mmerrill99
Member of the Trade: M2 Tech
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2006
- Posts
- 1,233
- Likes
- 46
It's not to do with accuracy - it's what do we not measure.What you state makes perfect sense but can I just outline a couple of things:
- Not just amplitude
Then I assume you believe that the accuracy of our current measurement techniques is not adequate to measure differences that could be detected within the range of human hearing ability. I seriously doubt that is correct. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As I said before time is the third & probably the most important aspect of how our auditory perception interprets the signals, not just frequency & amplitude. The time signature of tune if changed changes the tune even though the amplitude & frequencies are "exactly" the same. Our auditory perception's role is interpreting & making sense of the moment-to-moment signals hitting our eardrum. A large part of making sense of this is got to do with the timing relationships between different aspects of the continuous waveform (it's really just compressive waves)I just don't understand your point about time as a separate component of waveforms. Perhaps I am missing something, but I understand time to be inherent in frequency.
If you want to consider it as a choice between the lesser of two evils then I choose sighted listening because blind tests are too hard to control for. I'm not talking about closing your eyes & listening to two things blind - that is perfectly OK for personal checking but don't imagine for one moment that it has any scientific rigour - you have a 50/50 chance of guessing right so you need to do many trials & that introduces other factors, etc.I agree that many "blind" tests may not be done under control conditions that are scientifically justifiable. But there is a mountain of reported information that seems to suggest that sighted tests are inherently unreliable: http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths. I am unaware of a single double blind test that has supported the validity of sighted tests or comparisons. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
It is an unacceptable level of proof when it comes to audio forums where statistically significant ABX testing or some such is the bar to entry
So what if I told you that a certain part of how we analyse & categorise sounds is based on a statistical summary of the waveform & this is based on the temporal relationships within the waveform i.e over a longer period than a second or two. And we use this analysis to determine how realistic a sound is perceived? We also use it to categorise a sound - is it the sound of running water or is it a fire crackling in the distance?The right side of my brain would love to learn that there is some heretofore undiscovered scientifically based reason why two different systems that measure the same using our current technology in reality are different. Somehow I guess that would justify my decades of subjective audio choices. But the pesky left side of my brain just won't keep quiet.
What current measurement of an audio device would you use to check this one aspect of what our auditory perception pays attention to?
Would the fact that there is no current measurement mean that we couldn't possibly hear one audio as more realistic than another? Would you deny this perception & call it "imagination" or "just preference"?