jj@alice.UUCP (09/23/85)
>From allegra!scherzo!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!schley Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 >Here we go again... Ain't that the truth! >There is more to what we here than what you can measure with your >meters. As long as you limit the discussion to measurable results, you >won't discover what is meant by "tightening the bass" and "taking the >edge off". Not only is your statement wrong, it's offensive, and seemingly (given net history) deliberately so. "Tightening the bass" is a term with a number of likely technical meanings. Asking which one applies is quite reasonable; saying that ears are more sensitive than meters is a simple falsehood. (Knowing what to measure is the problem, and not entirely a solved one. Saying "you can't" is like any other supernatural falsity, in that it seeks to perpetuate itself, and fails under careful examination 100% of the time.) ("Taking the edge off" also has technical basis, again one must discover which of many processes is "making it edgy" in the first place.) Any perceptual phenominon that can be heard can also be measured. Period. The problem is that many people interpret measurements in ways that are either wrong, incomplete, or misleading. (Those interpreting the results are often sincere, by the way.) >These are terms used to describe what was measured with the You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce what your terms mean. >most sensitive instruments (and the only meaningful instruments) that >audiophiles possess -- OUR EARS. This statement proves your belief in the supernatural, now, doesn't it? You say that OUR EARS are the only meaningful instruments, and deny that audiophiles have any other important instruments than their ears. Clearly, if the only thing that we hear is sound waves, then such must be measurable with the right equipment. Microphones, instrumentation, etc, with much greater resolution than the human ear exist, and can capture what you're hearing. You have to interpret the results, which isn't easy, but at least you can measure the sound waves. If "OUR EARS" are indeed the only useful instruments, then they must receive something that isn't physically representable, or so it seems to me. If you say that "if it measures perfectly, and sounds awful, only the ears count", you're right. You're also not measuring the right thing, too. This is an example of the kind of thinking that's held the audio industry 20 years behind the state of the art for so long. You deny that anything but your ears count, and refuse to allow measurements of what it is that you hear. There are a considerable number of people who are trained listeners who can hear "loose bass" of many different sorts, "edginess" of many different sorts, etc, and who can MEASURE why that's what they hear. Perhaps you mean that YOU cannot measure what you hear, if so, please say as much, and do not generalize. >Your last statement drives the point home. Possession of "nearly flat >(frequency) response" will get you mid-fi, or maybe only lo-fi. Listen >to real music, and listen to music through your stereo system. >Compare. Strive for accuracy in reproduction. Your statement is correct in part, in that 'possession of "nearly flat (frequency) response" will get you mid-fi or maybe only lo-fi.' is completely true. What you leave out that IN SITU "flat frequency response" is a REQUIREMENT of Hi-fi, but not the only one by any means, i.e. the system, IN PLACE, must have a frequency response that (including the recording chain, etc) is flat. It must also have many other attributes. Your implication that this drives "the point home" is completely false, but it IS an effective rhetorical technique in that it fools the non-expert reader. Since it "fools", rather than "proves" I find it entirely unacceptable, and misleading. The "proof by elegant and misleading assertion" is a common tactic in net.audio, and indeed in the audio world at large. This tactic, coupled with those individuals who have vested interests, is another one of the reasons that the audio industry is 20 years behind the state of both the analog and digital art, and lagging farther behind as I write. >If you are interested in finding the answers to the tough questions you >raised, I'd recommend joining an audio club in your area. These group >sessions offer real opportunities for ear training. > ihnp4!mmm!schley Mr or Ms Schley: Your suggestion that the person gets ear training is a sound suggestion, however your intense espousal of opinions counter to both science and reason is offensive and unnecessary. A form of ear training that I think should be required of all "audiophiles" is the training where an audiophile hears something, and then must use science, research, etc, to find out just WHAT the physical manifestation of this "something" is. (Some)Recording engineers, (some) concert producers, etc, develop this skill to a nearly instinctive basis in order to survive. Those who would criticize should at least learn what various technical problems sound like. (nut.audio goes through this discussion once every three months or so, a completely unnecessary and wasteful behavior. It's called the tyranny of the minority Audiophile, as far as I'm concerned.) -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "All the money that e'er I spent, I spent it in good company..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
sambo@ukma.UUCP (Father of micro-ln) (09/24/85)
In article <4357@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce >what your terms mean. Everyone uses the term "gravity." What is gravity? By the way, I don't claim this posting has anything to do with the subject to which I responded. -- Samuel A. Figueroa, Dept. of CS, Univ. of KY, Lexington, KY 40506-0027 ARPA: ukma!sambo<@ANL-MCS>, or sambo%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa, or even anlams!ukma!sambo@ucbvax.arpa UUCP: {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!sambo, or cbosgd!ukma!sambo "Micro-ln is great, if only people would start using it."
sjc@mordor.UUCP (Steve Correll) (09/26/85)
> In article <4357@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: > >You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce > >what your terms mean. > > Everyone uses the term "gravity." What is gravity? "Gravity" is a synonym for "seriousness". The latter posting, for example, is very low in gravity. Seriously (sic), if you tell me your mass and the mass of the planet you're standing on, I can calculate the force exerted upon the soles of your feet, and if you happen to have a bathroom scale with you, you'll discover that my calculation is right. I know of no audiophile who, given data on a piece of equipment, can calculate the quantity of "edginess" or "tightness" or "veiling", and be confident that the calculation will agree with a listener's perception. In fact, it'll be a happy event if two listeners' perceptions agree! If, in the realm of planetary physics, we had to rely solely on highly trained ears (and eyes and noses), rather than on calculations and on hypotheses subject to experimental proof, we would never dare venture off the surface of the planet. -- --Steve Correll sjc@s1-c.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc
aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP (09/28/85)
In article <> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >>From allegra!scherzo!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!schley Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 >>Here we go again... > >Ain't that the truth! > >Not only is your statement wrong, it's offensive, and seemingly >(given net history) deliberately so. > >Any perceptual phenominon that can be heard >can also be measured. Period. The problem is that many people >interpret measurements in ways that are either wrong, >incomplete, or misleading. (Those interpreting the results >are often sincere, by the way.) > >>These are terms used to describe what was measured with the > >You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce >what your terms mean. > >>most sensitive instruments (and the only meaningful instruments) that >>audiophiles possess -- OUR EARS. > >This statement proves your belief in the supernatural, now, doesn't >it? You say that OUR EARS are the only meaningful instruments, and >deny that audiophiles have any other important instruments than >their ears. HOO, Boy! What sort of buffoon can sit there and assert that our ears are not important!! I have a deaf friend who comes over occasionally and my stereo is invariably on. And I can sit there and discuss audio tech- nology until I'm blue in the face. It doesn't mean a damn thing to him how many microvolts are generated by my cartridge, or if the S/N ratio is 200dB! What I'm saying is that all those measurements don't mean a thing if you can't hear it. Until someone figures out how to hook us up directly to the source, we have to filter all those specs through our ears. If you don't think our ears are important then let me come over and sever your aural nerves. There, feel better now that those cumbersome ears aren't in the way? ======================================== "What the F*** are 'Robster Craws?'" aardvark!nmtvax!unm-la!lanl!cmcl2/ihnp4/etc
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (10/05/85)
> >>most sensitive instruments (and the only meaningful instruments) that > >>audiophiles possess -- OUR EARS. > > > >This statement proves your belief in the supernatural, now, doesn't > >it? You say that OUR EARS are the only meaningful instruments, and > >deny that audiophiles have any other important instruments than > >their ears. > Both sides of this argument have some validity. Certainly anything we can hear can be measured. But, (and it's a big but folks) knowing what it is we need to measure is a task which our ears with proper test procedures can greatly aid. Saying that the ear is the most sensitive instrument is, of course, total horseshit. The ear is a very complex and versatile instrument but in any given domain is vastly exceeded by electronic instruments. The forte of the ear lies in its versatility and the very complex signal processing capability that backs it. It is the signal processing that makes the ear such a powerful instrument and with our incomplete understanding of what processing is going on makes it hard to quantify what it is the ear can and can't hear. Saying that ears are the only arbiter is an unfortunate attitude which tends toward a plethora of inaccurate equipment as everyones sensation of sound differs just as everyones sensation of taste (including what they consider accurate or pleasing). Striving for measurable accuracy will at least get closer to what the artist/producer/record company were trying to present instead of having everyone running off into a dozen self-serving directions. David Albrecht hard to
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (10/06/85)
>>>most sensitive instruments (and the only meaningful instruments) that >>>audiophiles possess -- OUR EARS. >> >>This statement proves your belief in the supernatural, now, doesn't >>it? You say that OUR EARS are the only meaningful instruments, and >>deny that audiophiles have any other important instruments than >>their ears. >HOO, Boy! >What sort of buffoon can sit there and assert that our ears are not >important!! Gee, I suppose he would be a buffoon if that's what he said. But that's NOT what he said, so I guess you're the buffoon.
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (10/09/85)
[] Damn. Thought I could stay out of this one,but I can't. Bothers me when someone says, to paraphrase,"well, people should buy whatever sounds best to them, etc.." This <is> the big come-on for selling junk by the ton. The point that is missed here is that while it sounds neat, logical, permissive and generally ok to make that observation, it neglects that taste (preference) is educable. And its educable whether you want it to be or not. So if you start out with your unwashed tin ear and blow your money on what sounds great right off the starting line, you are almost sure to become dissatisfied with it unless, of course, you never listen to it. But if you listen to it, and to others, you will eventually educate yourself to a better grade of sound reproduction. It therefore seems to me that, unless you have lots of bucks to throw away, you should try and do as much education as possible to yourself and your ears <before> you pays your money and takes your choice. If lots of fairly experienced people tell you that brand x is really where its at, and brand y sounds to you like it blows the doors off brand x, then <don't rush out and buy brand y. Instead go listen to brand x a while more. Ask <why> x is supposed to be so great. Get others to listen to brand y. Compare, listen. grow. spend your money wisely. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) (10/09/85)
Yawn. I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet: the ear is an instrument. Like any instrument, it has known limits, such as limited accuracy, reliability, sensitivity, and so on. So do instruments commonly found in the lab. Both are instruments for detecting things. Whether my ears or your ears or golden ears can beat a given lab instrument in sensitivity is a testable question. Are there ears somewhere that beat some piece of lab equipment in detecting presence/absence of some aspect of sound at some level under some conditions? Of course. Is there a lab instrument that can detect something better than any ears? Of course. Do any of these questions and their answers tell us when it's appropriate to use ears versus lab instruments to detect things? Of course not. Sensitivity is desirable in instruments that detect things. But sensitivity is useless without reliability. It's common to find, in both ears and lab instruments, that you can stretch one at the expense of the other. Double-blind testing and the like are methods for improving reliability of that instrument, the ear. For more information on this view of the world, I recommend Green and Swets "Signal Detection Theory and Psychophics". But I don't think you have to read the book to put this "ear vs. instrument" topic to bed. My point is: claiming that the ear is more sensitive than the lab instrument doesn't help anyone. It's got to be reliable too. If you can turn an ear into a reliable instrument by putting it together with a bunch of other ears attached to a bunch of people who are participating in a double-blind testing procedure, I'm all for it. If you find ANY ears more sensitive to something than the current crop of lab instruments, and you have ANY way of making the ears reliable detectors, I'm all for it. If you can't show reliability, please don't flame about sensitivity. I'm equally unimpressed by a lab instrument that someone claims can detect things that nothing else can, but I can't rely on it to give the same report to the same input every time I present the input, or I can't rely on it to agree with another instrument like it every time we present them both with the same input. Fair enough? As a final note, both ears and lab instruments are capable of generating data on nominal or ordinal scales. I know of no way of calibrating an ear so as to get data out of it on an interval scale. So if you want to make statements like "CD Brand X is better than CD Brand Y" either ears or lab instruments are appropriate detectors. But if you want to make statements like "CD Brand X is 2.5 times better than CD Brand Y" (which might be compared to their relative prices and plugged into a buying decision) you want to use lab instruments. -- -- Jon Krueger UUCP: ...seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tuba BITNET: TUBA@UORDBV USMAIL: University of Rochester Taylor Hall Rocheseter, NY 14627 (716) 275-2811 "A Vote for Barry is a Vote for Fun"