LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2013

ARSCLIST October 2013

Subject:

Re: a prime case of why subjective reviews of audio gear are USELESS

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:37:14 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (127 lines)

Howdy Tom,

No, it can't. But people can agree about what they hear in a general way
within the limited scope of language. Some of that agreement must come from
the mutual suspension of disbelief we all apply in convincing ourselves that
the pitiful approximations we can create are something like what actually
happened. And that is conditioned by what we have trained ourselves to
accept as reasonable facsimiles. THEN, enter taste, creativity, etc. I think
that's no less true for production as for reproduction.

I was working as a radio producer right at the time when analog was giving
way to digital, so in some shows I would have a mixture of 7.5ips tape with
Sony 701 digital - same gear otherwise. The classical/acoustic musicians
almost always thought the analog was a truer reflection of their sound, or
at least a more 'musical' experience overall, but that was in a context of
low expectations of any recording being true. Now, after 20 years of
digital, I suspect players - everybody, to some degree - have become more
accepting of digital sound, independent of any improvements in its quality.
We have just gradually grown used to it and found room for a new facsimile.
Still today, recordings can be good, they can be bad, and so what has
changed?

Anyway, the idea of an Absolute Sound referenced to nature, a worthy
principal mixed liberally with commerce, has always seemed specious to me if
taken too literally. Tonight, I will record a concert of Venetian
Renaissance music, chorus with antiphonal brass. With the intention of
imposing as little interference with the real sound as possible, there are a
half dozen ways I can approach the task, each one reasonable and practical
technically and artistically. Hopefully, I'll hear some music before show
time and that will narrow the choices. But, when the time comes to push
Record, it will be Absolutely as good as I can do within the allotted time
and opportunity. It will be its own truth; there could be other truths just
as true, or false, however you define it. 

Being an ecumenical sort, I call on all parties to raise a glass of
humility. The only thing that's right is what achieves the sonic/artistic
goal. That goal can be anything but singular.

(Preservation is something else. I can see the need for much more narrowly
defined criteria in that work.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] a prime case of why subjective reviews of audio gear
are USELESS

Hi Carl:

You're highlighting a key aspect of the analog vs. digital jihad that is
still going on. Some people like and expect really colored (distorted,
scientific term) sound.  Those people tend to hate all things digital and
vehemently tout "purer" and "organic" analog technologies, especially
grooved disks. Yet, any sort of testing for output=input can show many
different ways that a modern high-quality digital chain will always be more
accurate. The vehement digital advocates will dismiss the analog advocates
as tin-eared folks who love harmonic distortion and time-smearing with their
music.

Then there's the whole philosophical argument, going back to Gordon Holt and
Harry Pearson, about what's "absolute sound"? It seems to be something
different to anyone who listens carefully, but Harry actually did put in
words some descriptions never articulated that way before. One thing is for
sure -- "absolute sound" is by nature very subjective and therefore most
scientific measurements only get around the edges of quantifying it. That
being the case, I'm not sure of the use of reams of paper used to publicly
debate subjective topics from different perspectives. Can any perseptual
aspect of human life be described in absolute terms?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] a prime case of why subjective reviews of audio gear
are USELESS


> Stereophile has long had this schizophrenic aspect where the auditions are
> contradicted (or complimented) by the measurements. It is entertaining.
> Years ago, they ran a cover with the headline: "If one of these amplifiers
> is right, the other must be wrong." One amp was a huge, powerful Krell.
The
> other was (IIRC) an 811-based Cary single-ended job that developed maybe
10
> watts. The Cary couldn't pass a symmetrical waveform; the Krell was
> virtually perfect on the bench. Both were declared to make their own brand
> of magic.
>
> The subjectivity of art doesn't rest well with the hard science of
> engineering. Professionals aren't immune to that dichotomy. If I did what
> Jamie does, I would certainly aim for his level of objective rigor.
> Microphones in an acoustic space, like phono cartridges and loudspeakers,
> are a whole different story, a blend of subjective/objective. At least we
> now have other elements of the signal chain that can be reliably
objective,
> if that is the goal.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave Cawley
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] a prime case of why subjective reviews of audio
gear
> are USELESS
>
> From:  Dave Cawley
> Dartmouth  United Kingdom
>
>
>
> Hi Tom
>
> Rely to fixed (again), although it is really a server issue............
>
> I agree with all you say, especially the midnight part !  However some
> magazines do no testing at all.  Image a car magazine not testing 0-60 and
> top speed ?
>
> Dave
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager