Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Tubes/solid state, etc. (the heat goes on...)
Message-ID: <578@opus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jul-84 02:29:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.578
Posted: Thu Jul  5 02:29:28 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 04:24:37 EDT
References: <566@opus.UUCP> <76@sunybcs.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 51

>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.