In Reply to: An interesting experiemnt... posted by rlw on March 8, 2015 at 06:38:54:
Good point.I don't put a lot of stock into much of what they say either. But at least they know enough to speak the truth once or twice every 10 years as apposed to those other so-called experts who can't even speak the truth even once.
It would be great to have a fully functional clock. But even a broken clock is right at least twice a day. As opposed to a clock in pieces with no hands on the dial. Right?
An easier test actually for something to look for would be well-recorded piano piece that includes a lot of sharp notes high on the register and played back at volume levels approaching the live performance.
They say piano is the most difficult instrument to accurately reproduce. There's are lot of truth in that statement. But I think a more accurate way of saying it is, "All instruments are near equal in difficulty to reproduce. But the piano may be the most easily discerned to illustrate how far short of the mark our playback systems really are.
Perhaps the best way to look at it is, the piano is perhaps the most offense instrument when demonstrating how far short of the mark our PB systems really are.
The sharp piano notes at reasonably high volumes should make a bee-line to your ear much like a laser beam causing fatique, whincing, or "bleeding of the ear".
BTW, any music is tolerable to the ear at elevator music volumne levels.
Edits: 03/08/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: An interesting experiemnt... - stehno 11:07:18 03/08/15 (0)