Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!alice!jj
From: jj@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: nut.audio:  The "ear" vs. the "instrument"
Message-ID: <4357@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 13:39:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.4357
Posted: Mon Sep 23 13:39:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:39:39 EDT
Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered
Lines: 114

>From allegra!scherzo!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!schley Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
>Here we go again...

Ain't that the truth!

>There is more to what we here than what you can measure with your
>meters.  As long as you limit the discussion to measurable results, you
>won't discover what is meant by "tightening the bass" and "taking the
>edge off".

Not only is your statement wrong, it's offensive, and seemingly
(given net history) deliberately so.  
"Tightening the bass" is a term with a number of likely technical
meanings.  Asking which one applies is quite reasonable;
saying that ears are more sensitive than meters is a simple
falsehood.  (Knowing what to measure is the problem, and not
entirely a solved one.  Saying "you can't" is like any other
supernatural falsity, in that it seeks to perpetuate
itself, and fails under careful examination 100% of the time.)
("Taking the edge off" also has technical basis, again
one must discover which of many processes is "making it
edgy" in the first place.)

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.)

>These are terms used to describe what was measured with the

You use the word "terms", ergo you must be able to reproduce
what your terms mean. 

>most sensitive instruments (and the only meaningful instruments) that
>audiophiles possess -- OUR EARS.

This statement proves your belief in the supernatural, now, doesn't
it?  You say that OUR EARS are the only meaningful instruments, and
deny that audiophiles have any other important instruments than
their ears. Clearly, if the only thing that we hear is
sound waves, then such must be measurable with the
right equipment.  Microphones, instrumentation, etc, with
much greater resolution than the human ear exist, and can capture
what you're hearing.  You  have to interpret the results, which
isn't easy, but at least you can measure the sound waves.
If "OUR EARS" are indeed the only useful instruments, then 
they must receive something that isn't physically representable,
or so it seems to me.  If you say that "if it measures perfectly,
and sounds awful, only the ears count", you're right.  You're
also not measuring the right thing, too.

  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.  You deny that anything but your ears count,
and refuse to allow measurements of what it is that you hear.
There are a considerable number of people who are trained
listeners who can hear "loose bass" of many different sorts,
"edginess" of many different sorts, etc, and who can MEASURE
why that's what they hear.  Perhaps you mean that YOU cannot
measure what you hear, if so, please say as much, and do not
generalize.

>Your last statement drives the point home.  Possession of "nearly flat
>(frequency) response" will get you mid-fi, or maybe only lo-fi.  Listen
>to real music, and listen to music through your stereo system.
>Compare.  Strive for accuracy in reproduction.

Your statement is correct in part, in that
'possession of "nearly flat (frequency) response" will get you mid-fi
or maybe only lo-fi.' is completely true.  What you leave out that
IN SITU "flat frequency response" is a REQUIREMENT of Hi-fi, but
not the only one by any means, i.e. the system, IN PLACE, must
have a frequency response that (including the recording chain,
etc) is flat.  It must also have many other attributes.

Your implication that this drives "the point home" is completely
false, but it IS an effective rhetorical technique in that
it fools the non-expert reader.  Since it "fools", rather than
"proves" I find it entirely unacceptable, and misleading.

The "proof by elegant and misleading assertion" is a common
tactic in net.audio, and indeed in the audio world at large.
This tactic, coupled with those individuals who have vested interests,
is another one of the reasons that the audio industry is 20 years behind the
state of both the analog and digital art, and lagging farther behind
as I write.

>If you are interested in finding the answers to the tough questions you
>raised, I'd recommend joining an audio club in your area.  These group
>sessions offer real opportunities for ear training.
>	ihnp4!mmm!schley


Mr or Ms Schley:  Your suggestion that the person gets ear training
is a sound suggestion, however your intense espousal of 
opinions counter to both science and reason is offensive and unnecessary.
A form of ear training that I think should be required of all
"audiophiles" is the training where an audiophile hears something,
and then must use science, research, etc, to find out just WHAT
the physical manifestation of this "something" is.  (Some)Recording
engineers, (some) concert producers, etc, develop this
skill to a nearly instinctive basis in order to survive.  Those
who would criticize should at least learn what various 
technical problems sound like.

(nut.audio goes through this discussion once every three months or
so, a completely unnecessary and wasteful behavior.  It's called
the tyranny of the minority Audiophile, as far as I'm concerned.)
-- 
SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM.
"All the money that e'er I spent, I spent it in good company..."

(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj