"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant. The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.

So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant.

The pinna introduces distortion, actually. That's the point of it. It
improves high frequency response for sounds coming in front of you (this
is good) but intentionally blocks high frequencies for sounds coming
behind you. As such, it assists the brain with localization.
Importantly, it's also responsible for the brain's ability to estimate
elevation of the source. You'll note that it's not symmetrical from top
to bottom. Early auditory areas deep in the brain spend the bulk of their
resources making these computations (the inferior colliculus perhaps the most
prominent - anyway, not even having reached the cortex yet).

This is an example of the auditory system, like all of the other sensory
systems, intentionally introducing distortion into the signal in order to pull
out attributes of the stimulus that are important for the animal to work. The
visual system is probably even more guilty of employing this strategy. It's a
common trend, all the way from humans to invertebrates.

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.

But substantially less than the human auditory system introduces.
Microphones tend to have a reasonably flat response from 20 to 20kHz (the
good ones at least). The human auditory system has an awful response,
peaking around 1kHz or less (the dominant part of human speech,
incidentally) and responding poorly above 15kHz and below about 100Hz.
Additionally, microphones have a cleaner transduction mechanism, not
having to rely on a network of bones attached to an asymmetric diaphragm.
Also, the auditory system inherently produces its own distortion known as
otoacoustic emissions which are much more significant than distortion
effects produced by decent microphones. Finally, and most importantly,
the microphone is able to make an electrical measurement that's limited
only by the inductance of the coil (which is why it's able to have such a
great spectral range). The auditory system, however, relies on a network
of neurons that are each tuned to relatively wide band of frequencies to
encode the signal by essentially performing a rough fourier transform of
the signal, and then, before the signal is even transmitted to the brain,
computations are performed to essentially subtract adjacent frequencies
from each other (a form of lateral inhibition - another bit of distortion
added to the system). As a result, the signal being sent to the brain is
a far cry from the signal that reached the ear drum.

In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

Mark,

You obviously know way too much about how the human ear and testing devices
actually work to be productive in this discussion. Here you are providing
scientific evidence and displaying a strong understanding of the subject
matter. Noone wants that, we want conspiracy theories about test equipment
and talk about magical and mysterious unknowns that we can all perceive in
different ways. That way noone can ever be wrong and everyone can be right!
Get it together.

(Note for the readers who are unable to detect sarcasm. The above paragraph
is dripping with it, there is so much of it that right now it should be
leaking out your computer's open ports. I now return you to your regularly
scheduled flame-war.)

Les


"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make
its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules).
Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the
microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the
whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of
the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does
not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like
an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's
not
relevant.

The pinna introduces distortion, actually. That's the point of it. It
improves high frequency response for sounds coming in front of you (this
is good) but intentionally blocks high frequencies for sounds coming
behind you. As such, it assists the brain with localization.
Importantly, it's also responsible for the brain's ability to estimate
elevation of the source. You'll note that it's not symmetrical from top
to bottom. Early auditory areas deep in the brain spend the bulk of their
resources making these computations (the inferior colliculus perhaps the
most
prominent - anyway, not even having reached the cortex yet).

This is an example of the auditory system, like all of the other sensory
systems, intentionally introducing distortion into the signal in order to
pull
out attributes of the stimulus that are important for the animal to work.
The
visual system is probably even more guilty of employing this strategy.
It's a
common trend, all the way from humans to invertebrates.

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion
of
the original signal.

But substantially less than the human auditory system introduces.
Microphones tend to have a reasonably flat response from 20 to 20kHz (the
good ones at least). The human auditory system has an awful response,
peaking around 1kHz or less (the dominant part of human speech,
incidentally) and responding poorly above 15kHz and below about 100Hz.
Additionally, microphones have a cleaner transduction mechanism, not
having to rely on a network of bones attached to an asymmetric diaphragm.
Also, the auditory system inherently produces its own distortion known as
otoacoustic emissions which are much more significant than distortion
effects produced by decent microphones. Finally, and most importantly,
the microphone is able to make an electrical measurement that's limited
only by the inductance of the coil (which is why it's able to have such a
great spectral range). The auditory system, however, relies on a network
of neurons that are each tuned to relatively wide band of frequencies to
encode the signal by essentially performing a rough fourier transform of
the signal, and then, before the signal is even transmitted to the brain,
computations are performed to essentially subtract adjacent frequencies
from each other (a form of lateral inhibition - another bit of distortion
added to the system). As a result, the signal being sent to the brain is
a far cry from the signal that reached the ear drum.

In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

"Les" wrote in message
...
Noone wants that, we want conspiracy theories about test equipment
and talk about magical and mysterious unknowns that we can all perceive in
different ways.

The only one talking about "mysterious unknowns" is you. I certainly haven't
mentioned any.

Every word you say is based on mysterious unknowns!

jeffc wrote:

The only one talking about "mysterious unknowns" is you. I certainly haven't
mentioned any.

has anyone heard the sound of a UFO?

Or measured the sound qualities of the Holly Grail?

Les wrote:

Mark,

You obviously know way too much about how the human ear and testing devices
actually work to be productive in this discussion. Here you are providing
scientific evidence and displaying a strong understanding of the subject
matter. Noone wants that, we want conspiracy theories about test equipment
and talk about magical and mysterious unknowns that we can all perceive in
different ways. That way noone can ever be wrong and everyone can be right!
Get it together.

(Note for the readers who are unable to detect sarcasm. The above paragraph
is dripping with it, there is so much of it that right now it should be
leaking out your computer's open ports. I now return you to your regularly
scheduled flame-war.)

Les

"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant.

blah blah blah

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

When I said "it's not relevant", what didn't you understand?

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.


In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or the ear
does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect, period.
"Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's doesn't work
perfectly.

In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses
more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or
the ear
does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect,
period.
"Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's
doesn't work
perfectly.

No, the POINT is that microphones are better than your ears. Period. I've
tried to explain this to you in every way I can, going so far as to explain
how microphones and the auditory system both work and what their limitations
are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system is
more precise. This, coming from someone who's never built or played around
with microphones, and someone who isn't active in the human sensory system
research community.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses
more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or
the ear
does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect,
period.
"Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's
doesn't work
perfectly.

No, the POINT is that microphones are better than your ears. Period. I've
tried to explain this to you in every way I can, going so far as to explain
how microphones and the auditory system both work and what their limitations
are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system is
more precise.

No, you cling to mistaken notion that precion has anything to do with this
problem. I suggest you read up on the actual problem, rather than spouting off
about the precision of measuring equipment.

No, the POINT is that microphones are better than your ears. Period.
I've
tried to explain this to you in every way I can, going so far as to
explain
how microphones and the auditory system both work and what their
limitations
are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system
is
more precise.

No, you cling to mistaken notion that precion has anything to do with this
problem. I suggest you read up on the actual problem, rather than
spouting off
about the precision of measuring equipment.

Why are you changing your tune? You've attempted to refute my point that
the measured distortion is low by claiming that the test equipment is less
accurate than the auditory system. I've therefore addressed that silly
assertion of yours and demonstrated that it's untrue.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
are. Yet you still cling to the notion that the human auditory system
is
more precise.

No, you cling to mistaken notion that precion has anything to do with this
problem. I suggest you read up on the actual problem, rather than
spouting off
about the precision of measuring equipment.

Why are you changing your tune? You've attempted to refute my point that
the measured distortion is low by claiming that the test equipment is less
accurate than the auditory system. I've therefore addressed that silly
assertion of yours and demonstrated that it's untrue.

No, you said it's more PRECISE. Why are you blathering on and on when you can't
tell the difference between accuracy and precision? Why are you ignoring me
every single time I tell you this? I can tell you're not stupid. But you're
stubborn, and you're dead set on "proving" me wrong, even though you can't find
anything to prove to me that I don't already know. You're on a witch hunt,
hoping to find some audiophile with "mystical assertions." I'm sorry I can't be
that person for you, but maybe they have pay phone services where you can
indulge your fantasies.

In the mean time, if human ears can't tell the difference between live sound and
stereo reproduced sound, then all the testing equipment and precision in the
world is irrelevant. If human ears can (and almost all the time they can), then
again testing equipment is irrelevant. Now if these differences are due to
amplification (which they often are, at least in part), it's because of
distortion of some sort. There are actually many links in the reproduction
process, and distortion is added at every single step. (This distortion can be
cumulative. For example, if we had some reproduction system where every step in
the process reduced the amplitude by .1 dB, then after 10 or so iterations of
this we'd have a noticeable (by the human ear) difference in amplitude.)

Now if the human ear can hear distortion and measuring equipment can't, then
there's something wrong with the measuring equipment, user or technique. So far
I hope I haven't said anything you'd disagree with, even though you're chomping
at the bit to do so. Now, why exactly is it so important for you to believe
that a person can not hear any difference between 2 amps? What cornerstone of
science will crumble to the ground for you if this is so? You agree (now) that
all amplifiers exhibit distortion. What exactly is so hard to swallow when it
can be heard? It happens, and it's measurable (at least in theory) by machines.
If I can hear a difference between 2 amplifiers and it isn't being measured,
then there's a problem with the measurement, not with me. If the measuring
equipment is good enough, then the same problem will show up. What is so hard
to swallow about that?

jeffc wrote:

I suggest you read up on the actual problem

You suggest Mark goes and reads to prove himself wrong??

Why cant you prove he is wrong?

Your not even suggesting any reading material...

ha ha ha

jeffc wrote:

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information.

Not rellavent!!

Since I can measure sounds so minute no one can hear them
and since no one has yet proved they can hear things I cant
measure, (many folks IMAGINE they can), then your point
is irrelevent to these arguements...

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech/

"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
jeffc wrote:

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information.

Not rellavent!!

Since I can measure sounds so minute no one can hear them
and since no one has yet proved they can hear things I cant
measure, (many folks IMAGINE they can), then your point
is irrelevent to these arguements...

Eddie, you're a little over your head in these adult arguments. How about if
you step aside, stop screaming like a little kid for a few minutes, and let MZ
and me handle it.

Im prolly older than you and Mark put together...
I appreciate the complement...

jeffc wrote:

Eddie, you're a little over your head in these adult arguments. How about if
you step aside, stop screaming like a little kid for a few minutes, and let MZ
and me handle it.