charles@sunybcs.UUCP (Charles E. Pearson) (06/29/84)
Since you seem doomed to not understanding something until you experienct it... Let me explain to you how to understand the phrase 'flat' as used in audio jargon.... First, since you seem unable to understand ambiance, it is safe to assume that you have never experienced it. Your audio system is unable to re-produce it either. To experience ambiance (or multi-dimensionality of the sound) try going to any live performance... a concert, a play, a bar, even your local eating hall. Close your eyes (it helps, but I will not go into why and you also have something to gripe about in my refusal to list sources) and concentrate on the sound(s). Where are they comming from? Is that sound to the left/right foreground/background of that other sound? Now go home and listen to your stereo. Can you place sounds like you could in the live performance? If not, then your stereo produces 'flat' ambiance. If you could not even place the instruments/voices to the left/right of each other then your system is not even stereo. That exactly defines 'flat ambiance' Flat tonal quality... take your system and play with it.... if you have an equalizer set every single switch/button etc. to their minimum setting. If you have some kind of dynamic range expander/compressor then set it to full compression. In either case this newer sound is exactly defining 'flat' Flat resopnse is a different thing altogether... Spectrum analyzer in hand (preferred one with very high resolution) no deviations from a straight horizontal line. Your problems with multiple meanings for the same word is best explained by the fact that you did not define the word to start with. For other examples of how words change meanings with their context take the biggest dictionary that you can find and see the many meanings for the character string 'jack'. Last time I heard, it was up to 27. Charles E. Pearson UUCP: {allegra, seismo}!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!charles decvax!watmath!sunybcs!charles ARPA & CSNET: charles.buffalo@rand-relay Physical: University Computing Services 4250 Ridge Lea Road room 28 SUNY Center at Buffalo Amherst, NY 14226 P.S. If your system is so poor in ambiance you might try the CARVER Holography trick as explained in AUDIO May 1983 (cheepest approach for the effect) P.P.S. I have found some solid state units that have rather complete ambiance, but I will not tell you what they were. Finding the little buggers is half the fun.
ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (06/30/84)
I was very disappointed when I read in the manual for my preamp and amp from the Technics "Flat line" that they were using the work FLAT to describe the shape of the cabinet. -Ron
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/05/84)
>If you do not know what 'flat' sound is, you should not >be wasting your money on Hi-Fi gear... Now, according to the Charles Pearson Close-Cover-Before-Striking School of Audio Reproduction and Heavy Machinery, you can't enjoy good sound unless you understand non-technical terms used in technical contexts. >for one definition try: > you are now listening to a flat (like a picture is flat) source of... >... >For another definition try: > there is no life in the music... flat and dull. > >Context changes the usage of 'flat'. If I just sit still here, I won't have to work to make my point; Pearson will make it for me. The context (note singular) was perceived quality of sound reproduction. If the meaning wanders around, it doesn't help us much. Moreover, I find that "no life in the music" is something I apply to the nature of the performance, not the nature of the reproduction system. (SOUND reproduction system. Stop snickering!) >Why no tyraids about 'soggy', 'thumpy', 'swangy', 'harsh', 'sweet', >'warm', 'air', 'ambiance', 'coloration(s)'.... My posting also questioned "dry". By implication from its referenced article, it also questioned "unrevealing", "uninteresting", "open", "warm", and "accurate". I would reject all of these terms as unsuitable except for "accurate" - but the article I referenced indicated that a system could be at once "noisy" and "accurate", so I have to reject one or the other. I similarly reject soggy, swangy (twangy??), sweet, warm, air, and ambiance. There seems to be a little bit of meaning in thumpy, harsh, and coloration. I'm not objecting to use of a variety of terms per se; I'm objecting to their indiscriminate use without any apparent generally-understood definition. Example from a different domain: There are at least thirty terms used to describe beer tastes; it's probably more like a hundred. They range from "diacetyl" and "light-struck" to "banana ester" and "husk". However, each one has a specific meaning, understood to people who taste beer. You can go to a school and get trained to analyze beer. When you're done, if you succeed in training your palate, you will be able to judge a beer and label it with the various terms in the same way as other testers. You will be able to do so in double-blind testing. When I see that a similar meaning and repeatability lies behind terms like "flabby" or "grainy" applied to audio equipment, I won't have a complaint any more. Parenthetically, I find it interesting that brewing is so much of a science compared to audio reproduction. (I guess the important things get taken care of first:-) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.