If both signals have been recorded under the exactly same circumstances, if there is any noteworthy difference in the waveform then that should mean that there is a notable difference caused by the different component or settings, no matter how much that signal gets distorted by physics. If physical effects would cause a difference of +5 dB at a certain frequency in one circumstance and -8 in the other, would not the very same differences be applied to the altered signal on top of the alteration, making the alteration still equally perceptable
We don't hear with our eyes./enddiscussion
First read and understand this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking...then take a quick look as this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics#Software...then try to find a graph or measurement that indicates which elements of a complex audio signal are audible to the human ear, and which bits are not.Hint: there is no such graph or measurement. The closest you get is with simulations of human hearing. PEAQ is an internationally standardised model of human hearing, that is trained and based upon the results of... listening tests!Cheers,David.
Waveforms serve as a translation of the audible part of the frequency spectrum into the visible part
Quote from: Wyld Stallyn on 04 April, 2013, 11:46:40 AMWaveforms serve as a translation of the audible part of the frequency spectrum into the visible partYou were already told(!), differences that may be made demonstrated visually do not necessarily translate into differences that can be detected audibly.That you may question it doesn't change the reality of the situation, and will certainly not change the rule or the way it is enforced.
Some audible differences are invisible, some inaudible differences are easy to see. This is true in some respect whatever graph or measurement you choose to use.