Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 2/6/85; site rocksvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!dw
From: dw@rocksvax.UUCP (Don Wegeng)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: zen and the art...stardate 850530.10
Message-ID: <1219@rocksvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 18:46:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocksvax.1219
Posted: Sun Jun  2 18:46:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Jun-85 00:32:51 EDT
References: <1257@houxm.UUCP> <361@petrus.UUCP>
Reply-To: dw@rocksvax.UUCP (Don Wegeng)
Organization: Xerox: Henrietta, NY
Lines: 30

I have one problem with Phil's postings on this subject. Phil assumes that
all aspects of what makes one audio component sound different (I resist
using the term "better") can be measured using current techniques and
equipment. While I certainly have no scientific evidence to prove him
wrong (and he won't let me use my personal experience to support my
argument) it stands to reason that there are characteristics of sound
reproduction/electronic equipment/anything else you want to name that
either due to technical reasons or creative reasons (ie. nobody has
thought of it yet) we do not measure. To assume that we have already
figured out how to measure, and in fact *do* measure every trait that
can have an affect on the reproduction of sound seems unrealistic to
me. If this were true then all of the researchers who are trying to
improve our audio equipment could go find more useful things to do, for
the problem would have been reduced to one more suited to practical
engineers to solve.

I'm not going to get into the old argument of whether all of these
factors are measurable, because I suspect that we still haven't
figured out what subtle effects may be caused by the characteristics
that we *can* measure today.

/Don 
-- 

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill."

arpa:	Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
csnet:	Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
ns:	Wegeng:Wbst207V:Xerox
uucp:	{allegra,amd,decvax!rochester,princeton}!rocksvax!dw