"Things that cannot be measured"

[posvibes]

In fact IME getting the emotion from a superbly emotional performance doesn't need especially high quality reproduction,

I have never quite relived the thrill I had at the age of 14 of riding in a 1960's VW Cabriole on a lovely summer's afternoon on a road parallel to the bay beaches of Melbourne and hearing "Jessica" by the Allman Brothers on a tinny AM car radio turned up too loudly with oncoming and passing traffic whizzing about.

There was not a skerrick, not an iota of audiophile sonic quality, none at all. I'd give anything to relive that moment once more.

 

[egellings]

What we hear is what the eardrums pick up, much like microphones do, modified by a whole bunch of hopelessly complicated interpretation going on in the brain.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

There's only so much that can actually be heard, but there's no end as to what one makes of that

 

[Phorize]

Emotion can be heard. And I’m not talking about the emotional connection m between the listener and the program. The emotion I speak of is what separates a good piano performance to a great one.

Go to your local opera or orchestra sometime. Nothing in that venue can be measured by a machine...

An emotion is neurological activity, it’s located in your brain. You can’t hear it in a performance, you experience it on hearing the performance. That doesn’t diminish it of course.

 

[ahofer]

There's only so much that can actually be heard, but there's no end as to what one makes of that

That's the truth. Can we measure the ability of an expensive, impressive-looking piece of equipment to provoke the fantasies in my brain? 'Cause that's what is going on an awful lot.

Please don't tell me it's measured in $s/time spent.

 

[ahofer]

Emotion can be heard. And I’m not talking about the emotional connection m between the listener and the program. The emotion I speak of is what separates a good piano performance to a great one.

Go to your local opera or orchestra sometime. Nothing in that venue can be measured by a machine...

Frequent concert-goer here (at least until last March)- I agree that musical performances can be full of emotive expression, but that emerges in sound waves that can be measured conventionally, with frequency and amplitude (as well as visuals, that don't make it onto the recording at all). The human response to it comes after the mechanical act of perceiving those sound waves.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

A response to a sound (let's say a piece of music) can be recorded and analysed and discussed, put in an intellectual and cultural context, open to qualitative interpretation. However, the 'extent' of the sound heard surely depends on the physical capacity of human hearing.

 

[StefaanE]

An emotion is neurological activity, it’s located in your brain. You can’t hear it in a performance, you experience it on hearing the performance. That doesn’t diminish it of course.

And the human brain and its sensors are sufficiently flexible to “upscale” sensory input, so that a lower quality input still results in a “complete” emotion. Cf. the low quality pictures, a tinny reproduction of a song or the whiff of a perfume that bring back all the emotions of a holiday.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

And the human brain and its sensors are sufficiently flexible to “upscale” sensory input, so that a lower quality input still results in a “complete” emotion. Cf. the low quality pictures, a tinny reproduction of a song or the whiff of a perfume that bring back all the emotions of a holiday.

Yes!

 

[Coach_Kaarlo]

Have you been a lifelong misogynist or has your mother done it to you more recently?

Judgemental much?

 

[Wes]

That's the truth. Can we measure the ability of an expensive, impressive-looking piece of equipment to provoke the fantasies in my brain? 'Cause that's what is going on an awful lot.

Please don't tell me it's measured in $s/time spent.

we can monitor your oxytocin levels when you look at it

I'm no longer in touch with the "field endocrinology" crowd but it might be possible to monitor it in near real time, and non-invasively

 

[StefaanE]

Frequent concert-goer here (at least until last March)- I agree that musical performances can be full of emotive expression, but that emerges in sound waves that can be measured conventionally, with frequency and amplitude (as well as visuals, that don't make it onto the recording at all). The human response to it comes after the mechanical act of perceiving those sound waves.

Put a dummy head with microphones in the position of the human, and with good equipment one can record the sound field the human ears experience. The whole idea of VR is to provide stimuli that are good enough to convince the brain the “real” world is providing them. In that sense, a stereo sound stage is a very limited VR experience but can be quite convincing absent visual stimuli. A typical classical concert transmission is often less convincing than a stereo recording because the cameras wander from instrument to instrument based on its momentary importance in the piece.

 

[Katji]

A typical classical concert transmission is often less convincing than a stereo recording because the cameras wander from instrument to instrument

I saw this yesterday on local forum...

 

[StefaanE]

I saw this yesterday on local forum...

View attachment 115521

The Berliner Philharmoniker’s Digital Concert Hall is awesome. I am a subscriber, and it’s absolutely worth the annual subscription of €149, IMHO. It’s these performances I referred to, BTW.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

The Berliner Philharmoniker’s Digital Concert Hall is awesome. I am a subscriber, and it’s absolutely worth the annual subscription of €149, IMHO. It’s these performances I referred to, BTW.

Of course it's worth it - you pay 149Euros a month...How/why did you decide to subscribe?

 

[Coach_Kaarlo]

Neurologically speaking I think the hierarchy is as follows;

1. sensations
2. perceptions
3. emotions
4. thoughts
5. behaviors

Sensations are hardwired into the nervous system without ANY choice. Some sensations are perceptible sometimes, ie. that which we can hear. The mistake IMHO is to think only what we perceive (for example the ABX test threshold often used in ASR to silence alternative points of view) is of any import - it all matters because it all ends up in the brain. Much of what we sense remains beyond our perception yet readily produces emotions, thoughts, and behaviour.

An example of sensation versus perception is the short term positive bias for an overly bright speaker, versus the long term listening fatigue and negative bias of actually owning it. Any standard measurements would only show subtle differences yet to many experienced listeners the difference would be night and day.

Debates which start with the premise ""that which we cannot measure does not matter"" are fundamentally flawed arguments IMO and sound to many of us on ASR as some kind of dogma more commonly associated with religious belief. And almost perfectly mirror the subjectivists they loathe. I think it a closed minded pattern of thinking which suggests there is nothing new to discover or invent, and one should just get on with being happy with the way things are, and just follow the existing body of research, and be grateful for how little much of the audio world has improved since the 80's.

And what is more, when some free thinking innovator dares to break out of the mould - endless ridicule and scorn follows - despite the fact that on the journey to successfully innovate the new product, new methods and types of measurements were developed (because the existing widely accepted methods were not useful or accurate or effective) and the existing body of knowledge was increased.

Maybe a more scientific premise would be - with what we currently know, this is what we think, but new research or innovation may change or improve our understanding. It's topical to remember that historically most truly innovative visionaries have broken through the existing paradigm of scientific knowledge amidst much ridicule, dismissiveness, and outright hostility - yet we all benefit from their contributions to humanity daily! Humans are demonstrably biased towards being resistant to change, and use very poor heuristics to interface with reality. Some ad hoc framework of beliefs, ideas, biases, trauma, and much ignorance etc etc.

In my career, and personal life, I have not yet found an example which breaks the rule - at the root of every problem is a person. As I see the same people making the same arguments again and again on ASR I feel some sadness that the potential for knowledge sharing and growth in understanding which motivated @amirm to create this space is being derailed by the persistent dogmatic ideology - IF IT CANNOT BE MEASURED IT DOESN'T MATTER / EXIST.......

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

What's your evidence for 'Much of what we sense remains beyond our perception yet readily produces emotions, thoughts, and behaviour.' How could that ever be demonstrated one way or the other? If it 'readily produces emotions...etc.' then how can it be 'beyond our perception'?

 

[StefaanE]

Of course it's worth it - you pay 149Euros a month...How/why did you decide to subscribe?

It’s €149 per year, and there are discounts from time to time. The main reason was COVID closing the local venue (the Philharmonie in Luxembourg, at 70km from my place not exactly local) and putting a stop to the activities of the village wind band (where I play the tuba). The Berliner Philharmoniker gave away a free month’s subscription at the beginning of the pandemic, and this convinced me to buy an annual subscription. It’s really good.

 

[Katji]

^^^That reminds me, I need to make a post about where to get films online. ASR is probably the best place to ask.

 

[StefaanE]

What's your evidence for 'Much of what we sense remains beyond our perception yet readily produces emotions, thoughts, and behaviour.' How could that ever be demonstrated one way or the other? If it 'readily produces emotions...etc.' then how can it be 'beyond our perception'?

Methinks he means “consciousness“.