How I love shootouts at high noon! But alas they never seem to happen, or they happen but somehow wilt into something far less than spurs and sixguns. Teo_audio nailed it.
I will say - it appears there’s quite a lot of nastiness coming from both of these guys (Ted and Gene), and they seem to be bringing it on themselves.
And - anybody who thinks machine measurements are the only factors in acoustics and psychoacoustics fails to understand that in addition to the system itself and the measuring tools, there are at least five senses, a brain, and a consciousness involved.
Below is an interesting quote. I don’t quote this or cite this paper to say it’s proof or the last word on sound perception. I’m just offering it as one of many papers that point to human perception as a major factor in what we hear, beyond technically measured factors.
I will say - it appears there’s quite a lot of nastiness coming from both of these guys (Ted and Gene), and they seem to be bringing it on themselves.
And - anybody who thinks machine measurements are the only factors in acoustics and psychoacoustics fails to understand that in addition to the system itself and the measuring tools, there are at least five senses, a brain, and a consciousness involved.
Below is an interesting quote. I don’t quote this or cite this paper to say it’s proof or the last word on sound perception. I’m just offering it as one of many papers that point to human perception as a major factor in what we hear, beyond technically measured factors.
“This paper approaches auditory analysis from the standpoint of sound production. It argues that although air vibration produces sound, sound is not air vibration; and that exploitation of features of air vibration can hardly (if ever) lead to accurate understanding of the principle of the auditory mechanism in speech or music perception.”
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Body-Image-Theory-of-Sound%3A-An-Ecological-to-%23-Essien/...