The paradox of audio versus music and science versus arcane art

AVForums

Help Support AVForums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
D

DevillEars

Guest
In order to minimise "thread hijacking", I felt it was time to dedicate a thread just to this debate.

@Amp-pooch: Please note that "paradox" does not imply two Rottweillers  ;D

Having been shot at for applying the word "arcane" to audio component design, I thought including the word in the thread subject should at least attract the attention of the shooters - if nothing else...

Okay, enough of the preamble (preamp-le?)...

While taking a smoke-break, it occurred to me that we use different sets of criteria to "measure" the quality of music and the quality of the systems used to reproduce music.

On the one hand most of us tend to appreciate music at an emotional level (call it "feeling" if the word "emotional" bothers you), while on the other hand we have this war raging about trying to apply science to audio system performance.

Yes, music can also be appreciated from a technical perspective - the structure of the composition and the expertise/accuracy of the performer/instrument combination - but (and here I speak for myself, the performance and how it affects me is the determining factor for and the technical brilliance appreciation is secondary - by quite a large margin).

So, maybe we need to balance our perspectives when examining audio equipment performance - somewhere between scientific/engineering excellence levels and the impact on the listener that the system has when used for its primary purpose - to reproduce music!

If we accept this balance concept when judging performance, then maybe we should also accept a balance concept when trying to assess the contributions to the emotional impact of individual aspects of the audio reproduction chain (from mains supply, to source media, to source transducer, to cables, to amplification, to more cables, to speakers, to listening environment, to listener and his/her frame of mind at the time....

We seem to have a binary split when it comes to analysing performance contributions by different elements within the audio reproduction chain:

1) If your observations can't be explained by my science, your observations were faulty and should be ignored
2) If my observations can't be explained by your science, your science is faulty and should be discarded

The challenge here is that we are dealing with "beliefs" and it is human nature to defend one's beliefs and it is also human nature to believe that attack is the best method of defence...  8)

On the subject of "arcane art" - there are plenty of examples of "tweaking/tuning" (such as "voicing" of electronics) that are not always explainable using pure science. Some are due to the complexities involved arising from too many variables, while others are bordering on the paranormal...

So let the process continue and leave RR's and EOS's threads to their own devices....

8)

 
Top