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