Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Zen and the Art of Audio Engineering
Message-ID: <675@opus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Aug-84 14:38:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.675
Posted: Mon Aug  6 14:38:57 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Aug-84 01:25:31 EDT
References: <818@houxm.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 39

>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 think that this is fairly accurate - except that the "defamation of
character" style of argument exists on both sides.

Here's a severe exercise in armchair audio engineering:  Develop a cogent
response to the following "goldenear" position.  Support your position only
on a technical basis; do not resort to ad hominem argument.  (The statement
is a short excerpt from <1270@ihuxl>.)
  > You're going to get a lot of response from people saying that you're
  > wasting your money.  DON'T LISTEN TO THEM.

>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...

But there has to be enough substance to what is said to be able to analyze
it.  Quite honestly, there are some "goldenears" who describe sound systems
with terms more befitting a pleasant summer afternoon than a musical
performance.  It's hard to believe that these ephemeral descriptions
communicate to others of the esoteric bent, let alone to a wider audience.
In other words, before we can "think about why he says he hears what he
hears" we've somehow got to figure out "what he hears" in some terminology
that we can understand.

There are at least three camps, as I see it:  the technical, the non-tech-
nical, and the anti-technical.
---
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.