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
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
 
  I have been in this hobby for 37 years, and I trust my ears over measurements. 
almarg wrote,

"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."

>>>>>I’m not sure what you mean by things that can’t be measured, but just for grins here are a few of my candidates for the top of anyone’s list: Tice Clock, Clever Little Clock, Silver Rainbow Foil, Flying Saucers (copper foils) for Windows, WA Quantum Chips, the difference between two power cords that are identical except one has a black jacket and the other a white jacket, and Morphic Message Labels. Top those if you can.

I think it’s a straw man dichotomy.

I think the bigger issue is that test equipment doesn’t get a job, subscribe to Hi Fi magazines and spend days worrying about their first speaker purchase.

I think it is also important to note that tests become useful only after they measure something important. IM distortion for instance. I’m sure it was heard long before it was measured, or understood as "intermodulation distortion." Then came the gear, the parameters and measurement protocols. Then experimental circuits to eliminate it, then listening and experience.

How long between the invention of the telephone did the concept of harmonic distortion come about?

This is not an either or world I live in, it is an integrated, circular hole. At the same time, when my measurement microphone pays for a speaker component I will let it choose what to buy, but not before.

Best,

E
tls49
Test Equipment vs The Ear

It all starts with designers doing prototypes using the laws of electronics and measuring, getting the best they can, then it’s listened to if they’re audiophiles.
Then if needs be, to make changes to the sound, they make changes to measurements or even the circuit, design, and then it’s re-measured to see if nothings wrong and if it sounds better, good, if not do more of the same.
But no designer in their right mind would change anything from the original and not re-measure to see if all is still fine.

Cheers George