The term "High End" needs to die. Long live Hi-Fidelity!

@coffmanlabs, “Other experiments have noted that the huge frequency non-linearity of human hearing greatly outweighs spec measurements--and that on a person-by-person basis.”

The obvious conclusion being that our hearing differences are greater than the differences in the sound of the equipment we are listening to.

Your point about “Live music should always be listened to (a lot) by designers.” is one that’s regularly touted as a means of establishing some kind of reference point in this sometimes maddeningly abstract pursuit of ours. However the fact that we all hear differently again will have a large bearing as to what we think is correct.

Your post reminded me of reading about the work of one Alfred Tomatis. I recall reading of his results of his fascinating analysis of Caruso, and how hearing loss (or damage) gave him that unique voice. I think that one of his conclusions was that you can’t sing (or speak) that particular frequency that you cannot hear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_A._Tomatis

Perhaps ultimately if we care about fidelity to the source, and I’m not sure anyone really does, despite what they might say, then we just have to stick with spec measurements. We humans are just not linear creatures and will all have deficiencies of some degree at various frequencies. And probably aren’t even aware of them.

Thanks again for reminding me of some of the fundamental basics. Far too easy to keep going around in circles, isn’t it?

That’s a Strawman argument that human hearing differences are greater than differences in specifications. First and foremost is humans can often agree on what differences between components or cables or speakers are, so their hearing must be fairly similar.  Second, the room itself defines what a component or cable or speaker will sound like. And the system under test also defines differences that are heard by humans. Also, frequency response per se is probably not as big an issue for audiophiles as say, dynamic range.

O-10,
Good to see you also.   These always put a smile on my face.    Hope they work for you.   Be sure and give a listen to the Jon Batiste CD, 'Hollywood Africans'.  Great from start to finish.
Heir Apparent at Lincoln Center?   You heard it here first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCC1EEmJlo4   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sOygJsLDc4   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfNIVdnz1FQ

Cheers

geoffkait

That’s a Strawman argument that human hearing differences are greater than differences in specifications. First and foremost is humans can often agree on what differences between components or cables or speakers are, so their hearing must be fairly similar.

There was a time I would have been inclined to agree with this, but that was before the Yanni/Laurel illusion.

That’s a Strawman argument that human hearing differences are greater than differences in specifications.

A strawman argument is a little different. It is more like : "I like baseball" to which the strawman goes "but what about whales?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I'd put this more in the category of "not universally accepted truth."

I argue that the reverse is true. First, you'd have to list out all the specifications you are talking about. Next, you would have to show that they and only they are responsible for what we hear. Lastly, the quality of desirability would have to be ascribed to each.


In addition, the amplifier/dynamic speaker interaction is complex. You'd have to not only gather these specifications for the amp and speaker, but for the total system.


Don't get me wrong, specifications and measurements are important, but science stagnates and becomes something else when we assume we've measured all relevant parameters. Over and over in the course of science, and especially medicine, this has proven to be hubris.