im claiming wisdom, I'm just wise enough to recognize my lack of wisdom, and just clever enough to know I am stupid to boot, once at near genius iq, whatever that may mean 8 strokes later, Im probably a bit below normal intelligence
Yes, for our Brains "process" the input received via our Ears, Eyes, Nose and therefore it is very much true that we can NOT measure all that us humans can Hear / See / Process l Perceive / etc. Paul nailed it (@ 5:37)... "because we don't know all that is going on in our Brains". Paul, we don't even have Mics that can measure what we hear. So not even going the emotional route, it is still a definite - Yes, we can hear that which is not measurable. It simply amazes me that we have yet to build a Microphone and a Process of using said microphone which will allow us to record that which we actually hear. Maybe one day, but as of now we have yet to do so.
I dont.. why dont you tslk normslly in that up and down way and then say... thats awkward and then pan in and out add some scratch record sound effects and ssy how we need to subscribe and comment
Factually we don’t have tools and methods to measure everything the human hearing can perceive e.g. the sense of a soundstage. Factually some things can be measured much better than human hearing can perceive it e.g. frequency response. Factually you can’t make great audio without BOTH doing measurements and listening tests.
no you can’t, yes the brain filters and fills things, but if the purpose of the measurement is to compare gear for purchase, humans will loose, it’s also pointless your blue analogy is flawed, in that it supports the measurements, not irrational choices made by listening the fight of audiophiles against the science and engineering continues...
Just think of the years of scientific study that has gone into trying to recreate the famous Stradivarius Violin, yet the authentic originals still sell for $1Ms because science can’t identify and measure exactly what it is that makes a Stradivarius Violin sound exactly the way it does. Yes, there is the intrinsic value of the age and originality of these superb instruments, which adds much to the cost and there are many other violins that are exceptional but at the end of the day nothing sounds like an original Stradivarius Violin. Especially to one that has become intimately familiar with one of these instruments. My point is that how we hear is still not fully understood and without clear understanding it is impossible to fully measure everything that impacts our perception of sound. Our ears and brains are hearing way more than we are aware of and that can be measured with our current technical expertise. Just think of walking in a forest for example, you can here a huge range of sounds both in frequency and in amplitude. That’s what you are aware of. But you also hear where the sounds are located in 3D. Front to back, side to side, up and down. If you stop to think about this you should be amazed because we only have two ears, how does the brain identify each individual sound and then position that sound in space within our heads? Science understands a lot about how this is done but not all. The brain isn’t perfect though, try and locate a chirping cricket and you’ll probably find its location moves about you as you move your head about because the cricket’s high frequency sounds reflects of objects in your vicinity distorting the sounds that are entering your ears. Further, consider how you’re able to listen to the people close to you in a room full of overlapping conversations. I had an ear-opening experience once that highlighted how powerful our brains are at hearing specific conversations in a crowd. I had been awake for over three days straight during the construction of a communal hall. At the end of the build, with the hall completed, I was trying to listen to some people right next to me with about another 100 people talking around me. My brain was so sleep deprived at this time that I found it nearly impossible to stay focused on the conversation right next to me because I was finding that I was hearing individual conversations from all around the large hall. These where crystal clear and some where all the way over, on the other room. Also noises where not interfering with my ability to understand those remote conversations, though my brain was skipping randomly about from one to another during this time. I have never heard conversation so clearly before or after that experience. It was truely amazing but I paid for it because I got very sick after that, so I don’t recommend anyone staying awake for many days in an attempt to replicate my experience. A far as I know there isn’t a single audio system in existence that can measure audio from two microphones that are separated by only a few centre-meters that can resolve sound in these ways. So yes i truly believe that we can hear things that can’t be measured. But unfortunately for many, they are unaware of these unmeasurables and don’t miss them when they listen to their music through medium quality earphones, speaker, amplifiers, Bluetooth audio, compressed audio files, etcetera.
Just because we don't know what makes them "so unique" doesn't mean they're not measurable. Also, people are too hung up on sound graphs, which only draws a small picture of the whole story. You can simple measure the density between two violins or the weight, and that alone is a factor that will indicate why both sound different. That's just the beginning. Things like grain orientation of the woods, resins inside the wood, chemistry of the glue and shellac etc etc all could make a difference and these are all measurable. If you want to find out what makes them so special, you'd have to isolate each variable that influences the sound and that is practically impossible. Just by writing a whole essay doesn't mean you're any more right. Especially if you lack the insight of a fundamental premise.
The Echelon Interesting but… I’ll take your reply seriously when you have used your method to reproduce a violin that experts agree is a perfect copy of a specific Stradivarius. Until then you are just like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black 😉.
But Paul, what's going on in our brains isn't 'hearing'. What's audible is measurable. Those who say they can hear things that can't be measured are blessed with an active imagination. As the saying goes, facts don't care about opinions.
i would add to this and say that facts are just facts, but to derive meaning from them is opinion. you can never have facts without humans doing their subjective things to it. on top of this we don't know what we don't know, so people don't know what measurement we are missing. thats why measurements dont tell the whole story anre are only tools for engineering and tweaking, nothing more.
That it's audible doesn't mean we already know how to measure it. Some speakers are better at reproducing the sound of 'wood' (e.g.; woodblock) than others, for instance. Try and measure something like that. Even if you measure the difference in for instance attack or ringing or distortion or whatever, that doesn't mean you know exactly what caused the difference. Which makes the measurement useless to figure if speakers are any good.
@@rollingtroll Recreating the woodblock's sound accurately through a loudspeaker is a function of dynamics and frequency response. Not only is it measurable, it's possible to create a virtual woodblock entirely from data with a physical modelling synthesizer, and has been since the 1990s.
I bought a pair of $60 Sony bluetooth oehs, and by no means are these "resolving" headphones, nevertheless With these I hear things I never heard on my JBL floorstanders. Off topic maybe.
That's also just because they are close to your ears. The other way around you cannot hear things with those that you can with your JBLS, because they are not close to your ears. Off topic, still a cool thing to respond to :)
My opinion don't mean crap, even to me. All I care about is I get the fact right. Nothing is worse then having a opinion on something when you don't have the facts. Climate Crusader ….. hummmm…. Talk about getting your facts straight. Before you releases the book Paul you may want to talk to a local guy to you, Tony Heller from Boulder Co. And yes he is on YT and the last climate nut that said he was wrong wouldn't debate him because he was to polite and cordial.
Funny how so many of those climate nuts are peer-reviewed scientists with decades of experience and millennia of data, but hey, let's get the straight dope from Tony From Boulder.
@@thisisnev Before you stick you foot in mouth you may want to look "Tony From Boulder" (as you say) up. Michael Mann is a fraud and we have been paying for his BS for decades including to the detriment of the environmental movement. Golden Eagles in Cali are going back on the endangered species list after decades being off it due to wind turbine kills. Why did they put the wind turbines in their habitat? Because that's where the wind is. A oil company kills a endangered bird and it pays millions, turbines have killed close to 150 Golden Eagles over the last 15 years and were never fined a penny.
@@finscreenname Fact check: www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/31/donald-trump/trump-exaggerates-wind-turbine-eagle-deaths/ P.S. I did look up Tony From Boulder, and I see he's a birther and climate conspiracy theorist.
I always liked the saying "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts!"
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is :-)
We can feel it.... via the skin / hair/ nervous system, and those are also related to resonances in the skull and even skeleton. There's so much more to our 'hearing' then just the ears.
If your skeleton can feel the resonance, maybe you ought to turn the volume down a bit.
@@thisisnev hehehehehe truth!
This is probably your finest and most important video yet. Each of us has an internal aural model which is hugely responsible for what we perceive to hear.
Finally! A rational explanation. It doesn't take a genius to realize that our ability to measure something is limited by our technology. What we hear and yet cannot measure at present is simply an indicator that the technology we currently use to measure a particular phenomena hasn't progressed to the point where we are able to quantify what our senses are telling us is there. The history of science and engineering is full of such examples.
Those who treat science like it's religion are almost never the ones who innovate. They insist on treating their understanding of science more like infallable religious dogma instead of understanding the obvious fact that human knowledge and understanding is constantly evolving as the scientific and engineering community discovers new ways to describe and quantify the world around us.
The people who tend to treat science as a religion are the religious, not the scientists. The fundamental basis of science is that our understanding of the universe and its workings is limited by the methods and data currently available to us. The religious fundamentalists wrongly assume that their dogmatic approach is the only way of thinking, and wrongly ascribe it to scientists.
The biggest issues are with both the people that are dogmatically interpreting science and the types of sciences that base 'facts' on correlations and patterns (coherentism) instead of real 1 on 1 causality.
Paul - *Picks up white lead*: "now that's a good red!"
I think this is one of the few examples when you can tell someone “It’s all in your head,” and not have it be condescending or an insult. It really is about what happens between the ears. Its never going to be exactly the same for everybody.
That's called psychoacoustics.
0:40 "You're part of the HiFi family" - Don Corleone
I mean... Paul McGowan 😅
Before Issac Newton everything just floated around...
@Fat Rat They're all in space now, looking for other planets to live on.
@Fat Rat Before Newton, the air floated around with them. Probably.
There needs a distinction to be drawn: between what is happening at an electronic level in the ampflifier, e.g. and what is happening in our brains.
Confusing these to areas leads to the problem (to audiophiles like Paul it is an excuse) that there is no way to scientifically distinguish where perceived sound differences come from. Then every cable, every aspect might have "synergistically" influenced the overall perception. No, one can seperate and must seperate these to signal paths. From the amplifier and loudspeakers to the brain. Afterwards, what is happening in our brains is a whole other story. When we can't perceive differences among, let us say, three amplifiers in an ABX with sufficient statistical power, then this hole topic is irrelevant to the question whether or not what is being measured is perceived. We do not need to measure our whole integrities, our mind, body and soul to answer that. For the sake of hifi, what is happening in the signal chain up to the ears, is all we need to scrutinize. Otherwise, alleged differences in sound qualities coming from electronics is based on the unknown variable "brain" or biography or psychology, physiology etc.
So here Paul applies another subtle trick to suggest, all the small differences in the perception of sound are relevant because the origin of it (amplifier design, mood?) is confounded with all sorts of different variables which are in fact NOT responsible for what is physically coming to our ears, for example DA converters or cables.
Audiophile illogical unrefutable paradoxes just in order to legitimize relativistic theories.
Again, I do not negate the influence of the complexities of our psychic systems but this very question about where differences in sound perception stem from is answered in confusing ways here. It obfuscates the scientific endeavor of experimentation which leads to causal assumptions only.
Paul has mentioned any number of times that varying the feedback on a circuit changes the sound. This is a problem for the 'they all sound the same' crowd. So the response is that the one with the lowest measured distortion is right, and the other is wrong. But the worse measuring unit may actually sound better, but that is subjective, and undermines the whole premise. So we are back where we started.
If measurements show the same picture we can't percept it differently. I mean if the test equipment doesn't "see" the difference between two wires then these wires will not make any difference on our brain because even much precise equipment doesn't see it.
The only difference could be if you KNOW that right now you will be listening to much more expensive wires. Then your brain will make you believe that it sounds better now.
And that's what gives for any kind of bullshit, much-too-expensive equipment. This is why double-blind tests are the only true way.
@@d0sk3y that's right!
When I listen to a sad song on a great solid state amp, I get sad; when I listen to a sad song on a great tube amp, I cry. The tube amp probably won’t measure as well though.
Julia Set
You can definitely measure tube amps and its components...
Ive set up many different speaker systems,in the same room ,with software measuring systems RTA,etc etc,to be as flat as possible,every one of them when flat sound different from each other,
I will always fine tune by ear.The only conclusion I have with measuring is it gets you in the ball park.
BTW its the off axis response thats the main culprit.
Paul Philippart
Then you're not measuring everything... Things like decay, harmonics and direction of sound aren't measured in a sound graph.
I fall squarely in the "measurements can tell us all we need to know" category, but I have always maintained that the premise Paul presents here is accurate: we now have machines with far more sensitive and accurate abilities than humans, but they can only measure what we build them to measure. If we don't look for something, we don't find it, unless it's by mistake.
However, I do also feel that we understand the physics of sound well enough to know how to measure all of what we can hear with our ears. Maybe there is something missing. If there is, I wouldn't know because it hasn't been identified and named, so it's very hard to recognize. The only reason I say that I believe we do know what needs to be measured is that we have created digital recording systems that are able to convincingly capture sound and store it. If we are wrong about the theory of sound, then those systems don't work, at all. A digital computer cannot do what was not programmed into it. If sound is not a series of changes in air pressure, then CDs are recording something imaginary and they don't work at all. If sound is something other than a rapid series of changes in air pressure, then what is it?
So yes, maybe we are missing something that we know intuitively but haven't consciously identified yet, but I don't think so. Nonetheless, I think Paul's logic here is solid and I commend him for explaining it as well as he does in this video.
Great video Paul. Most test equipment can measure things we can't hear. But, you're correct, you can't measure what the human mind can perceive.
I'm proud of my fellow Dutchie asking that question the way he did.
I myself will never understand why, even though we build audio rigs to please our ears, we'd doubt our ears.
I know my ears are not easily fooled but even IF they were, why would a good placebo be a bad upgrade? You've got nothing to prove to anyone, you just want to enjoy your audio rig.
You are completely right about the 'people in the middle'. And this goes for everything, they are the ones you may actually be able to take somewhere. This goes for audio, photography, cars, politics, anything.
A guy who usually imports and sells speakers recently did a demo of his own speakers at our local audio club. The design on its own already made me doubt. Way too big a woofer, tweeter all the way at the top, super close to the edge, a midrange that may as well be a woofer too, weirdly chosen crossover frequencies. And my prejudice was confirmed, the speakers screamed without any transparency and there were massive gaps in the frequency range. Entire tones disappeared completely.
Of course a little experience goes a long way, but this is one of those cases in which I had wished the guy HAD measured a little.
This guy was deaf for sound quality, he didn't know how to listen or what to listen for and nothing you'd say would convince him. You'd say the speakers are 'a tad bright' (understating it because trying to be decent) and he's blame the recording.
You'd tell him about the gaps in the frequency range and he'd blame the room. You'd tell him about the speakers sounding quite all right with classical music and he'd say that that is because all pop music is recorded bad.
There was no way he would consider that his speakers may have been 'badly designed' (again; understating it).
To me measuring is a great way to start designing something. Make sure you don't get it completely wrong. But after that, please listen and adjust as you see fit.
That's obviously a rather extreme example, and I think Paul hit the nail on the head when he said: "We can't measure everything because we don't know much of what's going on in our brain".
I sometimes think about this orchestra played by robots. It was perfect, there was no flaw there. It was objectively the best orchestra in the world, ever. Yet no one would like the way it sounds.
There's way more to enjoying sound than factual sound quality.
And then I wonder, how do you measure space, how do you measure the accuracy of the reproduction of 'wood', how do you measure the 'black' in between instruments? I'm sure this can all be translated to
distortion levels, dynamics, phase and whatnot, but how do you translate those measurements to 'good' sound for most people? There's so many variables!
That was amazing Paul. I do hope to buy you a beer some day, if you diet allows :D.
Hi, I’m Matthew from Malta. First of all thank you for all of your wise advices you’ve given us through all of these videos. Second of all, I am a student and am always constantly challenging myself to not go all out and spend all my savings on a sound system - I believe that music is a very dangerous drug and also the most beautiful thats why I do a lot of research before I buy anything, especially because the fact that here in Malta there are no dealers or shops which I can go to and learn my preferences- what headphones or speaker system with amplifier under $500 do you suggest? Thank you very much for reading this question
If you can hear it you already are measuring it, just not involving Tektronix to do it. We can compare, which is what measuring is for anyways.
Engineer: If I can’t measure it, you can’t hear it.
Me: Well, what did you measure and why do you think those measurements are responsible for the differences that people experience?
Engineer: ... silence
Engineer: That's called personal preference. The difference is you.
thisisnev Except that’s just your opinion. We do not know why we experience differences. But of course engineers think they do.
@@theaudiophilebarista2424 I didn't claim to be an engineer, and I don't need to be to tell subjectivity from objectivity. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy in your original statement, which is your personal opinion.
For example, take a 440Hz sine wave. We can measure its frequency (pitch) and amplitude (volume), which are its only defining characteristics: it's the note A, pure and simple. But how you and I perceive it is influenced by the shape of our ears, the sensitivity of our eardrums and how our brains process sound. You may like its tonal purity; I might find it irritating. The difference is us.
thisisnev My ‘fallacy’ was just repeating what many engineers say. Many of them wil say ‘if I can’t measure it, you can’t hear it’. Funny how you did exactly that with your 440Hz example.
- Many of them wil then jump straight into ‘its all in your head’. It’s all just subjective (funny how you said that too.)
- I must admit that you are the first to mention the shape of our ears. I’m sure that it could be part of the reason why we perceive differences. I do not believe it is the complete answer, but I like the idea. Thanks.
**Psychoaccustics joined the chat**
Paul and I agree on this one but for different reasons. If you can hear, see, feel, have a hunch about something but cannot measure that something then it’s not you it’s that the measuring equipment is not good enough to measure it. So you’ve got some design work to do on the instrumentation. That’s been the basis for Scientific Research Instrumentation for Millennia.
Then you do agree, because that's what he said.
@@MrGorpm I’ve had the opportunity to work on the design of some pretty sophisticated instrumentation. The most being in the Nuclear field. To be even more direct. If I had designed an instrument that detected sound and it couldn’t detect that I am hearing a difference between A & B ( not better just different ) then it’s back to the drawing board for that instrument. Even if it’s a hunch and I think I’m hearing a difference.
@@MrGorpm Lemme try this. You’ve got an instrument inside of which is a standard source that puts out a perfect “5”. You point the detector at the standard and the instrument measures 5.0023. You have two external sources and you can barely hear a difference between them the instrument measures one at 4.8352 and the other at 5.1274. But if the instrument measures both A & B at 5.355 then you have a problem with the instrument.
@@wilcalint Please don't test your detector on five Schrodinger's cats in (or not in) a box, or the universe may cease to exist. ;¬)
@@thisisnev LOL. We all had to wear lab coats in one part of the working area. Once when I went through the radiation detector I set it off and they made me take the coat off and leave it as I exited the area. I'll never forget that.
The more appropriate question is can we perceive what is not measurable. Up until sound is turned into nerve impulses its a mechanical system. Once the nerve impulses reach the brain they are interpreted by the perceptual system. This leads to my point: what we perceive can be different to what we hear. Years ago ( more than 30) I recall a paper on tape hiss and Dolby noise reduction. what the paper suggested is the reduction of noise actually reduced the listeners ability to perceive harmonics that couldn't be heard( Harmonics beyond our ability to hear). I have hunted for the article for some time and just cant find it
Information gathered must be processed. If you can hear what cannot be measured, and you are certain that you have done measurement correctly, then I have bad news! Your "processor" added the information. EOT.
I don't think we should confuse characteristic sound signatures of a piece of electronic equipment and different people's responses to those sound signatures as the latter will be dependent on the likes/dislikes of the individual aswell as their personality characteristics
The analogous example of people perceiving colours or patterns differently depending on the surroundings is probably the best example of how the brain alters incoming information. A meter gives you a fixed value. Your brain interprets colours differently depending on how much light is being received in the eyes or what they are contrasted against.
I think great example for this lack of measuring ability would be what kind of "images" some songs bring to your mind. Also how some images enhance your view of the song in question. For example i've listened to Pink Floyd for a long time... and only after i watched Pink Floyd The Wall Movie with my girlfriend she found many of the songs much more interesting and beautiful than she did before, and so did I. So I think atleast the one thing we can't measure in music is the overall feeling that is either intended by the artist, or not, but it's what makes the song great in many cases.
Measurement in audio is advancing all the time -- the latest Audio Precision gear for electronics, and the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS) for speakers are two prominent examples. The one thing that can't measured is what folks like to hear. Aside from speakers and headphones, near perfection as per the original criteria for high fidelity (great faithfulness) in music reproduction can be achieved without spending all that much money -- but as for what people will like to hear, everyone harbors a different personal view of the best balance between measurable adherence to the high fidelity ideal and subjectively euphonic (pleasant sounding) performance. The high-end sector of the industry is increasingly emphasizing the former, as exemplified by the vacuum tube and vinyl resurgences, which are actually less "hi-fi" than good examples of newer technologies but have certain sonic characteristics that seemingly appeal to enough folks to keep them alive and kicking well past their de facto obsolescence -- so alive that modern "high-end" designers often deliberately insert what amount to measurable imperfections in their creations for the sake of appealing euphonic effects. The use of transformers in the audio path of PS Audio's very sophisticated and pricey DACs is an example -- they actually degrade the measurable performance of the product, but many folks swear they sound better than far less expensive alternatives that measure up far better. So it goes....
Your best video...
Are you really talking about audio?
Thanks for your interesting comments.
Since we're all HiFi family here, could I borrow those IRSV's for a little while, fam?
Hahahahaha
Yes. What we hear ,see, feel, smell and taste is based on perception. We take in all kinds of sensory input, but the brain determines what gets processed. Your concept of reality is different from mine, even when we are experiencing the same event.
B. B. King: "Every day, I have the blues."
Guy in Paul's metaphore: "No such thing."
A situation familiar to DIY power amp builders is using one big power supply capacitor versus a number of ones with smaller value when designing the power supply. Given that both capacitance values in both set ups are the same, the set up using smaller capacitors winds up sounding with better pace, rhythm and timing compared to the one using just one large capacitor - even though both will measure the same voltage output wise. 🤔
Well there is something like parasitic capacity/inductivity esr...if you use multiple small caps (in parallel) you will have less ESR but more parasitic inductance because of more traces and longer traces. Now simulate this with LTspice and you will see a difference. So steadystate comparison is like comparing cars by their fuel tank size.
My opinions can/do change & all the time. It comes from truly understanding another’s take of/on objective facts.
Ears is not measuring mics. BBC found this out when they made the perfect measuring speaker and it sounded like shit.
Our perception of art, music and feelings of joy and sadness will never be measurable. That's what makes us human. No machine will ever understand. Great video , Paul.
I've had labs with all manor of exotic test equipment but never have I seen a musicality meter in a lab.
I've never seen a definition of musicality, come to think of it.
Thats right ! Who will invent one ?
Most people actually come equipped with two of them, but they're individually unique and dynamically inconsistent.
Paul you changed my oppinion on digital vs analog when i finally sat down and played some lossles files over a not as expensive dac and compared them to a record
How do we measure love? Is it his/her fat wallet, or how we feel when we are around someone?
His/her fat wallet ha ha
I'm not sold on Paul's explanation. I'm still WAY in the camp that if you can't measure ANY difference, it will sound the same. It is like the difference in asking someone how they think about something as opposed to how they feel about something. Still, keep the videos coming, Paul!
We might be able to measure all aspects of audio reproduction, but we have not been able to measure everything and even if we do it does not determine its quality of sound. Cables are a prime example. You could measure technical aspects of cable technology but those measurements will not tell you if it sounds good. Your ears are the best judge of sound quality.
Jaco, you should watch some of Paul's videos on youtube. He has spoken to this issue, literally, thousands of times. Maybe this is the first Ask Paul video you've seen, but he covers this question over and over and over again in his Ask Paul videos on youtube. Hope that helps!
You can measure blue. You can't measure people's perception. Physics is physics, human psyche is human psyche.
Denis At some point we couldn’t measure blue. Now we can
Thank you, Denis! Was going to say this.
@@pangbangdang3672 At this point we can measure gravitational waves from distant parts of the universe. You need a better argument, preferably with some proof, than "I hear things, okay? You just can't measure it" cliche.
I interpreted Paul's specific "blue" example to more generally be trying to explain a different idea.
Look up "The Tommy Edison Experience" on UA-cam. He's been blind since birth, and has said a couple times in videos that one of the things that blows his mind is that sighted people can describe depth in photographs, because they're flat to him.
Apply that to audio, and I think that's closer to the point Paul was making.
@@mypulse9 We can do all sorts of things when the money is there. But since there's no big money going to the pursuit of measuring sound quality. We therefore still can't measure everything. So I don't get your point. Just because science has advanced in some areas. Does not mean it's advanced in all areas. And since we all know that the ability to measure sound quality hasn't advanced very much over the years, and still doesn't actually exist. What's the point of bringing up these specific examples, of very recent (and well funded) technology in other areas? How is this relevant to this discussion in any way?
Oh this will be good...
I think the analogy is that machines not understand how the brain works by the mixture of frequencies interacting in the brain, it is analytical in a machine cannot determine the Harmony between different frequencies and how they interact and play off each other.
Indeed you are right Paul , we look for affirmation , too bad isn't it .... You're such wise person
The day I don't learn something new, I stayed in bed. Even if I know how to accomplish a task, I'll be patient enough to watch and learn what someone else does. It might be a more efficient way. But when someone tells me something I may believe you, but I will verify for myself.
Jason Stoddard of Schiit Audio just posted a great article on measurements vs subjective experence in "level matched blind listening". (TL;DR - both sides are right, and both sides are wrong):
www.head-fi.org/threads/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up.701900/page-3798#post-15486474
I understand your viewpoint, and agree with the human emotional element. But, I have always been told that whatever can't be measured, cannot be improved upon. How would you know it was an improvement, if it can't be measured? Great topic.
Take a PS Audio product home for 30 days. Does it sound better than what you currently have?
If so, and you can afford it, keep it. If not, you'll likely send it back.
That was simple wasn't it?
@@thunderpooch I own a PS Audio product, and yes, it was easy.
@@exciter2506 Cool. I take it you switched out just the component with the PS Audio component and could hear differences?
If so, could you please describe what differences you encountered? I'd love to hear what improved.
Art, as music, is in the eye, or ear in this case, of the beholder. No "machine" can ever measure that.
You're confusing things here. The question was can we hear things that are not measurable and the answer is no. What the brain comprehends from what it hears may be very different to the actual sound being made. No one can say with certainty that any two brains will perceive a sound the exact same way. Everyone's ears are different for starters. The size, inner dimensions and a whole host of other things will be unique to each person.
A measuring machine on the other hand will measure precisely and accurately each and every time.
So the question asked was - "Can we hear what is not measurable?" and the answer is no because if our ears can detect it, any sound recorder can measure it.
Steve Fick
We aren't talking about art though. We're purely talking about sound, which falls under natural science.
@@TheEchelon yes ...to complete the analogue we can talk about art but we can measure color gamut, chroma ...etc. UV is invisible for our eyes like some noises or frequencies.
Men must support other men about things in life. Thank you for doing that
We hear all sorts of things that can't be measured.
Most of them are imaginary, but that doesn't change the fact that we "hear" them.
I believe that a critical factor in audio equipment, one that is not often addressed by reviewers,
even those who live and die by measurements, is phase linearity across the audible frequency range and beyond.
When it is very good, the quality of sound is greater and the spatial effects are better than when it is merely adequate.
How to achieve that is for the designer(s) of each component to deal with.
To measure something you first have to know what to measure in order to build a device to measure it.
Talking about color blind. I'll just show him the prism and point to the fact the different colors appear in different places as they went through prism. The same about sound. There always are some measurable physical phenomena behind our ability to see or hear something.
Hey, if they can make equipment from Radio Shack parts to detect paranormal activity and make a TV show from that, then you can make anything to measure anything and everything. Anywho Denis responded perfectly already.
You almost can never cast doubt on another person's perspective and effectively present the alternative in the same session of a conversation. One needs to get the crack in the shell started, then let it grow on its own in the other person's mind and only later have any chance of introducing a new idea once that shell is broken wide open. Sometimes the presenter of the new idea needs to be a different person than the caster of doubt for the old idea, sort of a good cop, bad cop situation. :-)
If you are measuring actual changes in a speakers response then if it is not measurable it is not audible. Because in order for us to interpret a change in sound, no matter how subtle, there has to be some change in speakers response. However, literally nobody does this. Instead, they measure capacitors and resisters and cables and then say there's not enough difference in the electrical properties to make a difference in the sound. This claim is always made without actually measuring the response of a high resolution speaker in a controlled environment as upstream components are changed in one way or another. It would incredibly simple for Paul's speaker guru to measure the IRS V's playing a specific piece of music as a baseline, then make a change in one component that Paul and staff say yes, this makes an audible difference and then take new measurements. With the testing equipment we have today we should see some aspect of the response change. If there is a measurable difference when switching out, say, cables then we have to acknowledge there's a component of signal transmission we have yet to discover and subsequently have yet to discover a way to measure. If there isn't a measurable change in the speakers response then the upstream component didn't make a difference. But if you simply measure individual components and then make judgements about whether they will make a change in the sound or not then you're just guessing. And educated guess, perhaps, but a guess nonetheless.
The best speakers were made for machines and computers for they can only hear it all, people get emotion listening to music while machines do not. The best thing is just to enjoy yourself and if it sounds good play it loud.
My computer would like to know which speakers were made for it. It wants a pair. ;¬)
Run a test to show the color blind person there is some difference. Put 3 squares in front of him/her, one square is blue, the other two are some shade of gray. Write the color blue on the back of the blue square. The color blind person agrees all the squares are the same color. Shuffle the squares. Now you pick the blue square out from the other ones. Shuffle. Do it several times. At least this tells the color blind person there is some difference that he/she cannot differentiate.
I think the ear is actually very good at discerning differences in components. The only caveat is the person should be in familiar surroundings. I think that familiar surroundings increases the acuity of the ear as compared to a person in unfamiliar surroundings. It's similar to how too low or too high of a background light can obscure foreground colors. Unfamiliar surroundings can be too strong an influence and reduce the acuity of the ear. Familiar surroundings provide just the right amount of background "lighting" for the ear.
Ideally to prove these differences exist, they can be exposed thru double blind hearing tests. Unfortunately, these types of tests can introduce the unfamiliar surroundings problem. OTOH, less than double blind tests can introduce the problem of perceptual bias (I paid a lot of money for this cable, it must be better).
Thats why these "differences" are not always straightforward to determine IMHO.
Of course we can. Measurements have always been coarse, in the past ridiculously so. Today better and of course useful but measurements are as “life like” as robots. Always getting better but not quite “there”. “There” being life, not “life like”. I doubt there was an engineer/audiophile more dependent upon measurements than was Siegfried Linkowitz (famous for his crossover designs and speakers). He once told me “don’t confuse what we see with what we hear. Eyes are for viewing. Ears are for listening”. For those who insist we should not trust our senses over measurements and double blinds, do you think we survived over tens of thousands of years doing double blinds to determine from where the tiger was coming? Measurements and blind testing are useful but being led around by them is stupid.
The analogy between SOUND (music is no other thing than ORGANIZED SOUND) and a beatiful structured story is a very poor one.
You cannot compare different magnitudes because you're comparing the container (reproduced sound) with the content (the ideas behind writen words).
The tasks of audio equipment are to capture, to store and to reproduce SOUND as close to reality as possible, nothing more.
EVERYTHING that can be heared can be measured, but EVERYTHING that can be measured not always can be heared.
Please, put out of the equation the emotional factor: it's independent of the sound quality. You're confusing quite a lot what is an Art with the "photocopy" of said Art.
(I'm guessing you really think what you say in this video, but I do not understand WHY you never accepted Ethan Winer challenge. So...).
Sounds like we're wandering into "tone woods" territory. I can clearly hear the difference between my mahogany-bodied acoustic guitar (warm) and a maple-bodied instrument of the same body style (bright) - but science says I can't hear what I know I can - or at least what a whole cadre of UA-cam posters say science sez. Same with the electrics - but that's where the "no difference" bunch start to lose their sh*t...
actually science says the opposite : you can definitely measure the diff by measuring the levels of the harmonics
@@gerritgovaerts8443 I'm guessing you haven't ever been in the "tone woods" video and comment trenches on UA-cam - pretty much everyone participating is dead certain (many with various scientific devices in their corner as backup) and passionate verging on violent...
Unfortunately so much of our modern day high profile science is based on correlation of unvetted data points. This has thoroughly messed up things like dietary standards, climate analysis, safety standards, I could go on.
You can easily hear the difference between the wood used on a record player, so on a guitar the difference has to be way, way bigger.
Science also says you cannot hear speed deviations below 0.5%. I guess that's why I always get my tapedecks to 0.1% just by knowing the music and adjusting.
I love science, but hate talking matters of the mind/sense with scientists.
@@godfreydaniel6278 Well, that's what generally happens when you mistake UA-cam for a reliable source of information.
The harmonics of different guitar body shapes and materials can be and have been measured. Physical modelling synthesizers use that raw data to create virtual instruments.
I could never visit if I did I would fall in love and bankrupt myself😕
We can hear as far as humans hearing goes (13 to 20000 Hz ideally). We can measure as far as we know. Problem is that we make our equipment based on us & our abilities. So we cannot hear what's not measurable but we can hear what's not being taken into account when it whose measured. Ultra sound (which we can't hear) ripples for instance will have impact on the sound spectrum we can hear the same way water drops ripples on water surface which we don't see will have impact on waves produced by one's we do. That's DSD distortion effect which we do measure but concisely try to discard guided by the fact we can't hear above 20000 Hz & future more that digital signal has no whatsoever physical attributes so it cannot produce sound ripples.
Yes. And sounds more celestial than mere audio!
Everything is measurable even if you have to take it to the subatomic level. But as for what a human can hear or see is a totally different animal. Take that brand new car off the showroom floor. The paint is factory new and looks perfect until you look at it with a microscope. Now it looks like the Rocky Mountains. Or frame rates for video. A good 1080P video is between 15 and 30 FPS. We can measure that but can we see each frame that goes by? Not likely.
Everybody's ears are different from lobe to conducting bones. Everybody's neural processing and conciseness is different. I doubt science will ever be able to account for this. Its amazing we can agree about anything regarding sound really.
@@user_unknown1488 hahahahaha nice playground humour.
We agree about something? When did that happen? ;¬)
@Fat Rat For me, at least, "talk for yourself, mr stupid ears" was the funniest comment I saw on the internet all day!
If someone swaps your cables that "measure" no difference without you knowing it, and you can hear differences (and it happened to me before), it is not a just matter of emotion or psyche. It is that we do not know everything about what and how to measure. We do not know how to measure a lot of things. Currently, for example, I am working in a research lab (SNOLAB) with millions of funding trying to find out how to detect and measure dark matters and neutrinos. There are many things that exist that we do not know how to measure them. Science is about trying to find out what and how to measure and then interpret the measurement. That is why science is not a faith. Don't believe in measurements; do real science: i.e. if you hear differences, quantify and theorize what they are, and then find new ways to measure. Paul is wise.
This reminds me so much of a factory tour video from Hegel. "Sometimes measurements are limited by how inventive you are in what you measure for". ua-cam.com/video/2lrgoVGdKwU/v-deo.html
So in general, I think that it is possible to measure everything, but sometimes what you need to measure to explain a particular audible difference is non-obvious.
I suppose the counter-arguement would be that at a small enough level, you start dealing with quantum state stuff where measuring the state of a system inherently changes the state of said system, so we literally can't measure (at least not with our current understanding of physics) certain phenomena in a useful way.
If you wanna know if there's a difference between two different audio components, the only 99,9% reliable way to find it out, is a repeated blind test, with statistical analysis.
The problem is that you need people who are already skilled and trained in discerning extremely small details, and that those people generally don't care if the difference is real or not, as long as they experience it as being real. And there's no profit to be made, from an extensive test. It's a lot of boring work, just to be able to say 'But i am right and you are wrong!'
But if you take one audiophile with golden ears, and 70 out of 100 times (approximately, i don't know exactly how often you'll have to repeat the test for a standard p=0.05 significance level) he can correctly identify whether something in the set has been changed or not, you can with certainty say that some audio voodoo thing does in fact objectively change the sound, even if you can't measure it. Just like with medication with small effects, you need a large number of tests OR a large population to conclusively show it.
Blind testing? What does that mean to you? Are you informing the listener what to listen for and then they tell the tester whether sample A or B was higher or lower in that particular criteria? If so, that's blind enough for audio testing and is sensible.
If not, than blind testing is largely useless. You'd be able to slip subtle differences past the listener because they don't know where they should focus their attention.
True blind A vs B vs X testing in audio where you're only told to describe what difference you hear is an absolute ruse and a crock.
The fact is humans can hear and see very minute differences when they know what to focus on. And after awhile, the differences add up and can inform a person what components to buy to build a complete setup.
haha all i heard was "please do not come to boulder"
Right, but was that measurable?
Why wouldn't we be able to measure electronic components,?
Surly they have been measured and given a specific value, otherwise what are the engineers developing,, a piece of equipment with no specifications,?
On the other hand certain measurable levels of audio are not audible to humans, so what's the point in surpassing what we can't even hear.
money
@@siclucealucks yup, bout right
Hi Can I ask questions via this comment area?
If so: Can noise canceling headphones damage your ears. I've got a pair of JBL and when I turn of NC I feel a major pressure in my ears. I am 46 and can stil hear a bit above 15 kHz.
And what did you think about Philips audio, when they we're still made by Philips back in those days. I had a CD player that sounded so warm and crisp by Philips. It was a lot better then my Deonn DJ CD players.
We can’t measure art forms no. That all comes down to personal opinion and preference. We can’t measure why we like certain pieces of music.
However, we can measure the equipment we use to play back recorded material. The science behind all of that can absolutely be measured. So there are no reasons why there can be any artefacts are coloration which can be heard - but not measured.
If a person has a hearing defect or perceives things differently, that has nothing to do with how we can measure the output of any audio equipment. This is not a way to validate selling audio products which do things that can’t be measured.
If anything this just supports the placebo effect by telling people not everything we hear or perceive can be measured, so go knock yourself out no one can tell you that you can’t hear the wonderful effects from this power cable as a hypothetical example.
As for the colour blue. It can also be scientifically measured in the visible light spectrum. So even for any one who can’t see colour, science can still prove it exists. If even someone was to swear that they see the colour blue as green, it doesn’t make it green.
Michael gets it! Paul's argument is piss poor.
CAP thank you, and I agree.
The audiophile industry will do anything to protect itself. You would have to be a nut job to think you can't measure audio.😂 how do they know which end to put the sticker on a directional cable. How do the know what the temperature is when they freeze that same cable. How do they know if the rca plug is 75 ohms. The trouble is with the internet it now very difficult to pull the wool over our eyes.
@@r423sdex I'm with you except that, if anything, thanks to the internet it's now very easy to pull the wool over people's eyes...! ;¬)
it is time to train DL model for these things
Let's hope they can measure the coronavirus, if not we could all be in trouble
Last time I measured Coronas, I had 6.
@Fat Rat I'm not really sure...I'm still at the "bad habit" stage
You forget to tell us when your BOOK, is coming out, where we can buy it, and how much you want to sell it to us for. !!!!!
no sane author is going to state a publishing date before the books even finished being written.
I think you are mixing in subjectivity here, which doesn't belong in the conversation as I see it. It's not about measuring how good something is, it's about showing that anything actually changes, and if it's within the capacity of human hearing to pick up. It's then up to a subjective opinion whether the change is good or bad.
Of course there is the possibility that the measuring is flawed in some way, but one must adhere to the scientific method in order to be credible.
So if one wants to assert that something exists that we have failed to measure, it can still be proven through other methods, like proper blind tests (most audio blind tests tend to be too easy, although they still often weed out false claims). If you can show real consistency in such tests you might have something.
That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I try to change my but I do not succeed all the time:-)
I disagree with his conclusion. I would say we cannot measure things we can hear because we chose not to try. Given the state of physical measurements science can do, I have no doubt that if we wish to investigate, measure, and explain a sound phenomenon, we can. There is just no real demand nor $ to do so. Long live snake oil!
I like to listen for the way a piano lid sounds. Is it there does it sound right ? How do you measure that ? I've heard recordings where it sound like the piano is upside down and it's legs are kicking in the air.
totally agree, and the proof is musicians do not in my experience care about hi-fi as they are only listening to the human aspects of the performance and a transistor a m radio will do that for them, my own answer to this is another question dowe know everything we should be measuring, I think not, for example, below 3%simply does not matter, but picoseconds in the time domain do mater, as the folds in our external ear are to cause variable time delays in high frequency by which we descern the height of a sound,strangely the problems most people have with digital are in the trebble and I think this is why many people including myself prefer analogue recordings, also having reached old age 56, the deteroration of my high frequency hearing means I find cd increasingly bearable 30 years ago I hated cd, these days I can even tollerate poor digital, like you tube, I can still hear how mediocre it is, but it no longer drives me away. rant over, so thank you for your well presented and thought out videos, I watch and learn, you don't change my opinion simply because we seem to agree on all things audio, am I willing to change my opinions, yes, old age and perfect hindsight has convinced me I am frequently wrong about many things, not that Im claiming wisdom, I'm just wise enough to recognize my lack of wisdom, and just clever enough to know I am stupid to boot, once at near genius iq, whatever that may mean 8 strokes later, Im probably a bit below normal intelligence
Even measuring equipment is created to help with our perceptions. How do we know what time it is?
Yes, for our Brains "process" the input received via our Ears, Eyes, Nose and therefore it is very much true that we can NOT measure all that us humans can Hear / See / Process l Perceive / etc. Paul nailed it (@ 5:37)... "because we don't know all that is going on in our Brains". Paul, we don't even have Mics that can measure what we hear. So not even going the emotional route, it is still a definite - Yes, we can hear that which is not measurable. It simply amazes me that we have yet to build a Microphone and a Process of using said microphone which will allow us to record that which we actually hear. Maybe one day, but as of now we have yet to do so.
Just go listen to music, this stuff is pointless.
Number 9
For some this is a hobby and for others it's their job/career. Humanity has come this far because we wonder about things like this.
I dont.. why dont you tslk normslly in that up and down way and then say... thats awkward and then pan in and out add some scratch record sound effects and ssy how we need to subscribe and comment
Factually we don’t have tools and methods to measure everything the human hearing can perceive e.g. the sense of a soundstage. Factually some things can be measured much better than human hearing can perceive it e.g. frequency response. Factually you can’t make great audio without BOTH doing measurements and listening tests.
no you can’t, yes the brain filters and fills things, but if the purpose of the measurement is to compare gear for purchase, humans will loose, it’s also pointless
your blue analogy is flawed, in that it supports the measurements, not irrational choices made by listening
the fight of audiophiles against the science and engineering continues...
Just think of the years of scientific study that has gone into trying to recreate the famous Stradivarius Violin, yet the authentic originals still sell for $1Ms because science can’t identify and measure exactly what it is that makes a Stradivarius Violin sound exactly the way it does.
Yes, there is the intrinsic value of the age and originality of these superb instruments, which adds much to the cost and there are many other violins that are exceptional but at the end of the day nothing sounds like an original Stradivarius Violin. Especially to one that has become intimately familiar with one of these instruments.
My point is that how we hear is still not fully understood and without clear understanding it is impossible to fully measure everything that impacts our perception of sound.
Our ears and brains are hearing way more than we are aware of and that can be measured with our current technical expertise.
Just think of walking in a forest for example, you can here a huge range of sounds both in frequency and in amplitude. That’s what you are aware of. But you also hear where the sounds are located in 3D. Front to back, side to side, up and down.
If you stop to think about this you should be amazed because we only have two ears, how does the brain identify each individual sound and then position that sound in space within our heads? Science understands a lot about how this is done but not all.
The brain isn’t perfect though, try and locate a chirping cricket and you’ll probably find its location moves about you as you move your head about because the cricket’s high frequency sounds reflects of objects in your vicinity distorting the sounds that are entering your ears.
Further, consider how you’re able to listen to the people close to you in a room full of overlapping conversations.
I had an ear-opening experience once that highlighted how powerful our brains are at hearing specific conversations in a crowd.
I had been awake for over three days straight during the construction of a communal hall.
At the end of the build, with the hall completed, I was trying to listen to some people right next to me with about another 100 people talking around me.
My brain was so sleep deprived at this time that I found it nearly impossible to stay focused on the conversation right next to me because I was finding that I was hearing individual conversations from all around the large hall.
These where crystal clear and some where all the way over, on the other room. Also noises where not interfering with my ability to understand those remote conversations, though my brain was skipping randomly about from one to another during this time.
I have never heard conversation so clearly before or after that experience. It was truely amazing but I paid for it because I got very sick after that, so I don’t recommend anyone staying awake for many days in an attempt to replicate my experience.
A far as I know there isn’t a single audio system in existence that can measure audio from two microphones that are separated by only a few centre-meters that can resolve sound in these ways.
So yes i truly believe that we can hear things that can’t be measured. But unfortunately for many, they are unaware of these unmeasurables and don’t miss them when they listen to their music through medium quality earphones, speaker, amplifiers, Bluetooth audio, compressed audio files, etcetera.
Do all Stradivarius violins sound the same ?.
@@user_unknown1488 Ah, yes, the golden ear. Of course.
Just because we don't know what makes them "so unique" doesn't mean they're not measurable. Also, people are too hung up on sound graphs, which only draws a small picture of the whole story. You can simple measure the density between two violins or the weight, and that alone is a factor that will indicate why both sound different. That's just the beginning. Things like grain orientation of the woods, resins inside the wood, chemistry of the glue and shellac etc etc all could make a difference and these are all measurable.
If you want to find out what makes them so special, you'd have to isolate each variable that influences the sound and that is practically impossible.
Just by writing a whole essay doesn't mean you're any more right. Especially if you lack the insight of a fundamental premise.
The Echelon
Interesting but…
I’ll take your reply seriously when you have used your method to reproduce a violin that experts agree is a perfect copy of a specific Stradivarius.
Until then you are just like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black 😉.
Dave G
Probably not but they all have something that professional violinists say is special. So special that they pay huge amounts for them.
Everything that we can hear can also be measured objectively, even sarcasm. :-)
I can't wait to come back in a day or so and read all the comments that will have accumulated, hahah.
excellent answer.
But Paul, what's going on in our brains isn't 'hearing'. What's audible is measurable. Those who say they can hear things that can't be measured are blessed with an active imagination. As the saying goes, facts don't care about opinions.
i would add to this and say that facts are just facts, but to derive meaning from them is opinion. you can never have facts without humans doing their subjective things to it.
on top of this we don't know what we don't know, so people don't know what measurement we are missing.
thats why measurements dont tell the whole story anre are only tools for engineering and tweaking, nothing more.
That it's audible doesn't mean we already know how to measure it. Some speakers are better at reproducing the sound of 'wood' (e.g.; woodblock) than others, for instance. Try and measure something like that. Even if you measure the difference in for instance attack or ringing or distortion or whatever, that doesn't mean you know exactly what caused the difference. Which makes the measurement useless to figure if speakers are any good.
@@rollingtroll Recreating the woodblock's sound accurately through a loudspeaker is a function of dynamics and frequency response. Not only is it measurable, it's possible to create a virtual woodblock entirely from data with a physical modelling synthesizer, and has been since the 1990s.
@@sudd3660 It's ironic that "facts are just facts, but to derive meaning from them is opinion" is itself a matter of opinion. ;¬)
@@thisisnev are you talking drum computers here?
I bought a pair of $60 Sony bluetooth oehs, and by no means are these "resolving" headphones, nevertheless With these I hear things I never heard on my JBL floorstanders. Off topic maybe.
That's also just because they are close to your ears. The other way around you cannot hear things with those that you can with your JBLS, because they are not close to your ears.
Off topic, still a cool thing to respond to :)
My opinion don't mean crap, even to me. All I care about is I get the fact right. Nothing is worse then having a opinion on something when you don't have the facts.
Climate Crusader ….. hummmm…. Talk about getting your facts straight. Before you releases the book Paul you may want to talk to a local guy to you, Tony Heller from Boulder Co. And yes he is on YT and the last climate nut that said he was wrong wouldn't debate him because he was to polite and cordial.
Funny how so many of those climate nuts are peer-reviewed scientists with decades of experience and millennia of data, but hey, let's get the straight dope from Tony From Boulder.
@@thisisnev Before you stick you foot in mouth you may want to look "Tony From Boulder" (as you say) up.
Michael Mann is a fraud and we have been paying for his BS for decades including to the detriment of the environmental movement. Golden Eagles in Cali are going back on the endangered species list after decades being off it due to wind turbine kills. Why did they put the wind turbines in their habitat? Because that's where the wind is. A oil company kills a endangered bird and it pays millions, turbines have killed close to 150 Golden Eagles over the last 15 years and were never fined a penny.
@@finscreenname Fact check: www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/may/31/donald-trump/trump-exaggerates-wind-turbine-eagle-deaths/
P.S. I did look up Tony From Boulder, and I see he's a birther and climate conspiracy theorist.