Re: How do you measure connoiseurship?

Posted by e-stat on February 20, 2001 at 19:17:21

In Reply to: Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? posted by Steve Eddy on February 20, 2001 at 15:21:16:

You didn't make any specific mention of manufacturers in your original post. The closest you got to any specific mention was "the white coats" which seems to imply you were referring to those who are involved in the pure research of things audio. I just don't associate "white coats" with manufacturers (save for Matthew Polk, but even he's traded in his white coat for Yuppie attire).

I used the term "white lab coats" as a euphemism for engineers. It brings to mind visions of McIntosh engineers pouring over a THD plot from the old clinics they used to sponsor.

But my underlying point was that too often those who spout the line "there's so much we don't know" have hardly an inkling of what we do know which leads to oversimplified, gross generalizations

Fine. We know a bunch. You didn't address the question I asked concering the ultimate reliance on what we do know: Do you believe that any designer worth his/her salt solely relies on the numbers for the performance of their products?

And the simple answer to that is that any nonlinearity would contribute to a component's inability to reproduce natural timbres of brass or woodwinds.

Which nonlinearities? Though I am a software engineer and not an audio engineer, it is logical to assume that if the answer were so simple, then someone could put all the other designers out of business.

For example, how does one really know whether or not those natural timbres were even accurately captured during the recording process? Perhaps they weren't.

While it is certainly true that certain sonic characteristics can be "fixed" by offsetting elements in the reproduction chain, I assert there are some that cannot. I have a number of classical recordings on both vinyl and CD which possess very nice renderings of strings and woodwinds. On any of these recordings, my ARC VT-100 sounds more like live music than my Threshold Stasis. Arguably, the Pass amp out specs the Johnson amp.

How would you explain the fact that three different products, identical but for the name on the faceplate can all "sound different"?

Huh? You wanna be more specific? Define "identical". Are we talking manufacturing variations in the various active and passive components?

And there may eventually come a time when the high-end catches up and realizes that there's not necessarily always something there to quantify

Are you of the opinion that current audio components are in every way completely perfect reproducers of the musical signal with absolutely no potential for improvement?

But with respect to basic research and expanding our knowledge and understanding, such subjective perceptions have limited use in determining the presence or absence of actual audible differences.

This is a restatement of your previous point. Over ten years ago, Ray Dolby was quoting in saying something to the effect that musical reproduction could not improved upon. I respectfully suggest he must not perceive a musical event like I do! I am amazed every time I go the the ASO how incredibly challenging is the task of reproducing the sound of one hundred individuals blowing, scraping, and banging on various instruments!

I don't dispense with the value of "objective" science of evaluating audio component performance. What I do suggest is that "observational listening" reveals details not yet quantified by the science. I am confident that there will continue to be audible improvements in the audio chain in the coming years.

Ralph Wallace

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Subjective reviews and differences in hearing - any research been done? - John C. - Aussie 17:03:40 02/19/01 (23)

Re: Subjective reviews and differences in hearing - any research been done? - Kelly McDonald 08:51:09 02/20/01 (0)

So??? - tinear 00:25:15 02/20/01 (4)

Re: So??? - Rich 08:38:19 02/21/01 (0)

Re: So??? - Kelly McDonald 08:54:32 02/20/01 (2)

Wrongedy, wrong, wrong. - tinear 10:40:03 02/20/01 (1)

Re: Wrongedy, wrong, wrong. - Kelly McDonald 09:21:42 02/21/01 (0)

Re: Subjective reviews and differences in hearing - any research been done? - Ubiquitous Skittercat ;,,,~ 20:28:33 02/19/01 (0)

How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 19:05:16 02/19/01 (14)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - steve b 21:49:03 02/19/01 (0)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - Steve Eddy 21:34:01 02/19/01 (12)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 08:19:51 02/20/01 (11)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - Steve Eddy 15:21:16 02/20/01 (3)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 02/20/0119:17:21 02/20/01 (2)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - Steve Eddy 22:58:40 02/20/01 (1)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 20:04:49 02/21/01 (0)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - mrbiggleswurth 11:37:17 02/20/01 (6)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 19:26:34 02/20/01 (5)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - mrbiggleswurth 08:45:50 02/21/01 (4)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 19:32:47 02/21/01 (3)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - mrbiggleswurth 12:15:40 02/22/01 (2)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 19:48:21 02/22/01 (1)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - mrbiggleswurth 16:02:16 02/23/01 (0)

Re: Subjective reviews and differences in hearing - any research been done? - Steve Eddy 18:30:50 02/19/01 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 02/20/0119:17:21 02/20/01 (2)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - Steve Eddy 22:58:40 02/20/01 (1)

Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 20:04:49 02/21/01 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.