Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: zen and the art...stardate 850530.10
Message-ID: <361@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 01:23:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: petrus.361
Posted: Fri May 31 01:23:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 00:10:52 EDT
References: <1257@houxm.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 52

I think Craig has hit the crux of the problem here. Writing music and
conducting an orchestra is an art; even arranging microphones and mixing
master recordings (activities usually called "sound engineering") is an art.
In each of these things, personal and subjective judgements (even though
there may sometimes be widespread agreement) are involved.

However, once the signals leave the hands of the artist (in this case, the
console recording engineer) and enter the recording system, the remaining
steps are a pure science! From that point on, the sound reproduction system
has a precisely defined job to do: reproduce, at a later time and at a
different place, sounds corresponding as closely to the original signal
(except for amplitude) as possible. This is a function which can be tested,
evaluated and rated in a purely objective fashion.  Some of the shortcomings
are not likely to be audible; if you claim that they are, it's up to you to
prove it with a properly controlled test. No test, no proof. Anecdotes
don't count.

Once you've proven that they are in fact audible, then of course some
subjectivity arises as to which differences are more or less objectionable.
No problem. For example, you might claim to be willing to sacrifice 50 db of
signal-to-noise ratio in order to extend frequency response to 25 khz,
because you've proven to me that you can hear 25 khz in a hearing test.
Fine.  I'd be happy to sell you my old Teac reel-to-reel tape deck.

You may even tell me that you actually prefer a system with, say, more
frequency response and harmonic distortion, noise, flutter and wow (i.e.,
high end LP players), even without any compensating improvements in other
areas. I may think you're crazy, but you're entitled to your preferences.
HOWEVER, you CANNOT then turn around and tell me that your system is somehow
"better" at doing the well-defined task of reproducing a signal exactly as
it was recorded!  Your real problem is with the "engineer" artists back at
the recording studio who didn't equalize the recording to suit your tastes,
or introduce enough distortion, or run enough industrial strength vacuum
cleaners in the concert hall while the recording was being made. You can't
yell at the designers of digital recording systems for doing their job well.
You're welcome to buy an equalizer, or a variable delay line (to introduce
wow), or better yet, a guitar fuzzbox and modify the sound until your heart's
content. But remember that makes you an artist, not an engineer.

I stick by my original assertions:

1. Any audible differences between CD players (assuming proper functioning
of each, i.e., a good stream of bits being presented to each D/A converter)
remain to be proven.

2. The worst CD player (assuming no outright malfunction) is far better, in
every possible way, at the specific job of reproducing the exact signal at
the output of the studio console mixer than even the best LP player.  You
may not like how the studio mixer output sounds, but that's not the CD
player's fault.

Phil Karn