fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (05/25/84)
(oo)
What is an audio "Purist," anyway?
I'm getting a little tired of seeing articles that put down other
listeners and carp at new technology, especially when they are
presented without a shred of objectivity behind them. I rarely,
if ever, give much consideration to subjective evaluations of
equipment or program material other than my own appraisal. This
is not because I believe that I'm gifted, or that my ears are better
than others'; it's just that I'm willing to acknowledge that my own
preferences are just different from those others may have.
On the other hand, I pay a great deal of attention to specifications
and other tidbits of engineering information. Tracking ability and
frequency response, for example, are pretty good indicators of a
phono cartridge's quality. Listening is only the final stage in
a process of evaluation, and I always try to remember that my ears
can play tricks on me.
Therefore, when somebody tells me that something sounds bad, I want
to know the reason before I make my own judgements. If somebody
tells me that a particular brand of, say, recording tape stinks
because distortion at -20dB is excessively high, I'm likely to
believe it. However, if the same person simply tells me it stinks,
the only explanation being that he's an "expert," and that I should,
therefore, respect his opinion, I'll likely disregard his evaluation.
In this sense, *I'm* the purist. I am a firm believer that any audio
abberation that does not show up on a 'scope trace likely does not
exist except in the mind of the listener. Of course, I'm not so close-
minded that I'll let a 'scope do my listening for me. Being cognizant
of my own preferences, I may choose a component that sounds better to
me, even when a competing product has a slightly better spec sheet. I
will *not*, however, attack that product on the basis of my own
prejudices. I respect other people's tastes, and I expect the same
from them.
It irritates me that many of the articles in this newsgroup are
very pointed, and utterly inobjective at the same time. I know
that some net.audio contributors are highly qualified engineers
who know what they're talking about, but I feel that even these
gurus owe it to the rest of us to cite the reasons for their appraisals.
Ownership of $30,000 worth of sound equipment does not, by itself,
constitute authority. I am not a diamond expert just because I bought
my girlfriend an expensive ring.
I think that some people regard audio equipment as an art form, and
that it is therefore an open target for subjective criticism. To this
I say: bullsh__! Audio components are machines that behave in
quantifiable and predictable fashion. If you're going to tell me that
the control layout on the front panel is ugly, I'll leave it at that.
If you're going to tell me that something sounds bad, tell me WHY!
Or, at least, if you can't tell me why, don't put down my aesthetics
just because *I* like what I hear.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fish