|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.44.89.81
In Reply to: Re: Your post seems rather brusque and condescending... posted by Thorsten on January 23, 2005 at 03:29:18:
You rightly emphasize two things that everyone probably knows, but which are often overlooked, I think. (1) Excellence in hi-fi does not yield a single linear ordering (a single ranking, best to worst), because what is desirable in sound reproduction is not given a priori - different people will value different things. BUT this does not mean that it is all subjective, that there are not objectively or intersubjectively valid rankings etc; it merely means that there are many orderings (which may criss-cross in various ways). (2) The bottom line for engineering in any domain is, does it work? Does it do what we want (at acceptable cost, reliably etc.)? Our hi-fi world is infested with component or design-fetishism - this type of amp, this type of wire is absolutely the best. Fetishism, by definition, is the belief that certain properties are contained in some object which are not really contained in the object, but only in certain contexts in which the object occurs. One falls prey to it precisely when one is ignorant of the way in which the context works - eg, of the ways in which circuits actually work. It is easier to pick out some element and imagine that the magic is all contained in that. So for an amateur like me, all I can do is to be very sceptical of what anyone who is not a real engineeer says about hi-fi, except, at most, what something sounds like.
Follow Ups:
Hi,> (1) Excellence in hi-fi does not yield a single
> linear ordering (a single ranking, best to worst),
> because what is desirable in sound reproduction is
> not given a priori - different people will value
> different things.Absolutely. Which is one of the key reasons why so far no formal measuremenst of quality have been devised that show any significant correlation with percieved "good sound".
> (2) The bottom line for engineering in any domain
> is, does it work?How do we define "it does work"?
Does it work if it fulfills the German DIN 45500 Standard?
> Does it do what we want (at acceptable cost, reliably etc.)?
How do you define this then, unless on an individual, subjective basis?
> Our hi-fi world is infested with component or
> design-fetishism - this type of amp, this type
> of wire is absolutely the best.Perhaps.
> Fetishism, by definition, is the belief that certain
> properties are contained in some object which are not
> really contained in the object, but only in certain
> contexts in which the object occurs.In other words, a given thing may be considered relatively, in a given context, but not absolutley.
An example may be SE Valve or OTL Amplifiers and Apogee Scintilla Speakers or old 15 Ohm Tannoy Coaxials in GRF Autograph Enclosures. The SE Amp or OTL will be very much "a bad thing" in the system with the Apogees, while in the system with the Tannoys they would be both likely exceptional, as overall system. Equally, the Monster Krell Solid State Amp that would be "a good thing" with the Apogees would not sound too good with the Tannoys.
> One falls prey to it precisely when one is
> ignorant of the way in which the context works -
> eg, of the ways in which circuits actually work.Absolutely.
> So for an amateur like me, all I can do is to be
> very sceptical of what anyone who is not a real
> engineeer says about hi-fi,Hmmm. How do you define "real engineer"? It it someone who constantly bangs on about how great an engineer he is or somone who actually understands things? And how do you judge if you yourself do not understand the subject well enough?
As a degreed EE myself with experience in both industrial/military electronics and audio and as someone with quite a few years as sound/recording engineer I find myself highly sceptical of what many engineers claim about things audio/electronics. I have had enough time to collect practical experience which suggests that traditional theoretical foundations are sufficiently incomplete to be relied upon to the exclusion of other (empirical) methodes.
Therefore those subscribing to the orthodox readings of electronics (and acoustics/electroacoustics) suggest to me usually the presence of academics, as opposed to real engineers.
> except, at most, what something sounds like.
I would argue that few Audiophiles are qualified to comment on how something sounds, lacking sufficiently points of reference and schooling in critical listening, at least when it comes to commenting on anything beyond "what it sounds like to me".
I am actually planning an article for the British Journal of Aesthetics on hi fi - never been done before and I'm persuaded that hi fi raises some genuinely distinctive philosophical issues - or at least, they intrude practically in a way that is unusual. I am planning to interview several hi fi people (I can tell you who is on the list by email), which will also make the article rather unusual in a philosophical journal.As I say, it is not true that things sound or look to one as one think they do (though it is natural and excusable to think they do). The key is that (as philosophers long suspected, and empirical results have now demonstrated beyond doubt) the perceptual field arises independently of, and anterior to, cognitive/evaluative processing. For example, the phenomenon of blindsight: subjects with certain brain injuries can perceive things that they claim not to (this is shown by their propensity to guess correctly - or rather they think they are only guessing). Many other phenonemena point the same direction. Judgements based on perception can be influenced in many ways, and in perfect sincerity. That is why, for example, people will insist on the dramatic difference their new power cord makes to their system, without being in the slightest bit insincere in claiming to hear the difference. They are wrong about what they hear, as paradoxical as that sounds. Anyway if you are interested in contributing to the project, let me know (it would not be onerous in the slightest).
Hi,You may forgive me for declining, but like so much in modern science modern, so-called Philosophy has gone well past any point where it still is useful or relevant to me personally at least. I could not make any points any better than they have already been made by Bishop Berkley, Hume and Kant, if they do not suffice, what can I possibly add.
That said, I agree that people have a much greater acess to absolute reality than it may seem at times.
However music reproduction is in fact the art to maximally remove and isolate the listener from absolute reality and engender in her or him the perception of listening music and not to air vibration created by mechanical devices reacting imperfectly to electrical signals which imperfectly encode the airwaves from an original musical event.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: