Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!alice!jj From: jj@alice.UUCP Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: nut.audio: The "ear" vs. the "instrument" Message-ID: <4357@alice.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 13:39:04 EDT Article-I.D.: alice.4357 Posted: Mon Sep 23 13:39:04 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:39:39 EDT Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered Lines: 114 >From allegra!scherzo!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!schley Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 >Here we go again... Ain't that the truth! >There is more to what we here than what you can measure with your >meters. As long as you limit the discussion to measurable results, you >won't discover what is meant by "tightening the bass" and "taking the >edge off". Not only is your statement wrong, it's offensive, and seemingly (given net history) deliberately so. "Tightening the bass" is a term with a number of likely technical meanings. Asking which one applies is quite reasonable; saying that ears are more sensitive than meters is a simple falsehood. (Knowing what to measure is the problem, and not entirely a solved one. Saying "you can't" is like any other supernatural falsity, in that it seeks to perpetuate itself, and fails under careful examination 100% of the time.) ("Taking the edge off" also has technical basis, again one must discover which of many processes is "making it edgy" in the first place.) Any perceptual phenominon that can be heard can also be measured. Period. The problem is that many people interpret measurements in ways that are either wrong, incomplete, or misleading. (Those interpreting the results are often sincere, by the way.) >These are terms used to describe what was measured with the You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce what your terms mean. >most sensitive instruments (and the only meaningful instruments) that >audiophiles possess -- OUR EARS. This statement proves your belief in the supernatural, now, doesn't it? You say that OUR EARS are the only meaningful instruments, and deny that audiophiles have any other important instruments than their ears. Clearly, if the only thing that we hear is sound waves, then such must be measurable with the right equipment. Microphones, instrumentation, etc, with much greater resolution than the human ear exist, and can capture what you're hearing. You have to interpret the results, which isn't easy, but at least you can measure the sound waves. If "OUR EARS" are indeed the only useful instruments, then they must receive something that isn't physically representable, or so it seems to me. If you say that "if it measures perfectly, and sounds awful, only the ears count", you're right. You're also not measuring the right thing, too. This is an example of the kind of thinking that's held the audio industry 20 years behind the state of the art for so long. You deny that anything but your ears count, and refuse to allow measurements of what it is that you hear. There are a considerable number of people who are trained listeners who can hear "loose bass" of many different sorts, "edginess" of many different sorts, etc, and who can MEASURE why that's what they hear. Perhaps you mean that YOU cannot measure what you hear, if so, please say as much, and do not generalize. >Your last statement drives the point home. Possession of "nearly flat >(frequency) response" will get you mid-fi, or maybe only lo-fi. Listen >to real music, and listen to music through your stereo system. >Compare. Strive for accuracy in reproduction. Your statement is correct in part, in that 'possession of "nearly flat (frequency) response" will get you mid-fi or maybe only lo-fi.' is completely true. What you leave out that IN SITU "flat frequency response" is a REQUIREMENT of Hi-fi, but not the only one by any means, i.e. the system, IN PLACE, must have a frequency response that (including the recording chain, etc) is flat. It must also have many other attributes. Your implication that this drives "the point home" is completely false, but it IS an effective rhetorical technique in that it fools the non-expert reader. Since it "fools", rather than "proves" I find it entirely unacceptable, and misleading. The "proof by elegant and misleading assertion" is a common tactic in net.audio, and indeed in the audio world at large. This tactic, coupled with those individuals who have vested interests, is another one of the reasons that the audio industry is 20 years behind the state of both the analog and digital art, and lagging farther behind as I write. >If you are interested in finding the answers to the tough questions you >raised, I'd recommend joining an audio club in your area. These group >sessions offer real opportunities for ear training. > ihnp4!mmm!schley Mr or Ms Schley: Your suggestion that the person gets ear training is a sound suggestion, however your intense espousal of opinions counter to both science and reason is offensive and unnecessary. A form of ear training that I think should be required of all "audiophiles" is the training where an audiophile hears something, and then must use science, research, etc, to find out just WHAT the physical manifestation of this "something" is. (Some)Recording engineers, (some) concert producers, etc, develop this skill to a nearly instinctive basis in order to survive. Those who would criticize should at least learn what various technical problems sound like. (nut.audio goes through this discussion once every three months or so, a completely unnecessary and wasteful behavior. It's called the tyranny of the minority Audiophile, as far as I'm concerned.) -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "All the money that e'er I spent, I spent it in good company..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com