NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/audio/19486

Text File | 1993-01-27 | 5.5 KB | 111 lines

Newsgroups: rec.audio
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!news.netmbx.de!mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!gatech!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!bnrgate!bcars267!news
From: Dave Dal Farra <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:20:30 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bcarm41a
Organization: BNR Ltd.
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:10:55 GMT
Lines: 96

In article <shetline-250193184001@128.89.19.90> Kerry Shetline,
[e-mail] writes:
>At the technical
>base, the industry is driven by engineers (who, when they can get marketing
>people off their backs) are driven by intellectual goals such as getting as
>close to zero-distortion as possible. If some distortions are pleasing (and
>this has, I believe, been adequately demonstrated), it is still not
>suprising that the technological thrust has not been in that direction.

The final goal of any high-end audio system is not to produce
sound in as pleasing a manner as possible, but is to provide
as realistic an illusion of real performers playing
music before you as possible, in as real a reproduction of the
acoustic environment the piece was recorded in as possible (multi-track
horrors are obviously excluded).   This goal is not a matter of taste but
is an absolute.  The reason we are involved in audio as professionals is
hopefully that "life-like" is also pleasing to us.

The final decision concerning a system's ability to provide a realistic
illusion (i.e. meet it's intended goal) can only be determined via
critical listening.  After all, that is the system's intended purpose,
to be listened to, not measured.

We measure the objective performance of audio gear only to build a model
in order to predict it's subjective performance in a given situation
(i.e. terminated with a specific impedance, etc.).  Measurements are
invaluable in design, but why should a third party's analysis of the gear's
post-design performance be taken via measurements when the gear is
available for listening?  i.e. why construct a model when you have the real
thing in front of your ears?  Third party measurements should only be used
to verify the model with what is heard.  Of course, the third party
reviewer must be trained, and of proven ability, as any worthwhile
designer must be.

Thankfully, there is a sub-culture of trained and highly skilled
professional subjective testers whose job function is to HELP us
lesser skilled listeners determine the final merit of a piece
of gear; i.e. how close is it to providing a life-like illussion.
The reviewer's I'm referring to are not the Julian Hirsch's (sp?)
with their "all amp's sound the same within clipping" ideological
baggage.  I'm referring to the Harry Pearson's and J. Gordon Holts,
people with demonstrated subjective listening skills.  The
fact that these reviewers are (independantly) very consistent between each
other with their perceptions regarding a unit's sound lends substance to
their professed subjective abilities.   They are highly trained
individual's, who've proven themselve's again and again.  Writing their
skill off as hype is merely paranoia, an indication that their review's
haven't been read over the course of time. At the end of the day, their
input is almost as valuable as that from the engineers driving the technical
end of the goal.  I trust the ability of these reviewer's in telling me how
a piece of gear meets the final goal as much as I trust the technically
gifted engineers in getting me there.  Their input is invaluable.
The better designer's have stood the test of time, as have the better
reviewers.

We should always purchase a peice of gear based on the pleasure we derive
from it.   As profesionals in audio, we should not be talking about taste
here.   As profesional's in the audio feild, we should be deriving pleasure
from the life-like sound our design's produce.

In article <shetline-250193184001@128.89.19.90> Kerry Shetline,
[e-mail] writes:
>Anyway, we don't have the opportunity to hear everything. So do we let
>unaccountable and self-proclaimed audio gods who write reviews to do it for
>us?

As a first and very powerful arbitration, yes.  I've addressed the question
of their lack of accountability in the previous paragraph.

Kerry and Lon;  In your zeal in addressing the entire merits shown
by CD vs. those by LP in what you both profess as a "logical"
and "intelligent" manner, you have fallen victim to a trap so
prevalent in audio:

You've come to judge the merits of the technology by its merits
in meeting the intent of the model (lower measured distortion, etc.)
and not by its performance vs. the only realistic goal: Providing
as life-like an illusion as possible.

Your insistence at proclaiming  CD's superiority while never once
explicitely claiming it brings you closer to the "real thing" bears
this out.

If a unit leads to a more life-like presentation, but measures relatively
poorly, who cares?  Such a case would only highlight inadequacies in the
subjective model.

The fact that the majority of highly skilled and trained professional
subjective reviewer's find LP reproduction closer to the final goal
of life like reproduction supports my argument.  The fact that CD
measures better awakens us to the existence of inadequacies in the
subjective model.

Dave Dal Farra
BNR Ottawa
Audio and Acoustics Group