I didnt say the ear, I mentioned a set of ears, connected to a brain. Not to infer intelligence but psycho-acoustics.
There are all kinds of things you can hear but not measure with any piece of gear. How do you measure rocking? How do you quantify totally going off? When someone plays a total clunker of a note, everyone (except the tone deaf) knows it. how can you measure that? (and there are in key/in tune clunkers!)
The ear/brain can interpret the sound in the room and will eliminate early reflections or rather will add them to the first impulse from which they derive. On the recording you wont decode the early reflections the same way so you will hear the early reflections as hash/chatter and flutter echo. Bane of home studio recordings.
You are setting up a straw man argument here, since we are now talking about the interpretation of data, rather than the gathering of it. This is so far off point that it's a separate discussion. I maintain that we cannot interpret or process that which we cannot detect.
Okay, go ahead and design a bass guitar using nothing but measurements and your great test equipment. Good luthiers know how to use their god given talents, and ears.
As anybody else, I include my ears as my most valuable test equipment. This is, however, another redirection of the discussion away from its point. Everything that makes a bass great can be measured, whether it is the resonant response of a great piece of wood (a thoroughly interesting mechanical problem with lots of precedent in FEA and modal analysis), the dimensional accuracy of the construction, or the final touches that don't affect tone but convey "quality" in the way that matters to everybody. I would never argue against the philosophically definable "quality" of anything. However, I agree with Bob Lee: I would ask you to build a bass beside me without measurements. Keep in mind, we're not talking anymore about sitting with some software and an oscilloscope, but also geometric, mechanical, and physical measurements. Luthiers combine these measurements with *experience* and skill, so that they know *which* measurements matter.
Well, I have played bass guitar and other musical instruments for 36 years. I have written hundreds of songs, been in dozens of bands, recorded hundreds of songs for other people, done sound for thousands of bands at thousands of shows. Used to run a PA company (QSC amps were great then as now!) so I am not without some experience.
Besides, this is a bass guitarist forum last I checked, not a quantum physicist forum.
You clearly have a lot of experience, which of course is to your credit. Why, then, do you oppose some technical discussion aimed at answering a question relevant to your work and experience? The intent of the discussion is to reach a helpful, complete answer to the question. This requires some technical aspects, and only gets more technical when forum members try to undermine the facts. Rather than being a helpful, clear answer, the discussion degrades and the answer is obscured. I'll reiterate what I've said in a few other threads where the technical side of the discussion caused controversy: What do people like Bob Lee, Bill Fitzmaurice, agedhorse, and many other technical experts have to gain by helping out here? They offer clear answers based soundly in fact, then are very willing to expound upon the facts when asked. Their motives are to spread knowledge. Why oppose this, or undermine it by obscuring and intentionally ignoring facts?
This is absolutely a bass guitarist forum. Specifically, we discuss amplification in this forum; one of the critical tools that forum members use to make joy and money through music. I believe that by better understanding our tools, we can use them fully to further our musical goals.
We are privy to very advanced technology in the music industry. Much of the time, we can treat it as a "black box" that "just works". But sometimes it is incredibly helpful to understand at least a portion of the science behind acoustics, electronics, and audio processing. So, whether discussing power conditioners or LPs vs. CDs, an intelligent discussion will acknowledge both the quantitative/factual as well as the qualitative/ineffable factors. It is when parties of the discussion intentionally obscure or ignore the boundaries between these two that both sides get frustrated and the discussion ceases to be productive.
Thus, I acknowledge the infinite ability to explain phenomena with scientific and quantitative means. However, I respect that there are many things which cannot be expressed numerically. Signals, however, are one of the best understood engineering/scientific/mathematical entities in the world. There is nobody who understands signals who would agree with an argument that humans are poor signal processors. Interpretation is a different story, but is still limited by fidelity (ie. we cannot interpret what we cannot sense).
I am known for one thing among my friends and associates. I dont take kindly to being told how to behave. How about you mind your manners son?
I will continue to be the defender of the faith in the ineffable.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever feel tempted to do so. However, I would expect the same respect in return, without the undertone of superiority. I stated in the last post that you would find the conversation more rewarding if you invested a bit more in learning, rather than ignoring, information that would help you enjoy music more. Instead of dismissing the technical, let it augment the ineffable that you appreciate. You might enjoy the music (and this discussion) more.
