I said


Watching a performance profoundly affects how we hear it. Music was
never
an
audio only phenomenon before recording and playback. Like I said that
fact
is
not relevant to the issue of "audible" differences in components.

Audioguy said


OK, I guess I'll have to explain something I thought was implicit in
this discussion, that the discussion at hand is about audio
reproduction devices, and also add that Elmir, for one, feels that
that music reproduction is the only important factor in the
discussion. But I agree totally with you, music per se has no

relevance to the discussion of the
audible differences in audio
amplifiers, only sound.


Tom said


Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.


Good lord why use this as an opportunity to take cheap shots at me. A question
was asked and I answered it. Do you disagree with my answer? My view on amps
are irrelevant to the question asked and the answer given. By the way, for some
of us it is all about the music. You cannot have music without sound. The
quality of sound affects our enjoyment of the music, at least for some of us.


I said

Even if you want to limit it to music reproduction one can find numerous
DVDs
with video to go with the audio. Seeing the performance will affect our
perception of music.


Tom said


It also can positively influences the sense of performance-space acoustics.
Seeing the walls often adds greatly to the realism of reproduced performance.
But a large screen is always better.



That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't
even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the
idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.

The sound guys on set do their best within the limitations of the situation to
get the most accurate sound of the actor's voices as possible. they have no
interest in getting ambient sound except for the sake of sonic continuity. The
ambient sound is often completely wrong since the sound of a set on a
soundstage is nothing like the sound of the space the film makers are trying to
fool you into believing is real. The sound guys on set have nothing to do with
the final soundtrack except only to deliver the recording of the dialogue and
enough of a guide track to allow the foley artists to create all the incidental
sounds. Movie soundtracks cannot be judged for realism anymore than the image
of the film can be judged for realism. Otherwise we would have people and
places constantly changing size and position as the editor chooses. What does a
person with a sixty foot head sound like when he or she talks? Movie goers are
aware of the stylized format of film and live with it's lack of realism. That
is the advantage filmmakers have over music recordists and music playback. It
does seem that the combination of sight and sound does help suspend disbelief
but I don't think film goers even ask the question "did that look or sound like
real life?" They may ask if a visual effect looked like something real caught
on film but I think that is as far as it goes. The unrealistic intrinsic
stylization of film is simply accepted by the film goers.

I said

Many people including myself prefer to listen in the
dark
so as to not be distracted by the lack of performers in our sight. While
isolating the influences of other senses
for the purpose of testing perception
of one sense may seem like an ideal, one cannot ignore the fact that we
live

most of our lives using our senses in tandom and such isolation may have
unexpected effects.


Audioguy said

Please stay on subject, we haven't been discussing video or visual
aspects, only audio. And I haven't been the one wanting to limit the
discussion to just music, that's Elmir again. I think any sound is
fair game for evaluating the performance of audio equipment and in
fact can often illuminate the differences between them much better
than music, one of the points that seems
to
vex Elmir in his highly
repeated posting of the now famous "1.76 dB test".


I said

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.

Tom said


It can also be evaluated from a score.

Nah. One can anticipate what it will sound like from reading the music and one
can evaluate that anticipation, but without the music being played you don't
have music. Sheet music is as much music as a blueprint is a finished building.
They both tell you what to do more or less and some skilled people can
speculate quite accurately on it's merits but there are no real merits when all
is said and done if there is no performance of the music written on the sheet
or a building incarnate. All of which is irrelevant to my point that seeing
performers play the music is another mechanism for the delivery of music.

Audioguy said


And please explain if you prefer to listen in the dark how a blind
test would affect one in a different manner.

I said


I doubt my ability to discern differences in an ABX DBT would be adversly
affected by literal darkness. I don't know since I haven't done it but I see
no
reason to think it would.

Tom said


Agreed.