[net.audio] Tubes/solid state, etc.

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.