Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!5121cdd
From: 5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Zen and the Art of Audio Engineering
Message-ID: <818@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 12:19:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxm.818
Posted: Fri Aug  3 12:19:36 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 03:17:44 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 56

Whatever happened to scientific method in audio engineering and equipment
review.  All I see are two camps: in one, the "golden ears" that profess
to hear magnificent music from certain types/brands of equipment whithout
any supporting scientific justification; and, in the other camp we have the
armchair audio engineers, who ridicule the "golden ears" using defimation
of character rather than scientific method as ammunition.  I submit that
there are a great number of readers of this net that subscribe to learn
more about audio in general or simply ask a question to the forum.  What
these folks get, on the other hand, in often a crock, or at best, a six-
week oratorio hammering and rehammering the subject, losing sight of the
original question/comment, and ending with all contributors suggesting
that flames be sent to net.flame or dev/null.  This is no way to win
friends or contribute to a newsgroup.

The problem lies in a couple of places:  the HiFi rags (both slicks
and "underground" / "audiophile") and the fact that audio can be such a
subjective, personal idiom.  Debates such as:  tubes vs. transistors,
to Litz or not to Litz, digital vs. analog, what a square wave is
supposed to look like, turntable mats, etc. ad nausium are good
discussion material.  They have different answers to different people
and we should respect those opinions and promote some semblence of
scientific method in our discussions.  The problem being that people
all to often beleive what they read without additional, independent thought.

Another point of departure:  several of the contributors to this
net are musicians and avid concert goers -- I fear that there is a
great dichotomy in the listening practices (how and what we listen to/for)
between this camp and those who primarily listen to recorded music.
The frame of reference of these two sets of listeners is vastly different.
The musicians/concert goers have as a frame of reference the actual
timbre of the instruments while the armchair listeners' truth is
recorded by Telarc or Sheffield and reproduced via tubes/transistors
and speaker cones.

Rather than ridicule the "golden ear" for his subjective discription
of how a given piece of equipment sounds, maybe the armchair audio
engineers should be a little less quick on the draw and actually think
about why he says he hears what he hears. There is no "magic" in audio
componetry tha performs well sonically -- only good, sound audio
engineering.  Don't forget the psychoacoustics that come into play as well.

Maybe the "golden ear" as well could try to understand why he likes
the sound of a particular amp over another before, for instance, touting
that all tubes amps are sonic purity and dumping on anything with
a transistor in it.  I doubt that anyone has enough well executed
listening sessions under their belt to make the broad, sweeping
conclusions that I read on the net regularily.

Remember, music is an art and engineering is a science with its exectution
being an art.  Human nature being what it is will not allow the intellect
to be insulted into changing its mind especially over subjective perceptions.


Craig Dory
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Holmdel, NJ