Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Who's baby is that? I'll buy that! ...

Sean:

Yes indeed. We're using science to render art.

At some point, we must put away the measuring equipment, "render the art", and use a completely different set of 'test criterion', which is human perception.

Not to say that measurements are invalidated (although in some extreme cases we see this very thing), but it's when we start to attempt to lay down some sort of corolary between what a good measurement is and what a good sound is - that's where there is much disagreement.

I believe you can't really argue with ruler flat amplitude response. And some maintain that you need to go one step further and have flat frequency response which is technically a representation of amplitude AND phase response. (They use the term frequency response instead of amplitude response... but it's really not 100% accurate.)

Where you DO get into interesting subject area is when you start talking about spacial cues, and the types of delays and other sonic artifacts that our ear-brain hearing system is very good at processing. I've never heard any say that they measured the system, and can quantify that the soundstage is "correct". Have you?
I think (and this is just my humble opinion) that we need to use the measurement gear to measure what it measures well, and the ears to "measure" what the ears measure well. In my example, I was showing how the ear really sucks as a tool for measuring frequency response. F/R was not really a useful function for primal man. Locating the source of sound is VERY useful - life and death really when you're a primate walking among dangerous creatures of all shapes and sizes.

The quest for this corollary between what we can measure and what we can hear is the source of much debate. Many say our ears are much more sensitive transducers than measuring equipment we have. This I doubt. What I think the problem is? We're not measuring the right things if we want to try and and actually quantify what constitues a "correct" soundstage (for example).

So I do find it funny that I am considered to be a staunch objectivist simply because I try and make a correlation between measurements and what I hear. (Heck most times I am busy just trying to INTERPRET measurements themselves and ensure that they are even useful or the result of an accepted (or desired) test method).

In the end, since we're rendering art for the purpose of enjoying art, at some point you have to include LISTENING, PERCEIVING and JUDGING the art (as rendered) and describe it with the terms that are valid for our hearing system.

+0.24 db at 4132 Hz, Q = 3.2 ??? No.

Sweeter, nicer, warmer, smoother, palpable, engaging, fast, slow, bloated, thin, deep, wide, 2D, 3D, black, bright, sharp, soft...

These are the QUALITIES we can "Measure" (perceive) with our ears!

My formula for totaly awesome sound?

Good measured quantities + good perceived qualities = GOOD SOUND

The only time I get hot around the collar is when folks confuse quantity with quality and start trying to QUANTIFY what something is doing or how it works simply by listening to it. You can't explain nuclear fission by looking at the sun. And you can't explain *all* acoustical phenomenon by simply listening to music.

Anyways, sorry for giving you a hard time the other day. I was being devil's advocate and a RPITA (royal pain in...) I have a lot to learn about transmission line theory.

Back to the books...

Cheers,
Presto


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.