John,
> Can anyone look at these measurements and tell me what instruments and people are on the recording? <
No, but that's irrelevant to this discussion! What you are asking about is basically artificial intelligence. What I'm talking about is assessing audio equipment to determine if it changes the sound passing through it. It doesn't matter if the singer is John, Paul, George, or Ringo. 
Measurements absolutely can tell if a piece of gear (or your room) is changing the sound in any way that is audible.
--Ethan
Hi Ethan,
That is absolutely not true.
If John is singing, you can "hear" that it is him. If George or Paul is singing, then you can "easily" hear the difference. There is no measurement possible to discern between who is singing. As well it certainly cannot be determined by looking at the measurement, yet it is "easily" known by listening.
A different voice
"IS" an
"audible" change.
But as I said earlier, this is an argument of those arguing "past" each other.
Hearing is not simply the act of receiving frequencies, amplitudes, distortions and phase relationships. It is the process of assembling these into the perception of sound.
Same with a measuring instrument. If you don't have a "readout" you don't have a measurment.
When someone says they hear something, and an Objectivist says it is impossible to hear that since you cannot measure it, they are incorrect, as per the above.
Hearing a musical piece is not simply recieving these signals and they are not measurable as the ear/brain does measure them.
Measurement is the gradient perception by a sensitive instrument to whatever that instrument is designed for. To reach the limit of that or all of those instruments capabilities and say that the act of hearing is not in the argument, when that is the center of it, seems strange. When the whole discussion is, can we hear things that are not measurable.
If we do not define "hear" as what we perceive, then how do you measure what we hear?
But we also have to understand that some measuring instruments are more sensitive to specific elements of sound than can be heard by the ear/brain.
I think it strange that this argument rages on and on.
It seems all points have been made and Objectivists are stating that the "perception" of sound is not relevant if it can't be measured.
Subjectivists hearing the unmeasurable know better.
The FOG in the issue is that subjective perception can be "enhanced" by mental focus and imagination. Even developing the sense of "what to listen for" opens up significant awarness.
Ahh now the Objectivity has a foot in the door, because the Subjectivity is "imagining" what they are hearing.
See it is not really an argument, but a "line" where the Ob/Sub balance in all of us accepts the limits of objectivity, and subjectivity of their own personal selves.
I find I fall in a "blend" as do I believe most audiophiles.
I find it actually an enjoyable part of the hobby to listen to some of these less than scientific claims like the Bedini Clarifier, I mentioned and I think someone else mentioned Ming or Ping or Pung Dots or somewhat.
I too laugh at those and even the Shakti (wooden coat rack) treatments I heard at CES, for what they claim.
As all have mentioned, the beliefs or science asserted, doesn't change what really is, or how everyone involved will perceive it.
And while some have focused this discussion on "reproduced" music, the same is true for live music.
"He just hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" - Paul Simon
