"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
"we can see audible flaws" v. "we can see no obviously audible
flaws." (Trevor)

This is really the problem with your thinking here. You can't "see"
sound in its entirity.

**Correct. What you can 'see', however, are obvious audible problems. Any
amplifier with clear and obvious problems can be discounted as a non-high
fidelity product.

You can "see" a representation which, like all
representations, is merely acting in place of the original. I can see
quite clearly that your desire to refer your arguments to such
representations is seductive to your own ways of analysis, but it's
clear from our panel of "SET idiots" here that it doesn't satisfy the
musical brains of discriminating listeners who need to actually hear
those minute musical differences which, for instance, discriminate
between a Stradivarius and a practice violin.

**Non-sequitur. You fall for the trap, by assuming a REPRODUCTION system has
any relation to a CREATION system. The two may be very different. In fact a
SET amp may well be a valid part of a sound CREATION system.

[ANECDOTE] Many years ago, I used to service equipment for musicians. One
guy presented me with this piddling practice amp. 10 Watts. All valved
(including rectifier). He was the lead guitarist for a rock 'n roll band. A
pretty good one, as it happens. I asked the obvious questions about why he
needed so urgently (Friday night), after all, it was only a practice amp. He
gently informed me that it was his stage amp. He loved the sound of the amp,
so he mic'd it through (ironically) a very large SS PA system.


The choice of such an amplifier is, therefore, a rejection of the
musician's/producer's philosophy.

A musician isn't a producer.

**A musician may well be a producer. Or not.

A musician has ears, not philosophies of
sound.

**Not necessarily.

A musician would no more buy a Stradivarius because of its
frequency response plots than he would.........

**How do you know that? Here in Australia, we have a violin manufacturer who
has been trying to emulate the sound of a Strad for many years. He uses
quite a bit of test equipment to do so. Test equipment does not rule out the
use of human ears. However, test equipment allows the engineer sort out the
obvious problems from the get-go.

(here comes to mind the immortal words of my harmony tutor at the
Royal Academy of Music in London "Andy, Beethoven would no more have
written that chord than he would have ****ed his own mother...)

Do musicians flock to concert halls to look at scores of the Rite of
Spring? Of course not - they listen to sound like we all do. Why are
you so hung up about representations? The rest of us listen to the
stuff we build and judge with our ears.

**Here's a thought: Do some measurements and dump the stuff which has clear
and obvious problems.


You're going to tell us now that our ears are inadequate to hear sound

**Non-sequitur.

- I can just see you creeping round the corner as I write.

**I doubt that.

Trevor Wilson