When you can hook up test equipment to the human brain then you will have an
instrument that can measure sound the way we perceive it. Test equipment
can't hear-test equipment doesn't have ears. Test equipment can measure and
take the sound waves and turn it into electronic impulses to be read on a
screen and then subjectively analyzed. You will never have a machine that
can tell you what a wine tastes like. Unless you can hook it into a human
brain. My point is that your electronic waveform is not telling the whole
story.

I agree that my tests were not ideal and I did know the amps involved. In
fact, I wanted to like the amp I thought lacked the ability to allow my
human ears hear all there is to hear in the upper octaves of the music I
used for my tests. This guy Clark can claim anything he wants. Is he a
scientist doing controlled experiments. Not likely just some guy trying to
make a name for themselves.

Science is mostly theory. There is not much fact to science. Scientist do
research and complete studies and can come to a reasonable conclusion but
most of what they do is theory and can usually be challenged by another
researcher with their own theories.

Who is to say all humans hear or see the same exact way. We just don't
know. We certainly know that not all human taste food the same because
there are people who have their favorites which may be your most hated
foods.


"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Are you still claiming that we're able to detect differences
(not the quality of the difference, but the difference itself) that test
equipment cannot? If you dropped 10 molecules of something into the
glass,
would you be able to detect it with your senses? Would the test
equipment?

OK, well some test equipment can, and some can't. Whether the test
equipment
exists today that is good enough to tell what I can tell with my ear is
one
question (I don't know whether it exists or not.) Whether that is the
test
equipment that is actually used to do a review is another thing. (I'm
sure some
reviews have been done with cheaper, less accurate equipment.)

Again getting back to audition, I think the answer is more clearcut.
It's
common knowledge that we can measure sounds with sensitive microphones
that
simply aren't loud enough for humans.

Right.

It's also common knowledge that we
can measure harmonic distortion down to millionths of a percent with test
equipment, but we can't make the distinction with our ears. It's also
common knowledge that you can use an SPL meter to tell the difference
between a sound that's 80.000dB and a sound that's 80.001dB, but the best
a
human can do is roughly in the 0.5dB range broadband.

OK, but again - that is what is *possible* (I'm just taking your word for
it.)
I can assure you that that is not the equipment that is being used for
most
reviews (or at least has been used in the past.) It's either because such
equipment is just too expensive, or too difficult to use correctly, or
maybe
even because the reviewer already believes such precision isn't relevant.

Not only is there demonstrable evidence pointing to the fact that test
equipment can beat all of our sensory modalities (in terms of
detection!),
but it's also common knowledge.

But it's not common practice.