our brain (=CPU) we can immediately locate the position and distance a sound is coming from. I do not know of a system with two mic's and a computer that can do the same!!
The brain does not work like a CPU and don't think they are remotely comparable. This is the reason why even with a HATS this cannot be done as instant. The whole inner + outer ear structure also isn't anywhere similar to a microphone nor is the 'signals' coming from it.
So agreed electronics and mechanical/electrical devices are not similar. They also are not supposed to be.
The idea is to capture soundwaves and reproduce them as close as possible to what originally was recorded by the microphones.
In the vast majority of recordings mic position/room/type determine what electrical signal is generated and in the studio with their equipment, speakers/room/listening distance, insight and preference a product is created that may have some resemblance to the original sound only.
Some sound engineers are better at it than others. Consider most directional info and accuracy is lost in this process.
Reproducing it is the next hurdle.
It is surprising so many well made recordings still sound surprisingly good. I blame the hearing for this and think it is rather easily fooled.
I viewed an interesting lecture of Rob Watts that very important information for perception might be on a level of -180 dB or lower............
Yes we viewed that too. Has he ever demonstrated his special ability ? How can one reproduce a -180 dB signal in reality. There simply is no DAC nor amp capable to even remotely come near to this. Let's not question if his abilities are what he claims to be but let's just say he has an iron in the fire.
Anyway, as all individuals have their unique personality, they also have their own brain with it's own perception.
Yes.. absolutely correct on this one.
Some individuals will perceive a difference in sound quality between equipment and cabling, some others might not because their brains are not trained or they are not interested.
From my experience almost every change in an audio set-up is audible.......
Between equipment yes, certainly there will be audible differences between equipment. This is quite measurable as well.
And indeed when you have done some audibility tests and for the sake of testing let some other folks (interested friends, kids or the unsuspecting wife) take the same test on the same equipment they will all have different 'borders'. Experience and interest in this also helps.
However, that doesn't mean that what some people claim to hear is always correct. I have witnessed people that I, them not knowing, tested at their own homes with their own ears and familiar music and pretending to swap cables or swapping them and telling I did not swap them heard great sonic improvements when they were told or believed they were swapped when in reality they weren't or were.
My question to you is HOW do you know with 100% certainty that what some people claim to hear (when it is impossible because nothing changed) are really 'hearing' that well ?
IME experience the
knowing what changed or is actually playing part is impossible to disconnect from sound impressions, as are loudness differences which has been measured to happen at shows where cable vendors are selling their dreams.
No-one can argue that a change in an audio set-up is not audible for someone else.
Correct and would like to add that unless that change is done blind to the listener the changes he heard might not come from the actual change itself and should be tested properly. Even in the event that the technical differences are that big that it is obvious to everyone attending. It may be as simple as a level difference.
Listening experiences of individuals are very valuable as it tells something about the perceptions that could be found and shared.
I would agree to that but would include the condition that he either says they are his personal findings and not the absolute truth (just his truth) or that the listening experiences were obtained by scientifically and controlled blind tests mentioning all the controls.
Consider that about 99% of peoples experiences do not have had any proper controls and thus may or may very well not be real and could exist in their minds or due to accuracy errors in their 'testing'.
This is why in most cases, people claiming they heard something, especially when so glaringly obvious that blind testing is not even needed, are greeted with 'uh-huh' or asked for the actual blind test results or are asked about their controls.
The most obvious control is... did you know what was playing. Most folks on ASR realize that controls are needed if one really wants to know.
The most important measurement system for the quality of audio-equipment, food, wine, video-equipment etc. is our individual brain
In the end you are correct. It is also the easiest to manipulate and fallible test equipment. Taste can be fooled easily, eyes can be fooled easily, touch can be fooled easily, we can experience the exact same thing differently under different circumstances.
Consider the ears are just as easily fooled.. well not the ears. In all cases its the brain that interprets things differently.
A simple test is.. listen to some music during the day in a TL lit room, change nothing, wait till the evening and give your ears some rest and listen again with some warm (candle light or warm subdued light) and then tell me how different the exact same system sounds.
Ah... yeah must be the mains pollution being less during the evening... test again in both cases from a from mains disconnected UPS.
Nope... you simply cannot trust any 'reviews' by people even when they are 100% sure. There might be cases where they hear a change correctly but if I would let my life depend on it I would not trust ANY 'report' where people knew what was being changed. Period.