pmr@drufl.UUCP (Rastocny) (01/13/84)
I suppose that a lot of you may not agree (flame?) with what I am about to say. But remember that this is a discussion group as well as an information group and everyone has a right to an opinion. I know it's 1984 but let's try to keep Big Brother off this net until some time in the distant future somewhere. In General: I don't care about what statistics accompany a piece of equipment. I don't care what technology it employs. I don't care what the manufacturer claims or what the industry claims any given format or technology can do. What I do care about SINCERLY is the accuracy of sonic reproduction! On Specs: Now if there is a set of technical parameters that will assist me in relating what can be heard to what can be measured, fine. Specs are supposed to steer us in the direction of what equipment we want by correlating them to what we hear. AND we should be able to measure literally anything that we hear. Great! No argument. On Subjectivity: But if I can hear something that any of the specifications supplied with a piece of equipment cannot be correlated to the observation, then where do we go? We talk about what we hear (like the soundstage size or inner detail) and then poke around in the circuit until we realize exactly what causes the observation spec-wise. Example: Amplifiers that have similar distortion, damping, power, bandwidth, etc., should all sound about the same. But when comparing two equivalent amplifiers (like an Acoustat TNT-200 to a Kenwood Basic M-2) on a suitably refined reference system, they still sound different. (Both amps are class B about 200W, < 0.01% THD and IM distortion, both slew > 100V/uS, and both are finely engineered.) All of the specs are orders-of-magnitudes greater than the ear should be able to detect and essentially identical. But yet they still do not sound insignificantly different. Closing Thoughts: What can we do about this dillema? I'm not anit-digital, anti-tube, or anti-analog. I'll listen to anything (except Barbara Streisand, and even then I may someday). I encourage the engineering community to develop MEANINGFUL specs so that subjectivity can be done away with. Today, these spec correlations haven't been identified. Until they are, I'll have to trust my ears. Yours for higher fidelity, Phil Rastocny AT&T-ISL ..!drufl!pmr
jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/13/84)
Mr. R.... You've been telling us all how there are TECHNICAL reasons why Compact Discs are worse than old 78's. Now, you say that TECHNICAL reasons haven't anything at all to do with what you hear. Enough, sir, enough. This IS 1984, you know. I don't advocate censorship, but I can't deal with people who change their minds (and arguments) conveniently in order to avoid loosing an argument. Please note the newsgroup that I've co-posted this article to. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (01/14/84)
I think a basic problem here is that the differences <you> hear are not heard by 99.999% of the totality of humanity - partly because 99% are not listening at all. Furthermore, there is no evidence, that I know of, that what you hear is the same as what someone else is hearing who says he or she is also hearing something. Because of the small numbers involved who are concerned, the perceived financial rewards of work in this area are too small for anyone with the requisite facilities to get interested. You need the backing of an Avery Fisher, or whatever. hound!rfg