[[email protected]]

[Moderator's note: This thread has been cancelled since it has become i
quite circular. -- deb ]

On Dec 1, 3:04�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:16???pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:09?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

???Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.

"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. ?

Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant,
blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus
biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds
'lifelike .
That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who
actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital
recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud
Sax and Kavi Alexander.
Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences.

I don't consider Boyk a credible source on these matters, and haven't for years.
So what? Are you the arbitrator of credibility?

Yes, I am...to me.

Now that would be a case of solipism would it not?


In one of your pullquotes, for example, he seems to assert that 'euphonic colorations'
do not exist. One may refer to the far more credible posts of jj, Dick Pierce, et al,
in those threads.
Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in making direct
comparisons of actual live muisic or mic feeds to the various sources
in question?

I don't know, perhaps you could ask them? �What I do know is they have better
knowledge of the science involved and the scientific method than he does,
and so when they challenge Boyk, I listen.

Better knowledge of science to the best of my understanding does not
make one a better listener. I have only cited Boyks observations as a
listener who, unlike the rest of us, has made direct comparisons
between live mic feeds and the various media being discussed. the only
thing that matters there are his listening skills.


Are they proven better listeners?

Boyk hasn't proven that he is a 'better listener' (than whom?).

I would disagree. I think the quality of his recordings are proof of
his listening skills.


By what objective
criteria are they more credible when it comes to the assesment of
sound quality of the various media in direct comparison to a live
source?

By what objective criteria is Boyk automatically credible?

His demonstrated skills as a recording engineer. Or do you believe a
highly skilled recording engineer does not need listening skills?

�Has he
got a publication record on the matter that goes beyond internet
'white papers'? �Has he subjected his claims to independent review?
Is his grasp of the science and engineering behind audio and audio
perception as sure as jj's or Pierce's?

Does any of that actually affect or measure listening skills?


The answer is 'no' to all of those.

The relevance is none to all of those as well.


It is easy to start making ad Hominem attacks on various
peoples' credibility but it is a basic logical fallacy. You may not
like James Boyk's findings but to question his "credibility" on this
subject you have to find objective fault with his experience,
methodologies or reasoning.

It's all been done in the past, sir, as you well know, and a considerable
part of it here on RAHE.

No ity has not been done. there has been no objective proof that james
Boyk is anything but a highly skilled listener. I find it most
unfortunate that some would make ad Hominem a regular part of their
debate tactics. It is both a flawed argument and just plain ugly.

See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny
linked to, for a list of them. ?There is also the issue of audio memory,
which is not particularly good at details over the long haul.
It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition.
Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live
instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out
there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural
recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old
freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That
sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you
think otherwise?

One error is that you are equaing the sound of an individual human voice -- a soiund we
are evolutionarily quite well attuned to -- with the sound of some
generic 'live' performance.
I wasn't equating anything, Just citing one of many examples of long
term recognition. I can think of other examples that involved musical
instruments. But I will ask a more specific question. Do you believe
it is difficult for listeners to recognize the distinct sound of live
instruments v. the sound of instruments recorded and played back based
on long term aural memory of the sound of live instruments?

I already responded, but y ou snipped it -- it is not typically difficult
to tell that the two are *different*.

Sorry about any snipping. I assure you it was accidental this time.
But it would appear that we agree on this point. Long term aural
memory is pretty sufficient for recognizing the sound of live acoustic
instruments.

�This is because of the limitations of
two-channel recording and playback. �As we live in a three-dimensional sound
field, soudn that hass been passed through a less-dimensional bottleneck
will tend to sound 'distorted' or 'less real' in some way. �

This is not evidence of 'long term memory' in the sense you are wishing
it to be.

What do you believe I am wishing here? I have already stated my point
and it would appear that you aree with me. It seems you are burning a
strawman by arguing with your presumptions about my wishes.