Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Capturing Music: The Impossible Task

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 3:39:29 AM

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

The above subject is actually a seminar given by James Boyk. I did a quick
search on google to see whether it has been discussed here on RAHE but could
not find one.

Some interesting excerpts:-

" The design engineer who creates a piece of audio equipment, the recording
engineer who uses it at a concert, and the performer who plays the concert
have something in common: For all three of them, the only way to judge
success is by listening. For the musician and the recording engineer, this
is the natural order of things; but design engineers want something to
measure. Unfortunately, no measurement is known generally to predict sound
quality, though there's one that's promising. Perhaps you'll be interested
in testing it further-modifying it if need be-if I can inspire you with
interest in audio"

and..

"Unfortunately, the problem of satisfying the ear is not well-defined. Not
enough is known about what parameters of musical sound are important to the
ear and brain. An old friend of mine won the Westinghouse Science Talent
Search in high school with his work on hearing; and continued in the field
through a doctorate and professorship; but now works on vision. "Why the
change?" I asked. "Listen!" he said, "In vision, at least we know what the
questions are!"

and more

"My soprano friend Susan Judy spotted an edit in one of my recordings. I
couldn't hear it though I knew where it was. I said, "I can't hear any
difference in the piano sound." She replied, "Oh, there's no difference in
the piano, but the ambience changes." When I listened for the ambience, I
heard the edit. And what caused the difference? A change in reverberation
from a different size of audience. 220 people at one concert, 240 at the
other."

"...And they stunned us with their awful sound. They got great figures by
having gobs of global feedback; but most of them were so slow they had
slewing problems on transients; so musical attacks suffered. If you told the
designer what you heard, you were dismissed as an enemy of progress and told
you didn't know what accurate sound was. "I'm a pianist," I said, "and that
ain't the sound of a piano!" I was informed that I was used to the "euphonic
colorations" of vacuum tubes. "



More at www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:26:39 AM

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

Chelvam wrote:

> The above subject is actually a seminar given by James Boyk. I did a quick
> search on google to see whether it has been discussed here on RAHE but could
> not find one.
>
> Some interesting excerpts:-
[...]

Thank you for posting this. It's always interesting to hear
the perspectives of musicians on sound reproduction.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 3:34:26 AM

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

It's not necessarily true that "false in one is false in all" but Boyk's
admiration for this particular bit of dreck is worrisome.

" I'm eager to see whether the test would correlate with specific subtle
aspects of performance. For example, my friend Doug Sax, a recording and
mastering engineer, tested two line amps himself by a clever method to
learn about their performance with very soft signals. He had someone
talk at one end of a studio; and put a microphone at the other end, 90
feet away. The output of the mike ran to a power amp and speakers, and
he could hear and understand the speech over the speakers. In the cable
between the mike and the power amp was a switch. When turned to its
other position, it inserted a line amp between the mike and the power
amp. The line amp's volume control was adjusted so the volume didn't
change. If the line amp were perfect, adding it to the chain wouldn't
change anything. And that's what happened with one of the line amps, a
unit Sax had used for years, and which he liked. Then he substituted a
different line amp, which had better THD and noise specs than the first.
When it was switched in, he tells me, the spoken words became
unintelligible. To be sure, they were very soft, but lots of things in
music are soft, like the dying away of reverberation."

All this tells ME is that Doug had become VERY familiar with the way
speech sounds through one device and wasn't familiar with the other.
BOTH could have been distorted horribly. An extreme example of this are
people who get used to the way cerebral palsy victims speak and can then
interpret for others. Just because they understand one impaired speaker
doesn't mean they could understand another. (NOTE - this was an extreme
example - don't get too carried away with any analogy).

And another

"Such listeners would be useful to audio designers. But in general,
designers and manufacturers don't ‘get' it about listening. This is why
most gear isn't very good. One fellow who makes very expensive speakers
seemed to be bragging that he doesn't listen to his own designs. (He
also claimed to be a music lover, but didn't know the make of piano in
his own home!) [Audience: Laughter.]"

I don't know the make of the piano in my home either, inherited as it
was, but I do love music. What does one have to do with the other?

And another

"Here's how a playback system damaged my Beethoven. When my first album
came out, I sent a copy to a young pianist friend at a conservatory. She
wrote back very embarrassed, saying that the first movement of my
Beethoven had too many climaxes, and my tone was "bangy." This was
crushing. When summer came, she wrote again. At home for vacation, she
had listened to the album on her father's system, much better than her
own dorm-room player. Now she did not hear the extra climaxes or the
banging, and she loved the performance. In a flash, I realized what had
been wrong. The recording has a wide dynamic range. When the music got
loud enough, it had overloaded her dorm system. Any such passage came
out equal in loudness to any other such passage; hence, multiple
climaxes. They were graded dynamically in the playing and on the
recording, but couldn't be distinguished by the system. Overloading also
makes the reproduced tone ugly; but because she was thinking in musical
terms, she heard the ugliness created by her system as though it were
created at the piano! ( Stereophile magazine ranked this album a "Record
to Die For." )"

Is Boyk seriously suggesting that one can't measure when amplifiers
clip? Or when speaker cones hit their limits?

"Here's how a common problem in playback systems could damage Schubert:
In the posthumous A-major sonata, the bass comes in groups of four
sequential notes, with the first of each group holding through the
remaining three. ( Note 13
<http://www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.ht...; ) But
for two groups, it's not held. This contrast in texture means something
to Schubert, but if there were a resonance in the audio system on either
of these unheld notes, or a broad resonance in the general area of their
pitch—as many cheap loudspeakers do have—these notes might seem to be
held when they're not; and the textural contrast would be damaged."

Resonances are routinely measured and damped - a spectrum analyzer can
help a lot too.

"Here's how mis-design of a playback component can frustrate the
listener: The KLH company made a small two-way speaker that came with a
box to connect between your preamp and power amp. After calibration,
when you played soft music, the speaker would go down much deeper in the
bass than you would expect from its tiny woofer. As the music got
louder, if the low frequencies were still present, the box reduced them
electronically to prevent the woofer cone traveling too far and damaging
itself. You could play the speaker as loud as you like, and it would
always give you the most bass consistent with its own safety. This was
clever; but consider its musical impact. At climaxes, things tend to be
loud and full-bodied; and the speaker led you to expect that you'd get
what you expected. But at precisely those moments, you did not get it!
The ultimate audio tease."

It's not mis-design at all - it's very good design. It preserves what it
can given the limits of physics, and to do that you can bet KLH measured
the HELL out of things. What idiocy.

"Here's how musical damage was narrowly averted in one recording: I
helped out on a recording of the Kodo drummers from Japan. Their dynamic
range is enormous. At our mike position 30 feet from the loudest drums,
we tried three different mikes. First was a condenser with a one-inch
diaphragm. At the loudest moments, the diaphragm hit the stops thup thup
thup: unusable. Second was a five-eighths-inch condenser; the diaphragm
didn't hit anything, but the character of the sound changed a lot
between soft and loud passages. We were nervous. The third mike was a
ribbon; and fortunately for us, it sailed through everything with no
change of character"

Once again, did Boyk ever look at the specs for the mikes in question?
Doesn't he think such obvious distortions can be measured?

Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.


Bob T.

Chelvam wrote:

>The above subject is actually a seminar given by James Boyk. I did a quick
>search on google to see whether it has been discussed here on RAHE but could
>not find one.
>
>(bunch of quotes from the following snipped out -- bt)
>
>More at www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html
>
>
>
>
>
Related resources
August 27, 2004 3:16:30 AM

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

Chelvam wrote:
> The above subject is actually a seminar given by James Boyk. I did a
> quick search on google to see whether it has been discussed here on
> RAHE but could not find one.
>
> Some interesting excerpts:-
>
> " The design engineer who creates a piece of audio equipment, the
> recording engineer who uses it at a concert, and the performer who
> plays the concert have something in common: For all three of them,
> the only way to judge success is by listening. For the musician and
> the recording engineer, this is the natural order of things; but
> design engineers want something to measure. Unfortunately, no
> measurement is known generally to predict sound quality, though
> there's one that's promising. Perhaps you'll be interested in testing
> it further-modifying it if need be-if I can inspire you with interest
> in audio"
>
I have never come across a situation, when flaws in recordings wouldn't show
up on some measurements. Either the frequency response, pulse response or a
distortion measurement would reveal an "electronic" problem.
Of course you can also spot it just listening attentivly if it is happening,
but with a measurement you have a numeric figure which helps you spot the
part of the circuit which is misbehaving. In many cases you can find some
sub-standard response *without* being able to hear it though, so I would say
just the opposite is true.


snip anecdotes
>
> "...And they stunned us with their awful sound. They got great
> figures by having gobs of global feedback; but most of them were so
> slow they had slewing problems on transients; so musical attacks
> suffered. If you told the designer what you heard, you were dismissed
> as an enemy of progress and told you didn't know what accurate sound
> was. "I'm a pianist," I said, "and that ain't the sound of a piano!"
> I was informed that I was used to the "euphonic colorations" of
> vacuum tubes. "
>

This is the typical situation when an alleged problem is "audible". If you
have feedback in mind, the amp is "slow", when you have digital in mind it
gets "grainy" or has "steps". These evaluations are mostly imagined, because
the actual hearing experience doesn't sound like this. It is pure
imagination, projected from the mind.

>
> More at www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html

This is another Quack who wants to sell his completely overpriced mikes.
These are unusable, because of "flanging" effect due to the large distance
between the two small electret capsules. The production cost is shurely
below 20 bucks. Just look at that flipsy cable with the 3.5mm jack, awful.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:27:46 AM

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

"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
> It's not necessarily true that "false in one is false in all" but Boyk's
> admiration for this particular bit of dreck is worrisome.

snip..snip..

>
> Is Boyk seriously suggesting that one can't measure when amplifiers
> clip? Or when speaker cones hit their limits?

snip..snip..

Fair criticism, though you have added nothing new that Boyk haven't heard
already. To be fair to him and to the benefit of RAHE, may I forward your
posting to Mr Boyk for his clarification?

It may be worthwhile to consider that he was giving a speech at a University
on the invitation of a Prof and in the presence people like W Jung, Louis
Fielder, Doug Sax and John Atkinson AND undergraduates who would have been
more critical then you could imagine.

BTW, here's an article on

Doug Sax

http://www.airshowmastering.com/newsimg/1.pdf

and checkout the profile of Shayan Mookherjea's and others. What are they
still searching for? What are we doing in RAHE. The objective is high end
sound. It doesn't matter how that is achieved. Valve or Solid State or LP or
CD or DVD-A or SACD, I don't care as long as I hear what I think is the
right sound.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:28:52 AM

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

"Mike Prager" <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cgj77f01h06@news4.newsguy.com...
> Chelvam wrote:
>
> > The above subject is actually a seminar given by James Boyk. I did a
quick
> > search on google to see whether it has been discussed here on RAHE but
could
> > not find one.
> >
> > Some interesting excerpts:-
> [...]
>
> Thank you for posting this. It's always interesting to hear
> the perspectives of musicians on sound reproduction.
>
>
You are welcome. Good to see appreciation instead of critisism. so far ,
only few posts actually help us to understand High End. Or how to have great
sound. In fact, I have a few but putting them on RAHE would be an open
invitation for an avalance of engineering lectures.
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 3:30:20 AM

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

"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
> It's not necessarily true that "false in one is false in all" but Boyk's
> admiration for this particular bit of dreck is worrisome.
>
> " I'm eager to see whether the test would correlate with specific subtle
> aspects of performance. For example, my friend Doug Sax, a recording and
> mastering engineer, tested two line amps himself by a clever method to
> learn about their performance with very soft signals. He had someone
> talk at one end of a studio; and put a microphone at the other end, 90
> feet away. The output of the mike ran to a power amp and speakers, and
> he could hear and understand the speech over the speakers. In the cable
> between the mike and the power amp was a switch. When turned to its
> other position, it inserted a line amp between the mike and the power
> amp. The line amp's volume control was adjusted so the volume didn't
> change. If the line amp were perfect, adding it to the chain wouldn't
> change anything. And that's what happened with one of the line amps, a
> unit Sax had used for years, and which he liked. Then he substituted a
> different line amp, which had better THD and noise specs than the first.
> When it was switched in, he tells me, the spoken words became
> unintelligible. To be sure, they were very soft, but lots of things in
> music are soft, like the dying away of reverberation."
>
> All this tells ME is that Doug had become VERY familiar with the way
> speech sounds through one device and wasn't familiar with the other.
> BOTH could have been distorted horribly. An extreme example of this are
> people who get used to the way cerebral palsy victims speak and can then
> interpret for others. Just because they understand one impaired speaker
> doesn't mean they could understand another. (NOTE - this was an extreme
> example - don't get too carried away with any analogy).
>
> And another
>
> "Such listeners would be useful to audio designers. But in general,
> designers and manufacturers don't ‘get' it about listening. This is why
> most gear isn't very good. One fellow who makes very expensive speakers
> seemed to be bragging that he doesn't listen to his own designs. (He
> also claimed to be a music lover, but didn't know the make of piano in
> his own home!) [Audience: Laughter.]"
>
> I don't know the make of the piano in my home either, inherited as it
> was, but I do love music. What does one have to do with the other?
>
> And another
>
> "Here's how a playback system damaged my Beethoven. When my first album
> came out, I sent a copy to a young pianist friend at a conservatory. She
> wrote back very embarrassed, saying that the first movement of my
> Beethoven had too many climaxes, and my tone was "bangy." This was
> crushing. When summer came, she wrote again. At home for vacation, she
> had listened to the album on her father's system, much better than her
> own dorm-room player. Now she did not hear the extra climaxes or the
> banging, and she loved the performance. In a flash, I realized what had
> been wrong. The recording has a wide dynamic range. When the music got
> loud enough, it had overloaded her dorm system. Any such passage came
> out equal in loudness to any other such passage; hence, multiple
> climaxes. They were graded dynamically in the playing and on the
> recording, but couldn't be distinguished by the system. Overloading also
> makes the reproduced tone ugly; but because she was thinking in musical
> terms, she heard the ugliness created by her system as though it were
> created at the piano! ( Stereophile magazine ranked this album a "Record
> to Die For." )"
>
> Is Boyk seriously suggesting that one can't measure when amplifiers
> clip? Or when speaker cones hit their limits?
>
> "Here's how a common problem in playback systems could damage Schubert:
> In the posthumous A-major sonata, the bass comes in groups of four
> sequential notes, with the first of each group holding through the
> remaining three. ( Note 13
> <http://www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.ht...; ) But
> for two groups, it's not held. This contrast in texture means something
> to Schubert, but if there were a resonance in the audio system on either
> of these unheld notes, or a broad resonance in the general area of their
> pitch—as many cheap loudspeakers do have—these notes might seem to be
> held when they're not; and the textural contrast would be damaged."
>
> Resonances are routinely measured and damped - a spectrum analyzer can
> help a lot too.
>
> "Here's how mis-design of a playback component can frustrate the
> listener: The KLH company made a small two-way speaker that came with a
> box to connect between your preamp and power amp. After calibration,
> when you played soft music, the speaker would go down much deeper in the
> bass than you would expect from its tiny woofer. As the music got
> louder, if the low frequencies were still present, the box reduced them
> electronically to prevent the woofer cone traveling too far and damaging
> itself. You could play the speaker as loud as you like, and it would
> always give you the most bass consistent with its own safety. This was
> clever; but consider its musical impact. At climaxes, things tend to be
> loud and full-bodied; and the speaker led you to expect that you'd get
> what you expected. But at precisely those moments, you did not get it!
> The ultimate audio tease."
>
> It's not mis-design at all - it's very good design. It preserves what it
> can given the limits of physics, and to do that you can bet KLH measured
> the HELL out of things. What idiocy.
>
> "Here's how musical damage was narrowly averted in one recording: I
> helped out on a recording of the Kodo drummers from Japan. Their dynamic
> range is enormous. At our mike position 30 feet from the loudest drums,
> we tried three different mikes. First was a condenser with a one-inch
> diaphragm. At the loudest moments, the diaphragm hit the stops thup thup
> thup: unusable. Second was a five-eighths-inch condenser; the diaphragm
> didn't hit anything, but the character of the sound changed a lot
> between soft and loud passages. We were nervous. The third mike was a
> ribbon; and fortunately for us, it sailed through everything with no
> change of character"
>
> Once again, did Boyk ever look at the specs for the mikes in question?
> Doesn't he think such obvious distortions can be measured?
>
> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>
>
> Bob T.
>

It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This is
a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he is
simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all the
things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.

I suggest if you think it could be done better, you write Boyk and start a
correspondence. But to belittle him here as if he were preaching to a bunch
of experience audio designer ee's is just showboating, IMO.


> Chelvam wrote:
>
> >The above subject is actually a seminar given by James Boyk. I did a
quick
> >search on google to see whether it has been discussed here on RAHE but
could
> >not find one.
> >
> >(bunch of quotes from the following snipped out -- bt)
> >
> >More at www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:16:05 PM

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

On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...

>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>
>> Bob T.
>>
>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This is
>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he is
>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all the
>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.

This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence, but he also teaches
courses in the combining of engineering and music. While we might
indeed agree that he has no technical credentials, it is nonetheless
ingenuous to suggest that he is a poor innocent musician who has been
dragged along to talk to a bunch of engineering types.

>I suggest if you think it could be done better, you write Boyk and start a
>correspondence. But to belittle him here as if he were preaching to a bunch
>of experience audio designer ee's is just showboating, IMO.

Unfortunately, Bob hit it right on the head. Boyk, who is a talented
musician and a good recording engineer, does indeed love the sound of
his own voice, and tends to stray into lecturing in areas for which he
is totally unqualified, as should be obvious from reading that
transcript. Any I *have* attempted correspondence with Boyk on this
matter, which resulted in him throwing a hissy fit and abandoning the
field.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:21:37 PM

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

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message
news:cglr0e013dk@news1.newsguy.com...

snip...snip...

> >
> > >
> This is another Quack who wants to sell his completely overpriced mikes.
> These are unusable, because of "flanging" effect due to the large distance
> between the two small electret capsules.

He never claimed that they are ideal mic. in fact he said " intended for
practice, rehearsal and lessons, NOT FOR STUDIO QUALITY RECORDING..". He
only claims that the mike requires no PreAmp and No need for stand, boom or
shock mount. Yet it hears you well, even from a distance.

So why the unfair critisism?

The production cost is shurely
> below 20 bucks. Just look at that flipsy cable with the 3.5mm jack, awful.

And the cost of his pr6cd is about $1 but he is selling at $30 so how do you
justify that?
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:22:29 PM

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

"Ban" <bansuri@web.de> wrote in message news:<cglr0e013dk@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
> >
> > More at www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html
>
> This is another Quack who wants to sell his completely overpriced mikes.
> These are unusable, because of "flanging" effect due to the large distance
> between the two small electret capsules.

The distance between capsules has to be less than 10" if the published
dimensions of the mic housing are correct, & they appear to be even
closer, probably >7" ...just like the capsule spacing for an ORTF
array. Ever hear an ORTF recording? Or a Dutch NOS recording? Or any
of the many recordings made with a Decca Tree mic array, where the
capsules are often more than 1m apart? The only "flanging" (or comb
filtering) evident in recordings made with spaced microphones occurs
when the stereo channels are summed to mono (or when the performers
are moving). Interaural Time Delays are one of the key components of
how we hear stereo, and the most basic way to capture these cues is
via spaced microphone capsules.


> The production cost is shurely
> below 20 bucks. Just look at that flipsy cable with the 3.5mm jack, awful.

I will agree with you on this point!
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:31:21 PM

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

Robert Trosper <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com>...
> All this tells ME is that Doug had become VERY familiar with the way
> speech sounds through one device and wasn't familiar with the other.

Perhaps, but it still doesn't change his point that better specs for
one box doesn't necessarily lead to better audible results.

> Is Boyk seriously suggesting that one can't measure when amplifiers
> clip? Or when speaker cones hit their limits?

I thought that section was about the musical consequences of bad audio
design, not examples of things that can't be measured?

> Resonances are routinely measured and damped - a spectrum analyzer can
> help a lot too.

Yes, but in the cheap speakers he was talking about?

> It's not mis-design at all - it's very good design. It preserves what it
> can given the limits of physics, and to do that you can bet KLH measured
> the HELL out of things. What idiocy.

It depends on how you define good design. You seem to define it as
something that protects the speaker. He seems to define it as
something that doesn't distort the music that's being played back.
Speaker design is an exercise in compromise, and there are certainly
many valid ways of designing a speaker. Perhaps this is a reflection
of the dichotomy of design philosophies he mentions.

> Once again, did Boyk ever look at the specs for the mikes in question?
> Doesn't he think such obvious distortions can be measured?

What is the SPL output of a large Kodo drum at 30 feet in that room?
It's easier at times to just listen and see if something's OK than to
go through more involved measurements and calculations. Recording
on-site requires efficiency.

> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was one of James Boyk's students, and
to this day, what I learned in his class continues to influence how I
approach audio, as well as my professional life (engineering). He may
have strongly held opinions and views, but he was always
intellectually generous, curious, and open-minded with his students,
encouraging us to find things out for ourselves, and to decide for
ourselves, based on good empirical evidence, what was what.

--Andre
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 11:56:56 PM

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

Harry Lavo wrote:

>>(LOTS of my own stuff snipped. I hate really long posts where nobody removed the irrelevancies. I, at least used to reject stuff and ask the author to edit. Oh, well. BT)
>>
>>Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>
>>
>>Bob T.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This is
>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he is
>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all the
>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>
>I suggest if you think it could be done better, you write Boyk and start a
>correspondence. But to belittle him here as if he were preaching to a bunch
>of experience audio designer ee's is just showboating, IMO.
>
>
>
If I'd been in the audience, I'd have talked to Boyk. I didn't post the
pointer or do the original quotes, but this seems an appropriate forum
to respond to them in. My assumption (possibly wrong) is that the
original poster thought Boyk's talk was good stuff. It's not. It's
ESPECIALLY not for beginning EE's. An experienced one would know how
much of it was just silly. A beginning one might spend valuable brain
cycles worrying through the wooly thinking instead of learning to solve
real (and measurable) problems.

I am NOT saying that listening experience can be PREDICTED from
measurement in every case. That would also be silly. I am saying that
the examples Boyk gives are pretty worthless, tendentious in their own
right and unlikely to lead to better design or implementation. I post
here because it's uncritical acceptance of Boyk's assertions that lead
to the separation of so much cash from so many wallets, and prevent the
worthwhile activity of identifying, reliably and consistently through
measurement, what it is that's causing the sounds we hear and then
altering the design to do something else, if that's what's wanted.

If it's "showboating" to poke holes in dreck, then let's hear it for the
showboaters.

-- Bob T.
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 6:52:53 PM

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

Andre Yew wrote:

(I've relocated this last part to the first to try to avoid some kinds
of responses - Bob T.)

>
>
>
>>Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>
>>
>
>I'm sorry you feel that way. I was one of James Boyk's students, and
>to this day, what I learned in his class continues to influence how I
>approach audio, as well as my professional life (engineering). He may
>have strongly held opinions and views, but he was always
>intellectually generous, curious, and open-minded with his students,
>encouraging us to find things out for ourselves, and to decide for
>ourselves, based on good empirical evidence, what was what.
>

Whatever he said in class, and whatever effect it had on you is in a
parallel universe to this discussion. The article does not, in my
opinion, contain much besides the strongly held views and opinions. I
have no opinion on his behavior, character, shoe size or preference in
foods outside of the article. I will say that I could have qualified my
statement further to make it clear that my opinion is based ON THIS ARTICLE.

>Robert Trosper <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
>
>>All this tells ME is that Doug had become VERY familiar with the way
>>speech sounds through one device and wasn't familiar with the other.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps, but it still doesn't change his point that better specs for
>one box doesn't necessarily lead to better audible results.
>
It doesn't change his point or mine. My point is that the effect of
familiarity swamps the change in specification. Your point is different
and also valid. I'm assuming you're allowing the converse that "worse"
specs for one box don't necessarily lead to worse (or even different)
audible results. Say we change the 3dB down point from 2.4 GHz to 2.2
GHz. Audible?

>
>
>
>>Is Boyk seriously suggesting that one can't measure when amplifiers
>>clip? Or when speaker cones hit their limits?
>>
>>
>
>I thought that section was about the musical consequences of bad audio
>design, not examples of things that can't be measured?
>
It's possible that, in my ire, I read more into that one than was
intended. My apologies.

>
>
>
>>Resonances are routinely measured and damped - a spectrum analyzer can
>>help a lot too.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but in the cheap speakers he was talking about?
>
Not having the cheap speakers in hand, I can't say definitively. I do
know that many cheap speakers use materials with low resonance (MDF) for
that reason, and that applying asphalt is cheap.

>
>
>
>>It's not mis-design at all - it's very good design. It preserves what it
>>can given the limits of physics, and to do that you can bet KLH measured
>>the HELL out of things. What idiocy.
>>
>>
>
>It depends on how you define good design. You seem to define it as
>something that protects the speaker. He seems to define it as
>something that doesn't distort the music that's being played back.
>Speaker design is an exercise in compromise, and there are certainly
>many valid ways of designing a speaker. Perhaps this is a reflection
>of the dichotomy of design philosophies he mentions.
>
What he said is (and the ellipsis is mine), "Here's how mis-design of a
playback component can frustrate the listener ... At climaxes, things
tend to be loud and full-bodied; and the speaker led you to expect that
you'd get what you expected. But at precisely those moments, you did not
get it! The ultimate audio tease."

What he seems to be saying is that it somehow worse to do the good that one can to a price point than not to do anything at all! Either buy good, and more expensive speakers, or suffer. Audio asceticism is certainly a value one can hold, but on the issue of musicality, it seems to me to be MORE musical to preserve the experience until one can't than not to preserve it all all. Over the range before it reaches its limits the design doesn't disappoint the listener at all. I don't think it's a reasonable design goal to avoid disappointing the expectations of the uninformed at the expense of providing all the music one can. I've read any number of interviews with musicians who have "horrible" systems that the music they hear is so divorced from what's being reproduced that such a disappointment doesn't even exist. There is a case to be made (and this should probably be a whole other thread) that many of us were happier listening to the music before we started listening to the sound.


>>Once again, did Boyk ever look at the specs for the mikes in question?
>>Doesn't he think such obvious distortions can be measured?
>>
>>
>
>What is the SPL output of a large Kodo drum at 30 feet in that room?
>It's easier at times to just listen and see if something's OK than to
>go through more involved measurements and calculations. Recording
>on-site requires efficiency.
>

What he said was ""Here's how musical damage was narrowly averted in one
recording: I helped out on a recording of the Kodo drummers from Japan...."

I don't retract what I said, but I didn't say enough. Noticing the
distortion of an overdriven mike is not averting something narrowly. To
go well past absurdity, it's like saying, "Here's how one storage
disaster was narrowly avoided. We had five gallons of cottage cheese to
store. We tried pouring the cheese into a paper sack, but noticed
unacceptable leakage immediately. We then tried a stouter cloth bag and
it got damp after an hour. Fortunately, one of the crew had a plastic
bag and the day was saved!" Yes, it's important to listen. Yes, it's
important to notice distortion. The choice of words leads me to believe
that it was James Boyk, and only James Boyk who could have heard the
distortion or noticed the bag was leaking. The story would have made
more sense to me if someone was just going ahead without listening to
the playback at all, or had MISSED the less obvious distortion, and if
something useful had been said about what to listen for.


-- Bob T.
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 6:54:29 PM

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>
>>> Bob T.
>>>
>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This is
>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he is
>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all the
>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>
>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,

He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.

but he also teaches
>courses in the combining of engineering and music.

The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"


While we might
>indeed agree that he has no technical credentials,

The two of you might agree but obviously the administration at Cal Tech,
arguably one of the best schools in the world in science, does not agree. I
doubt they would have anyone teach a class titled "Projects in music and
*science*" if they thought he lacked the "credentials" to do so. I would be
prone to give the administration at Cal Tech the edge on this opinion. They
know Boyk better than you and they know science better than you.


it is nonetheless
>ingenuous to suggest that he is a poor innocent musician who has been
>dragged along to talk to a bunch of engineering types.

I suppose it would be were some one to suggest that.


>
>>I suggest if you think it could be done better, you write Boyk and start a
>>correspondence. But to belittle him here as if he were preaching to a bunch
>>of experience audio designer ee's is just showboating, IMO.
>
>Unfortunately, Bob hit it right on the head. Boyk, who is a talented
>musician and a good recording engineer,

Hmmm. IMO he is a good pianist and a talented recording engineer. His
recordings are amoung the best I have ever heard, his performances are not
amoung the best I have ever heard.

does indeed love the sound of
>his own voice, and tends to stray into lecturing in areas for which he
>is totally unqualified, as should be obvious from reading that
>transcript.

Shouldn't the administration at Cal Tech be alerted?

Any I *have* attempted correspondence with Boyk on this
>matter, which resulted in him throwing a hissy fit and abandoning the
>field.

That is your side of it.
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 7:02:27 PM

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

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message news:<cggjjh02n3c@news3.newsguy.com>...

> More at www.performancerecordings.com/capturing-music.html

For me, the take-home message of this page was: Musicians can hear
things which are the audible effect of badly designed equipment,
improper usage, or the recording engineer being asleep at the console.
I suppose this is another way of saying that audible things are...
audible.

There are doubtlessly many cases where the ears are useful, just
because we can recognize familiar noises and patterns. When I was in
the studio a few weeks ago, I was able to recognize both clipping
distortion and the effect of a damaged cable or connector. Both
problems were quickly fixed.

Characterizing engineers as being hostile to listening tests is too
much of a generalization. For one thing, a lot of engineers are also
musicians, including me. The author states that blind testing is not
universally applicable, but does not give a counter-example where an
audible effect is not amenable to blind testing.
Anonymous
August 28, 2004 7:05:41 PM

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

"Andre Yew" <andrey@silcom.com> wrote in message
news:cgo26902qd0@news3.newsguy.com...

snip...snip..

> I'm sorry you feel that way. I was one of James Boyk's students, and
> to this day, what I learned in his class continues to influence how I
> approach audio, as well as my professional life (engineering). He may
> have strongly held opinions and views, but he was always
> intellectually generous, curious, and open-minded with his students,
> encouraging us to find things out for ourselves, and to decide for
> ourselves, based on good empirical evidence, what was what.
>

We would be interested to know your preference and opinion.
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 6:23:26 PM

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

On 28 Aug 2004 14:54:29 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>>
>>>> Bob T.
>>>>
>>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This is
>>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
>>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he is
>>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all the
>>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>>
>>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,
>
>He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.

Indeed not - nor is he anything else at Cal Tech, apparently.

> but he also teaches
>>courses in the combining of engineering and music.
>
>The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"

That would be 'taught', no?

> While we might
>>indeed agree that he has no technical credentials,
>
>The two of you might agree but obviously the administration at Cal Tech,
>arguably one of the best schools in the world in science, does not agree. I
>doubt they would have anyone teach a class titled "Projects in music and
>*science*" if they thought he lacked the "credentials" to do so.

Nonetheless, they did. Boyk has no engineering (or science)
credentials whatever.

> I would be
>prone to give the administration at Cal Tech the edge on this opinion. They
>know Boyk better than you and they know science better than you.

So that's why they didn't renew his contract this year?

>>Unfortunately, Bob hit it right on the head. Boyk, who is a talented
>>musician and a good recording engineer,
>
>Hmmm. IMO he is a good pianist and a talented recording engineer. His
>recordings are amoung the best I have ever heard, his performances are not
>amoung the best I have ever heard.

OK, he's a better pianist than I am, which makes him talented, as
opposed to me, as I am an untalented pianist! I guess it comes down
to your ranking of those terms. :-)

> does indeed love the sound of
>>his own voice, and tends to stray into lecturing in areas for which he
>>is totally unqualified, as should be obvious from reading that
>>transcript.
>
>Shouldn't the administration at Cal Tech be alerted?

It would seem that they have been, as I understand that his contract
was not renewed this year.

> Any I *have* attempted correspondence with Boyk on this
>>matter, which resulted in him throwing a hissy fit and abandoning the
>>field.
>
>That is your side of it.

Indeed so. Perhaps Boyk might care to rebut in this forum?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 7:52:05 PM

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 8/29/2004 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cgsosu02420@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 28 Aug 2004 14:54:29 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob T.
>>>>>
>>>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This
>is
>>>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
>>>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he
>is
>>>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all
>the
>>>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>>>
>>>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>>>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,
>>
>>He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.
>
>Indeed not - nor is he anything else at Cal Tech, apparently.

That is not what I see on his website. He anounced that his tenure as pianist
in residence has come to an end. He does not say anything about not teaching at
Cal Tech any longer. Here is the first line of his website.James Boyk
Pianist in Residence, April 1974 - June 2004.
Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
Director of the Music Lab
California Institute of Technology


>
>> but he also teaches
>>>courses in the combining of engineering and music.
>>
>>The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"
>
>That would be 'taught', no?

I'd say no until I hear otherwise.


>
>> While we might
>>>indeed agree that he has no technical credentials,
>>
>>The two of you might agree but obviously the administration at Cal Tech,
>>arguably one of the best schools in the world in science, does not agree. I
>>doubt they would have anyone teach a class titled "Projects in music and
>>*science*" if they thought he lacked the "credentials" to do so.
>
>Nonetheless, they did. Boyk has no engineering (or science)
>credentials whatever.

Electronic Construction, Mho Engineering, Toledo, 1962.
Electronic Design and Construction, Ottawa Chemical Co., Toledo, 1961.

>
>> I would be
>>prone to give the administration at Cal Tech the edge on this opinion. They
>>know Boyk better than you and they know science better than you.
>
>So that's why they didn't renew his contract this year?

Maybe they didn't want to fund a pianist in residence any longer. It was a
student government decision I believe. That decision obviously has no bearing
on Cal Tech's administrative decision to have him teach a science class. A
class that he has taught for 25 years. if he were as incompeent as you claim
you'd think the folk at Cal Tech would have caught on by now don't you? Here
are some comments by his students on that his class.



Comments Received in 2002
"Exactly the kind of thing I came to Caltech for ... my most memorable, unique
class. —Ben Brantley '00. (TA in 107.)
By far my favorite and most memorable course at Caltech... I would rank EE/Mu
107 among the top of all my Caltech courses, along with CS91 and the EE5x
series taught by Glenn George. —David Barksdale '96 BS E&AS. (TA in 107.
Projects: Class A headphone amp, Class AB high-bias-current
minimal-global-feedback power amplifier.)

A perfect blend of engineering and science.... Best class I took at Caltech.
—Bruce Miller '89 BSEE. (Project: Stereo miking demo CD.)


Taught me how to approach engineering like science.... filled in many of the
gaps left in the more "mainstream" classes while still being a lot of fun.
—Ken Walsh '96 BSEE, MS'97. (Project: Very high speed linear phase D/A.)
EE/Mu 107 provided a great opportunity to apply the theoretical knowledge I
gained as a Caltech student to practical problems.... As a working engineer, I
find that practical experience and good instincts are often as important as
theoretical background. EE/Mu 107 is one the relatively few courses at Caltech
that can provide that practical background.... One of the most enjoyable and
interesting of all my courses. —Chris Ulmer '93 BS/EE 1993, MS/EE 1994.
(Project: Software to implement a spectrum analyzer that could display spectral
change of sounds.)


I liked the freedom to design a unique project and execute it, learning what
works and what doesn't through direct experience.... I'm now glad that I was
required to listen to live, un-amplified music on a regular basis. —Victor
Chan '89 BSEE. (Project: Enclosures for 24" woofers).
By far the best course I took (and TA'ed for) at Caltech. Its blend of music
appreciation, writing refinement, audio technology, and practical
experimentation involving both material and human resources, is probably
unrivaled anywhere in academia. This is a course that deserves far more
recognition than it receives, and is perhaps Caltech's strongest and most
unique offering. —Mark Neidengard '97, BS Computer Science; MS 1998. (Ph.D.,
Cornell University.) (TA in 107. Project: Two-term investigation of the
perceptual accuracy of the MPEG audio codec, culminating in blind comparison
testing using Caltech students.)

The personal attention all students received in this course, added to the
encouragement to explore areas we were truly interested in, was an unusual
experience for me as a student at Caltech. Learning how to work on long-term
projects has...been a great help. As I was not exposed to any other engineering
courses while at Caltech, EE/Mu 107 provided a way for me to learn about
engineering by combining it with one of my life passions (music). As evidenced
by the fact that I took the class for four terms, I rank the class very highly.
—Brigitte Roth '99, BS Economics. (Projects: Electric guitar. Science of the
voice.).

[O]ne of my fondest memories and most valuable experiences [at] Caltech. I
learned to listen carefully to what I hear...learned an approach to writing
that I had never encountered before...learned that there is always more to
learn. If Mr. Boyk's teachings could be summarized in three words, they would
be: 'Relentlessly pursue excellence.' —Glenn M. Lewis '88 BSEE, MSCS '90.
(Project: Infrared audio link.)


It would not be an exaggeration to say that it has given me a more profound
sense of the world, for it certainly opened up my ears and my mind. —Eileen
Lau '96, BSc Electrical Engineering.
Far and away the most "real" [course] in that it didn't revolve around
contrived problem sets and scripted experiments that had been done hundreds of
times before. The only class... that required me (through field trips) to get
off campus and interact with real people doing real work in related fields. The
practical training in technical writing, experimental procedure...and
construction of projects have all been beneficial in varying degrees. I've
written about a dozen technical descriptions of services my company provides,
and the writing training from EE/Mu107 has proven invaluable. The writing
training has also helped me take on managerial responsibilities as my company
has grown. —Steven Ginzburg '98 Computer Science. (Projects: Winter 1996:
Used polygraph to measure subjects' physiological response to various pieces of
music. Spring 1996: Built and listened to the Nelson Pass "Zen" amp.)


"The best course I've taken." —Adam Urbach '97.

I took EE/MU107abc as part of the inaugural class [1979-80].... I am now the
Director of R&D for J. D'Addario & Company, the world's largest manufacturer of
musical strings. I spend a lot of time evaluating the way our products affect
the production of sound. I am often asked to develop objective measurements
that correlate well with what we hear, or asked to substantiate (or refute)
claims of sonic superiority of technologies or products. The training I
received in EE/MU107 has been invaluable for this type of work.
Mr. Boyk's emphasis on the importance of clear and concise writing was
unique in my education and a major positive influence.... I think that every
Caltech student would benefit from taking his course as a writing requirement!
EE/MU 107 was one of the three most valuable, influential, and enjoyable
courses or experiences at Caltech (along with Olaf Frodsham's Glee Club and
Prof. Middlebrooks' EE114). I wish I could take this course as a refresher
every year! —Fan-Chia Tao '81 BSEE. (107 projects: Decoder for rear/side
speakers. Experimental test of theories in "The Language of Music," by Deryck
Cooke.)
I learned some basic signal processing theory and some electronics. "Raw"
information, so to speak. Then I learned less tangible things. What do I like
about the music that appeals to me? What aspects of this can audio systems
reproduce sucessfully? What aspects don't seem to make it through to the far
side of an audio reproduction chain? And then, how do I evaluate an audio
system? Do I make up my mind instantly, or do I sit with it for a while? What
kinds of details can I listen for? What would it mean to defocus from the
details and take in the gestalt? How useful is theory in predicting the
performance of an audio system? Are the good audio systems exactly the same as
the audio systems that measure well, or do these categories merely overlap?
As the teacher, [James Boyk] convey great enthusiasm, something I only
got from a handful of Caltech profs. —Mike Mossey '91 BS, E&AS. (107
projects: Loudspeaker and cabinet design. See photos on Music Lab home page.)




Comments Received in 1988
"More real laboratory science went on in that class than in any other I took in
my Caltech career." —Bruce J. Sams III '83. (Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard; Max
Planck Institute)
"The highest standards of scientific honesty and thoroughness were demanded....
Supremely valuable." —Denes Zsolnay '84.


"Valuable in that it was the experimental class in which things were the least
clear cut. In [other courses] the experiments were completely cut and dried."
—David Hull '85.

"The theory of double-blind testing was not presented in any other course I
took at Caltech." —William Snyder '82. (Later chief engineer, Krell
Electronics, makers of Class A audio amps.)
"EE/Mu 107 is of international importance... I instituted a third-year Option
course in 'Audio' which follows [its] example..." —Prof. Peter B. Fellgett
FRS; Head, Dept. of Cybernetics, University of Reading (England); co-patentee
of Ambisonics and the Soundfield microphone.


"One of the most valuable courses at Caltech." —Caltech Prof. F. Brock
Fuller, Mathematics
"Unique perspective on the art of engineering.... Made clear to me that
instrumentation is merely a tool.... Excellent input on technical writing
style." —Rick Walker '82. (Hewlett-Packard/Agilent; holder or co-holder of 13
patents)

Looks like a lot of students at one of the world's best science schools have a
pretty positive opinion of Boyk and his class. But what do they know? They are
only world class science students from Cal Tech.

>
>>>Unfortunately, Bob hit it right on the head. Boyk, who is a talented
>>>musician and a good recording engineer,
>>
>>Hmmm. IMO he is a good pianist and a talented recording engineer. His
>>recordings are amoung the best I have ever heard, his performances are not
>>amoung the best I have ever heard.
>
>OK, he's a better pianist than I am, which makes him talented, as
>opposed to me, as I am an untalented pianist! I guess it comes down
>to your ranking of those terms. :-)

I was just offering my take on his abilities. Talent is, as you point out, a
relative term.

>
>> does indeed love the sound of
>>>his own voice, and tends to stray into lecturing in areas for which he
>>>is totally unqualified, as should be obvious from reading that
>>>transcript.
>>
>>Shouldn't the administration at Cal Tech be alerted?
>
>It would seem that they have been, as I understand that his contract
>was not renewed this year.

I'm not sure that is true but if it is true 25 years is quite run for any
teacher. I'df think people as bright as those found on the Cal Tech
administration would have caught on sooner than 25 years and I would expect
students as knowledgable in science wouldn't have such a positive opinion on
such an obviously incompetent teacher. How did Boyk pull the wool over
everyone's eyes there at Cal Tech?

>
>> Any I *have* attempted correspondence with Boyk on this
>>>matter, which resulted in him throwing a hissy fit and abandoning the
>>>field.
>>
>>That is your side of it.
>
>Indeed so. Perhaps Boyk might care to rebut in this forum?

He used to do that. It seems he got tired of RAHE.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 1:04:10 AM

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

On 29 Aug 2004 15:52:05 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 8/29/2004 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cgsosu02420@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 28 Aug 2004 14:54:29 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>>>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>>>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob T.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing. This
>>is
>>>>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee students,
>>>>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he
>>is
>>>>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all
>>the
>>>>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>>>>
>>>>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>>>>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,
>>>
>>>He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.
>>
>>Indeed not - nor is he anything else at Cal Tech, apparently.
>
>That is not what I see on his website. He anounced that his tenure as pianist
>in residence has come to an end. He does not say anything about not teaching at
>Cal Tech any longer. Here is the first line of his website.James Boyk
>Pianist in Residence, April 1974 - June 2004.
>Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
>Director of the Music Lab
>California Institute of Technology

Note that in his own CV, he quotes *no* connection with Cal Tech post
June 2004. Basically, he's gone....................

>>> but he also teaches
>>>>courses in the combining of engineering and music.
>>>
>>>The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"
>>
>>That would be 'taught', no?
>
>I'd say no until I hear otherwise.

Interesting that you can't actually quote anything - even from Boyk's
own self-promotional website - that suggests that he has now *any*
connection with Cal Tech........

>>> While we might
>>>>indeed agree that he has no technical credentials,
>>>
>>>The two of you might agree but obviously the administration at Cal Tech,
>>>arguably one of the best schools in the world in science, does not agree. I
>>>doubt they would have anyone teach a class titled "Projects in music and
>>>*science*" if they thought he lacked the "credentials" to do so.
>>
>>Nonetheless, they did. Boyk has no engineering (or science)
>>credentials whatever.
>
>Electronic Construction, Mho Engineering, Toledo, 1962.
>Electronic Design and Construction, Ottawa Chemical Co., Toledo, 1961.

You call those 'engineering credentials'?

>>> I would be
>>>prone to give the administration at Cal Tech the edge on this opinion. They
>>>know Boyk better than you and they know science better than you.
>>
>>So that's why they didn't renew his contract this year?
>
>Maybe they didn't want to fund a pianist in residence any longer. It was a
>student government decision I believe. That decision obviously has no bearing
>on Cal Tech's administrative decision to have him teach a science class.

He also no longer teaches a science class, or any other class.....

>class that he has taught for 25 years. if he were as incompeent as you claim
>you'd think the folk at Cal Tech would have caught on by now don't you? Here
>are some comments by his students on that his class.

<snip self-gratification culled from Boyk's own website>

Doesn't that in itself tell you useful things about the guy? Just go
*read* his own website for some insight.

Now, try to find any *real* engineer who is so insecure that he feels
the need to puff himself up like that.......................

>>> Any I *have* attempted correspondence with Boyk on this
>>>>matter, which resulted in him throwing a hissy fit and abandoning the
>>>>field.
>>>
>>>That is your side of it.
>>
>>Indeed so. Perhaps Boyk might care to rebut in this forum?
>
>He used to do that. It seems he got tired of RAHE.

I wonder why? In r.a.h-e, you can't just puff yourself up based on
academic tenure, you actually have to provide cogent arguments for
your beliefs and assertions. Boyk came here and got his fingers
burned.

Please note that I cast no aspersions upon his abilities either as a
pianist or as a recording enginneer, I simply object to his spouting
unscientific rubbish at a fine engineering institution. Luckily, that
seems to have been terminated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 5:30:13 AM

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 8/29/2004 2:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cgtgca02nd2@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>On 29 Aug 2004 15:52:05 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>Date: 8/29/2004 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cgsosu02420@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>On 28 Aug 2004 14:54:29 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>>>>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>>>>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob T.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing.
>This
>>>is
>>>>>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee
>students,
>>>>>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he
>>>is
>>>>>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all
>>>the
>>>>>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>>>>>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,
>>>>
>>>>He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.
>>>
>>>Indeed not - nor is he anything else at Cal Tech, apparently.
>>
>>That is not what I see on his website. He anounced that his tenure as
>pianist
>>in residence has come to an end. He does not say anything about not teaching
>at
>>Cal Tech any longer. Here is the first line of his website.James Boyk
>>Pianist in Residence, April 1974 - June 2004.
>>Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
>>Director of the Music Lab
>>California Institute of Technology
>
>Note that in his own CV, he quotes *no* connection with Cal Tech post
>June 2004. Basically, he's gone....................

I note that he specifically cites his tenure as pianist in residence as April
1974- June 2004 and I note he refers to himself as Lecturer in Music in
Electrical Engineering, Director of the Music Lab at Cal Tech in the present
tense. I certainly hope you have information beyond what is on his website to
support your assertion that he no longer teaches at Cal Tech.


>
>>>> but he also teaches
>>>>>courses in the combining of engineering and music.
>>>>
>>>>The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"
>>>
>>>That would be 'taught', no?
>>
>>I'd say no until I hear otherwise.
>
>Interesting that you can't actually quote anything - even from Boyk's
>own self-promotional website - that suggests that he has now *any*
>connection with Cal Tech........

What did you not understand about "Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
Director of the Music Lab California Institute of Technology" Looks like a
quote to me that strongly suggests James Boyk currently holds a position at Cal
Tech.

>
>>>> While we might
>>>>>indeed agree that he has no technical credentials,
>>>>
>>>>The two of you might agree but obviously the administration at Cal Tech,
>>>>arguably one of the best schools in the world in science, does not agree.
>I
>>>>doubt they would have anyone teach a class titled "Projects in music and
>>>>*science*" if they thought he lacked the "credentials" to do so.
>>>
>>>Nonetheless, they did. Boyk has no engineering (or science)
>>>credentials whatever.
>>
>>Electronic Construction, Mho Engineering, Toledo, 1962.
>>Electronic Design and Construction, Ottawa Chemical Co., Toledo, 1961.
>
>You call those 'engineering credentials'?

Are you asserting that they are not credentials in any way? That was your
assertion. But you have also asserted that James Boyk is no longer teaching at
Cal Tech. I hope you have information to support that assertion.


>
>>>> I would be
>>>>prone to give the administration at Cal Tech the edge on this opinion.
>They
>>>>know Boyk better than you and they know science better than you.
>>>
>>>So that's why they didn't renew his contract this year?
>>
>>Maybe they didn't want to fund a pianist in residence any longer. It was a
>>student government decision I believe. That decision obviously has no
>bearing
>>on Cal Tech's administrative decision to have him teach a science class.
>
>He also no longer teaches a science class, or any other class.....

How do you know?

>
>>class that he has taught for 25 years. if he were as incompeent as you claim
>>you'd think the folk at Cal Tech would have caught on by now don't you? Here
>>are some comments by his students on that his class.
>
><snip self-gratification culled from Boyk's own website>
>
>Doesn't that in itself tell you useful things about the guy? Just go
>*read* his own website for some insight.

Yes it did. Why snip all those students' comments? They told me that a number
of world class science students had a very high opinion of Boyk and his class
at Cal Tech. Like I said before, I think the students and administration have a
better perspective on Boyk and a great deal more knowledge and experience in
science than you. I think their opinions hold more water than yours on Boyk.

>
>Now, try to find any *real* engineer who is so insecure that he feels
>the need to puff himself up like that.......................

Oh come on. Now you are attacking his credibility because he promotes himself?
That's just ridiculous.

>
>>>> Any I *have* attempted correspondence with Boyk on this
>>>>>matter, which resulted in him throwing a hissy fit and abandoning the
>>>>>field.
>>>>
>>>>That is your side of it.
>>>
>>>Indeed so. Perhaps Boyk might care to rebut in this forum?
>>
>>He used to do that. It seems he got tired of RAHE.
>
>I wonder why?

Maybe he is tired of unfounded attacks on himself. I sure hope you have some
valid reason to claim he is no longer at Cal Tech at all.

In r.a.h-e, you can't just puff yourself up based on
>academic tenure, you actually have to provide cogent arguments for
>your beliefs and assertions.

No you don't. You just have to follow some simple rules for posting.

Boyk came here and got his fingers
>burned.

I've read some of his exchanges. I saw something quite different than you did.


>
>Please note that I cast no aspersions upon his abilities either as a
>pianist or as a recording enginneer, I simply object to his spouting
>unscientific rubbish at a fine engineering institution. Luckily, that
>seems to have been terminated.

Cal Tech is a science and engineering institution. As to whether he teaches
there anymore, I'd like to see something concrete on that. It seems that the
administration or the students didn't find his work rubbish during his 25 years
there. Unlike you they were there with him during this time. What institutions
have you taught science or engineering at?
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 5:30:45 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> Note that in his own CV, [Boyk] quotes *no* connection with Cal Tech post
> June 2004. Basically, he's gone....................

He's listed in their directory as " Lecturer in Electrical
Engineering/ Music"

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22935A29

>> It seems he got tired of RAHE.

> I wonder why? In r.a.h-e, you can't just puff yourself
> up based on academic tenure, you actually have to
> provide cogent arguments for your beliefs and
> assertions. Boyk came here and got his fingers
> burned.

On Usenet, those with the most cogent arguments don't always
have the last word. Persistence counts a lot, and free time.
Another issue is whether having the most cogent argument means
one is right or not. The history of science (not to mention
politics) is full of cogent argument that were wrong.

Maybe Boyk just got tired of the interminable arguments.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 3:41:06 AM

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

Robert Trosper <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<cgq68501d9a@news3.newsguy.com>...
> Whatever he said in class, and whatever effect it had on you is in a
> parallel universe to this discussion. The article does not, in my
> opinion, contain much besides the strongly held views and opinions. I
> have no opinion on his behavior, character, shoe size or preference in
> foods outside of the article. I will say that I could have qualified my
> statement further to make it clear that my opinion is based ON THIS ARTIC
> LE.

Actually, I believe they are closely related. How one interprets the
tone and intent of his seminar depends on knowing the kind of person
he is. I can take his remarks only in a negative light assuming
certain things about his intent, and proceed as you did.

> It doesn't change his point or mine. My point is that the effect of
> familiarity swamps the change in specification. Your point is different
> and also valid. I'm assuming you're allowing the converse that "worse"
> specs for one box don't necessarily lead to worse (or even different)
> audible results. Say we change the 3dB down point from 2.4 GHz to 2.2
> GHz. Audible?

As you've shown, there are many other mechanisms that can affect the
audible characteristics of an audio component, hence his point that
the standard audio specs don't mean much for predicting perception.
Even if Boyk didn't claim this, I don't see why this is such a
controversial point, as it's well-known that standard audio specs
(THD+N, SNR, simple frequency response, etc.) don't really predict
audibility except in the grossest cases, either positively or
negatively.

> Not having the cheap speakers in hand, I can't say definitively. I do
> know that many cheap speakers use materials with low resonance (MDF) for
> that reason, and that applying asphalt is cheap.

I hope I don't need to point out that resonance control in a speaker
involves more than just asphalt and MDF, right? Consider the myriad
varieties and numbers of driver, crossover, and box resonances for
starters, and I doubt asphalt and MDF will solve any great number of
them. Also, MDF in and of itself doesn't have resonance, as that
depends on the physical construction of the box. What MDF has is high
damping which will reduce certain kinds of box resonances by
dissipating their energy as heat, but it won't do much for a metal
cone's resonance. Consider too the extra weight added by using MDF
and asphalt (in those applications where they do something useful),
and how that affects the costs and manufacturability of our
inexpensive speaker, so even if MDF and asphalt were the universal
salve for resonance, they may not be very practical solutions.

> What he seems to be saying is that it somehow worse to do the good that o
> ne can to a price point than not to do anything at all! Either buy good,
> and more expensive speakers, or suffer.

While which design philosophy one picks is definitely a matter of
personal preferences, a limiter box like the one he describes isn't
free, therefore a speaker system that has one cannot be produced to
the same price point as one which doesn't, but otherwise has the same
physical speaker characteristics. The extra money spent on the
limiter box could be used in other possibly beneficial ways on the
speaker itself.

> The choice of words leads me to believe
> that it was James Boyk, and only James Boyk who could have heard the
> distortion or noticed the bag was leaking. The story would have made
> more sense to me if someone was just going ahead without listening to
> the playback at all, or had MISSED the less obvious distortion, and if
> something useful had been said about what to listen for.

I don't think you're giving him the benefit of the doubt by taking his
comments in this way, hence my comments about how he conducts his
classes and his relationship with his students. He'd be the last
person to claim that only he could hear the distortion. Think about
it this way: if he were the only person who could hear the
distortion, then it doesn't matter if the distortion were recorded
because no one else would hear it. So why worry about it in the first
place? I thought his description of the failure modes of the other
two mics were pretty clear.

--Andre
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 3:43:10 AM

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

On 30 Aug 2004 01:30:13 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 8/29/2004 2:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cgtgca02nd2@news1.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 29 Aug 2004 15:52:05 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>Date: 8/29/2004 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cgsosu02420@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>On 28 Aug 2004 14:54:29 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>>>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>>>>>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>>>>>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob T.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing.
>>This
>>>>is
>>>>>>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee
>>students,
>>>>>>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such he
>>>>is
>>>>>>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on all
>>>>the
>>>>>>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>>>>>>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,
>>>>>
>>>>>He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed not - nor is he anything else at Cal Tech, apparently.
>>>
>>>That is not what I see on his website. He anounced that his tenure as
>>pianist
>>>in residence has come to an end. He does not say anything about not teaching
>>at
>>>Cal Tech any longer. Here is the first line of his website.James Boyk
>>>Pianist in Residence, April 1974 - June 2004.
>>>Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
>>>Director of the Music Lab
>>>California Institute of Technology
>>
>>Note that in his own CV, he quotes *no* connection with Cal Tech post
>>June 2004. Basically, he's gone....................
>
>I note that he specifically cites his tenure as pianist in residence as April
>1974- June 2004 and I note he refers to himself as Lecturer in Music in
>Electrical Engineering, Director of the Music Lab at Cal Tech in the present
>tense. I certainly hope you have information beyond what is on his website to
>support your assertion that he no longer teaches at Cal Tech.

It now seems unclear as to whether he is totally gone, or retains his
tenure as a lecturer. One can only hope...................

>>>>> but he also teaches
>>>>>>courses in the combining of engineering and music.
>>>>>
>>>>>The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"
>>>>
>>>>That would be 'taught', no?
>>>
>>>I'd say no until I hear otherwise.
>>
>>Interesting that you can't actually quote anything - even from Boyk's
>>own self-promotional website - that suggests that he has now *any*
>>connection with Cal Tech........
>
>What did you not understand about "Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
>Director of the Music Lab California Institute of Technology" Looks like a
>quote to me that strongly suggests James Boyk currently holds a position at Cal
>Tech.

>><snip self-gratification culled from Boyk's own website>
>>
>>Doesn't that in itself tell you useful things about the guy? Just go
>>*read* his own website for some insight.
>
>Yes it did. Why snip all those students' comments? They told me that a number
>of world class science students had a very high opinion of Boyk and his class
>at Cal Tech.

If looking at any other advert, do you take as a balanced view, the
endorsements that you read on that advert?

>>Now, try to find any *real* engineer who is so insecure that he feels
>>the need to puff himself up like that.......................
>
>Oh come on. Now you are attacking his credibility because he promotes himself?
>That's just ridiculous.

Really? Why is it ridiculous? Do you see any real engineers doing
this? Or is this an American cultural thing?


> What institutions
>have you taught science or engineering at?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach,
lecture. Those who can't lecture, write textbooks................

I have OTOH been Head of Electronics and Computer Applications at the
Production Engineering Research Association of Great Britain (PERA),
which is one of the AIRO group of internationally respected research
organisations, and also Engineering Systems Manager at Hughes
Microelectronics Ltd, the only non-US-based division of the Hughes
Aircraft Company. I did, rather than taught, unless you count
consultance advice as 'teaching'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 3:50:57 AM

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

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2004 15:52:05 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>That is your side of it.
> >>
> >>Indeed so. Perhaps Boyk might care to rebut in this forum?
> >
> >He used to do that. It seems he got tired of RAHE.

> I wonder why? In r.a.h-e, you can't just puff yourself up based on
> academic tenure, you actually have to provide cogent arguments for
> your beliefs and assertions. Boyk came here and got his fingers
> burned.

Last I saw of him, he was holding forth on the aptly-named
Audio Asylum.



--
-S.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 4:22:02 AM

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

Mike Prager hifi@ec.rr.com wrote:



>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> Note that in his own CV, [Boyk] quotes *no* connection with Cal Tech post
>> June 2004. Basically, he's gone....................
>
>He's listed in their directory as " Lecturer in Electrical
>Engineering/ Music"
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22935A29
>
>>> It seems he got tired of RAHE.
>
>> I wonder why? In r.a.h-e, you can't just puff yourself
>> up based on academic tenure, you actually have to
>> provide cogent arguments for your beliefs and
>> assertions. Boyk came here and got his fingers
>> burned.
>
>On Usenet, those with the most cogent arguments don't always
>have the last word. Persistence counts a lot, and free time.
>Another issue is whether having the most cogent argument means
>one is right or not. The history of science (not to mention
>politics) is full of cogent argument that were wrong.
>
>Maybe Boyk just got tired of the interminable arguments.
>
>
>Mike Prager
>North Carolina, USA

That might be because he couldn't win any of them :-)
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 6:01:20 AM

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 8/30/2004 4:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ch0e2e02ld3@news4.newsguy.com>
>
>On 30 Aug 2004 01:30:13 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>Date: 8/29/2004 2:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cgtgca02nd2@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>On 29 Aug 2004 15:52:05 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>>Date: 8/29/2004 7:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <cgsosu02420@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Aug 2004 14:54:29 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>>>>Date: 8/27/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>>Message-id: <cgo19l02p6f@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 26 Aug 2004 23:30:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:cgj7m201ha2@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Boyk actually says a few interesting things, but, for me it's all
>>>>>>>>> outweighed by the patronizing tone, the false dichotomies, the
>>>>>>>>> caricatures and the morass of soggy opinion. Ick.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob T.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is your own disparagement of Boyk's talk that I find disturbing.
>>>This
>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>a seminar given by a pianist as guest lecturer to a bunch of ee
>>>students,
>>>>>>>>who are not audio specialists or professionals or even ee's. As such
>he
>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>simply and entertainingly trying to give them a general education on
>all
>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>things that can happen in trying to record and reproduce music.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is a very false picture. Boyk is not employed by Cal Tech as 'a
>>>>>>>pianist'. To be sure, he is Pianist in Residence,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He is no longer Pianist in residence at Cal Tech.
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed not - nor is he anything else at Cal Tech, apparently.
>>>>
>>>>That is not what I see on his website. He anounced that his tenure as
>>>pianist
>>>>in residence has come to an end. He does not say anything about not
>teaching
>>>at
>>>>Cal Tech any longer. Here is the first line of his website.James Boyk
>>>>Pianist in Residence, April 1974 - June 2004.
>>>>Lecturer in Music in Electrical Engineering
>>>>Director of the Music Lab
>>>>California Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>Note that in his own CV, he quotes *no* connection with Cal Tech post
>>>June 2004. Basically, he's gone....................
>>
>>I note that he specifically cites his tenure as pianist in residence as
>April
>>1974- June 2004 and I note he refers to himself as Lecturer in Music in
>>Electrical Engineering, Director of the Music Lab at Cal Tech in the present
>>tense. I certainly hope you have information beyond what is on his website
>to
>>support your assertion that he no longer teaches at Cal Tech.
>
>It now seems unclear as to whether he is totally gone, or retains his
>tenure as a lecturer.

There was never any reason to suspect he did not retain his tunure as a
lecturer and head of the music lab.

One can only hope...................
>

Wow, You wish for him to be fired. IMO that is just plain ugly.


>>>>>> but he also teaches
>>>>>>>courses in the combining of engineering and music.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The class he teaches is titled "Projects in Music & Science"
>>>>>
>>>>>That would be 'taught', no?
>>>>
>>>>I'd say no until I hear otherwise.
>>>
>>>Interesting that you can't actually quote anything - even from Boyk's
>>>own self-promotional website - that suggests that he has now *any*
>>>connection with Cal Tech........
>>
>>What did you not understand about "Lecturer in Music in Electrical
>Engineering
>>Director of the Music Lab California Institute of Technology" Looks like a
>>quote to me that strongly suggests James Boyk currently holds a position at
>Cal
>>Tech.

Nonanswer noted.


>
>>><snip self-gratification culled from Boyk's own website>
>>>
>>>Doesn't that in itself tell you useful things about the guy? Just go
>>>*read* his own website for some insight.
>>
>>Yes it did. Why snip all those students' comments? They told me that a
>number
>>of world class science students had a very high opinion of Boyk and his
>class
>>at Cal Tech.
>
>If looking at any other advert, do you take as a balanced view, the
>endorsements that you read on that advert?

What does this have to do with the *fact* that a number of science students
that have been bright and talented enough to get into one the worlds most
grestest institutions of science and engineering have sang his praises? Unlike
you they have actually been through Boyk's course and have a first hand
experience to base an opinion.

>
>>>Now, try to find any *real* engineer who is so insecure that he feels
>>>the need to puff himself up like that.......................
>>
>>Oh come on. Now you are attacking his credibility because he promotes
>himself?
>>That's just ridiculous.
>
>Really? Why is it ridiculous?

Because in a free market world people promote themselves. It has no bearing on
one's credibility.

Do you see any real engineers doing
>this?

I haven't looked. I wouldn't have seen Boyk doing it if I hadn't looked at his
webpage.

Or is this an American cultural thing?

Self promotion? Yes it is something we do here. No one over there promotes
themselves?


>
>
>> What institutions
>>have you taught science or engineering at?
>
>Those who can, do.

Then what have you done in audio? Boyk has produced some of the bests ounding
recordings in the business. What did you *do*?

Those who can't, teach.

Sorry but the teachers at Cal tech also are doers. Do you suppose you are a
better scientist or engineer than any of the teachers at Cal Tech? There are a
few teachers there with Nobel prizes. What do you have?

Those who can't teach,
>lecture.

What school did you go to that none of the teachers lectured? Are you so
unaware of the world of science that you didn't know that many of the greatest
scientists have lectured/taught at institutions like Cal Tech?

Those who can't lecture, write textbooks................
>
>I have OTOH been Head of Electronics and Computer Applications at the
>Production Engineering Research Association of Great Britain (PERA),
>which is one of the AIRO group of internationally respected research
>organisations, and also Engineering Systems Manager at Hughes
>Microelectronics Ltd, the only non-US-based division of the Hughes
>Aircraft Company. I did, rather than taught,

Did what? What have you done that would make your opinion of Boyk more valid
than the administration at Cal Tech? What have you done in audio that would
make your opinions more valid than Boyks on audio?

unless you count
>consultance advice as 'teaching'.
>
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 3:27:16 AM

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

> >
> >Maybe Boyk just got tired of the interminable arguments.
> >
> That might be because he couldn't win any of them

You are repeating what I just said: on Usenet, the person
with the loudest voice wins.


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 3:28:57 AM

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

On 31 Aug 2004 02:01:20 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 8/30/2004 4:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <ch0e2e02ld3@news4.newsguy.com>

>>It now seems unclear as to whether he is totally gone, or retains his
>>tenure as a lecturer.
>
>There was never any reason to suspect he did not retain his tunure as a
>lecturer and head of the music lab.

There was, given Bob Marcus original statement (since modified) that
'his contract has not been renewed'. However, Boyk has himself in
e-mail confirmed that his tenure as 'Lecturer in Music in Electrical
Engineering' continues.

> One can only hope...................
>>
>Wow, You wish for him to be fired. IMO that is just plain ugly.

I wish for someone who expresses claims as ludicrous as 'cable sound'
to be kept away from impressionable engineering students. I would be
more than happy for him to continue as 'pianist in residence', and for
him to keep producing great recordings. My *only* problem is that he
teaches a class with 'Science' in the title, and that he espouses
unscientific rubbish such as 'cable sound'.


>>If looking at any other advert, do you take as a balanced view, the
>>endorsements that you read on that advert?
>
>What does this have to do with the *fact* that a number of science students
>that have been bright and talented enough to get into one the worlds most
>grestest institutions of science and engineering have sang his praises? Unlike
>you they have actually been through Boyk's course and have a first hand
>experience to base an opinion.


> Or is this an American cultural thing?
>
>Self promotion? Yes it is something we do here. No one over there promotes
>themselves?

Not to the same degree, and certainly not in the professions. it's a
'professional integrity' sort of thing. Just a cultural difference, I
guess.

>>> What institutions
>>>have you taught science or engineering at?
>>
>>Those who can, do.
>
>Then what have you done in audio? Boyk has produced some of the bests ounding
>recordings in the business. What did you *do*?

I designed equipment which can hear and indentify a submarine at a
range of 2,000 miles. Not very musical, but technically much more
demanding than domestic audio.

> Those who can't, teach.
>
>Sorry but the teachers at Cal tech also are doers. Do you suppose you are a
>better scientist or engineer than any of the teachers at Cal Tech? There are a
>few teachers there with Nobel prizes. What do you have?

We are not talking about me, nor about the top-class scientists and
engineers who are indeed well represented at Cal Tech. We are talking
about James Boyk and his wacky audio ideas.

> Those who can't teach,
>>lecture.
>
>What school did you go to that none of the teachers lectured?

This may be a semantic difference between English and 'murrican. In
the UK, teachers teach at schools, lecturers lecture at colleges and
Universities. It is not normal for UK lecturers to do what might be
regarded as 'teaching', i.e. *interacting* with their students, apart
from tutorial classes. OTOH, it is not normal here for school teachers
to merely 'lecture', i.e. to spout a pile of information and let the
students pick it up as best they may. A good teacher interacts with
his pupils and extracts the very best from each of them. We all
remember the good teachers.

It would seem from Andrew Yew's comments that Boyk has a more 'hands
on' style in his 'Projects' class. Indeed, if what Andrew says about
the course (and Boyk's encouragement of blind tests and personal
discovery, rather than reliance on authority) is correct, it would
seem that Boyk keeps his personal wacky ideas out of his course, which
would render my opinion on his suitability for this work, incorrect.

>Are you so
>unaware of the world of science that you didn't know that many of the greatest
>scientists have lectured/taught at institutions like Cal Tech?

I am well aware of this, but we are not talking about them, we are
talking about James Boyk. Indeed, the whole thrust of my argument has
always been that Cal Tech *is* a world-class technical university, and
I don't expect someone who supports the notion of 'cable sound' to be
resident there!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
September 2, 2004 3:44:03 AM

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

On 31 Aug 2004 23:27:16 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:

>> >
>> >Maybe Boyk just got tired of the interminable arguments.
>> >
>> That might be because he couldn't win any of them
>
>You are repeating what I just said: on Usenet, the person
>with the loudest voice wins.

What a strange attitude, for someone posting on a forum which is by
definition silent and uninterruptible! And in this case, even
moderated to exclude bad behaviour.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
!