True or false claims about audiophiles & science

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:

//

"Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:

1. Soundstage capability.
2. Correct tonality of instruments.

Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:

1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.
2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s.
3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s.
4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in capturing simultaneous events in speaker response. Very good
article in HiFi News and RR as well.

Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any given point in time."

(quoted from http/www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=950705&postcount=43)


I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for
the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I might cede
taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation methods,
and waterfall plots for audio.

Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles their
proper due.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
>
> //
>
> "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:
>
> 1. Soundstage capability.
> 2. Correct tonality of instruments.
>
> Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
>
> 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.
> 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s.
> 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s.
> 4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in capturing simultaneous events in speaker response. Very good
> article in HiFi News and RR as well.
>
> Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any given point in time."
>
> (quoted from http/www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=950705&postcount=43)
>
>
> I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for
> the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I might cede
> taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation methods,
> and waterfall plots for audio.
>
> Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles their
> proper due.
>
>

I'll comment on #2 (lack of sonics, whatever that means). There were
amplifiers designed to have very low THD *at low frequencies* that do
not sound good. This is not surprising at all because some of these amps
show excessive distortion at high frequencies at high output powers.
Basically, some of these amps have insufficient open-loop bandwidth and
linearity, so that at higher frequencies, that is not enough loop gain
to minimize distortion of the closed-loop amplifier. (Or you can think
of it as not having sufficient speed in the loop.) I am not sure if
audiophiles can take credit for discovering this or not, because a
full-power, full frequency distortion sweep would have showed the
problems. Seems like to me that that was a marketing problem:
manufacturers were trying to come up with the lowest THD number (at 1
KHz), and ignoring other important parameters of the amps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
> Here are some examples where science eventually found out
>but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
>
> 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.

Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially
solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed,
the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile
community.

> 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s.

What on earth does "lack of sonics" mean?

> 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s.

Nonsense, mechanical engineering had solved this problem by
the late 1930's. Take a look, for example, on the vibration
isolation methods used for high-accuracy, high-sensitivity
optical galvanometers.

> 4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in
> capturing simultaneous events in speaker response.

Well, even as far as speakers go, this is old news. Consider
the articles published in the AES journal priro to 1976 by
Fincham at KEF. And before that we have Heyser in the 1960's
doing basically the same thing. Hell, I was doing similar stuff
in the late 1970's, well before the MLSSA system hit the market.

> Very good
> article in HiFi News and RR as well.

Far better articles in JASA, JAES, and more decades before
mere shadows of them appeared in the popular press.

> Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any
> given point in time."

True, and most NON-scientist will fail to recognize the limits of
non-science, and assign far to much credit to their "discoveries"
which, in fact, are hardly discoveries at all.

> I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for
> the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I
might cede
> taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation
methods,
> and waterfall plots for audio.
>
> Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles
their
> proper due.

Nor do I, as soo as they have some due.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
> > Here are some examples where science eventually found out
> >but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
> >
> > 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.

> Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially
> solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed,
> the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile
> community.

This was my understanding as well.

So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue --
were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in
'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if
so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as
of the late 1960's?

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>
>> 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s.
>

After reading some glowing reviews on amps with large amount of
distortion or frequency response errors, I am beginning to think that
maybe lack of sonics simply means lack of distortion (coloration) .

So lack of distortion (coloration) in amps with low THD's. Duh.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Aren't "digital" timing errors still being learned about and harnessed?


There have defintely been modern day patents issued to deal with the
problem (if it indeed is an audible problem). Here's one:

http/www.freepatentsonline.com/5329556.html




dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>> >
> > 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.
>
> Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially
> solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed,
> the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile
> community.
>
> > 2. Lack of sonics in amplifiers with very low THD. 70s and 80s.
>
> What on earth does "lack of sonics" mean?
>
> > 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s.
>
> Nonsense, mechanical engineering had solved this problem by
> the late 1930's. Take a look, for example, on the vibration
> isolation methods used for high-accuracy, high-sensitivity
> optical galvanometers.
>
> > 4. MLSSA speaker waterfall plots. 2000s. Difficulty in
> > capturing simultaneous events in speaker response.
>
> Well, even as far as speakers go, this is old news. Consider
> the articles published in the AES journal priro to 1976 by
> Fincham at KEF. And before that we have Heyser in the 1960's
> doing basically the same thing. Hell, I was doing similar stuff
> in the late 1970's, well before the MLSSA system hit the market.
>
> > Very good
> > article in HiFi News and RR as well.
>
> Far better articles in JASA, JAES, and more decades before
> mere shadows of them appeared in the popular press.
>
> > Any scientist will recognize the limits of science at any
> > given point in time."
>
> True, and most NON-scientist will fail to recognize the limits of
> non-science, and assign far to much credit to their "discoveries"
> which, in fact, are hardly discoveries at all.
>
> > I was surprised to read that audiophiles are responsible for
> > the first discovery of jitter in CD players, 'lack of sonics' (I
> might cede
> > taht, since i have no idea what he means), vibration isolation
> methods,
> > and waterfall plots for audio.
> >
> > Has my education been deficient? I don't want to deny audiophiles
> their
> > proper due.
>
> Nor do I, as soo as they have some due.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
>
> //
>
> "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:
>
> 1. Soundstage capability.
> 2. Correct tonality of instruments.

The soundstage thing I agree with. This is a perception that depends on
your stereo hearing, and there is no instrument that can communicate
what this sounds like in a given setup. Such a measurement would be
meaningless anyway, because each of us would have to relate it to the
actual sound anyway, so why do it.

What we CAN do is vary the parameters of the speaker and room and see
how each variable affects soundstaging, and thus learn what causes what.
In my experimentation, it is clear to me that what we are hearing is a
comination of the summing localization between the two speakers, and
between the speakers and the reflections of their output from the room
surfaces. If you pull the speakers out from the front wall, for
instance, you notice an immediate increase in depth of imaging
(soundstage), then if you push them back toward the wall, the soundstage
collapses into the speakers again. Same with sidewall reflections. Bring
them away from the sidewalls and you get more spaciousness, especially
with the more omnidirectional speakers. Then you can experiment with
radiatin pattern, and see the effects of that. And so forth.

Gary Eickmeier

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>
>>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
>>>Here are some examples where science eventually found out
>>>but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
>>>
>>>1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.
>
>
>>Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially
>>solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed,
>>the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile
>>community.
>
>
> This was my understanding as well.
>
> So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue --
> were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in
> 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if
> so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as
> of the late 1960's?
>
>
Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for
bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may
have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an
audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed.

CD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
>
> //
>
> "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:
>
> 1. Soundstage capability.

Given that every person's room is different, likely
so. Though, it could be measured on a case by case
basis. They do this for concert halls all the time.

> 2. Correct tonality of instruments.

Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do
this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set,
for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey,
though.

> Here are some examples where science eventually found out but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
>
> 1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.

Which is no longer a factor, thankfully. At least on decent
quality players.

> 3. Vibration isolation methods. 90s.

Try 50s or earlier. Most of audio technology isn't new, and
sonic isolation was implimented soon after the first movie
studios started using sound.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 24 Feb 2005 01:00:07 GMT, "Robert C. Lang" <langvid@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Aren't "digital" timing errors still being learned about and harnessed?

Not by people in the telecomms industry. Of course, so-called
'high-end' audio tends to be technically incompetent.

>There have defintely been modern day patents issued to deal with the
>problem (if it indeed is an audible problem). Here's one:
>
>http/www.freepatentsonline.com/5329556.html

Can't imagine how that one got past the PTO examiners, as similar
techniques were in use in digital transmissions for *decades* before
1993.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
> >
> > //
> >
> > "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:
> >
> > 2. Correct tonality of instruments.
>
> Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do
> this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set,
> for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey,
> though.
>


"As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no,
not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock
or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the
first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a
real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately.

Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, &
categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct"
in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the
original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that
you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset,
for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and
hence, measures) different?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cvj98e08r3@news4.newsguy.com...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
>>
>>>Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
>>>>Here are some examples where science eventually found out
>>>>but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
>>>>
>>>>1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially
>>>solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed,
>>>the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile
>>>community.
>>
>>
>> This was my understanding as well.
>>
>> So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue --
>> were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in
>> 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if
>> so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as
>> of the late 1960's?
>>
>>
> Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for
> bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may
> have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio
> application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed.
>
It was the golden ears who first advocated the use of 2 boxes and their
accompanying jitter in place of the many mass market and audiophile single
box players that were available at the time having no, little, or less
jitter. The golden ears did not notice the jitter. Something like polishing
up your CDs with Armor All (having no effect whatsoever) and then having to
throw them all out.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
> > >
> > > //
> > >
> > > "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:
> > >
> > > 2. Correct tonality of instruments.
> >
> > Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do
> > this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set,
> > for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey,
> > though.
> >


> "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no,
> not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock
> or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the
> first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a
> real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately.

> Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, &
> categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct"
> in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the
> original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that
> you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset,
> for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and
> hence, measures) different?

So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct
tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed?

It should be possible , though, to conduct this sort of test:
compare a recording of a real instrument to the synthetic one,
and ask a competent listener to determine which they think is real,
and which isn't.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

jitter became an issue when audiophiles started using outboard or
separate DACs. Some people bypass the DACs built into CD players and
use a separte DAC. They may be able to buy a better DAC but there some
some severe issues with syncing up the signal coming from the pickup
with the DAC if you have two separate systems.

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > > Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
>> > >
>> > > //
>> > >
>> > > "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot measure:
>> > >
>> > > 2. Correct tonality of instruments.
>> >
>> > Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do
>> > this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set,
>> > for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey,
>> > though.
>> >
>
>
>> "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry, no,
>> not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded rock
>> or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the
>> first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a
>> real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately.
>
>> Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify, &
>> categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word "Correct"
>> in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the
>> original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm that
>> you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a drumset,
>> for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds (and
>> hence, measures) different?
>
> So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct
> tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed?
>
> It should be possible , though, to conduct this sort of test:
> compare a recording of a real instrument to the synthetic one,
> and ask a competent listener to determine which they think is real,
> and which isn't.
>
>

The main problem with *measuring* tonality or sound stage is that there
is no scientific definition of what these things mean. Until there is a
definition that allows quantitative measurements to be made, it is
rather pointless to say whether science can measure it or not. Science
cannot measure something that is not defined in a measureable way.

On the other hand, frequency response, separation, signal-to-noise ratio
and distortion can be measured easily on amplifiers and players, and
these parameters are strongly related to the sense of tonality and
soundstage one perceives. Of course, speakers have the biggest effect,
by far, on these subjective qualities.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Norman M. Schwartz <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:cvj98e08r3@news4.newsguy.com...
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >> dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
> >>
> >>>Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
> >>>>Here are some examples where science eventually found out
> >>>>but audiophiles discovered first by critical listening:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. Jitter (time based distortion) in different CD players. 90s.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sorry, jitter was a well characterized, identified and, essentially
> >>>solved issue by the time the late 1960's had rolled around. Indeed,
> >>>the LAST group to understand its true significance was the audiophile
> >>>community.
> >>
> >>
> >> This was my understanding as well.
> >>
> >> So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue --
> >> were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in
> >> 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if
> >> so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as
> >> of the late 1960's?
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit for
> > bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers may
> > have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an audio
> > application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed.
> >
> It was the golden ears who first advocated the use of 2 boxes and their
> accompanying jitter in place of the many mass market and audiophile single
> box players that were available at the time having no, little, or less
> jitter. The golden ears did not notice the jitter. Something like polishing
> up your CDs with Armor All (having no effect whatsoever) and then having to
> throw them all out.

Actaully Armor All turned out to have an effect on CDs -- a physically
degradative one. Much embarassment ensued for Sam Tellig, IIRC.
y

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Norman M. Schwartz <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves
credit for
> > > bringing attention to jitter in digital audio.
Scientisits/Engineers may
> > > have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in
an audio
> > > application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears noticed.
> > >
> > It was the golden ears who first advocated the use of 2 boxes and
their
> > accompanying jitter in place of the many mass market and audiophile
single
> > box players that were available at the time having no, little, or
less
> > jitter. The golden ears did not notice the jitter. Something like
polishing
> > up your CDs with Armor All (having no effect whatsoever) and then
having to
> > throw them all out.
>
> Actaully Armor All turned out to have an effect on CDs -- a
physically
> degradative one. Much embarassment ensued for Sam Tellig, IIRC.

And, of course, one needs to be reminded that the entore armor-all
CD thing started as an April Fool's joke, posted by Barry Ornitz
on this very newsgroup in April of 1990. And people like Tellig.
apparently, fell for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > So, can anyone clarify why jitter ever became an issue --
> > were CD players really generally deficient in this area -- in
> > 'mass market' players as well as high-end -- and if
> > so, why, given that jitter was a solved issue in telecom as
> > of the late 1960's?
> >
> >
> Yeah, that's my question, too. Maybe the audiophile deserves credit
for
> bringing attention to jitter in digital audio. Scientisits/Engineers
may
> have known it was there all aong but didn't think it mattered in an
> audio application, there by ignoring it until some golden ears
noticed.

As others have pointed out, jitter either was or should have been a
non-issue from the get-go, assuming the people designing CD players and
DACs knew what they were doing. Apparently, a few didn't. And whoever
finally informed those stragglers, it probably wasn't the audio
consumer.

What I think drives the jitter issue is the fact that jitter is the
only--or at least the best known--form of distortion unique to digital
audio. As such, it's become the de facto "scientific" explanation for
all that's supposedly wrong with digital reproduction, the thimble into
which the technically challenged subset of vinylphiles tries to cram
all that they hate about CDs. Plus, if jitter *is* a problem, then
you've got a reason to upgrade, which makes digital almost as much fun
as analog!

Interestingly, I can't ever recall seeing an audiophile on a discussion
board raise the issue of jitter in reference to an A/V receiver--the
most common case of an outboard DAC. Why not? Could it be because
there's no real analog alternative, so no reason to raise a fuss about
it?

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > > Perusing the audiophile boards today, I come up on this:
> > > >
> > > > //
> > > >
> > > > "Here are some more audio phenomena that science cannot
measure:
> > > >
> > > > 2. Correct tonality of instruments.
> > >
> > > Actually, that's measurable. Synthesizer companies do
> > > this all the time. Roland makes a nice digital drum set,
> > > for instance, that is as good as the real thing. Pricey,
> > > though.
> > >
>
>
> > "As good as the real thing"? Pardon my incredulity, but, um, sorry,
no,
> > not even close. "A passable substitute in the context of recorded
rock
> > or pop music" sure, but "as good as the real thing" no way. And the
> > first time you stand next to (or sit behind, if you're a drummer) a
> > real drum set you'll notice the difference immediately.
>
> > Also, synthesizer companies do indeed strive to measure, quantify,
&
> > categorize the tonality of instruments, but that glaring word
"Correct"
> > in the original post removes any semblence of logic from either the
> > original arguement or your response. How would you even confirm
that
> > you'd identified the "correct" tonality of, say, a flute (or a
drumset,
> > for the sake of consistancy) when every flute (or drumset) sounds
(and
> > hence, measures) different?
>
> So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct
> tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed?
>


Yes, it most certainly is an inherantly flawed claim...semantically if
nothing else. The entire notion of "correct tonality" when describing
timbre is indefensible.

(And don't get me started on the viability of "correct tonality when
describing musical harmony!)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:

>> So, would you say that the claim that 'science cannot measure correct
>> tonality of instruments' is inherently flawed?

What do you mean by 'correct?' Analysis of existent acoustic instruments
or evaluation of new creations?


> Yes, it most certainly is an inherantly flawed claim...semantically if
> nothing else. The entire notion of "correct tonality" when describing
> timbre is indefensible.

It's not much different than the absurd notion of a 'correct' preference.


> (And don't get me started on the viability of "correct tonality when
> describing musical harmony!)

Started in what way? Musical theorists do that all the time. Are
Pythagoras, Kirnberger, Werckmeister, Rameau, Messiaen, et al all wrong?