'So you believe sound waves to be structurally and acoustically different d=
epending on the source? '
no, I believe that all speakers are made to transmit music or tone generate=
d patterns & even the most transparent ones are designed for the reproducti=
on of music. As genelecs are a make that most folks on here will know & pro=
bably regard as very high quality lets use them as an example. I work a lot=
with surface vibrations in terms of field recordings - most of the genelec=
s (except for the massive studio installation ones) don't handle these soun=
ds well. My old pair of AR speakers do, as do lots of others.
'Er, no, since it is defined in terms of room acoustics. Rooms do not diffe=
r from person to person. People's experience of the rooms might, but that i=
s not the same thing, and not what tuning a room addresses. (Which is why i=
t does not even require a human listener.)'
I'm not sure I can put into words my thoughts about that statement well eno=
ugh. If we are talking about listening then to remove the person from the a=
rgument seems pointless. The science of room acoustics is based on human in=
vention. It is impossible to know whether the way we hear or measure such t=
hings has been influenced by perceptions we have as a race because of what =
we believe or have decided to be the case. A blunt example would be two ide=
ntical rooms 'tuned' by two different people to be acoustically neutral. Ea=
ch will be different & each will employ different interpretations of the sc=
ience of acoustics.
'Acoustics is physics which is not subjective. Since all our analogue and d=
igital devices do indeed function in the (non-subjective) world, we can be =
pretty sure that our physics is correct'
well, we're beginning to split philosophical hairs here but physics does in=
volve elements that are subjective. Get a bunch of acousticians in a room &=
you'll see them arguing for hours about certain points. At the end of the =
day, removing the personal from such things affects the outcome & the scien=
ce. All of science is a human, subjective (to a greater or lesser degree) i=
nterpretation of what we perceive as facts.
This discussion could go on & on & perhaps its not ideal to do it here ?
--- In "robin_parmar_sound" <> w=
rote:
>
> Jez wrote:
>
> > Likewise there are no speakers designed
> > specifically for them & so, in one sense,
> > expecting a monitor to be 'neutral' for
> > natural sounds when its been designed to
> > handle electronically produced sounds or
> > tuned acoustic instruments is just not possible.
>
> So you believe sound waves to be structurally and acoustically different =
depending on the source? That is an unusual contention. If it were true the=
n electrical circuits and speakers themselves would be unlikely to function=
.
>
> > The idea of a 'neutral' acoustic is
> > only an invention & it differs widely from
> > person to person,
>
> Er, no, since it is defined in terms of room acoustics. Rooms do not diff=
er from person to person. People's experience of the rooms might, but that =
is not the same thing, and not what tuning a room addresses. (Which is why =
it does not even require a human listener.)
>
> > its all subjective.
>
> Acoustics is physics which is not subjective. Since all our analogue and =
digital devices do indeed function in the (non-subjective) world, we can be=
pretty sure that our physics is correct.
>
> Hearing and personal interpretation is another matter. But you are confus=
ing matters.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
|