The problem is that human hearing is not very good - your dog is much better at it. The good news is that for most parts of the audio chain it is now possible to design and manufacture units that are better than what humans can reliably discern. The differences that are still there are inaudible, but sometimes still measurable (and different is not necessarily better). The second problem with listening is that conditions have to be carefully controled. Levels have to be matched within 0.2 dB, because the brain interprets louder as better. This can only be achieved with a proper volt meter. The third problem is that comparison has to be near instantaneous because the brain cannot remember sound for very long. Finally, there is that old devil expectation bias (requiring double blind testing).
Test Equipment vs The Ear
Just posted this link in another thread,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/earsens.html
Could the ear actually be superior to test equipment?
What do you think?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/earsens.html
Could the ear actually be superior to test equipment?
What do you think?
- ...
- 33 posts total
willemj The problem is that human hearing is not very good - your dog is much better at it. The good news is that for most parts of the audio chain it is now possible to design and manufacture units that are better than what humans can reliably discern. The differences that are still there are inaudible, but sometimes still measurable (and different is not necessarily better). The second problem with listening is that conditions have to be carefully controled. Levels have to be matched within 0.2 dB, because the brain interprets louder as better. This can only be achieved with a proper volt meter. The third problem is that comparison has to be near instantaneous because the brain cannot remember sound for very long. Finally, there is that old devil expectation bias (requiring double blind testing). Speaking frankly, I think maybe someone pulled a bad joke on you. Because almost every single thing you said is an old wives’ tale. An old wives’ tale promulgated by pro-measurement anti-audiophile naysayers since Edison wore his hair in a page boy. |
Show me the research in peer reviewed journals that show that what I said is an old wives’ tale. Here is a famous one from me: http://www.keith-snook.info/wireless-world-magazine/Wireless-World-1978/Valves%20versus%20Transistor... |
Here is kind of what I am getting at. I used to work in food service. We had a certain amount of meat / sandwich. 2 oz or something like that. We had to weigh each portion. After the first week, my eye/brain mechanism had learned exactly what 2 oz was. I think most of us can do this. I have learned the same with frequency response curves. Once I knew what I liked, I incorporated that into my crossover simulations. Now I can pretty much tell speakers that are brighter or more dull than what I make, and I"m usually spot on, but this has been integrative, not separate. I'm sure we can learn to listen for, or completely ignore, other things as well. Best, E |
- 33 posts total