Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mordor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!well!ptsfa!dual!mordor!sjc
From: sjc@mordor.UUCP (Steve Correll)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: nut.audio:  The "ear" vs. the "instrument"
Message-ID: <3661@mordor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 14:48:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: mordor.3661
Posted: Thu Sep 26 14:48:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 08:22:32 EDT
References: <4357@alice.UUCP> <2233@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Lines: 24

> In article <4357@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes:
> >You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce
> >what your terms mean. 
> 
> Everyone uses the term "gravity."  What is gravity?

"Gravity" is a synonym for "seriousness". The latter posting, for example,
is very low in gravity.

Seriously (sic), if you tell me your mass and the mass of the planet
you're standing on, I can calculate the force exerted upon the soles of
your feet, and if you happen to have a bathroom scale with you, you'll
discover that my calculation is right. I know of no audiophile who,
given data on a piece of equipment, can calculate the quantity of
"edginess" or "tightness" or "veiling", and be confident that the
calculation will agree with a listener's perception. In fact, it'll be
a happy event if two listeners' perceptions agree!  If, in the realm of
planetary physics, we had to rely solely on highly trained ears (and
eyes and noses), rather than on calculations and on hypotheses subject
to experimental proof, we would never dare venture off the surface of
the planet.
-- 
                                                           --Steve Correll
sjc@s1-c.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com