This is where the disconnect is. Equating measurable response with what you or I hear or rather assuming the ear is a perfect recording instrument. Without even going into the philosophical implications of perception, there is a simple physiological phenomena of our ears changing in the way we can her or not hear certain frequencies. Many in this forum have already become insensitive to certain frequencies with age. It is not a binary of hearing or not hearing.
If, somehow, one were able to plot the FR just physiologically transmitted by the ears to the brain, I suspect it would look different for each person and be as wild at times as the worst speaker or the worst room.
This concept that all of our ears pick up exactly and similarly the sound saves that reach our ears is the fundamental false premise behind perfect reproduction. One ought to think about this more.
Sure everyone's ears and brains are different, but they can still can be used analytically. Well, within reason. Here's a thought experiment I keep coming back to when I wonder about this stuff.
Imagine a test setup where participants listen to a recording in two forms:
- an original form (A),
- an altered form (B), where bass EQ has been applied in an amount unknown to the participants.
Participants listen to A and B, freely switching, and are asked to adjust a bass control knob (without markings!) for B until it sounds like A. Essentially, they are trying to reverse the alteration to B, just by ear.
Would most people get pretty close? I think they'd get very close, even with all the human variables in play like brain, ears, mood, etc. It doesn't matter if some people hear bass as treble, or midrange as the color blue, or 400 Hz as salty.
The point is that our ears can discern changes in sound within limits. I don't want my system to inherently make changes.
