[...]
So no mysticism required (or even allowed) for me personally when I design electronics for sound. You learn to trust your ears and you learn how to hear problems in the sound. It is almost an unpleasant skill as it spoils the music and denies you the pleasure if the sound quality is flawed in certain respects which you can recognise . And you learn where to look, what to change and how to make a design which will sound consistently good in production, without hiring virgins and producing equipment only on completely moonless nights .
Exactly, Alex! Exactly!
After our mastering of any field, whichever this could be, we cannot anymore enjoy any creations of these fields without subconsciously tearing those creations apart, every single time, in order to find out any possible flaws --either these flaws being deliberate or not...
Regarding the so-called 'psychoacoustics' I think it is amazing that no one can deny the fact that, the extremely low grade duplications of the songs that we were sharing with the aid of the Phillips-type portable battery-powered monophonic
tape recorders of the seventies era, as we were kids, seemed to be sounding heavenly to our ears, in contrast with the currently available 'mastering-quality' reproduction of those same songs we can hear today...
And, I am afraid that, there is no T&M device to measure and classify this perceptual distinction...
As our forefathers used to say, «?
?
?» (transliterated: 'gnothi seauton,' one of the 147
Delphic maxims being inscribed in the pronaos of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, that the Romans called 'know thyself' half a millennium later).
-George
<EDIT>
Ah! Come on, Dave!
In 2017, why is your discussions board software
still unable to display any Hellenic language characters?