Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site edison.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!dca
From: dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: nut.audio:  The \"ear\" vs. \"the instrument\"
Message-ID: <562@edison.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 10:16:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: edison.562
Posted: Mon Sep 30 10:16:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 07:28:17 EDT
References: <568@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 65

Time for my two cents.

> >Any perceptual phenominon that can be heard
> >can also be measured.  Period.  The problem is that many people
> >interpret measurements in ways that are either wrong,
> >incomplete, or misleading. (Those interpreting the results
> >are often sincere, by the way.)
> 
> Violent agreement here, and a good quote (though out of context):
> 

Sounds good to me.

> >  This is an example of the kind of thinking that's
> >held the audio industry 20 years behind the state of the art
> >for so long.
> 
> What is keeping consumer audio in the dark ages is multifold.  The
> first is a refusal to believe there is a problem.  Solutions are
> never sought for problems thought not to exist.  Most problems are
> discovered in the course of listening since few of us play music for
> the enjoyment of our test equipment.  Measurement for TIM was developed
> after it was sonicly identified with much debate.
> 
> Two reasons that problems arn't recognized are either "ear ignorance"
> or "ear denial."  The former is due to lack of training and the latter
> is caused by a lack of confidence in our subjective, flawed ears.  Both
> problems form a cause for rabid audiophiles but the second has interesting
> socilogical aspects.
...Lots more dribble.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!  Consumer audio is not driven by those audiophiles
which sit in a corner with their high priced tube amps and turntables
frothing at the mouth and pulling on the pants legs of passing joes
trying to convince them how superior their ears are.  What is produced
for consumers is dependent on what will sell.  Golden ears are pretty
much ignored by the marketplace (and rightly so).  Consumers want
good basic performance at a good basic price.  Despite what people
in nut.audio say the measurements use to evaluate equipment have
proved to be very good estimators of equipment quality when used
properly.  I have not seen yet double blind tests of equivalently
specced units which have been distinguishable under double blind tests.

Golden ears rarely produce results of any merit because they are too
busy justifing how good their ears are to produce rigid systematic
testing using double blind techniques (any other kind is plain and
simple just horseshit).  While an audio oriented designer must use
his ears and his brain if he doesn't also use the most sophisticated
test equipment he can get his hands on I certainly won't have much
respect for the results.

It can be argued that there is too much reliance on specifications
but I think that this has little merit.  Without specifications
manufacturers would cost cut all sorts of corners producing
all sorts of crap and the poor consumer would be left with
no basis at all for comparison other than the manufacturers
inflated claims (no thanks).

Certainly the consumer market will lag behind state of the art,
everything consumer oriented lags behind state of the art.
Manufacturers must spread the cost of developing very complex
equipment (such as CD players) across millions of consumers.
Few are willing to take potentially disasterous risks.

David Albrecht