From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:40:53 GMT
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: BBN
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1993Jan26.161055.10991@bnr.ca>, Dave Dal Farra <gpz750@bnr.ca>
wrote:
> The final goal of any high-end audio system is not to produce
> sound in as pleasing a manner as possible, but is to provide
> as realistic an illusion of real performers playing
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> music before you as possible, in as real a reproduction of the
> acoustic environment the piece was recorded in as possible (multi-track
> horrors are obviously excluded).   This goal is not a matter of taste but
> is an absolute.
        ^^^^^^^^
There is nothing absolute about illusions. As I have mentioned before, the
amount of information in stereo recordings, coupled with the fact that the
recordings must be reproduced in ill-defined and variable acoustic
environments, means that recreating the original experience is certainly
impossible. One can only attain a pleasing illusion. I think we agree here.

My point is that, since it is illusion that is being attempted, that
different effects, including euphonic distortions, may help support the
illusion, even if they represent deviations from true reproduction of a
recorded signal.

> We measure the objective performance of audio gear only to build a model

Statistical measurement of subjective responses is also an objective
measure. It is an unfair characterization of the objective approach to
pretend that it's people running around with meters and circuit probes
saying "Can't measure it. Must not be real."

> Thankfully, there is a sub-culture of trained and highly skilled
> professional subjective testers whose job function is to HELP us
> lesser skilled listeners determine the final merit of a piece
> of gear; i.e. how close is it to providing a life-like illussion.
> The reviewer's I'm referring to are not the Julian Hirsch's (sp?)

Maybe Mr. Hirsch doesn't have the most discriminating ear, but I can at
least trust him. He's not pretending to have skills that he doesn't posess.
Most of the "highly skilled" lot that you refer to I hardly consider
something to be thankful for.

> their professed subjective abilities.   They are highly trained
> individual's, who've proven themselve's again and again.  Writing their 
> skill off as hype is merely paranoia, an indication that their review's
> haven't been read over the course of time.

It is hardly paranoia to distrust other people's judgments when there are
so many potential reasons to discount them. These people produce a
marketable commodity -- their opinions -- and have their egos and their
wallets riding on the market perception of their talent. Supermarket
tabloids sell far better than any audio publication. This is no indication
of the quality of the published material.

> people with demonstrated subjective listening skills.  The
> fact that these reviewers are (independantly) very consistent between each
> other with their perceptions regarding a unit's sound lends substance to 
> their professed subjective abilities.

It could also show that they respond similarly to the same euphonic
distortions, or to the same non-audio stimuli, i.e. marketing hype,
hearsay, and price tags.

> We should always purchase a peice of gear based on the pleasure we derive
> from it.

Certainly.

> As profesionals in audio, we should not be talking about taste
> here.   As profesional's in the audio feild, we should be deriving pleasure
> from the life-like sound our design's produce.

Yes, but the life-like quality of an *illusion* is a matter of taste.
Different sounds will give the illusion of realism to different people.

> Kerry and Lon;  In your zeal in addressing the entire merits shown
> by CD vs. those by LP in what you both profess as a "logical"
> and "intelligent" manner, you have fallen victim to a trap so
> prevalent in audio:

I don't believe that I ever called my manner logical or intelligent. I'm
far too humble. But thanks for noticing. ;-)

> You've come to judge the merits of the technology by its merits
> in meeting the intent of the model (lower measured distortion, etc.)
> and not by its performance vs. the only realistic goal: Providing
> as life-like an illusion as possible.

This is purely a misrepresentation of my viewpoint, and (I believe I can
speak for him in this matter) Lon's as well. I have said (and obviously
must repeat) that I make no case about anyone's preferences, nor do I tell
anyone that their tastes should be based upon measurements. I only object
when bogus technical claims are made for a given preference or perceived
deficiency.

> Your insistence at proclaiming  CD's superiority while never once
> explicitely claiming it brings you closer to the "real thing" bears 
> this out.

This again is a continuation of your misrepresentation of my viewpoints,
which should be adequately addressed in the previous text of this article.

> If a unit leads to a more life-like presentation, but measures relatively
> poorly, who cares?

Not me.

> Such a case would only highlight inadequacies in the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> subjective model.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^

I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

> The fact that the majority of highly skilled and trained professional
> subjective reviewer's find LP reproduction closer to the final goal
> of life like reproduction supports my argument.

This fact does not undermine the euphonic distortion argument. There are
professionals who prefer CD sound as well. I think that that shows that
there is a matter of taste involved in deciding what sounds closer to real,
and what effects support that illusion for a particular listener.

> The fact that CD
> measures better awakens us to the existence of inadequacies in the
> subjective model.
  ^^^^^^^^^^

Oops! There goes the other foot!

My point is that if you remove (or simply debase as second-rate) all
objective and statistical methodology, and rely purely (or primarily) on
uncorrelated, unaccountable subjectivity, you open the door to massive
self-delusion and a deluge of snake oil.

-Kerry
Xref: sparky rec.audio:19092 rec.audio.car:5794