Test Equipment vs The Ear


Just posted this link in another thread,

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/earsens.html

Could the ear actually be superior to test equipment?

What do you think?

128x128tls49
I did not see anything incorrect about that collection of tidbits, but nothing there says anything about the ear vs. test equipment.


Test equipment tells me how something measures whereas my ears tell me how it sounds.  To me, the latter is more important.
Not everything that is audible is measurable, and not everything that is measurable is audible. 

There is probably no practical limit to the number of examples that could be cited to illustrate each of those two cases.

To the designer, measurements and listening are both essential tools.  To the consumer, measurements that are published or are otherwise available can often be useful **if properly understood and applied** in narrowing the field of candidates that may be considered for purchase, in identifying candidates for purchase that may match up less than optimally with other parts of the system or with the listener's requirements, and in diagnosing problems.  The frequency with which John Atkinson's measurements that are provided in Stereophile are referenced in countless threads here testifies to those usefulnesses.  While of course to the consumer ears are and should be the decisive arbiter.

So IMO it is pointless to ask which is superior.  Each has its place.

Best regards,
-- Al