Todd H. writes:

Jonas Eckerman writes:

a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud
sound,

Wether it makes a loud sound or not up to anyone who hears
it. "Loud" is a subjective description of a perceived sound.

Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a
sound. That sound does not need to be perceived by a human ear; it
could be detected by a microphone

To borrow a phrase from Dan Aykroyd, "Tholen, you ignorant slut,"

Too bad your argument isn't as funny as Point/Counterpoint.

Loudness is not the same as sound pressure level (SPL).

Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Todd.

The two are related, but they are not synonymous.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness".

The relation was
documented by a study done by Bell Labs over 70 years ago, and refined
since then.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness".

The relation is shown in "equal loudness countours" that
are explained/shown here among a lot of other places:

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness".

But, if I know my audience, I'm pretty sure that point will continue
to be lost on you.

How ironic, coming from the person on whom the point that I never
said anything about "loudness" is lost.

:-) Whether you were dumbing down your response
for your audience doesn't change the fact that your posts indicate
that you still don't seem to understand:

What seems to you is irrelevant, Todd.

o Loudness and SPL aren't synonymous

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness".

o SPL _can_ be objectively measured.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "SPL". But it's
good to see you admit that you don't need a human ear to perceive a
sound.

o Loudness as defined by the pro audio, music, scientific, and
all other communities other than , is a
perceived measurement and cannot be related to SPL without
using ears attached to humans.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say a thing about "loudness".

But perhaps I'm just using terminology that's going over you head. :-)

Perhaps not, Todd. The real problem is that you're hallucinating
terminology that I did not use.