- Dec 31, 2008
- Reaction score
- Dec 31, 2008
The point I'm trying to make is that if the goal is to most accurately reproduce a piece of music, one must not be dismissive of objective measurements. Pursuing 'perceptual accuracy' is absolutely fine - but to claim that this pursuit is in fact identical to, or indeed is even more valid/effective than relying on scientific measurements in achieving the aforementioned goal, is simply not right.
I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion with irrefutable validity.
Firstly, I'm not sure if it's right to go down the route of one method being more valid/effective. If we do go there, from what perspective should one claim validity/effectiveness? There's the perspective of the objectivist. There's the perspective of the seller; and there's the perspective of the buyer/audience.
From my own perspective, accuracy of reproduction depends on my own comparison based on what I hear. That's what matters to me. If they don't sound the same to me and this is challenged, I'd rather do a more controlled evaluation with my own senses again, rather than stare at an oscilloscope that takes one aspect of the music and measures it. By more controlled I mean, introducing a volume controlled comparison. I would even concede that these controls should be implemented from the very start.
IMO, the measurements make for a useful guide, but the final word should go to the listener under controlled conditions.