Exactly, recognising your mothers voice will be done via lossy bluetooth as well (even on old cassette tapes). Hence statement previously is not relevant here. It is not the same level of details required.
Thereās no appearance. Measurements are objective, 100% unbiased and repeatable. Thatās why science relies on them rather than golden ears - which should really be called āgolden brainsā or āgolden auditory cortexesā.
You assume the instrument of measurement is superior to the human machine. Yet, there is no bias in machines, apart from those that āprogrammedā any algorithmic biases into something, but there always accuracy in terms of what you hope is measured, is measured.
Of course, what should be measured is a key question. I remember when jitter became a key metricā¦is that still the key metric?
This whole thing about Ethics in AI thatās going on now really applies to all machines. Somebody built that machine, and they built it in a particular way, a way that seemed good to them, and thatās where the bias factor lives.
1 Like
I have no concerns because all developers have exemplary characters, and I have met someā¦
1 Like
But the basic rule of science is to rule out bias etc. by having reproducable provable results.
Not just asserting something without proof and reproducability.
You can only measure what can be measured. How do you measure aesthetic experience?
Do we even know what exactly we need to measure to be absolutely certain that we havenāt missed out on anything?
Hereās a personal experience ā over at audiosciencereview some people claim that a Topping DAC is actually superior to a dCS DAC. The proof, apparently, lies in the measurements. Now, Iāve had the opportunity to compare my dCS DAC to a Topping DAC. All I can say is that measurements donāt tell the full story, as there was a world of difference between the two products. The Topping DAC was brought over by a friend. Do you know what he did after the comparison? He took out a loan (!) and got himself a dCS Bartok.
1 Like
No axe to grind but personal preference is different to faithful reproduction or accuracy.
Many 80ās teenagers ruined the sound of a system with a graphic equaliser just because it sounded better to them.
1 Like
I assume humans are not machines. But yes, instruments are superior to senses, which is the reason we have them.
1 Like
Hereās an anecdote about the great pianist Grigory Sokolov (some say the greatest living pianist; I wouldnāt disagree, based on my own experience of his magic):
The modern Steinway can indeed be unyielding. Sokolov has it stipulated in his contract that he will be given a full morning in the auditorium on the day of the concert, with all the doors closed. He arrives with his own piano mechanicās kit. Were you to look through a crack in the door you might see pieces of your Steinway spread over the floor as he makes adjustments to the instrumentās action and sound. In this way he ensures that he doesnāt arrive at the concert handicapped by the instrumentās limitations.
For the full article:
Here you goā¦
1 Like
They constantly try to improve machines but I am afraid they will never reach ability of our senses. It is still unknown territory.
Like music that touches our feelings.
Is there any instrument capable to measure how much kidsā pitch evolves or improves over the years spent in musical school?
1 Like
Apart from voicing some commonplaces about aesthetic experience, these neuroscientists donāt have anything interesting to say. As one of them admits:
Despite her efforts to apply her neuroscientific background to the world of art, Asher said, āI think understanding art, or deriving meaning from art is such a holistic experience, I think to try and reduce it down to down to a set of mechanisms might be oversimplifying it.ā
Itās an emerging discipline and deserves time to come up with better results. You asked how aesthetic experience could possibly be measured, and I answered with the approach science is taking about it. Like it or not, I think itās already perfectly feasible to measure if you like or not a musical pieceā¦ and these measurements with time will only get more detailed and more precise.
My wife isnāt complaint anymore. Since Build 880 
1 Like
Did she walk in and immediately comment even though she doesnāt normally take any interest?
(One of 100 best comments for convincing the world that you didnāt make a crap purchase)
1 Like
Nope. Sheās speechless. For a change 
2 Likes
The worldās leading neuroscientists have often expressed great doubt regarding our possibility to map our mind in such a way that neural correlates of consciousness actually explain subjective states of consciousness. Knowing that a particular brain area lights up under a particular stimulus (as we can now see with fmri) doesnāt tell us very much about the mystery of consciousness, and even less about the subjective experience of states of consciousness (called qualia in the philosophy of mind literature). That some scientists should be engaged in exploring aesthetic consciousness, why not? - it generates papers and possibly grants.
It is in the mind.
1 Like