Re: If you can hear it, it can be measured.

[Schizoid Man]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message

> Everybody agree?

I like the name Annika. It reminds me of a girl I knew back in New Delhi.

[Arny Krueger]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message


> Everybody agree?

Agreed.

But don't expect agreement from those over whose head you are speaking.

[bg]

Not if it's tinnitus, at least not in the sense that you probably mean
"measure." But you can certainly hear it, and sometimes little else.

BG

[JBorg]

> bg wrote
>
>
>
> Not if it's tinnitus, at least not in the sense that you probably mean
> "measure." But you can certainly hear it, and sometimes little else.
>
> BG



Ok. Now if he was referring to an outside stimulus, I wonder how
he would go about measuring The Bug Eater's ability to hear and
differentiate the sounds between, oh say, crickets, mosquitoes,
flies, ticks, and flying dorritos in the middle of the night ......?

[Fella]

Annika1980 wrote:

> If you can hear it, it can be measured.

No.

> Everybody agree?
>
>

No.

[bg]

Ticks make noise? Is that why they're called ticks?

JBorg wrote:

> Ok. Now if he was referring to an outside stimulus, I wonder how
> he would go about measuring The Bug Eater's ability to hear and
> differentiate the sounds between, oh say, crickets, mosquitoes,
> flies, ticks, and flying dorritos in the middle of the night ......?

[JBorg]

"bg" > wrote
> JBorg wrote:
>
>
>> Ok. Now if he was referring to an outside stimulus, I wonder how
>> he would go about measuring The Bug Eater's ability to hear and
>> differentiate the sounds between, oh say, crickets, mosquitoes,
>> flies, ticks, and flying dorritos in the middle of the night ......?
>
>
> Ticks make noise? Is that why they're called ticks?


I'm constrain by the limit of what my ears could hear. Perhaps
McCluck-Cluck would be kind enough to enlighten us and
clear this up...................

[jeffc]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> Everybody agree?

Theoretically, yeah. Assuming the equipment is good enough and you're using
it right.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> Everybody agree?

**Probably not.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Bruce J. Richman]

Trevor Wilson wrote:


>"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
>> Everybody agree?
>
>**Probably not.
>
>
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>

I would also say "probably not". The reasoning would be that I don't assume
that the current "state-of-the-art" when it comes to measurement can't be
improved in the future to quantify somehow other variables often mentioned in
listening
sessions.



Bruce J. Richman

[Ron]

On 08 Dec 2004 03:10:51 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

>Everybody agree?

If by 'it' you mean, 'sound', then the answer is yes, it can be
measured. By definition.

If by 'it' you mean Tinitus or whatever subjectivists claim to hear,
then, no, nobody agrees.

[Robert Morein]

"bg" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Not if it's tinnitus, at least not in the sense that you probably mean
> "measure." But you can certainly hear it, and sometimes little else.
>
> BG
>
Scientifically, this is borderline untrue. I once complained to the local
classical FM station, then WFLN, about a CW signal that was the result of a
new subcarrier frequency for digital display.

I ended up having a very pleasant chat with the station engineer. He
discovered the signal, but it was so far down he was surprised that it could
be at all audible. In other words, it is possible for accepted engineering
practice to miss or underestimate the importance of a barely measurable
artifact. On the other hand, a full-bore scientific investigation would
resolve the dichotomy, and result in an eventual modification to accepted
engineering practice.

It is the persistent gap between the two that has so frequently caused some
individuals, such as Krueger et al., to believe that hifi is much simpler
than it actually is. In my personal opinion, I have no doubt that science
could close the gap if there were sufficient drive to do so. But since there
isn't, it is left to individuals who, unfortunately, conduct their pseudo
science in a very superficial way.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Everybody agree?

Yes, but just because you can't hear it does not mean it can't be measured.
Also, just because you think you hear it, does not mean it is their and not
imagined. :)
--------------
Alex

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>
>>"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
>>> Everybody agree?
>>
>>**Probably not.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Trevor Wilson
>>www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>>
>
> I would also say "probably not". The reasoning would be that I don't
> assume
> that the current "state-of-the-art" when it comes to measurement can't be
> improved in the future to quantify somehow other variables often mentioned
> in
> listening
> sessions.

**I merely answered the question, as written.

For the record: I firmly believe that if you can hear, it can be measured.
HOWEVER, there are a whole bunch of measurements which are not being applied
to audio products, for a whole bunch of reasons:

* They're relatively difficult to perform.
* The numbers may serve to confuse purchasers.
* The numbers may be genuinely embarrassing to many manufacturers.
* Many manufacturers may consider the numbers unimportant.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Schizoid Man]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Schizoid Man said:
>
> > I like the name Annika. It reminds me of a girl I knew back in New
Delhi.
>
> Was she an "exchange" student from the Hive?

No. She was half-Swedish and hailed from Goteborg.

[jeffc]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is the persistent gap between the two that has so frequently caused some
> individuals, such as Krueger et al., to believe that hifi is much simpler
> than it actually is. In my personal opinion, I have no doubt that science
> could close the gap if there were sufficient drive to do so.

Bingo. In other words, it *can* be measured, even though it isn't necessarily
so.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Paul Dormer wrote:


>"Robert Morein" emitted :
>
>>> Not if it's tinnitus, at least not in the sense that you probably mean
>>> "measure." But you can certainly hear it, and sometimes little else.
>>>
>>> BG
>>>
>>Scientifically, this is borderline untrue.
>
>I wouldn't know about that. Tinnitus is sometimes said to be a
>psychological phenomena. The British Tinnitus Assocation says
>"Tinnitus is the name given to the condition of noises 'in the ears'
>and/or 'in the head' with no external source."
>

That's also the name frequently given to auditory hallucinations. ;)



>
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>-----------------------------------
>It's Grim up north..
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Paul Dormer wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman" emitted :
>
>>>>> Not if it's tinnitus, at least not in the sense that you probably mean
>>>>> "measure." But you can certainly hear it, and sometimes little else.
>>>>>
>>>>> BG
>>>>>
>>>>Scientifically, this is borderline untrue.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't know about that. Tinnitus is sometimes said to be a
>>>psychological phenomena. The British Tinnitus Assocation says
>>>"Tinnitus is the name given to the condition of noises 'in the ears'
>>>and/or 'in the head' with no external source."
>>>
>>
>>That's also the name frequently given to auditory hallucinations. ;)
>
>Also immeasurable in some posters, judging by appearances.... :-)
>

Sometimes, yes, sometimes,no. In the case of RAO's resident cretin and
compulsive liar, the voices often hum his theme song (as in the VW commercial)
- "duh, duh, duh", followed by numerous measurable lies.






>
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>-----------------------------------
>It's Grim up north..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Clyde Slick]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Sometimes, yes, sometimes,no. In the case of RAO's resident cretin and
> compulsive liar, the voices often hum his theme song (as in the VW
> commercial)
> - "duh, duh, duh", followed by numerous measurable lies.
>

We call that Scheissennugen.

[Fella]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Everybody agree?
>>
>>**Probably not.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Trevor Wilson
>>www.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>>
>
>
> I would also say "probably not". The reasoning would be that I don't assume
> that the current "state-of-the-art" when it comes to measurement can't be
> improved in the future to quantify somehow other variables often mentioned in
> listening
> sessions.
>

Agreed. In short, they'll yet learn to measure what we are hearing, and
when listening to *MUSIC* not pink noie or sine waves..

[jeffc]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Annika1980)
> >Date: 12/7/2004 7:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Everybody agree?
> >
> Yes. Clearly your ears are "measuring" *it* just by hearing *it.* So yours is
> an inherently true claim.

Since it would be a tautology if you interpret it that way, and since he's not
stupid or "master of the obvious", we can conclude he didn't mean it that way.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> Everybody agree?
>
>
>
>
We can measure everything we know of that people can hear. If there's
something else we don't know about it.

[ludovic mirabel]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> Everybody agree?
>
You need to define your terms. If you're talking about measurements
of things such as frequency range, sound power etc. you're obviously right.
If you're talking about what Yo Yo Ma hears when he selects his
cello in preference to others you're asking a nonsensical question.
.. Your logical fallacy lies in defining "hearing" as what can be
measured- a tautology. The brain's temporal lobes do something with musical
sounds which lies beyond measurements- they "hear" what a composer a
conductor, a virtuoso, a music-lover or even you and me "hear" when we say:
"This is a terrible-sounding violin"
Ludovic Mirabel
>
>

[ludovic mirabel]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> Everybody agree?
>
You need to define your terms. If you're talking about measurements
of things such as frequency range, sound power etc. you're obviously right.
If you're talking about what Yo Yo Ma hears when he selects his
cello in preference to others you're asking a nonsensical question.
.. Your logical fallacy lies in defining "hearing" as what can be
measured- a tautology. The brain's temporal lobes do something with musical
sounds which lies beyond measurements- they "hear" what a composer a
conductor, a virtuoso, a music-lover or even you and me "hear" when we say:
"This is a terrible-sounding violin"
Ludovic Mirabel
>
>

[jeffc]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >> >
> >> Yes. Clearly your ears are "measuring" *it* just by hearing *it.* So yours
> >is
> >> an inherently true claim.
> >
> >Since it would be a tautology if you interpret it that way, and since he's
> >not
> >stupid or "master of the obvious", we can conclude he didn't mean it that
> >way.
>
> You can make those conclusions based on your assumed premises.

They're not mere assumptions.

> If we can
> hear something it can be measured by equipment that is known to be more
> sensitive than the human auditory system. That doesn't mean it *is* being
> measured in the hobby of audio.

"Sensitive" is a questionable word, but basically I couldn't agree more.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "jeffc"
>Date: 12/10/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>> >> >
>> >> Yes. Clearly your ears are "measuring" *it* just by hearing *it.* So
>yours
>> >is
>> >> an inherently true claim.
>> >
>> >Since it would be a tautology if you interpret it that way, and since he's
>> >not
>> >stupid or "master of the obvious", we can conclude he didn't mean it that
>> >way.
>>
>> You can make those conclusions based on your assumed premises.
>
>They're not mere assumptions.

Indeed, they are highly suspect assumptions.


>
>> If we can
>> hear something it can be measured by equipment that is known to be more
>> sensitive than the human auditory system. That doesn't mean it *is* being
>> measured in the hobby of audio.
>
>"Sensitive" is a questionable word, but basically I couldn't agree more.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[jeffc]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >> >
> >> >Since it would be a tautology if you interpret it that way, and since
he's
> >> >not
> >> >stupid or "master of the obvious", we can conclude he didn't mean it
that
> >> >way.
> >>
> >> You can make those conclusions based on your assumed premises.
> >
> >They're not mere assumptions.
>
> Indeed, they are highly suspect assumptions.

They're fact. How would you know?

[jeffc]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >> Indeed, they are highly suspect assumptions.
> >
> >They're fact. How would you know?
>
> You're the one claiming they are fact so how do you know? I say they are
highly
> suspect which clearly implies that I don't *know.*

Well that's fine. Quite a different matter from calling them "assumptions".
I just know from reading his comments on another newsgroup over the years.

[Ruud Broens]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
: Everybody agree?
:
Hmm. Definitions aside, how would you go about
quantifying say recognition of someone's voice ?
(works through a telephone, or when the person has a severe cold)
?
Rudy

[jeffc]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry but they are assumptions when you use them as a premise for an
argument.
> You don't know, you believe based on your interpretation of his posts. The
same
> posts that has lead others to draw very different opinions. Using your
opinions
> as premises for an argument is the same as assuming.

Well I guess in that case, you're just assuming they're assumptions. So
there.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Ruud Broens"
>Date: 12/12/2004 5:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
>: Everybody agree?
>:
>Hmm. Definitions aside, how would you go about
>quantifying say recognition of someone's voice ?
>(works through a telephone, or when the person has a severe cold)
>?
>Rudy
>

Well that's a different subject and one we really know far less about. It's
easy to measure differences in peoples' voices but the brain's proccess of
recognition is something that is still being researched.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "jeffc"
>Date: 12/12/2004 5:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Sorry but they are assumptions when you use them as a premise for an
>argument.
>> You don't know, you believe based on your interpretation of his posts. The
>same
>> posts that has lead others to draw very different opinions. Using your
>opinions
>> as premises for an argument is the same as assuming.
>
>Well I guess in that case, you're just assuming they're assumptions. So
>there.
>

Nope. It is an established and agreed upon fact that you are offering an
opinion as a premise. So I am not assuming.

[Ruud Broens]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
: >From: "Ruud Broens"
: >Date: 12/12/2004 5:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
: >Message-id: >
: >
: >
: >"Annika1980" > wrote in message
: ...
: >: Everybody agree?
: >:
: >Hmm. Definitions aside, how would you go about
: >quantifying say recognition of someone's voice ?
: >(works through a telephone, or when the person has a severe cold)
: >?
: >Rudy
: >
:
: Well that's a different subject and one we really know far less about.
It's
: easy to measure differences in peoples' voices but the brain's proccess of
: recognition is something that is still being researched.

Who's that 'we" ?;)

Hardly a different subject..if you can hear it (by implication:
differentiate between X & Y)
it can be measured ...
Rudy

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Ruud Broens"
>Date: 12/12/2004 9:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>: >From: "Ruud Broens"
>: >Date: 12/12/2004 5:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>: >Message-id: >
>: >
>: >
>: >"Annika1980" > wrote in message
>: ...
>: >: Everybody agree?
>: >:
>: >Hmm. Definitions aside, how would you go about
>: >quantifying say recognition of someone's voice ?
>: >(works through a telephone, or when the person has a severe cold)
>: >?
>: >Rudy
>: >
>:
>: Well that's a different subject and one we really know far less about.
>It's
>: easy to measure differences in peoples' voices but the brain's proccess of
>: recognition is something that is still being researched.
>
>Who's that 'we" ?;)

Scientific researchers and anyone who looks at thier work.


>
>Hardly a different subject..if you can hear it (by implication:
>differentiate between X & Y)
> it can be measured ...

No. measuring *differences* in sound is different than understanding how the
brain recognizes voices. It's no bif deal to measure such differences and even
identify voices via measurements. How our brains do it is not so easy to figure
out.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Ruud Broens"
>Date: 12/12/2004 9:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
>: >From: "Ruud Broens"
>: >Date: 12/12/2004 5:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>: >Message-id: >
>: >
>: >
>: >"Annika1980" > wrote in message
>: ...
>: >: Everybody agree?
>: >:
>: >Hmm. Definitions aside, how would you go about
>: >quantifying say recognition of someone's voice ?
>: >(works through a telephone, or when the person has a severe cold)
>: >?
>: >Rudy
>: >
>:
>: Well that's a different subject and one we really know far less about.
>It's
>: easy to measure differences in peoples' voices but the brain's proccess of
>: recognition is something that is still being researched.
>
>Who's that 'we" ?;)

Scientific researchers and anyone who looks at thier work.


>
>Hardly a different subject..if you can hear it (by implication:
>differentiate between X & Y)
> it can be measured ...

No. measuring *differences* in sound is different than understanding how the
brain recognizes voices. It's no bif deal to measure such differences and even
identify voices via measurements. How our brains do it is not so easy to figure
out.

[Annika1980]

>From: "Michael McKelvy"

>We can measure everything we know of that people can hear. If there's
>something else we don't know about it.

IOW, we can't hear it.