|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? posted by e-stat on February 20, 2001 at 19:17:21:
e-stat wrote: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.
Ah, ok.
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?
I'm sure like anyone else it ultimately has to satisfy them at the subjective level as well. So no, I don't think any engineer relies solely on numbers.
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.
No, I didn't say the answer was simple. I only gave a simple answer. You know, someone asks "How does an amplifier work?" and instead of starting with a lecture on basic physics and working your way up from there you say "Well the simple answer is..."
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.
First, don't confuse specs with measurements. For example "0.05% THD" is just a lump specification. It tells you next to nothing about the distortion itself.
But getting back to the point, how exactly do you know just how nice the renderings of strings and woodwinds are on the recording itself since you can only experience the recording through a rather complex chain of elements. Perhaps the Threshold is really giving you a more accurate representation of the recording than the ARC but the nonlinearities of the ARC produce an end result that you find more pleasing.
Take something like the TDS "harmonic enhancement" unit. It's sole purpose is to CREATE nonlinearities (i.e. copious amounts of odd-ordered harmonic distortion, frequency response anomalies with its attendant distortion in the time domain, etc.). Yet people also say that devices such as this make their systems sound "more like live music."
So again, how can you REALLY know just how good the recording itself is when it unavoidably must pass through the entire playback chain?
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?
No, I'm simply of the opinion that what we perceive is not necessarily entirely the result of what we hear. This phenomenon is so trivially demonstrable that I fail to see how it can be denied. Yet the high end by and large continues to assume that any subjectively perceived differences are entirely due to some underlying physical phenomenon taking place within the equipment itself.
But NEITHER am I of the opinion that subjectively perceived differences are entirely due to psychological bias. Only that because such biases CAN effect our subjective perceptions, subjective analysis has limitations with regard to determining with certainty actual audibility of perceived 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 know what Ray Dolby's quote has to do with what I said so I'll refrain from any comment on it.
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.
Certainly. And all I am saying is that "observational listening" has its limitations due to the conscious and unconscious biases inherent in the human psyche which our egos mistakenly lead us to believe don't exist or that we're able to turn them on and off at will.
I am confident that there will continue to be audible improvements in the audio chain in the coming years.
I never said or intended otherwise.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - Steve Eddy 02/20/0122:58:40 02/20/01 (1)
- Re: How do you measure connoiseurship? - e-stat 20:04:49 02/21/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
