Well yes, of course. 
And No too...
I suspect that your question is really "do we fully understand how sound is interpreted by the brain"
I'd say we are pretty close to understanding "sound reproduction". That's largely field equations, and other well establishedaspects of acoustics. So if your goal in sound reproduction is to predict what a sound pressure level will be at a point given a certain system for excitation, I'd say we as a society have a pretty good grip on that. Way moreso than say understanding turbulent fluid flow for example.
However we are a lot farther away on understanding how the brain interprets a given pressure field.
Sheldon
And No too...I suspect that your question is really "do we fully understand how sound is interpreted by the brain"
I'd say we are pretty close to understanding "sound reproduction". That's largely field equations, and other well establishedaspects of acoustics. So if your goal in sound reproduction is to predict what a sound pressure level will be at a point given a certain system for excitation, I'd say we as a society have a pretty good grip on that. Way moreso than say understanding turbulent fluid flow for example.
However we are a lot farther away on understanding how the brain interprets a given pressure field.
Sheldon
There are aspects which are understood fully (like how to get the voltage coming out of a microphone to be replicated to arbitrary accuracy at the terminals of a loudspeaker), there are aspects which are less well understood (like how to make a discrete channel system fool the human ear/brain into registering "live"), and aspects which will probably never be fully understood (like how to map a 3 dimensional time-varying sound field from one space and time to another).
SY,
I think you hit it on the nose.
kelticwizard,
The listener will always be both *the whole point* and also the weakest link. If an alien beamed down with a 3-D transient perfect listening room in tow, 4 out of 5 dentists would call it crappy sound. As I learn more and more about DIY, I actually trust reviews less and less, and try to analyze the designer's knowledge and effort put into the design more.
I think you hit it on the nose.
kelticwizard,
The listener will always be both *the whole point* and also the weakest link. If an alien beamed down with a 3-D transient perfect listening room in tow, 4 out of 5 dentists
would call it crappy sound. As I learn more and more about DIY, I actually trust reviews less and less, and try to analyze the designer's knowledge and effort put into the design more.I feel the single most largest problem is the listener. Each of us suffers varying degrees of hearing loss and no two people are the same. I have a friend that has to have the highs so loud they rip my head off, but to him it sounds so wonderful. He is tone deaf in those frequencies and has to boost them to ear splitting levels to hear. Someone who has run a jackhammer his whole life will not hear the same as an office worker. This is the weak link IMO
Re: We Presently Know All The Principles Which Apply To Sound Reproduction. Yes Or No?
Koinichiwa,
The answer is simple - ABSOLUTELY NO. We know perhaps 10 - 20% of the whole picture, though we probably know 80 - 90% of the basics. So we understand in the most basic sense how "sound" works, but we understands very little about the intricacies, a fact proven by our inability to make adequate hearing prothestics work (and I'm not talking about hearing aids, but systems that replace the "Ear").
We cannot. The fundamental problem is that our current society has a tendency to overestimate the achievement of our sciences and also the general deeply ingrained believe that "newer" equals "better".
If an individual subscribes to this particular religion he will not be swayed unless exposed to a "Road to Damscus" incident. You cannot do that on a message board.
The best that can be expected on a message board is an exchange of ideas that is open and unprejudiced. Sadly the selfproclaimed objectivists (never mind plain trolls who seem to have too much time on their hands) seem to be mightily intollerant of people saying: "Maybe you cannot hear it, maybe you consider the point proven, YET I CAN HEAR 'IT' (IT being whatever subject is contentious)".
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
The answer is simple - ABSOLUTELY NO. We know perhaps 10 - 20% of the whole picture, though we probably know 80 - 90% of the basics. So we understand in the most basic sense how "sound" works, but we understands very little about the intricacies, a fact proven by our inability to make adequate hearing prothestics work (and I'm not talking about hearing aids, but systems that replace the "Ear").
kelticwizard said:
We cannot. The fundamental problem is that our current society has a tendency to overestimate the achievement of our sciences and also the general deeply ingrained believe that "newer" equals "better".
If an individual subscribes to this particular religion he will not be swayed unless exposed to a "Road to Damscus" incident. You cannot do that on a message board.
The best that can be expected on a message board is an exchange of ideas that is open and unprejudiced. Sadly the selfproclaimed objectivists (never mind plain trolls who seem to have too much time on their hands) seem to be mightily intollerant of people saying: "Maybe you cannot hear it, maybe you consider the point proven, YET I CAN HEAR 'IT' (IT being whatever subject is contentious)".
Sayonara
No.
Psychoacoustics, economics, closed minds - all are responsible to a greater or lesser extent.
Notwithstanding, there remain considerable differences in preferences between listeners, and this accounts for the profusion of brands and models, particularly of speakers, in the market.
It also gives some explanation for the megalitres of snake oil.......
Cheers,
Hugh
Psychoacoustics, economics, closed minds - all are responsible to a greater or lesser extent.
Notwithstanding, there remain considerable differences in preferences between listeners, and this accounts for the profusion of brands and models, particularly of speakers, in the market.
It also gives some explanation for the megalitres of snake oil.......
Cheers,
Hugh
AKSA said:
I'd argue that speakers are the weakest link and the lowest fidelity portion of the audio chain. Thus each speaker designer tries to fix some portion, at the expense of the rest. There's a lot of trade-offs a customer has to wade through in terms of a finished product and find the set that matches his listening biases.
WRT science and audio: There's a lot that science doesn't tell us in audio, but science gives us a design methodology and a means of evaluation. It provides direction in design; and that's a very powerful thing. As a person who makes his living with science, I like to think that it will explain all eventually; it has to. We are only partway down the road though.
Sheldon
leadbelly said:
Yes, I got spooled off on the immediate post above mine.
I'd argue yes, we can produce a transducer that can turn an electrical signal into an acoustical signal with any arbitrary degree of precision. How musical that transducer is isn't necessarily determined by that arbitrary level of precision.
Take for example a scan-speak 9500 tweeter which is a very accurate transducer above say 2500 Hz. However to my ears it doesn't sound nearly as good as my ESL's which also measure quite well.
I think the term "Perfect" has different meanings for a "transducer" vs. a "music conveying device" We are talking apples and oranges.
Sheldon
We have the technology; We have had it for 25 years.
The problem is that philosophy is easer and more entertaining then engineering.
Lads, didn’t we just go through this one?
Anyway, good to see that all of the familiar fingers are in good form. Have a good one.
_________________________________________
We all know that the laws of physics always apply;
The real question is;
When do we get into the claret?
Tmac
The problem is that philosophy is easer and more entertaining then engineering.
Lads, didn’t we just go through this one?
Anyway, good to see that all of the familiar fingers are in good form. Have a good one.
_________________________________________
We all know that the laws of physics always apply;
The real question is;
When do we get into the claret?
Tmac
"music is best conveyed with all its imperfections as it was originally played" quote>>>JOE DIRT 1986....York U..Ergonomics thesis...on that note..I have quandries....live music is amplified with brutal amplifiers and raw power the speakers are the worst in most applications....I dogged it out for a few years with a sound company that supplied alot of bands...I then realized why so many artists sounded so good on tape/vinly/cd etc in a recording studio where all the imperfections are rectified
I was at a folk rock fetstival numerous years ago and I was fortunate enough to have a famous singer sit by our fire at night and sing while she played.It was pure and unplugged her mates utilised what was at hand to accompany her....that was sound and I feel no chip or transistor will ever reproduce what I heard...thats my rant..LOL
DIRT®
I was at a folk rock fetstival numerous years ago and I was fortunate enough to have a famous singer sit by our fire at night and sing while she played.It was pure and unplugged her mates utilised what was at hand to accompany her....that was sound and I feel no chip or transistor will ever reproduce what I heard...thats my rant..LOL
DIRT®
So is being a whingeing, snotty-nosed hifi reviewer who tries to appear discerning and with elevated and refined standards, when in reality they are simply not pleased by anything, let alone have half an idea how it works. To condemn a piece of equipment as beneath their grand and majestic dignity needs only a stroke of the pen and then on to whats next, with no regard for those that worked hard to design and make that equipment.ThomasLMcLean said:
Circlotron said:
So is being a whingeing, snotty-nosed hifi reviewer who tries to appear discerning and with elevated and refined standards, when in reality they are simply not pleased by anything, let alone have half an idea how it works. To condemn a piece of equipment as beneath their grand and majestic dignity needs only a stroke of the pen and then on to whats next, with no regard for those that worked hard to design and make that equipment.
Circlotron, I sense a core of personal experience here. Have you or anyone you know ever designed a piece of audio equipmant only to have it shot down by a reviewer?
Details, please.
Great question, I do not believe that we know every thing but we do understand much.
The problem that I see is that we do not understand the accuracy, or lack there of, of our perseptions. But that could be too disapointing, we probably wouldn't like to know that.
I'm going to enjoy some more music
Regards WALKER
The problem that I see is that we do not understand the accuracy, or lack there of, of our perseptions. But that could be too disapointing, we probably wouldn't like to know that.
I'm going to enjoy some more music
Regards WALKER
JOE DIRT® said:
Hey Dirt,
I don't automatically fault the speakers in that case. Main reason in my opinion for why live sound usually sucks:
- Mega-venues with lousy acoustics. "Why does it sound like a hockey rink in here? Wait a minute, this is a hockey rink"!
- Monitors that are louder than the main speakers. I heard a concert last year where the band started playing from behind a heavy curtain and the curtain was gradually raised during the first song. Initially the sound was just about perfect. Sounded as good as a decent home stereo. As the curtain came up all the comb filtering from the on stage amps and monitors turned the sound back into the usual gak. I've measured levels from drum monitors that topped 120 dB. Image just how little control the guy mixing the show has over the sound of the concert with that coming from the stage.
- Compressors set on stun. For some reason a lot of people in the music biz think 10 dB is all the dynamic range you need to get a hit. It is astounding just how overcompressed most popular music is now. I been using the "Scope" visualization on Windows media player and it is disgusting just how often you can see long passages that are into constant limiting. No wonder everthing is starting to sound the same.
----
The average PA speaker is designed for high power handling and high efficiency (how else are you going to get 130 dB at 30 Hz?). That isn't to say that some Pro audio gear can't give a lot of the trendy botique speakers a run for their money when it comes to sound quality. I'll never forget the first time I really listened to an EAW speaker I purchased for my church. I set up the main cab on center stage and fed it some nice tunes through a decent QSC amp. The sense of effortless power and clarity in a really big room was just breathtaking. It was how you hope a concert would sound, but almost never does.
Phil
“We Presently Know All The Principles Which Apply To Sound Reproduction.”
Yes, we have a very good grasp of the principles which apply to sound reproduction. The proof of this is in the fact that you can go to most any appliance store and buy a system for about $1000USD and it will do a decent job of reproducing sound. Whether that system is up to audiophile standards is irrelevant to the question. This system will provide a good reproduction of the original sound and was designed and manufactured based on a solid knowledge of the principles of sound reproduction.
Rodd Yamashita
Yes, we have a very good grasp of the principles which apply to sound reproduction. The proof of this is in the fact that you can go to most any appliance store and buy a system for about $1000USD and it will do a decent job of reproducing sound. Whether that system is up to audiophile standards is irrelevant to the question. This system will provide a good reproduction of the original sound and was designed and manufactured based on a solid knowledge of the principles of sound reproduction.
Rodd Yamashita
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.