I agree it can be done. I have a set of those speakers. I also have been exposed to quite a bit of live performance, both acoustic and amplified. When listening, I can discern the breath of the horn player, the fingers of the guitarist, the bow of the violin. It's electrifying to say the least.
I'll check with the other mods and get back to you, unless they beat me to it.
I actually do both when verifying a design, and both the audio companies I have worked for professionally used a combination of techniques depending on the engineer and product involved. Everything I worked on at a certain bastion of mid-fi was extensively auditioned during the design process - to me it is obvious that both are the hallmark of good design, however there is a certain methodology and discipline that gets applied and all serious listening was performed under rigorously controlled conditions. (Noting that not all listening performed during the design process was serious..) 😀
You can argue it all you like - its not true.
Or at least its not true ot the extent that I understand the following terms:
per·fect
/adj., n. ˈpɜr
Show Spelled[adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Show IPA –adjective 1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
cal·i·brate
Pronunciation: /ˈkal-ə-ˌbrāt/
Function: vt
-brat·ed ; , -brat·ing ; 1 : to ascertain the caliber of (as a thermometer tube)
2 : to determine, rectify, or mark the graduations of (as a thermometer tube)
3 : to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determining the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors
cal·i·bra·tion Pronunciation: /ˌkal-ə-ˈbrā-shən/
Function: n
cal·i·bra·tor Pronunciation: /ˈkal-ə-ˌbrāt-ər/
Function: n
You can argue it all you like - its not true.
Or at least its not true ot the extent that I understand the following terms:
per·fect
/adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/
–adjective 1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
cal·i·brate
Pronunciation: /ˈkal-ə-ˌbrāt/
Function: vt
-brat·ed ; , -brat·ing ; 1 : to ascertain the caliber of (as a thermometer tube)
2 : to determine, rectify, or mark the graduations of (as a thermometer tube)
3 : to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determining the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors
cal·i·bra·tion Pronunciation: /ˌkal-ə-ˈbrā-shən/
Function: n
cal·i·bra·tor Pronunciation: /ˈkal-ə-ˌbrāt-ər/
Function: n
Well then you obviously are not comprehending or have even a basic understanding of the definitions that you set forth or you would see that what I proposed is true.
Our ears are what we use to listen to music by the way.
edit: What do you think determines sound when someone says "Wow that (insert favorite music here) sounds great! Not electronics I can tell you.
Last edited:
Scitizen17,
I must respectfully disagree. Our hearing is most certainly not perfect, and definitely not calibrated. Do you know about, or have you ever seen Fletcher–Munson curves? I recommend reading this:Fletcher?Munson curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mike
I must respectfully disagree. Our hearing is most certainly not perfect, and definitely not calibrated. Do you know about, or have you ever seen Fletcher–Munson curves? I recommend reading this:Fletcher?Munson curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mike
controlled OCD might get you there 😀
oh, btw, that goes whether you use measurements, listening, or both 😉
Sorry Scott, but ears are neither perfect nor calibratable. To quote the tragically unreliable but easily found Wikipedia:
"Hearing range usually describes the range of frequencies that can be heard by an animal or human, though it can also refer to the range of levels. In humans the audible range of frequencies is usually said to be 20 Hz (cycles per second) to 20 kHz (20,000 Hz), although there is considerable variation between individuals, especially at the high frequency end, where a gradual decline with age is considered normal. Sensitivity also varies a lot with frequency, as shown by equal-loudness contours, which are normally only measured for research purposes, or detailed investigation. "
If you took 5 adult males at random and tested them they would return five different results for both frequency range and threshold perception. Since only one result could be considered "perfect" that immediately disqualifies that claim.
Calibrated? How exactly do you propose to determine the deviation for a standard and apply a correction factor to your hearing such that it returns a standard response?
It can't be done of course, and that is why people perceive sounds differently, and hear nuances in music differently. Not a bad thing, but a fact that has to be considered.
I know for example that I am significantly worse in both frequency and amplitude perception in my left ear. I would no more trust that ear to determine details of a sound as I would allow my dog to drive the car. THere is nothing practically that can be done ot change this - I just have to live with it and recognise it.
My daughter has a ring tone on her cell phone that I cannot hear - she is 17 and female and I am 49 and male and we have about a 3khz difference in our ability to percieve at the top end.
These examples directly from my life and I'm sure many can identify. Its therefore not valid to make a generalised claim that the ear is perfect. Its not. It is, like most evolutionary adaptions, as good as it needs to be to get the job done and it wears out unevenly over time.
"Hearing range usually describes the range of frequencies that can be heard by an animal or human, though it can also refer to the range of levels. In humans the audible range of frequencies is usually said to be 20 Hz (cycles per second) to 20 kHz (20,000 Hz), although there is considerable variation between individuals, especially at the high frequency end, where a gradual decline with age is considered normal. Sensitivity also varies a lot with frequency, as shown by equal-loudness contours, which are normally only measured for research purposes, or detailed investigation. "
If you took 5 adult males at random and tested them they would return five different results for both frequency range and threshold perception. Since only one result could be considered "perfect" that immediately disqualifies that claim.
Calibrated? How exactly do you propose to determine the deviation for a standard and apply a correction factor to your hearing such that it returns a standard response?
It can't be done of course, and that is why people perceive sounds differently, and hear nuances in music differently. Not a bad thing, but a fact that has to be considered.
I know for example that I am significantly worse in both frequency and amplitude perception in my left ear. I would no more trust that ear to determine details of a sound as I would allow my dog to drive the car. THere is nothing practically that can be done ot change this - I just have to live with it and recognise it.
My daughter has a ring tone on her cell phone that I cannot hear - she is 17 and female and I am 49 and male and we have about a 3khz difference in our ability to percieve at the top end.
These examples directly from my life and I'm sure many can identify. Its therefore not valid to make a generalised claim that the ear is perfect. Its not. It is, like most evolutionary adaptions, as good as it needs to be to get the job done and it wears out unevenly over time.
We can agree to disagree then. The ear is perfectly calibrated regardless of what the Fletcher-Munson studies show. If the ear responds to different frequencies at different levels then that what it is suppose to do. The Fletcher-Munson curves simply indicate electronic measuring equipment that is inaccurate with regards to the way sound is to be perceived by the human ear. If the sound of an audio reproduction device is adjusted based on these curves then the sound is rendered inaccurate.
doesn't matter
what matter is whether you know how the music should sound
not even all musicians know
well, maybe only few, actually
think about how many sound/music recording producers there are, when you select only the very best
and why even the best bands need them so much
you might even say that a good loudspeaker is almost like a very good bandleader, keeping everything tied together, and controlled
ok - Trad jazz vs experimental vs progressive? Batok vs Beethoven? The Beatles vs Yoko Ono? what of mongolian throat singers? Indian sitar? Aboriginal chant singing? Is that music as it should sound?
European musical systems are rooted in a specific tonal structure, but it is far from universal - which is why asian music often sounds discordinant to me anyway. But it doesn't to them.
Who's right? Which music sounds as it should?
European musical systems are rooted in a specific tonal structure, but it is far from universal - which is why asian music often sounds discordinant to me anyway. But it doesn't to them.
Who's right? Which music sounds as it should?
yes, if it sounds as intended, ofcourse it is
mongolian throath singers, now that is a real challenge
perceiving I think is the right word
Every system places you in a room which was not the room in which the music was made. The objective is to find a room that you enjoy hearing the music in.
There are distortions that are disharmonious with real music. These are the ones that make what we hear unpleasant. Those are the distortions that we need to track down, isolate, and find how to erase.
Other than that? Find a room (system) you enjoy listening to the music in. The more you enjoy? The better. It may even sound better subjectively than the live sound in certain ways. There is no means for as to recreate a truly objective reproduction of a given live performance. If we could pay for it? We would probably be saving money by hiring the musicians to play for you.
Find a room (system) that you enjoy hearing the music in. You can change rooms by simply changing the amp or speakers.
IMHO... GeneZ.
.
There are distortions that are disharmonious with real music. These are the ones that make what we hear unpleasant. Those are the distortions that we need to track down, isolate, and find how to erase.
Other than that? Find a room (system) you enjoy listening to the music in. The more you enjoy? The better. It may even sound better subjectively than the live sound in certain ways. There is no means for as to recreate a truly objective reproduction of a given live performance. If we could pay for it? We would probably be saving money by hiring the musicians to play for you.
Find a room (system) that you enjoy hearing the music in. You can change rooms by simply changing the amp or speakers.
IMHO... GeneZ.
.
Fletcher-Munsen is not irrelevant to reproduction of recorded music since we have to set our listening volume on playback through different gain electronics and sensitivity loudspeakers in rooms with different modes, damping, listening distance...
we have no reference level for the live performance SPL and we have a volume knob which may be adjusted on playback for various reasons other than "best approximation" to the unknown original performance sound level
when the same music is played thru the same system at different volumes we will perceive different frequency response balance
Loudness equalization isn't a completely satisfactory compensation, but sometimes better than not
we have no reference level for the live performance SPL and we have a volume knob which may be adjusted on playback for various reasons other than "best approximation" to the unknown original performance sound level
when the same music is played thru the same system at different volumes we will perceive different frequency response balance
Loudness equalization isn't a completely satisfactory compensation, but sometimes better than not
A rather poor choice, unfortunately. Billy Redden did know how to play the banjo, another kid had to reach around him fake it. Billy is still alive and well and still doesn't play banjo, AFAIK.
But point taken, of course 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.