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 17:30:51 +0200, Fella wrote:

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..

Sorry, what are we actually talking about here? I thought this was
about sound reproduction, not the psychology of hearing. ANyway, you
can't isolate the ear in terms of response - it is inevitably mediated
by a brain - it is both or nothing. And including the brain in the
model means you have necessarily moved way beyond what you can do with
any microphone.

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?


Smartness is not a quality possessed by computers, so asking which is
smarter is a non-question. As for the ear vs. microphone question. If
the purpose is to record a sound field for later reproduction, the
microphone has it in trumps.



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.


Not to the business of sound reproduction it isn't. The reproduction
system just has to make its sound as similar as possible to the
original. Your brain and its aesthetic responses is a dialogue between
you and the musicians.


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..

I too use Sonus Faber Amator speakers. I use them because in my room
they come as close as I currently wish to the aims I stated above.
When it comes to speakers, because of the intimate way they interact
with the room and its furnishings, it is impossible to resolve the
issue with a simple set of measurements.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:



Sorry, what are we actually talking about here?


We were talking about measurements and hearing. our ability to measure
what we actually hear. It's all in it. The point driven across is that
the whole conundrum of measuring human perception of sound is nowhere as
simple as measuring DB levels with some electronic equipment.




I too use Sonus Faber Amator speakers.

Well another congrats! are in order. The second time today...



When it comes to speakers, because of the intimate way they interact
with the room and its furnishings, it is impossible to resolve the
issue with a simple set of measurements.

And it's not just the speaker-room interaction we are talking about
here. The point i was trying to make, albeit very slowly, and trying for
some primitive form of platoistic dialouge discourse tactics was that
technology is in no way anywhere near able to *know* just exactly what I
am hearing, forget about my latter interpretation of that. Some of you
know-it-all semi-godlike techies think that that the ultimate in audio
reproduction is reached and that there is no longer room for
improvement. I say that this is *exactly* the reason why for instance,
one of you is fly swatting doing some self proclaimed "consulting" and
the other is a lord-wannabe working as a postman in a bank.

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:32:54 +0200, Fella wrote:

Some of you
know-it-all semi-godlike techies think that that the ultimate in audio
reproduction is reached and that there is no longer room for
improvement.

You have never seen *anyone* make such a stement.

I say that this is *exactly* the reason why for instance,
one of you is fly swatting doing some self proclaimed "consulting" and
the other is a lord-wannabe working as a postman in a bank.

And your qualifications to judge anyone's audio abilities are, what
exactly?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:30:51 +0200, Fella wrote:

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?

You don't want to get into this one. While the CPU is *faster*, it
also *vastly* less complex than the human brain.

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.

Not for determining whether two things sound different, it isn't.

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.

No, it isn't. Of course we can't actually do this, but some properly
sterophonic (not 2-channel, but 'solid sound') trials with such as the
Calrec Soundfield microphone have had incredibly realistic results -
as have binaural recordings replayed over headphones.

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..

Fine - but that has nothing to do with *high-fidelity* music
reproduction, aka 'the closest approach to the original sound'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering