|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: surrogates posted by fstein on November 10, 2015 at 20:40:27:
At the outset, I disapprove of the OP's attaching a snide, personal attack in his first post, reminding of the name-calling and taunts heard in the middle school courtyard. We are all serious about this audio endeavor, having spent so much time, effort and money in this, and I would hope that such personal comments be relegated to other audio forums, not here.
Additionally, the use of the medical terms, "surrogate" and "clinical" to raise a decades-old discussion serves no purpose, it seems to me, other than to be a vehicle to voice the poster's personal attack. Adding medical baggage to this discussion makes the discussion more confusing.
Generally, the positions and the differences between the two imprecisely defined "measurement" and "golden-eared" camps are known to those who have followed these discussions. In general, the two camps do not speak the same language.
The measurement side offers an invaluable and essential service in the design, testing and manufacture of audio gear. The consumer side (I dislike the term golden-ear) has to decide, among other things, the choice and the assembly. Unfortunately, the two camps must inhabit the same unhappy audio space.
The language of the measurement camp is clear and precise, and their findings reproducible. From what I have heard and read, the language of the "golden-eared" consumers is the opposite - unclear, imprecise and their "findings" not reproducible. Why is that ? Go to the sound rooms of any number of audiophiles, and you will find that no two audiophile systems are alike, not by a long shot. What does this mean ? It means that audiophiles are matching and mismatching to their hearts' content, seemingly without rhyme or reason.
How do audiophiles defend their choices ? They use the meaningless, by my perspective, phrase "good sound" and say that although a component may measure well, it doesn't "sound good."
My belief is that the measurement camp has done its job in creating their generally accepted audio accounting principles, while the consumer camp bickers even among themselves as to what sounds good. The fact that the compositions of various audio systems run the gamut is testimony to that lack of credibility.
I do not agree with this free-for-all approach. I believe that current audio technology is sufficient to reproduce the natural sound, even if irritatingly poorly. The more I remain in this endeavor, the more I come to the belief that the vast majority of audiophile systems are performing well below what they are capable of, resulting in their piss-poor (apologies), generic performances, leading to that inevitable generic comment, Well, it doesn't sound good to me.
I believe that progressing beyond the basic levels of sound reproduction in an audiophile sound room will necessarily lead to a more precise and with hope a more generally accepted audiophile vocabulary in describing the reproduced sound. I haven't seen or heard it as yet.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: surrogates - mlee 11/15/1508:52:29 11/15/15 (2)
- RE: surrogates - fstein 10:06:43 11/17/15 (0)
- That's a false dichotomy - Dave_K 08:27:11 11/17/15 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
