[Peter Wieck]

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Wieck"


http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/


" Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the
acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo
science, were not parts of my original vision. "


** He has it well figured.




....... Phil

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of
real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve,
and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything
except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded
like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly
said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is
irrelevant to music."

There's a word for the philosophy that Dudley is promoting: Solipsism.

Back in the day when there was intelligent life on rec.audio.opinion, one of
the resident gurus who went by the handle JJ, frequently warned about the
intellectual wasteland that solipsism led to.

RATs as a rule should take it to heart - their prevailing mindset nets out
to be solipsism.

[Ian Iveson]

Peter Wieck wrote

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Far from being true, it is a petty misrepresentation.

Who really believes that the objective of a domestic audio
system is to produce sound "how you like it"? Where is the
real, simple evidence that such a belief exists? Find an
exponent and show me.

Reproductionism is deeply flawed. The real problem is to
reappraise the objective of domestic audio systems without
falling into the obviously equally misconceived "how you
like it" trap.

Anyone who thinks Descartes was a solipsist has missed his
point completely, BTW. There are no solipsists, never has
been, never will be. Find one and show me.

I asked "Will stereo get better?" on rec.audio.tec. Only one
person stooped to ask what I meant by "better". The thread
is interesting in that all respondents so far have assumed
that reproduction is the objective and, as with the article
you quote, it becomes apparent that "spaciality" remains
problematic. Seems to me that, once you consider what is
necessary to reproduce a soundfield precisely, the argument
for reproduction reduces itself to absurdity. It won't ever
happen.

Room music was always a dog and it has had its day. The real
revolution, meanwhile, is the dawn of the epoch of head
music. In a virtual world, reproduction becomes possible.

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
.uk

Peter Wieck wrote

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Far from being true, it is a petty misrepresentation.

Realy?

ho really believes that the objective of a domestic audio
system is to produce sound "how you like it"?

Many people - the Bose customer list comes to mind, and that's only a tiny
fraction of it.

There is the real, simple evidence that such a belief exists?

I see it all over RAT.

Find an exponent and show me.

Many of the regulars of RAT, for openers.

Reproductionism is deeply flawed.

There you go!

I think a more reasonable statement would be:

Accurate reproduction of sound is elusive.

The real problem is to
reappraise the objective of domestic audio systems without
falling into the obviously equally misconceived "how you like it" trap.

About 10 seconds into that you bag tubes. ;-)

Anyone who thinks Descartes was a solipsist has missed his
point completely, BTW. There are no solipsists, never has
been, never will be. Find one and show me.

Look into a mirror? ;-)

I asked "Will stereo get better?" on rec.audio.tech. Only
one person stooped to ask what I meant by "better".

Sue the rest of us for presuming that the goal of audio is more accurate
(and therefore more pleasing) reproduction.

The thread is interesting in that all respondents so far have
assumed that reproduction is the objective and, as with
the article you quote, it becomes apparent that
"spaciality" remains problematic.

Not a bad assumption, eh?

Seems to me that, once
you consider what is necessary to reproduce a soundfield
precisely, the argument for reproduction reduces itself
to absurdity. It won't ever happen.

That would be your assumption (but it isn't, you shortly clarify). Very
convincing reproduction of sound fields is pretty easy, as long as you lose
any hangups you may have about using devices like headphones.

Room music was always a dog and it has had its day.

There you go, but now you're going my way. ;-)

The real revolution, meanwhile, is the dawn of the epoch of
head music. In a virtual world, reproduction becomes
possible.

Agreed. The problem is taking that out into the room.

[mick]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:06:17 +0000, Ian Iveson wrote:

snip

Who really believes that the objective of a domestic audio system is to
produce sound "how you like it"? Where is the real, simple evidence that
such a belief exists? Find an exponent and show me.

snip

Surely the advent of computer speakers shows this? AFAIK *none* make the
vaguest effort at music reproduction, concentrating purely on how much
bass and volume can be got from the cheapest components. I realise that
they are really effects speakers, but many, many people use them for
regular listening to their MP3 collection.

To back this up, how about the so-called "graphic equalizers" built into
many MP3 players - as if their original quality wasn't bad enough to
start off with?

In both cases the buyers buy the products for other reasons than their
reproductive quality. Usually it is for "more bass" - not "a better
defined bass". Generally they just aren't bothered about how bad their
music sounds (well, the ones playing low bit-rate MP3s on mobile phones
while I'm going home on the bus aren't!).

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 30, 12:03 pm, mick wrote:

Surely the advent of computer speakers shows this? AFAIK *none* make the
vaguest effort at music reproduction, concentrating purely on how much
bass and volume can be got from the cheapest components.

That, and Bass Tubes in cars that one can feel from 50 yards. Noise
and getting attention vs. music and paying attention.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA