Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!kaepplein@amber.DEC From: kaepplein@amber.DEC Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: nut.audio: The \"ear\" vs. \"the instrument\" Message-ID: <625@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 14:25:26 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.625 Posted: Tue Oct 1 14:25:26 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 07:20:30 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 87 >Path: decwrl!ucbvax!ulysses!smb >Subject: Re: nut.audio: The \"ear\" vs. \"the instrument\" >Posted: 28 Sep 85 22:18:06 GMT >Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill > The real question is whether or not the "golden ears" are actually hearing something. I'm dubious for several reasons: > b) many golden-ears denigrate or deny the power of the placebo effect. > It's been well-demonstrated; indeed, the purely physiological > effects of inert pills has been demonstrated many times. The > placebo effect is the main reason I insist on blind tests. > c) nonsensical physical theories are often propounded to explain > purported (or real) differences. The ad excerpt Andy Koenig > posted a few days ago for "CD-compatible cables" is a good > example. Before I give any credibility to a report of a new > effect, I want one of three conditions: 1) an > objectively-measureable difference; 2) a subjectively- > demonstrated difference under well-controlled conditions; or > 3) a plausible physical theory to explain the effect. > Nonsense tends to put me off, and perhaps causes me to > disregard subjective reports that deserve more credit. These two points go well together. Audiophiles arn't putting up with mystique or magic anymore. The best example is the trouncing that the Linn Sondek and Linn's publications are getting. SOTA explains the physics of their design. SOTAs tolerate footfalls and placement and don't have the four letter word incantations associated with Linn set-up. TAS is especially annoyed with the Linn because of inconsistant performance. The CD-compatable cables ad was not written for audiophiles - they laugh at it as much as the rest of us. That ad was aimed square at all the new suckers that CD hype will bring into the mature audio market. The CD mid-fi hype is getting much deeper than audiophile hype and reaching a much larger segment of the population. Monster Cable's ad is about par with ads from members of the Compact Disc Consortium, manufacturers, and even articles (not even editorials!) in popular magazines; all these folks ranting like a hell, fire, and brimstone preacher to put some life into the audio industry. Those CD cables probably just have a rolled off high-end. Perhaps one or both cables has frequency dependant phase delay to compensate for a single DAC machine, but I doubt it. The marketing problem is: How do I sell a cable that sounds better, but opposes the CD maxim of flat response? We have to apply critical reasoning whenever we read these ads or listen to political and press disclosures. CD accessories are fast upon us: CD cleaners, tiptoes, and disc dampers. All three MIGHT reduce the hard error rate, and the latter two may reduce vibration lessening heavy power supply demand from the focus servo. But focus servo operation is minor compared to armature movement required to track off center tracks (up to 2mm) found in all CDs not made by Phillips/Polygram (they punch the holes after laser centering). I beefed up my player's power supply, but will test the other theory by displaying the soft and hard error flags off the error correction chip as Meridian now does with their professional unit. The marketing problem is: How do I sell my accesories without popping the CD baloon describing hard errors, inadaquate power supplies, and warped and off-centered disks? Expect more hype. The illusion that digital is perfect can not be dispelled. At least audiophile makers don't have to meet the expectations set for CDs and can be honest. > d) the rhetoric used in the debate is totally out of bounds. I > trust that most of us would agree that we're arguing about a > fairly small difference. I'm sorry. It was late. I was tired, but I wasn't going to be able to sleep without explaining that subjective listeners can be rational too. "Small" vs "large" differences for individuals are totally subjective. Comparing a Pioneer preamp with an SP-10 is a gross difference even though the Pioneer is probably "better" in "all" respects except output voltage. Rick Schley was correct that good specs will only guarentee mid-fi. I could tell in an A/B between those preamps as long the signal wasn't fed through a half dozen distortion generators like most equalizers, and switches. The rest of the equipment should also be reference quality to best demonstrate individual component differences. Mark Kaepplein decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!kaepplein Kaepplein@dec.ARPA PS recovering from Gloria lossage and catching up on postings. PPS For those of us inconvienced by a day or two without power, consider months without power as the result of a "small scale," "winable" nuclear war. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com