Why "accuracy"?
 

"George" wrote:

Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare
not speak its name.

Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an
audio
system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals
choose
the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does
praying
to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?

I believe I know the answer to my question, but that answer is
bizarre.
Rather than suggest my own answer, I ask the "accuracy" lovers to
explain
their choice.

Well done.

The important thing is fidelity, of course, which should be high.

You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if you
start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.
Consider the historical role of music and its means of distribution.
Accuracy is essential to live communication, but so too is sensitivity
to context and personal expression.

Reductionism has led precision to a dead end.

What's your "answer"? Don't be shy.

Ian

Why "accuracy"?
 

Ian Iveson said:

The important thing is fidelity, of course, which should be high.

There's something amiss in your newsreader's settings. Why people still use
Upchuck after all these years is beyond me.

You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if you
start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.

Paging Ferstler! Tweako-freako alert!

Why "accuracy"?
 

"George"

Ian Iveson said:

The important thing is fidelity, of course, which should be high.

There's something amiss in your newsreader's settings. Why people
still use
Upchuck after all these years is beyond me.

It's precisely how I like it, thanks.

You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if
you
start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.

Paging Ferstler! Tweako-freako alert!

You can explore an interesting and productive train of thought if you
start from the notion that your system is a musical instrument.
Consider the historical role of music and its means of distribution.
Accuracy is essential to live communication, but so too is sensitivity
to context and personal expression.

Reductionism has led precision to a dead end.

Ian

Whose "accuracy"?
 

"George" wrote:
Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare
not speak its name.Surely, this question should be "Whose accuracy?"

[George's full post is below]

Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
outcome.

I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
Pinkostinko.

However, on the whole I think most recording engineers of the kind of
music I like are cultured men who do their best to reproduce the
musicians' performance and the ambience of the environment well. It is
not their fault that a precise reproduction of their master tape (as
through a Krell and Wilson multi-cones, for instance, by the
Pinkostinko definition definitely "blameless") fails to satisfy the
hedonist's desire for closer replication of the experience of the live
event. Many of them are acutely aware that the subliminal cues
experienced in the concert hall are missing from recordings but,
again, that is an *engineering* problem with the reproduction chain
and its fixation on the long-since irrelevant reduction of THD,
presently more for the sake of more because they lack the brains to
think of something else. ("Once we have minimized THD, the
reproduction chain is perfect so WTF are you whining about? We're
giving you ever-vanishing THD!"

Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
has legs.

My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
they like.

Yes, Virginia, you can have it both ways. There is a sane middle road.

Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)

Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review


"George" wrote:
Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare
not speak its name.

Normals and 'borgs alike would surely accept that the purpose of an
audio
system is to enable us to enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals
choose
the pieces of a system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does
praying
to the god of "accuracy" help attain that end?

I believe I know the answer to my question, but that answer is
bizarre.
Rather than suggest my own answer, I ask the "accuracy" lovers to
explain
their choice.

Whose "accuracy"?
 

In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:

Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done."

So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Whose "accuracy"?
 

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:

Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done."

So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?

What are the recent indications with respect to Mr. Pinkerton?

Note that JJ has also totally departed Usenet, but traces of him can still
be found elsewhere. I suspect that he may become more audible once he is out
of litigation on behalf of his employer, Microsoft.

Pukey Stinkerton's malodorous legend lives on
 

John Byrns said:

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot

So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?

The one good thing you can say about Pukey is that he recognized Arnii
Krooborg for what he is.

So what are these "indications" you mention of Pukey's continuing life? I
hope you're not claiming to be his friend.

Whose "accuracy"?
 

Please note the interpolations and associated questions.

On Sep 4, 10:11 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"

I think there is a fundamental issue at hand here, being the
definition of "accuracy". It is NOT precision, although far too
commonly taken as such. Analogy:

A thermometer that reads in 2-degree increments but is always as dead-
on as possible is quite accurate, but not terribly precise. A similar
unit that reads in 0.005 degree increments but is alway and randomly
2-3 degrees off is quite precise, not terribly accurate.

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done." Clearly, that puts the the
recording engineer, the master of the master tape, in charge of the
outcome.

Not necessarily. Actually, not even a little bit. The _ability_ to
reproduce the "Master Tape" as it would have been heard in the studio
is merely a point-of-departure. And an "amplifier" that is capable of
doing that is only a good start. Picasso once was asked why it was
that he did such wild drawings and scupltures, the question as-asked
cast doubt on his ability to draw or form realistically. During the
conversation, he sketched on a bit of paper a near-photographic
portrait of the questioner.... and answered that by the knowledge of
what was "real", he could depart into what he saw and felt. Without
the ability to reproduce reality as-if-by-rote (per Picasso), he felt
that an artist could not *really* understand beyond that. This analogy
is quite apt for musical reproduction as well.

I can name some recording engineers I have known, including some I
employed, that I would like to throw down the stairs to remove them as
carbuncles from culture. They were soulmates of the execrably smug
Pinkostinko.

Without suggesting that the above statement is purely wishful and
quite likely utterly false, it is all according to taste. Recording
engineers, good and bad, have a real dilemma in whether they reproduce
what they hear to the extent possible, or whether they make
adjustments based on what they know will happen to what they record.
And I am sure that they would be the first to admit that they are
absolutely *NOT* photographers in the snapshot sense.


However, on the whole I think most recording engineers of the kind of
music I like are cultured men who do their best to reproduce the
musicians' performance and the ambience of the environment well. It is
not their fault that a precise reproduction of their master tape (as
through a Krell and Wilson multi-cones, for instance, by the
Pinkostinko definition definitely "blameless") fails to satisfy the
hedonist's desire for closer replication of the experience of the live
event. Many of them are acutely aware that the subliminal cues
experienced in the concert hall are missing from recordings but,
again, that is an *engineering* problem with the reproduction chain
and its fixation on the long-since irrelevant reduction of THD,
presently more for the sake of more because they lack the brains to
think of something else. ("Once we have minimized THD, the
reproduction chain is perfect so WTF are you whining about? We're
giving you ever-vanishing THD!"

What ineffable hogwash. The recording engineer, good bad or
indifferent, if he/she is actually earning a living at it will be
absolutely aware of consequences small and large of every decision
made. That they may not be terribly good at it at every (even any)
moment of every recording does not make them less aware.

Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
has legs.

The moment the playing goes into a box, what comes out of the box is
less related than first cousins... and that is at the best of times.
And why 98-44/100ths of the tripe around "fidelity" is just that.
Tripe. Spoiled as well for the most part. NO amplifier is capable of
reproducing what was recorded, as the recorder cannot even do that
much without removing or adding artifacts. So, get over it.

My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
they like.

More hogwash. If they 'know what they like', that is enough for them
leaving more room for you. But your taste in electronics vs. theirs
has not one damned thing to do with anything worthwhile for
discussion. And you both are quintessential idiots for holding your
collective and several opinions as being either more accurate, better,
or more precise than anyone else's. That it is yours is entirely
enough. Those very few that might value your opinion will respond
positively. Others will not. In either case, your opinion remains
intact - for you.

Yes, Virginia, you can have it both ways. There is a sane middle road.

Sure there is a middle road. But it had damned well start from
equipment that *at least* can start by adding or deleting as few
additional artifacts as possible from what arrives on the recording
medium. The end-user then has the absolute right and choice to add,
delete or alter the source for their individual listening pleasure.
But if a-priori, their equipment is not capable of reproducing the
recording medium without substantial changes, then it has failed for
general purposes, however melifluous it appears to sound to the
undiscerning ear. The end-user even has the right to use equipment
that already has artifacts programmed into it by design as it is to
their taste. But they do not gain the right thereby to state, aver, or
even imply that their taste is anything other than their own - and no
more than that. And certainly said end-user has no right to foist that
equipment on others as being "high-fidelity"... it simply is not.

Again the analogy of the crippled man in the well-fitted suit comes to
mind. And for exactly the same reasons.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Whose "accuracy"?
 

Of course, we all have our own version of taste. Mine is simply the
sound I heard in the room on the day, with the performers on the
recording playing live. Peter Walker's "window on the concert hall"
has legs.

My contempt for the farm machinery mechanics among the meterhead
"engineers" is matched only by my contempt for self-acclaimed golden
ears among the "audiophiles" whose only reference is other amps they
have heard, whose definition of "better" is a more stunning sound than
the last amp they heard, regardless of the intrinsic dynamics of the
performance, who never go to concerts because they already know what
they like.

Yep!, it does you good to get out more .. the sounds I've heard this
Proms season bear little resemblance to what I expect to hear at home
being more distant in overall balance;)...

--
Tony Sayer

Whose "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 4, 8:05 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com,
Andre Jute wrote:

Surely the question should be, "Whose accuracy?"

The late unlamented Stewart Pinkerton used to claim that "Audio is
engineering, music is art" or some such rot, together with its express
corollary, "When the amplifier produces exactly what is on the master
tape, the designer's job is done."

So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups, as indications are
that he has not departed this earth, or are the indications wrong?

Literary license. I wasn't suggesting that Pinko had kicked the
bucket; I imagine someone was vain as he was about his appearance will
live to be a very old, very crotchety, very boring pensioner for
several decades.

So why did Stewart drop out of the Usenet Groups

Because Phil and I exposed his ignorance about QUAD, I imagine. How
that undermined whatever trust anyone had left in Pinko took a while
to sink in. And meanwhile you and Patrick exposed his ignorance about
some really basic elements of audio design. Then he ignominiously lost
an audio design contest against me, surely the slackest (if luckiest)
amateur on the planet. Then Arny Krueger claimed to be his friend and
"peer", the final ignominy! Hardly the sort of thing to burnish the
pride of such a constant narcissist as Pinkostinko. But, considering
how much more intelligent Pinkerton is than Pasternack, and the
relative amounts of time it took each after the exposure of his
vacuous malice to catch on that he had worn out his welcome and to bug
out, I am not surprised at Pinkerton leaving when he did, a couple of
years faster than Plodnick.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless. Instead I stuffed a piece of cow-gut with offal to create
Worthless Wiecky. -- CE Statement of Conformity