In Reply to: RE: What people hear? posted by andy evans on September 5, 2012 at 00:55:06:
>>it seems to follow that individual appraisal of what is heard will vary wildly, even when the actual perception of the sound may be relatively constant.
I don't know enough about processing ability of the brain to comment but I do know that something that sounds good at a certain time, certain context or on a certain song, won't necessarily work the same in a different time or place.
This is one of the things I have against formal blind tests. The situation and goals are so different from normal music listening that I think different features are brought to the fore.
Anybody who ever worked in an audio store knows that bright, borderline nasty, gear fares well in A-B tests because it stands out more and sounds more "impressive." This is especially true with non specialist shoppers but hardcore audio nerds fall into the trap also.
As always, with anything involving meaningful symbolism, context is key.
In my mind, proper evaluation and assessment of audio requires a long term investigation in the context that you plan to use it in, a long test-drive, as it were.
------------------------------
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent -- Wittgenstein
Free your mind and your ass will follow -- Parliament/Funkadelic
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: What people hear? - Joe Roberts 07:39:23 09/05/12 (0)