"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

In order to try to get at home the "natural"
sound of violins one must know what violins do
sound like.

This statement is missing so much relevant info that
it is worthless.

Contrary to golden ear dogma, all violins do not
sound the same. The identical same violin does not
sound the same with different strings. The
identical same violin with the same strings does not
sound the same when
played by a different person. No player plays the
same every time they play.
No violin sounds the same in different places.

A violin sounds substantiatlly different depending
on where you sit in the
room, whether that room is a room with poor
acoustics or whether that room
is Detroit's Orchestra hall. The same is true of
entire orchestras, as I
found out when I was a member of a study group that
did a comparison of
Orchestra Hall and the Detroit Symphony's former
location, at the request
of
the Symphony's Board of Directors.

To paraphrase Mirabel's grotesque error into far
better truth, let me write:

In order to try to get at home the "natural" sound
of specific violins
one
must know what those specific violins sound like
when played by specific
players, playing a specific piece of music, on a
specific occasion, and
playing in a specific place.

While what you write here is obvious and true, you
leave out one important consideration. That is,
there are common traits to the sound of, in this
case, all violins in all performance spaces, heard
from each
of the seats. As an example, you could listen to a
person speaking in a
variety of rooms, etc. and still know that it is THAT
person speaking. In my experience, this is what is
missing from the upper frequency string sound on CDs;
it is as though it is a different "voice".

I obtain that knowlege on the average three times a
week, and have recordings that match that particular
knowlege.

AFAIK nobody else who posts on this newssgroup or
RAHE can come close.

Can come close to what; your level of experience with
live acoustic music? I would beg to differ.

Be that as it may, it is still impossible for LPs to
be as accurate at playing back the sound of a violin.
Here's another lesson on how limited LP's a
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Sc...t12/page2.html

It would be possible to go on considering various
other factors which alter
the detailed performance of Long Playing records. For
example, any serious
comparison of 'LP versus CD' would have to take into
account the relatively
high levels of signal distortion which commercial
cartridges produce when recovering signals louder than
the 0 dB level. Typically, signals of +10 dB
or above are accompanied by harmonic distortion levels
of 10% or more - not
a very high fidelity performance! Even at the 0 dB
level, many cartridges produce around 1% (or more!)
harmonic distortion. The frequency response of
signals recorded on LP are also modified - the high
frequency level boosted
and the low frequency level reduced - to obtain better
S/N and distortion performance. This means that an LP
replay system must include a De-Emphasis
network to Correct the recovered signal's frequency
response. Here, however,
we are only interested in considering those physical
factors which make the
LP less than an ideally 'analog' way to communicate
information. These extra
factors affect the performance of an LP but they don't
change the basic nature of the system.

And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of acoustic music.

That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate.

I didn't say that it did.

No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.

And to my ears, timbres of instruments.

The fact still remains that whatver sound you hear from
a CD is the sound that was on the master tape.

Your prefernce for the sound of violin from LP simply
means that you have a preference for something other
that the sound of real violins.

Says you; not my ears.

Thanks for admitting that you are brainless, Jenn.

Of course you're not brainless - you just say that you are.