From: DPierce@world.std.com (Richard d Pierce)
Subject: Re: Golden Ears?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:06:05 GMT

David Wright asks some questions? Are they serious or is the lack of
smileys real?

In article <1992Oct5.092831.26359@walter.cray.com> daw@cray.com (Dave Wright) writes:
>
>With all this talk about audibility of cable effects that can't be
>measured, let's talk about measurable audible effects.
>
>Why does that AM car radio sound so good after weeks in the wilderness?

To whom? AM radio sounds pretty dismal to me all the time, especially
after weeks in the widlerness!

>Why does a high end audio system sound better through an open door where
>you are outside the stereo image of the speakers? 

Who said it does? Does it sound better to you? Doesn't to me!

>Who in this group can here if the speakers are reversed polarity?
>what are these audible effects.

Maybe audible, may not be.

>What if only one speaker has polarity reversed?

Easily audible, especially when switching the polarity back and forth

>Can you tell if your speakers are matched pair?

To what degree?

>Can you tell if the drivers are time aligned(phase coherent)?

Maybe

>Is the flat response/ perfect measurement speaker really desired?
> Sound production vs sound reproduction

First, no such speaker yet exists. Secondly, let's trun the question
completely around: why would you NOT want flat response?

(NOTE: While flat frequency response in and of itself is not a sole,
necessary and sufficient condition for perfect reproduction, it is
certainly arguable that it represents a bare minimal criteria)

>Why does a shower with terrible acoustics by sound reproduction standards
>sound so good?

Does it? I think it sounds like sh*t!

>Seems people can't even agree on the audibility of measurable effects!

How might you expect people to agree on the audibility of measured effects
when you postulate audible examples than many are going to disagree on the
quality of.

Your questions, and the premise toward which you are driving, are flawed.
You make some assertions (sound in showers are great) that are highly
suspect and disputable.

Take the last example and turn it into something that has a chance of
teaching us something:

    The sound in showers is certainly very different than elsewhere (some
    might even like it). Shower stalls exhibit certain verifiable and
    measurable acoustical characteristics. Let's propose a hypothesis:
    Are the acoustical measurements of all shower stalls enough alike to 
    suggest that there is a correlation between measurement and 
    perception? Do, in fact, do all shower stalls that measure alike
    sound alike? Is the common acoustical characteristics of similar
    sounding shower stalls something which can be simulated using the
    right kind of electronics, DSP algorithms, etc.? Does the resulting
    sound of a normal voice sound similar to that which a person would
    hear in a shower stall?

Here we've turned it into a series of questions, each of which has a range
of answers. Some predictions and assertions are made that are testable and
verifiable. SO we have a chance at gaining some real insight IF AND ONLY
IF WE KNOW HOW TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.

The way you originally asked the questions are, at best, ambiguous and not
a little contentious.

-- 
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |
Newsgroups: rec.audio