Originally Posted by mcnarus
Then you are not talking about audio reproduction at all. You're talking about some metaphysical "connection" in which the use of the word "accuracy" makes no sense. Further discussion would be pointless.
my attempt is actually to resolve "metaphysical connections" into something physical. When it is physical, it is modeled, and inherent with models is the ability to communicate that information to another person.Information and communication (the transmission of information)are relative.
Relative to the observer or as I call it the reciever. This definition is for all communication.
You take an AM transmission to 2 recievers. One reciever has a clear line of sign from the transmitting antenna..it gets a clear signal; proper transmission. The other reciever has to go through trees and water; it has a poor transmission. In this example the measured distance..the xyz coordinate of one reciever to the other is the differentiating factor which affects the communication. the corresponding measured distortions are objective
only because you and I can commonly interpret the data...ie we have common knowledge and common understanding. If I were to parallel transmit that distortion information(measured data) to a nontechnical person it has no meaning and suddenly it is subjective
. Here I have taken the same measured data and shown it can be subjective.
Example 2. Polar plots. Polar plots are extremely subjective...why?
I have faith that jj and mark and terry can openly discuss the interpretation of a common measured polar plot because they have:
common technical background
common experience (with how particularly shaped polar plots "sound").
where as I am lacking in all of those categories, relative
to that company and relative to the information in the polar plot. They can describe it all they want but the units they would be talking in would be all fluffy and flowery compared to the real 1st hand experience of listening to a particular polar plot. A mathematical description of the experience is still fluffy and flowery. A technical description of the experience is still fluffy and flowery. The math behind it all is only accepted as "objective" because the units behind math are considered "objective" because you and I understand math on the same level..we have the same language..we have the same common experience.
Example 3. We have a scale and a weight. The scale is uncalibrated. The weight measured on the scale is 2 lbs. I say it is 2 lbs and you say it is not 2 lbs but probalby 2 lbs 1ounce. Relative to both of us the information transmitted from the scale is subjective. It is subjective because we do not agree on the validity of the scale. So somebody will say that there is a true value of the weight. That true value is only really true if everybody agrees upon it. Otherwise if you believed in its "truth" that value would only be valid to a higher being such as God or your highschool math teacher or the worlds smartest physicist. Now the "truth" is entirely based on your "faith".The nature of information is that it is multilayered
. It is a direct consequence of being relative to the observer. If all observers were the same then there would be no multilayeredness.
We are observing the same illustration of a blue ball. we both agree it is blue. we both agree it is a ball. Those are our common units.
I see a blue ball I played with in my childhood and lost to the neighbours dog. You see the beauty in the circle and the mathematical harmonys it represents.
The same illustration transmits the same information to us and the information we recieve is different from our uncommon experience.
Now if this seems silly it resolves into some consequences.
1. What we measure is useless unless it is corelated with common units. Units that can be agreed upon by nearly everyone.
2. Measuring to no end of precision without regard with to the common units is fool hardy. That's like designing for 8 decimal places when all you need is 2 significant digits.
3. Ultimate evaluation of any system must be performed at the highest end user level. Anything else will simply result in an "interpretation" of the real thing.So how would I perform tests? I have a musician practice and I record the sound. After every few seconds the signal is transmited through the reproduction chain...compression, amplification, speakers, back to the musician. I ask him only one question.."is that what you played?" If he answers yes that means everything he wished to communicate, the tempo, the frequencies, the energy, the emotion was not lost. It ensures that the probability of the information he "wished" to transmit to me remains high.
I take an orchestra and record and mix as if I were to master an MP3. I would ask the conductor "is that what you performed". If I ask the orchestra then the relative communication to me is completely different.
The methodology of the line of questioning would require psychoanalysis expertise and how to process the data would require fuzzy logic expertise. Both are way beyond my capability.