The Engineer's Shoes..


We Audiogoneers share a love of audio and music. Discussions can be impassioned; feelings frequently run high, and sometimes debate will descend into pitched battle.
But why? Consider the Chain.

1. The choice of music.
2. Is the music electronic, amplified, or acoustic?
3. The choice of musicians.
4. The choice of recording venue.
5. The choice, and positioning of microphone(s)
6. The choice of equipment to record.
7. The choice of transducer to listen to the recording
8. The choice and tastes of the engineer.
9. The choice and tastes of the final mixer.
10 The transducers used by the mixer.
11.The final transfer medium.
12.The listener's playback device.
13.The listener's speakers.
14.The listener's mood.
14.The listener's room.
15.Everyone's ears and hearing.
16.Etc, etc, etc

And we debate the merits of cables?
In this veritable sea of arbitrariness where every variable there could be is loud and clear I wonder how it's possible to debate anything but the music itself - and that of course is nothing but taste defined! A properly conducted debate would have clearly defined goals, and in an ideal situation where there are multiple variables then these would be eliminated in advance. But we allow (and maybe enjoy) the reviewers to use words like "liquid" to describe a midrange - and how can we not! To reduce everything to a set of graphs and numbers is an approach doomed to failure -because the recordings themselves have absolutely no Absolutes.
And what if the engineer's shoes were pinching on the day of the recording? Wouldn't that make a difference too?. I'd like to think of him or her as a person, not a machine.
As most of us do, I love this hobby: I love most things about it. I especially love the fact that ultimately it's just about the music. I even enjoy some of the fringier debates. But I do wonder how any debate could be successfully prosecuted. My speakers, your speakers, my amp, your amp? Ultimately they're all pretty marvelous: perhaps even cables are cool.
But I can't help thinking about that chain, and maybe those shoes....
57s4me
Towards better language - puffy, propulsive, growling, slippery, squeaky, watery, superficial, threadbare, papier mâché, discombobulated, wiry, electromechanical, tedious, presumptuous, congealed, raucous.
The desire for a universal language to explain what we hear has been around for quite a long while. I see it as only a starting point since no one, despite the ground rules, has stuck to it since what we say we hear is denied by others who claim it not to be, due to different understandings of the terms agreed upon.

Discussing this takes me back to the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster. When she is teleported through the galaxies, witnessing the beauty and wonder in front of her, she tries to explain what she's seeing. Being a scientist, she labors on a bit and then says "They should have sent a poet".

All the best,
Nonoise
oh no no no. That will never do, Geoff. You've missed the most important ones. Mapman is definitely on the right track. Get out the thesaurus!

...and the dictionary
Csontos wrote,

"You've missed the most important ones."

Very observant of you. Gee, don't you find the important ones, as you say, sort of trite and meaningless? You know, words like holographic?