5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY) (08/03/84)
Whatever happened to scientific method in audio engineering and equipment review. All I see are two camps: in one, the "golden ears" that profess to hear magnificent music from certain types/brands of equipment whithout any supporting scientific justification; and, in the other camp we have the armchair audio engineers, who ridicule the "golden ears" using defimation of character rather than scientific method as ammunition. I submit that there are a great number of readers of this net that subscribe to learn more about audio in general or simply ask a question to the forum. What these folks get, on the other hand, in often a crock, or at best, a six- week oratorio hammering and rehammering the subject, losing sight of the original question/comment, and ending with all contributors suggesting that flames be sent to net.flame or dev/null. This is no way to win friends or contribute to a newsgroup. The problem lies in a couple of places: the HiFi rags (both slicks and "underground" / "audiophile") and the fact that audio can be such a subjective, personal idiom. Debates such as: tubes vs. transistors, to Litz or not to Litz, digital vs. analog, what a square wave is supposed to look like, turntable mats, etc. ad nausium are good discussion material. They have different answers to different people and we should respect those opinions and promote some semblence of scientific method in our discussions. The problem being that people all to often beleive what they read without additional, independent thought. Another point of departure: several of the contributors to this net are musicians and avid concert goers -- I fear that there is a great dichotomy in the listening practices (how and what we listen to/for) between this camp and those who primarily listen to recorded music. The frame of reference of these two sets of listeners is vastly different. The musicians/concert goers have as a frame of reference the actual timbre of the instruments while the armchair listeners' truth is recorded by Telarc or Sheffield and reproduced via tubes/transistors and speaker cones. Rather than ridicule the "golden ear" for his subjective discription of how a given piece of equipment sounds, maybe the armchair audio engineers should be a little less quick on the draw and actually think about why he says he hears what he hears. There is no "magic" in audio componetry tha performs well sonically -- only good, sound audio engineering. Don't forget the psychoacoustics that come into play as well. Maybe the "golden ear" as well could try to understand why he likes the sound of a particular amp over another before, for instance, touting that all tubes amps are sonic purity and dumping on anything with a transistor in it. I doubt that anyone has enough well executed listening sessions under their belt to make the broad, sweeping conclusions that I read on the net regularily. Remember, music is an art and engineering is a science with its exectution being an art. Human nature being what it is will not allow the intellect to be insulted into changing its mind especially over subjective perceptions. Craig Dory AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (08/06/84)
>Whatever happened to scientific method in audio engineering and equipment >review. All I see are two camps: in one, the "golden ears" that profess >to hear magnificent music from certain types/brands of equipment whithout >any supporting scientific justification; and, in the other camp we have the >armchair audio engineers, who ridicule the "golden ears" using defimation >of character rather than scientific method as ammunition... I think that this is fairly accurate - except that the "defamation of character" style of argument exists on both sides. Here's a severe exercise in armchair audio engineering: Develop a cogent response to the following "goldenear" position. Support your position only on a technical basis; do not resort to ad hominem argument. (The statement is a short excerpt from <1270@ihuxl>.) > You're going to get a lot of response from people saying that you're > wasting your money. DON'T LISTEN TO THEM. >Rather than ridicule the "golden ear" for his subjective discription >of how a given piece of equipment sounds, maybe the armchair audio >engineers should be a little less quick on the draw and actually think >about why he says he hears what he hears... But there has to be enough substance to what is said to be able to analyze it. Quite honestly, there are some "goldenears" who describe sound systems with terms more befitting a pleasant summer afternoon than a musical performance. It's hard to believe that these ephemeral descriptions communicate to others of the esoteric bent, let alone to a wider audience. In other words, before we can "think about why he says he hears what he hears" we've somehow got to figure out "what he hears" in some terminology that we can understand. There are at least three camps, as I see it: the technical, the non-tech- nical, and the anti-technical. --- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (08/12/84)
[Turn on the old Victrola, and we'll dance the night away...] >Whatever happened to scientific method in audio engineering and equipment >review. All I see are two camps: in one, the "golden ears" that profess >to hear magnificent music from certain types/brands of equipment whithout >any supporting scientific justification; and, in the other camp we have the >armchair audio engineers, who ridicule the "golden ears" using defimation >of character rather than scientific method as ammunition... The scientific method is great if you are researching the mysteries of subatomic particles, a cure for cancer, or the nature of quasars. It is also appropriate if you are indeed determining the measurable parameters of a piece of equipment. But this argument is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Look, music and the equipment it is played on exist for one purpose: to create an audible stimulus for purposes of enjoyment. It follows, therefore, that, if YOU like what you are hearing, it is right for you. To argue that it must be right for someone else, or to accept that someone's impression of what you enjoy should not be enjoyable, is just plain ridiculous. You might as well set up an endless discussion on the relative merits of flavors of ice cream! Whatever is your favorite, someone will hate it and argue that, because you don't like what he likes, there is something wrong with you. Screw 'em, and keep buying the flavor you like. Same with audio gear. This is not to disparage efforts by persons to honestly discuss their impressions of music and equipment; such discussions can be very valuable. But seems to me we should respect those postings, and if we get a different experience of a piece of music or equipment, we should post our own impressions for contrast. But there is no point is jumping all over the other writer for not getting the same experience we did. -- [ ] [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] [ ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard