At 12:41 AM mike wrote:
> we all have different length and width in our ear canals, not to
> mention
>the differences in the brain receiving the messages (see tomatis.com), that
>affect the sound we're receiving. the machines that produce spectograms can
>be uniform though we are not. our reading of spectograms is visual, not
>audio (can we really judge a sound by the color of its spectogram?).
mike you can't write on the dashboard, that's where I imagine
you've got your feet. you're right about all these only being tools,
but it was the application of all these tools that came up with
microphones amps and sound systems that we all find reasonably
consistent in their performance. i think taken all round and with all
sorts of pokes tweaks and pinches the _differences are minor._ Log
scales and such are used to give us a clearer visualisation of
aural characteristics but they're no help if we apply them
incorrectly. Synthesis has been very educational in that it has
allowed us to define boundaries within certain limits of
acceptable error and opened the way to further progress. reg
|
|  |
