Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: DAT contender/Carver vs. the dB
Message-ID: <8901@uwm.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 14:06:39 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 18
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <8858@uwm.edu> 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.

>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.                                  
Most equalizers do not have sufficient control to correct the problems Bob 
mentioned -- their response bands are too broad, at fixed frequency and Q, 
affect phase, and consequently induce new distortions for every one they 
correct.  He has an interesting thesis, and some evidence to back it up.  I'm
still waiting for a properly controlled, statistically significant study which
shows that people can hear the difference between amps even without identical
frequency response as measured at the speaker terminals -- anybody out there 
have a reference for me?

Jim Hess