Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[BillyChilly]

Hello world!

Do measurements only apply to audio products? My ENT doc told me that there is no way to measure my tinnitis.

 

[Robbo99999]

Hello world!

Do measurements only apply to audio products? My ENT doc told me that there is no way to measure my tinnitis.

Maybe it's possible to measure it indirectly by applying known masking tones of certain amplitudes & frequencies. Perhaps if you found out which tone & amplitude masked it then it'd be possible to work out the frequency and amplitude of your tinnitus. I really don't know, but it's just a little piece of creative intuition that sparked in my mind - which also might be completely off the mark or planet.....I also don't know which tones you would choose to experiment with either. Perhaps there's some hearing experts here that have actually worked that out or know that my intuition is nonsense.

EDIT: there's a thread on here somewhere about the process of mp3 creation, and also where people talk about comparing mp3 with lossless, and mp3 works on the principle of masking in order to decide which parts of the music (frequency) to cut out given the other frequencies & amplitudes present in the music at the same time - so the expert in that thread might have an idea how you could do it. I think it's the guy j_j in the following thread:

Anybody Out There Who Hears a Difference Between 320 kbps MP3 and Red Book CD? What Differences Do You Hear?

Ah, just found this thread when looking for "answers"...........on reading the first couple of pages of this thread then it doesn't seem unreasonable that I would notice a difference between lossless CD rips of the same tracks vs the Amazon Music (nonHD) versions? I described a little of my...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[BillyChilly]

Some interesting ideas in there for sure. Per my doc (paraphrasing a bit), since there isn't actually a sound, and because the noise comes from the brain/nervous system, there's nothing to measure. I've "heard" a ringing in my ears since childhood...while still having excellent hearing. Thanks for chiming in, it was more of a conversational point than anything.

 

[storing]

there's nothing to measure

I get your doc's point of view but it's not super accurate. The masking etc mentioned already is used, and (working in a neuroscience environment) I'm fairly certain at some point in the future we get objective measurements. You perceive it, it's in the brain, hence it's made of neurons firing, hence it can be measured. The core problems currently are that it's yet not clear which part(s) to measure, and how (techniques enough but not all quite practical).

 

[Robbo99999]

Some interesting ideas in there for sure. Per my doc (paraphrasing a bit), since there isn't actually a sound, and because the noise comes from the brain/nervous system, there's nothing to measure. I've "heard" a ringing in my ears since childhood...while still having excellent hearing. Thanks for chiming in, it was more of a conversational point than anything.

I would think masking can still mask your tinnitus, as I think masking is a psychoacoustic phenomenon (your brain rather than your ears). So I kind of expect that "hearing experts" would be able work out the frequency & amplitude of your tinnitus at that given moment.....but I don't know what you'd do with that information beyond maybe playing a specific blend of background noise that cancels it out......or just as a means of being able to track if the amplitude of your tinnitus is getting worse or better or if the frequency shifts although I don't know if that happens nor the significance of that.

 

[BillyChilly]

I get your doc's point of view but it's not super accurate. The masking etc mentioned already is used, and (working in a neuroscience environment) I'm fairly certain at some point in the future we get objective measurements. You perceive it, it's in the brain, hence it's made of neurons firing, hence it can be measured. The core problems currently are that it's yet not clear which part(s) to measure, and how (techniques enough but not all quite practical).

Without these future tools, and using layman's terms, the bottom line is that I hear something that you can't measure. This is a huge percentage of the population, so we don't have to go far to find this to be true. Furthermore, don't we all experience music in the brain and nervous system? I like graphs, math, and science btw, so please don't get me wrong.

edit: I hear something that you might not, in the same environment.

 

[Ken1951]

Without these future tools, and using layman's terms, the bottom line is that I hear something that you can't measure. This is a huge percentage of the population, so we don't have to go far to find this to be true. Furthermore, don't we all experience music in the brain and nervous system? I like graphs, math, and science btw, so please don't get me wrong.

edit: I hear something that you might not, in the same environment.

 

[BillyChilly]

Wow. Quoted, facepalmed, and no words provided. I'd say brilliant, but since it just plainly and clearly isn't, I will not. What it is, is just not very nice. Noted!

Everything or nothing? Guess I'm inclined to go with not everything. Measure a work of art for me.

 

[Xulonn]

Wow. Quoted, facepalmed, and no words provided. I'd say brilliant, but since it just plainly and clearly isn't, I will not. What it is, is just not very nice. Noted!

Everything or nothing? Guess I'm inclined to go with not everything. Measure a work of art for me.

OK:

Mona Lisa - Painting by Leonardo da Vinci - Dimensions: 77 cm x 53 cm​

​

 

[BillyChilly]

I see.

 

[solderdude]

Do measurements only apply to audio products? My ENT doc told me that there is no way to measure my tinnitis.

You cannot measure it directly because tinnitus is not an actual tone.
You can determine the frequency and apparent amplitude of the tone and the stimulus used for that can be measured.
So indirectly you can measure it.
It won't do any good as there are no real cures for it. There are plenty of different causes for tinnitus.

 

[BillyChilly]

Yes, I've already said such in 2491. I understand I can try matching/masking the frequency and amplitude, but it would be a less than precise measurement according to an ear expert (MD) I met with just this week. I'll ask her more when I see her next time in a few weeks. Specifically, I'll press harder on the desire for precise measurements, understanding quite fully that I'm not after a cure, only precise frequency and amplitude. It'll be a fun thing for me. I'm quite open to what she says, and she really does seem quite good.

This "everything or nothing" ultimatum will further divide the world, like Empiricists and Rationalists long ago, despite reasonable counter-arguments in the appropriate thread. I'm afraid that I've been pegged a "nothing" because I have questions regarding the "everything" part. My skin is thick, but I'm also aware of general unpleasantness. I'm new here, that's a promise, so haven't gone round after round to the point that I've seen 125 pages of the same stuff. Maybe I'd get mean like a snake, too! Sure hope not.

If a user like me says, "well it's really hard/impossible to measure just how good a particular van Gogh is", I'll be met with facepalms. If I'm deciding between a van Gogh and a Rembrandt, how do I know which measures better (without using a ruler...please be reasonable)? A work of art is a thing, and of the most important type. Maybe you measure it by the money the art brings in at an auction? Well, remember that van Gogh became famous posthumously and his stuff was once very cheap, but it was (more or less, save atrophy) always the same work of art. We see this in the art world a lot, and I suggest you support living artists if you want more of the art "things" you like.

Anyway, thanks for reading. I can tell you're tired of this. I will digress and dismiss myself from this thread. Good luck. Cheers.

 

[Xulonn]

"Goodness" is not a characteristic that can be measured - but if you have knowledge that I am wrong, please tell me what physical "goodness" units we should measure.

Falsifiable claims of audible differences for sound below the threshold of human hearing have been debunked via rigorous scientific testing. Also, scientific instruments, like the vastly superior hearing of some animals, are far more sensitive than human ears, but some human egos seem to be very hard-coded to resist this fact.

You are very persistent with the use of obvious strawmen. I see analogies such as yours as being similar to computer/mathematical models. To quote British statistician George E. P. Box, all models are wrong, but some are useful. Your "goodness" of paintings analogy is certainly wrong - and not at all useful. To compare a preference for a particular artist's paintings to preferring an audio component based on imagined audible differences that are below the threshold of human hearing is quite silly. Science (psychoacoustics) has cofirmed that the human brain is capable of powerful trickery with respect to the "perception" of sonic differences that do not actually exist.

And your use of you tinnitus as confirmation that all sounds cannot be measures is full of holes. In physics - and audio - sound is defined not as what your brain "perceives", but rather:

"vibrations that travel through the air or another medium..."

I too have a tinnitus that I normally suppress, but after reading your posts, I yet again became aware of it, and it will probably take a fair amount of time before that awareness recedes and I am again oblivious to it. Currently, it is quite annoying.

Your poor (but common) analogies earned you a couple of facepalm responses - for good reason. There are many audible characteristics that are valid for determining preferences for various audio components and systems. The existence of tinnitus is not evidence that science cannot measure everything that can be heard.

 

[BillyChilly]

"Goodness" is not a characteristic that can be measured

Cool. We agree, xorgon.

Everything = everything. Look, my first post in this forum and thread asked whether or not measurements applied to the world outside of consumer audio. Somebody here might have said, 'hey look newbie, no that doesn't apply here'. You might have saved yourself a great number of red in the face keystrokes and tinnitus, but instead you cost yourself both. Congrats. You have achieved being annoyed.

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

First, I have to say that I'm not sure I'm in the right place with my question.

Does the use of the equalizer actually affect the impulse response?
And if so, to what extent?

 

[dc655321]

First, I have to say that I'm not sure I'm in the right place with my question

You are not.

Does the use of the equalizer actually affect the impulse response?
And if so, to what extent?

Absolutely, and to the same extent that it affects the frequency response. FR and IR are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Killingbeans]

If a user like me says, "well it's really hard/impossible to measure just how good a particular van Gogh is", I'll be met with facepalms. If I'm deciding between a van Gogh and a Rembrandt, how do I know which measures better (without using a ruler...please be reasonable)? A work of art is a thing, and of the most important type. Maybe you measure it by the money the art brings in at an auction? Well, remember that van Gogh became famous posthumously and his stuff was once very cheap, but it was (more or less, save atrophy) always the same work of art. We see this in the art world a lot, and I suggest you support living artists if you want more of the art "things" you like.

I think everyone in here would agree with you if you were making an analogy to music.

But audio reproduction is a bit different. You can either aim for a system that's "wire with gain" or one that's "a musical instrument of its own".

The former can be measured. It's not a mystery. The latter might be "musical" but it's not unpredictable. No matter how pleasing the audio system is to your personal taste, it's still not intelligent and it has zero artistic intention. It's just an effect. The elements that make it pleasing to you can be measured easily.

 

[rdenney]

I think everyone in here would agree with you if you were making an analogy to music.

But audio reproduction is a bit different. You can either aim for a system that's "wire with gain" or one that's "a musical instrument of its own".

The former can be measured. It's not a mystery. The latter might be "musical" but it's not unpredictable. No matter how pleasing the audio system is to your personal taste, it's still not intelligent and it has zero artistic intention. It's just an effect. The elements that make it pleasing to you can be measured easily.

Yes; over and over again, we have to make the point that creation and playback are different things with different objectives.

I've seen Instagram accounts where people have their favorite "filters" to put on photos. As tiresome as those can become, they still reflect the intention of the person putting them up, for better or worse.

But supposing I decided that there are some images put up on Instagram that would look better with my filter. I think that I could improve quite a lot of the images I see with some adjustments. The result will be an unplanned (by the "artist") collaboration between the artist and the viewer. Artists will be divided on the value of this collaboration. Of course, we recognize that enhancing the displayed image is working at a disadvantage--the image has already been downsampled and compressed for online display, so the viewer adjustments don't have the resolution and bit depth of the original to work with.

Now, let's add an uninvited party to that collaboration. Let's say that the smartphone manufacturer has decided that warmer tones (meaning: white balance with a lower Kelvin temperature rating) just "look better". Or, let's say they just like green. (I'm describing Apple, of course.) Now, neither the artist nor the viewer are part of that collaboration, beyond just choosing the device. Whatever the photographer did may or may not be compatible with being warmer or greener. I've made photos that looked perfect on a calibrated monitor (and I'm currently using an Eizo monitor with hardware calibration) but leaned to an ugly cyan on an iphone. So, am I supposed adjust my photos with a touch of magenta in them to counteract the green tint of an iphone? Or nudge the white balance to be a bit less warm, in the hopes that it won't be too blue (or purple in combination with the magenta) on a calibrated display but acceptable on an iphone? That's just nonsense, and a moving target.

But there are those who will insist (including people at Apple) that its automatic color-balance correction is "better". In some cases, it sure might be. I suspect creators will be divided on it.

Now, how is this different from a amplifier providing a coloration? John Atkinson at a Rocky Mountain event once said, of the cuff, that the secret to a successful amp was a healthy dose of second-order harmonic distortion. It provides an audible doubling of octaves which maybe enriches the sound, but it only works for some kinds of music and is antithetical to other kinds of music. But the problem isn't that an amp has a healthy dose of second-order harmonic distortion. The problem is that its purveyor claims that it is truly transparent, and for the first time, the music is being served. Consequently, any measurements that would reveal the effect are considered irrelevant, which is good for those who make amps that don't measurably accomplish the things their designers say they accomplish.

Rick "all this has been said before, of course" Denney

 

[Xulonn]

You might have saved yourself a great number of red in the face keystrokes and tinnitus, but instead you cost yourself both. Congrats. You have achieved being annoyed.

No need to be so defensive and lash out. As generations following mine might say, chill, dude! I am far too mellowed out to get "red in the face" while commenting here, and am amused that your comment began with a purposeful garbling of my internet handle (xorgon vs Xulonn) in an an obvious attempt to irritate me. That feeble attempt at trolling is quite lame.

Rather than being annoyed, I am amused. I am retired, pretty much housebound, and occasionally enjoy a bit of back-and-forth with those who make controversial statements, whether such response-triggering statements are accidental or on purpose. There is also the issue of ASR participants being from different cultures and for whom American English is not their first language.

The negativity in your comments began when you reacted negatively after someone posted a facepalm emoticon when you claimed to be able to hear sounds that could not be measured. Sound is defined as:

Wikipedia: In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain. Only acoustic waves that have frequencies lying between about 20 Hz and 20 kHz, the audio frequency range, elicit an auditory percept in humans.

In discussions here at ASR, unless specifically stated, most participants would interpret a mention of sound as the physical phenomenon, not the physiological/psychological aspect. And that means that most of us here would assume that you were talking about physical sound (and its sonic characteristics). Any such physical sonic phenomena that lies within the range of human hearing can indeed be measured.

 

[Ken1951]

No need to be so defensive and lash out. As generations following mine might say, chill, dude! I am far too mellowed out to get "red in the face" while commenting here, and am amused that your comment began with a purposeful garbling of my internet handle (xorgon vs Xulonn) in an an obvious attempt to irritate me. That feeble attempt at trolling is quite lame.

Rather than being annoyed, I am amused. I am retired, pretty much housebound, and occasionally enjoy a bit of back-and-forth with those who make controversial statements, whether such response-triggering statements are accidental or on purpose. There is also the issue of ASR participants being from different cultures and for whom American English is not their first language.

The negativity in your comments began when you reacted negatively after someone posted a facepalm emoticon when you claimed to be able to hear sounds that could not be measured. Sound is defined as:


In discussions here at ASR, unless specifically stated, most participants would interpret a mention of sound as the physical phenomenon, not the physiological/psychological aspect. And that means that most of us here would assume that you were talking about physical sound (and its sonic characteristics). Any such physical sonic phenomena that lies within the range of human hearing can indeed be measured.

Truly. The claim of hearing things that can't be measured, along with equating sounds of amplifiers to one's reaction to art prompted me to simply respond with a facepalm.

My reaction when I stood in front of Rousseau's "The Sleeping Gypsy", or the first time I stood in front of a Vermeer, or standing in The Met's exhibit of VanGogh's Irises and Roses is in no way in this universe analogous to someone's imagined and non-blind tested sounds from some audio component.

Hence, the very deserved Facepalm.