"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Audio Guy) wrote:
....snips for relevant content only ......
"Harry Lavo" writes:
And that is the
primary reason music reproduction is not simply electrical and physical
engineering. Their is no way to measure *music*. Ultimately whether
the
music strikes our brain as right, or the brain tells us something is
amiss,
is not "objectively" measurable. The only way to objectify it is by
allowing humans to interpret it as music, and then to develop tests to
try
to record that *subjective* response in ways that can generate some
*objective* results in the statistical sense. And there is the rub.
It
demands context for the brain to interpret what is going on.
But Music as an art form can be evaluated and interpreted without sound at
all.
People who are truly interested in the Music can often appreciate same
through
sheet music. One can appreciate the arrangement of the band before they
play a
single note.
And what the hell does this have to do with evaluating components?
Something similar happens with music but even more complex. Because
scientist now know that the brain is hardwired to respond to this thing
we
call "music", both rhythmically and emotionally.
Disregarding that Harry hasn't given us a reference for this assertion I
think
there's an even more important issue here. To evaluate the sound quality
throughput of a given audio reproduction system the "music" can get in the
way.
There are some programs that are so beautiful or so easy to portray that
they
sound good on ANY system.
There are some programs to which a subject may have such a deep emotional
attachment that it interferes with him/her giving a response more closely
related to the program than the sound system.
That's one of the reasons that pink noise and test tones are often far
more
sensitive to real differences in sound quality than music .... because
they
have no 'content' other than pure sound. And, in the case of pink noise,
cover
the entire audible spectrum all at once thereby greatly increasing human
sensitivity to the 'sound' and not other factors.
I am sure most audiophiles use a series of musical recordings that highlight
different aspects that are meaningful to them in evaluating reproduction.
If "beatiful music" sounds good on everything, then that is not likely to be
chosen as a discriminating piece now, is it?
And I am not an "amps is amps" person, I know I have heard differences
between amps, preamps, CD players, etc. But I also know people are
programmed to find differences when none exist.
That is a major point. Give a listener the same sound twice and you'll get
differing responses a majority of the time. In uncontrolled listening you
often
have no idea of whether the differences reported are due to the sound
quality
or some other cause.
Would you care to cite the articles documenting this, Tom, assuming that
there are some and that they have the necessary methodological rigor to
isolate true randomness from perceptual "noise"? And would you care to once
again review and absorb Chris's work on the "transient" nature of barely
audible artifacts. Why would you expect sighted listeing to be 100%
consistent when you don't even expect that in dbt'ng?