Re: audio culture nonsense?

"Serge Auckland" <serge.auckland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:fmb7qq01sj6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fm8ur90157g@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> OK, so now I'll get pedantic and say that what you're
>> talking about here is
>> not a reference, but instead a standard of relevance.
>> The reference for an amplifier is always its electrical
>> input. The standard for its performance,
>> which is what you are talking about here, is always what
>> we can hear or some
>> reasonable multiple of it.  I say reasonable multiple,
>> because we tend to cascade some kinds of amplifiers and
>> we need some assurance that the cascade
>> is sonically pure.

> If a number of listeners can't hear the difference between an
> amplifier and a straight-wire bypass, then regardless of
> what the amplifier measures, it is sonically transparent,
> and therefore that amplifier can be said to be a
> "reference" unit, against which other amplifiers can be
> compared.

The correct use of the word reference comes from the use of a test like a 
straight wire bypass test, which involves an absolute reference.

> Such a reference amplifier will be capable of
> cascading a number of times before it fails the
> straight-wire bypass test.

That must be tested, because it can't be inferred.

> Perhaps a figure of merit
> these days with modern amplifiers is how many cascades
> before it becomes audible?

I've favored that approach for a long time.

For example, I alluded to it during the HE2005 debate.

>  That will exercise the  marketing department!

.....and those who actually have to test it.

>>> Now of course, it is possible that someone has a limit
>>> of audibility that is much lower than the accepted
>>> limit, and therefore they can hear differences that the
>>> rest of us can't hear.

>> All things are possible, but if you investigate
>> something long enough, hard
>> enough, the probability of an unexpected but signifcant
>> relevant finding drops away.  For example, we might
>> discover miniscule variations in the gravitational field
>> on and  around earth, but it is highly unlikely that we
>> will find strong differences from what we expect.

> Indeed, which is why so far, I haven't seen any serious
> suggestions that there *are* people out there who's
> hearing is so superior to ours that they can hear things
> we can't. Outside of magazine reviewers of course.

At this point I'm old enough that there are many younger, well-trained 
listeners who can clearly hear what I can't hear. However, I can still fox

younger, untrained listeners most of the time.