mapman"none have anything remotely resembling flat response like a good microphone"
Ears are not supposed to have flat response each ear is different.
Ears are not supposed to have flat response each ear is different.
The invention of measurements and perception
This is going to be pretty airy-fairy. Sorry.
Let’s talk about how measurements get invented, and how this limits us.
One of the great works of engineering, science, and data is finding signals in the noise. What matters? Why? How much?
My background is in computer science, and a little in electrical engineering. So the question of what to measure to make systems (audio and computer) "better" is always on my mind.
What’s often missing in measurements is "pleasure" or "satisfaction."
I believe in math. I believe in statistics, but I also understand the limitations. That is, we can measure an attribute, like "interrupts per second" or "inflamatory markers" or Total Harmonic Distortion plus noise (THD+N)
However, measuring them, and understanding outcome and desirability are VERY different. Those companies who can do this excel at creating business value. For instance, like it or not, Bose and Harman excel (in their own ways) at finding this out. What some one will pay for, vs. how low a distortion figure is measured is VERY different.
What is my point?
Specs are good, I like specs, I like measurements, and they keep makers from cheating (more or less) but there must be a link between measurements and listener preferences before we can attribute desirability, listener preference, or economic viability.
What is that link? That link is you. That link is you listening in a chair, free of ideas like price, reviews or buzz. That link is you listening for no one but yourself and buying what you want to listen to the most.
E
Let’s talk about how measurements get invented, and how this limits us.
One of the great works of engineering, science, and data is finding signals in the noise. What matters? Why? How much?
My background is in computer science, and a little in electrical engineering. So the question of what to measure to make systems (audio and computer) "better" is always on my mind.
What’s often missing in measurements is "pleasure" or "satisfaction."
I believe in math. I believe in statistics, but I also understand the limitations. That is, we can measure an attribute, like "interrupts per second" or "inflamatory markers" or Total Harmonic Distortion plus noise (THD+N)
However, measuring them, and understanding outcome and desirability are VERY different. Those companies who can do this excel at creating business value. For instance, like it or not, Bose and Harman excel (in their own ways) at finding this out. What some one will pay for, vs. how low a distortion figure is measured is VERY different.
What is my point?
Specs are good, I like specs, I like measurements, and they keep makers from cheating (more or less) but there must be a link between measurements and listener preferences before we can attribute desirability, listener preference, or economic viability.
What is that link? That link is you. That link is you listening in a chair, free of ideas like price, reviews or buzz. That link is you listening for no one but yourself and buying what you want to listen to the most.
E
- ...
- 174 posts total
Brains are vastly more similar than they are different. It’s the individual’s delusional inventions of self that tend to differ more radically. I glossed over the article posted above and the links to which it refers. The question to be begged is "What is hi-fi?". Is it the reproducing recorded material with a high degree of accuracy, is it using gear to reproduce music as you intend rather than the artists and technicians the created it, or is it both? And if it’s both, where’s the line? I don’t think it’s my stereo’s job to go about reinventing material. I assume (rightly or wrongly) that the material represents the realized intention of what the masterii engineer sought to achieve. If he wanted more body or more color, I assume it would have been put there. I think the tolerance for coloration should be quite low, but I do think there is a small place for it. Lots of people like nonlinear response and compressed dynamics because that stuff is very easy to listen to. But it’s not really hi-fi. Lots of people like loud and think that’s good. God knows a lot of us have had a true rube look at our system and comment how loud it must be, as if that’s very good. I completely agree with Ralph on the distortion issue. It’s not hard to build a stereo that sounds impressively dynamic and lush by artfully adding copious amounts of distortion. It’s like paint. How much are you going to use and where are you going to put it? Maybe if you’re good you can color something very nicely using a lot of it. But you’re using a lot of it. And if you’re using a lot of it, what are you really doing? Are you using your stereo to listen to the music, or are you using your music to listen to your stereo? I prefer to listen to my music. |
kosst_amojan Brains are vastly more similar than they are different. It’s the individual’s delusional inventions of self that tend to differ more radically.Will you please explain this? Are you actually suggesting that most people are delusional? |
- 174 posts total