Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!5121cdd
From: 5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: zen and the art...stardate 850530.10
Message-ID: <1257@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 10:25:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxm.1257
Posted: Thu May 30 10:25:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 03:57:07 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 68


C'mon Phil -- back to old ad hominem arguments again, huh?  Why don't
you guys just give up and find an alley behind your lab and settle this
the way scientists used to (e.g., Galois).

There is one classification of audiophobe that Phil neglected to mention,
that is, the armchair audio engineer.  Yes, our old friend has once again
appeared.  The armchair audio engineer (AAE for short) is generally a
scientist (or worse, engineer) in his first life with a less-than-professional
(I don't mean attitude, I mean where do you make your money) interest in audio.
The problem arises when these AAEs, given that they are generally very
intelligent, high achievers, make a stab at analyzing audio in the same
vain they do their job (with the same values, etc.).  The problem lies
in the fact that audio engineering is not a pure science, but a mixture
of science, art, AND EXPERIENCE!  One cannot argue science -- science is
fact.  It is, however, possible to argue the artistic aspects of audio.
(Experience tends to be the way by which we build our values.)

Okay, now, what is happening is that arguments are turning into flames
about science.  Something's funky here.  Remember, we can't argue science --
it's fact.  What we can discuss (notice that I'm trying to civilize the net --
a noble goal, huh?) is the artistic application of science.

And herin lies the inner conflict of the AAE.  The AAE has trouble identifying
with the "nebulous" world of art and the even more fuzzy realm of applying
science and art together.  Because, here we must transverse the world
of experience (now we all know why they're called "armchair" audio engineers).

There are greater problems, even.  That is when the AAE decides to move
into audio professionally (I mean make money at it).  What we have now
is a knob twiddler -- a pro engineer who chases specs.  I'm sure we can
all name record companies that employ engineers of this classification --
the problem here is that they tend to be the large, well-established labels
with the top artists.  The problem is that they produce unmusical releases.

Enough divergence, back to Phil.  Those "nebulous" terms: imaging and
dimensionality are quite definable.  Let's try two approaches: the first,
using a well known metric (your ears) and second, the literature.

   1)  Imaging and dimensionality are two of the most noticable aspects
       missing from DGG recordings.  You see, music and its acoustic are
       inseparable (except for rock etc.),  however some of our friends,
       the knob twiddlers, have made it to important places and try, for
       some unknown reason, to separate the music and the acoustic thru
       a technique called "multi-miking".  This stuff is bad medicine
       because what you have to do is create the acoustic electronically.
       As well, the natural timbres of the instruments have been altered.
       What happens is that the orchestra (music and acoustic) is under
       the direct influence of the knob twiddler - NOT THE CONDUCTOR
       WHERE IT SHOULD BE!!

   2)  I will cite a reference that should interest several people:

              "Stereo Microphone Techniques: Are the Purists Wrong"
                  by Stanley P. Lipshitz (AES preprint 2261)

       In this paper, Stanley defines several of these "nebulous" terms
       that we all see floating around.  This, however, is only a side
       topic to his main premise.  He sets out to show (and does a
       magnificent job) that imaging and dimensionality are not obtainable
       through spaced omni techniques (ala Telarc) but only through
       coincident mic techniques using bi-directional or directional mics.
       (Well, afterall, omnis are just sloppy cardioids anyway.)


Flame on.

Craig Dory