Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

    however it seems an implicit assumption in your statements 
    is that we know all there is to know about hearing
Hearing involves the human brain and I'm absolutely sure we don't know everything there is to know about it. So at least we agree on that!

However, it seems to me that the question is, "can System A reproduce sound with a 'sound quality' relative to System B that cannot currently be measured, but can be recognized by listeners?"

I don't believe we need to know all there is about hearing to answer that question.

    thus any claims of audio qualities, for lack of a 
    better word, are by definition psychological biases
Psychological biases are huge but for the purposes of this good-faith discussion I'm assuming they're controlled for.

I'd put it this way...

A suite of measurements such as those produced by e.g. the Klippel NFS measurement system such as those seen here represent a rather large quantity of data.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/t...

Do you claim that two audio playback systems could produce identical measurements on the Klippel, and yet have audibly different "sound quality" that could be discerned in a repeatable double-blind fashion by human listeners?




No, you said that, not me! ha ha ha

And as you note below, if it's fun for you to trot out all this "science" then please, don't let me spoil your broth. I'll just contend that science is about testing hypotheses and leave it at that.

Lastly, yes, lots still to learn about hearing and audio. Someday maybe we'll have measurements that allow for certain comparisons to be valid across human aural experience and electrical transducers.


when I no longer have self professed audiophiles to deal with I will always possess the ability to start audiophile flame wars :)


It's always fun!


Therein lies the rub, wouldn't you say? ;-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: