fmaster@brahms.udel.edu (Fred A Masterson) (01/14/91)
In Article 1165 (1/11/91), Steve_Graham@ub.cc.umich.edu writes: >Carver's bit in the last issue were interesting, but I can't help but feel >that he makes too much of how much energy is represented by a 1 dB change. >To be sure, changes of a fraction of a dB in response are quite plainly >audible. But the dB is used because it reflects the way we hear things >better than "flat" measurements, and to play with numbers like that just >misses the point, it seems to me. True, frequency response can affect the >perception of depth, but I haven't experience having a cheap component turned >into a great one by means of equalization yet. I also found Carver's article (#1137, reprinted from the Oregon Triode Society newsletter, _Positive Feedback_) to be interesting, and also quite appealing, for two reasons. First, I agree with Carter that one should search for scientifically credible explanations instead of endorsing mystical nonsense. Second, in my own experience with equalizers, a mere 1 db peak or trough spread out over two or three octaves can make a significant difference in sound, and one that can, under the right circumstances, be regarded as a significant sonic improvement. The difference won't transform a cheap component into a great one, but hey- neither will the difference produced by a mega-expensive cable from a boutique wire bandit. The difference isn't real large, but this should be put in the context of high-end reviews where reviewers often are highly motivated to find and to exaggerate differences, even relatively small ones. Fred Masterson fmaster@brahms.udel.edu Cognitive Sciences fmaster@chopin.udel.edu University of Delaware