0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 19148 times.
Here's another review of the CLC:
Quote from: Dan Banquer on 7 Feb 2007, 02:30 pmHere's another review of the CLC:Where you been? HiFiSoundGuy posted a link to that (via Abe Collins' post on AA) yesterday. Check out the "Professional Review on the Clever Little Clocks!......." thread.se
Ethan, are you saying the only two parameters of quality sound reproduction are frequency response and distortion?
Oh, I think that's a nice example but not even the tip of the iceberg.
I'm not so sure, that everthing we can hear, that can be measured might be the argument.Measuring an electrical signal is an easy task. Measuring sound pressure produced is an easy task. But assembling those readings into a performance that we can define, is only done in the ear and brain.So we can perceive things that may or may not be measurable, and tell you what we heard.But looking at an Oscilloscope or graph/chart cannot tell you what you are hearing.Example: I can listen to a recording and tell you what instrument is playing and even who is singing if I know the group.I am not aware of any measurement on a scope or graph that can assemble the information in such away as to tell us that same information.Can anyone look at these measurements and tell me what instruments and people are on the recording?And that is likely the crux of the measurement versus hearing argument.
Following this line of thought then, measurements should be able to predict sound quality.
Quote from: miklorsmith on 7 Feb 2007, 08:30 pmOh, I think that's a nice example but not even the tip of the iceberg. No doubt.You don't even want to get started on SoundStage, Imaging and all the rest.Oviously it can easily be "explained" as variations in SPL amplitude and phase relationships, but you cant look at that information and tell where the 1st violin is when you are listening to a concert.
Well, if distortion is an deviation from the original, then frequency response would be part of that also.
I will agree that I'm not sold that everything we can hear can be measured - and that not all things that are measurably different are audible.Black holes - can you measure them? Dark matter? They exist though. We just don't know how to measure them yet, or even presumably WHAT to measure.
But that was not the argument being put forth. At least not as I understood it.The argument as I saw it was simply that any difference significant enough to actually be heard, can be measured. Hasn't anything to do with what instrument is playing or who is singing. I mean, we're not really even listening to instruments playing and people singing. We're listening to reproductions of recordings made of instruments playing and people singing.
That's why I said the same. Obviously you can pretty much measure all changes in air pressure, and electrical current, but you "can" hear who is singing, but (to my knowledge) can not measure it, or tell who it is by a measurment.So I think that might be the real argument of measurments versus hearing, since you can quite easily hear these things for what they are, but no measurment (again that I am aware of) can take a complex passage of multiple instruments and vocals and be able to tell which is which, while the ear/brain has the abiilty to both hear it and decode it into its parts.So when people argue that you cannot measure everything you can hear, I think that is what they really mean.