Jonas Eckerman writes: >> a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, perhaps even a loud >> sound, > Wether it makes a loud sound or not up to anyone who hears it. "Loud" is a > subjective description of a perceived sound. Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a sound. That sound does not need to be perceived by a human ear; it could be detected by a microphone >> even if nobody is around to perceive it. > If noone is there to perceive the sound, it's impossible to know wether it > would have been perceived as a loud sound if someone had been there. Incorrect, given that one could install a monitoring device including a microphone, for example. > The term "loud" is meaningless if you don't care about perception. Incorrect, given that "loud" could be assigned to a particular intensity level reached during a recording in the absence of human ears. >> A parent might >> tell a child to turn down the stereo because it's too loud. > And in this case, the parent *perceives* the sound as too liud. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves, as was previously suggested. > The child probably doesn't. Irrelevant to the issue. The child probably also doesn't understand what a Fletcher-Munson curve is. > You've just illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound > is perceived. Incorrect; rather, I've illustrated how "loud" can be used without reference to Fletcher-Munson curves. >> Some >> people refer to colors as being "loud". > In this case "loud" is just as a description of how someone perceives a > colour. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves, as was previously suggested. >> A speaker who can't be >> heard in a lecture hall might be asked to speak louder. > Wich is because the listeners perceives the speech as not loud enough. Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves, as was previously suggested. >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't use the word "loudness". > You did use the word "loud". I'm well aware of what I wrote, Jonas. > It is quite plausible that the word "loudness" > is derived from the word "loud". Irrelevant, given that derivation of the word has never been the issue here, Jonas.