Re: audio culture nonsense?

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fmdc1502fv9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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]
>
> > lots snipped for brevity>>

> 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.

Of course. If it is transparent with one pass through the amplifier, it
may 
not be transparent with a second pass, in which case, for that amplifier, 
the figure of merit is 1. If it can take 20 p*****, then the FoM becomes
20. 
If an amplifier isn't transparent even once, then it has a FoM of 0.

>snipped>
>
>>>> 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.
>
Indeed, me too. However, my high frequency hearing is well down on what it

was when in my 20s, and consequently, I can't hear things happening at the

top end that I probably could once. However, when discussing the
thresholds 
of audibility, I am assuming a young listener who's hearing hasn't been 
damaged, whether by abuse or age, and they have been trained to listen.
The 
thresholds that I and other professionals have used as benchmarks for the 
limits of audibility probably since the '60s if not before are still valid

as far as I know. The last 40 odd years hasn't bred a race of 
super-listeners and there's no research, again that I'm aware of, that
shows 
that acuity has improved.

S.

-- 
http://audiopages.googlepages.com