Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?




d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:02:52 +0200, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?

If it is a stand alone question, it is even stupider. Have a little
think for yourself, and consider whether there might perhaps be more
to it. Consider, for example, why there were ever tone controls.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:02:52 +0200, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?


If it is a stand alone question, it is even stupider.

Answer the question without going into insults! You are trying my patience!

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:14:06 +0200, Fella wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:02:52 +0200, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."

from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?


If it is a stand alone question, it is even stupider.

Answer the question without going into insults! You are trying my patience!

OK, then. No, it isn't.

Now, why would you even consider that it might be?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:14:06 +0200, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:02:52 +0200, Fella wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:48:02 +0200, Fella wrote:




Stewart Pinkerton wrote:




Fact- it is trivially easy to measure a level difference of 0.01dB,
and it is not that difficult to measure a difference of 0.001dB, which
is more than a hundred times less than any human can detect.

I'm going to ask you a question, in a civilized manner. Let's see how
you are going to answer.. If at all.

Here goes; Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a
given hifi system *ALL* about DB level changes?


May I answer? You know you that from me it will be polite.

As Mr. Pinkerton's post was in reply to this:

"The human ear is far more sensitive than most test equipment. If you
can measure it, you can certainly hear it."


from Glenn Richards, what the f*ck are you going on about?

OK, I was almost polite, but in the end you were just far too stupid
to deserve it.

Be civil! I am not glenn richards. This is my question, it's s
standalone question, yet again:

Is the perception and interpretation of music we hear from a given hifi
system *ALL* about DB level changes?


If it is a stand alone question, it is even stupider.

Answer the question without going into insults! You are trying my patience!


OK, then. No, it isn't.


Gasp! You've turned human, you have actualy answered a rhetorical
question without resorting to stupid name calling. Ok, thanks, and
congrats! Now, let's expand that same question:

What are *all* the different electrical measurements that need to be
made to the signals and to the sound coming out of the speakers to
understand what a *human being* hears, perceives and interprets from his
hifi system. One of them is DB levels, ok. Then what? What else?

Do you have the perfect microphone that is able to emulate exactly what
I as human being hear?

Do you have a perfect account of the processes going on in my brain
during the musical interpretation of external sounds being heard by my
ears? Do you have a perfect computer model of that?

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:45:28 +0200, Fella wrote:

OK, then. No, it isn't.


Gasp! You've turned human, you have actualy answered a rhetorical
question without resorting to stupid name calling. Ok, thanks, and
congrats! Now, let's expand that same question:

What are *all* the different electrical measurements that need to be
made to the signals and to the sound coming out of the speakers to
understand what a *human being* hears, perceives and interprets from his
hifi system. One of them is DB levels, ok. Then what? What else?


Not sure what you mean in terms of measuring the sounds coming out of
a speaker - you don't know if they are right unless you know what went
in, and this is how things are specified. You put a known set of
signals in, and measure what comes out. If they are the same - or
close enough - then you can be sure that whatever you put in will
result in the same coming out.

As for what you measure, well, you have

Power - the ability to reproduce the right level for a convincing
performance

Level (your DBs, perhaps) - you wouldn't want to reproduce a smoky
nightclub trio at 110dB, nor would you reproduce a symphony orchestra
at 30dB. Set it appropriately to the music.

Frequency response - to guarantee that tone balance doesn't get
changed, and also that the relative loudness of various instruments is
right

Distortion - to make sure that you don't get a whole lot of other
stuff out when you play your music. Some manifestations of distortion
are more objectionable than others.

Do you have the perfect microphone that is able to emulate exactly what
I as human being hear?

Emulation of human hearing is the last thing you would want from a
microphone. What constitutes perfect depends on the situation, but
generally you would want a flat frequency response, both on and off
the forward axis. The ear doesn't even come close to this.

Do you have a perfect account of the processes going on in my brain
during the musical interpretation of external sounds being heard by my
ears? Do you have a perfect computer model of that?

No, and neither is it particularly important. If you can reproduce the
same external sound field with a reproduction as would have occurred
with a live performance, then your brain/ear combination can get on
with its work interpreting both the same way. That is the goal of Hi
Fi.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

Do you have the perfect microphone that is able to emulate exactly what
I as human being hear?


Emulation of human hearing is the last thing you would want from a
microphone.

Except when you are using the microphone to emulae human hearing so as
to understand a thing or two about human hearing..

The ear doesn't even come close to this.

Perhaps somewhat a far fetched but nevertheless a telling analogy would
be between a human brain and a computer (cpu). Which one's smarter?
Depending on the model the computer cpu can make calculations a
gazillion times faster then the human brain, it will be more accurate
and consistent too. So, which one is "smarter"? The cpu, or the human
brain? Which one hears better, "a flat frequency response, both on and
off the forward axis" microphone, or the human ear?



Do you have a perfect account of the processes going on in my brain
during the musical interpretation of external sounds


No, and neither is it particularly important.

Yes, it is quite particularly important.


If you can reproduce the
same external sound field with a reproduction as would have occurred
with a live performance, then your brain/ear combination can get on
with its work interpreting both the same way. That is the goal of Hi
Fi.



I think that that is open for interpretation. My goal in "hi fi" or this
high end audio hobby is not to have as close as possible facsimile of
the "real thing" in my listening room, NO, but to have as pleasurable as
possible a re-interpretation of it *suited* for my listening room.
That's the reason for instance, why I would not consider wilson
watt-puppy speakers over sonus fabers..

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:45:28 +0200, Fella wrote:

What are *all* the different electrical measurements that need to be
made to the signals and to the sound coming out of the speakers to
understand what a *human being* hears, perceives and interprets from his
hifi system. One of them is DB levels, ok. Then what? What else?

Who cares? ABX is a measure of *difference*, not *preference*.

Do you have the perfect microphone that is able to emulate exactly what
I as human being hear?

Do you have a perfect account of the processes going on in my brain
during the musical interpretation of external sounds being heard by my
ears? Do you have a perfect computer model of that?

Why would I need one to know that neither you nor Richards can hear
differences among notionally competent cables (or amplifiers)?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Fella
wrote:

Now, let's expand that same question:

What are *all* the different electrical measurements that need to be
made to the signals and to the sound coming out of the speakers to
understand what a *human being* hears, perceives and interprets from his
hifi system. One of them is DB levels, ok. Then what? What else?

To clarify what you are asking, could you perhaps define/list the various
aspects of "what a human being hears" you are specifically asking about in
physical terms? Otherwise what you are asking isn't clear or unambiguous.
In effect - what are "all" the aspects of "what a human being hears" that
you want dealt with or considered? If you can't define them, then I am
not sure how anyone could answer your question as it may have no meaning.

Also, in the context of sound recording/broadcasting/reproduction I am not
sure if you are using the term "measurement" correctly or unambiguously.

For recording/broadcasting the primary "measurement" is the use of
microphones to produce a set of waveforms/sample values which represent the
soundfield for the purpose of reproduction. Thus the primary "measurement"
is the waveform/sample information set. Is this what you mean by
"measurements"?

Or do you mean secondary parameters which summarise specific aspects of the
primary measured data? If so, then any secondary values tend only to deal
with specific aspects, and would also change from one primary set of
results to another.

I am not quite clear what you have been asking Don, etc, or why, but if you
can answer the above it may help clarify this...

Do you have the perfect microphone that is able to emulate exactly what
I as human being hear?

What definition of "perfect" are you using here in physical terms (since a
microphone is a physical device)?

Do you have a perfect account of the processes going on in my brain
during the musical interpretation of external sounds being heard by my
ears? Do you have a perfect computer model of that?

Ditto re "perfect". Also, can you explain why you think the above is either
necessary or desirable in the context of systems designed to reproduce
waveforms which have already been measured? Those producing the
waveforms will also be using reproduction equipment to allow them to use
their own human perceptions and judgement wrt what to record/broadcast.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html