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