[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

Since I don't have any knowledge about "orchestras accompanying groups", I
obviously wasn't talking about that kind of concert.

That was kind of the point. You seem to want to lump everything but
classical or jazz into "non-live" music. That just isn't the case.

I was talking about the
type I've seen depicted that show rock groups on stage with fireworks, and
lots of microphones and PA speakers, I was in Rome a number of years ago at
the Roman Forum one Sunday afternoon. Paul McCartney was giving a concert at
the Colosseum and there were huge scaffolds with speakers on them lining the
street for more than half a mile. Even though I wasn't at the concert (I was
touring the Forum and the Palatine) I could hear the entire concert - it was
uncomfortably loud - even that far away. They must have a million Watts of
amplifier power. Nobody heard that concert un-amplified.

Well, the first problem here is why would you would listen to McCartney ;-)

Believe me, It wasn't my idea. I happened to be in Rome, near the Colosseum
while the concert was being performed. I'll say one thing positive about it.
I had the entire Forum and Palatine Hill area all to myself! There wasn't
another tourist in sight. Even over by the Circus Maximus site, I could still
hear it and it was still loud!

But point taken. Fireworks and the like (as with the Halloween like
affectations) don't usually accompany acoustic concerts IME.


Perhaps you should change your description to "acoustic" music. Because
it's hard to dispute that musicians playing instruments right there in
front of you is not "live".

But what the audience hears is NOT the actual instruments playing, it's a
facsimile of the performance picked up by microphones, electronically
amplified and EQ'd, and heard via loudspeakers.

Have you ever walked down the street and passed an open doorway to a night
spot and heard a small band playing inside? Without even entering the
establishment, or even seeing inside, just hearing the music wafting through
the open door, something tells you "That's live music playing in there!"

Well, yes I have. Most of the time, those small bands have been playing
amplified music.

Not in my experience. I can tell amplified from real every time. And when
it's amplified, only the loudness tells me that it's a small ensemble playing
in that night club, (rather than a jukebox) not the sound.


Nothing can reproduce that sound. Were it the best stereo system in the
world
in that club, you wouldn't be fooled into thinking it was real, live music
playing and The finest PA equipment isn't even THAT good!

Of course not. But that holds true for any type of music, acoustic,
amplified, or otherwise.

Of course it does, but that doesn't alter the fact that some of us attend
live concerts to hear real music played in a real space. If I want to listen
to amplifiers and speakers, I'll save myself the time, effort and money and
merely stay home in the comfort of my listening room and listen to
recordings. It will certainly sound better!



Say's far more about the limits of the
illusion created by stereo in a home setting than it does about acoustic
versus amplified music IMO.


I don't agree. I won't attend a concert or other "live performance where
sound reinforcement is being employed. Most of the time It's simply not
needed (for the type of music I listen to - and I don't care about the rest)
and all it does is make the club uncomfortably LOUD because people have to
talk louder to be heard over the music so the band turns up it's volume,
making people talk even more loudly, and soon it spirals into bedlam.

But, clearly there's a broad gray line between what constitutes a
'concert' versus a 'performance event' where the music merely
accompanies the visual spectacle. Usually, when the folks on stage are
dressed in Halloween costumes, it's the latter :-) 'Course, that's just
my opinion.

Well, these bands are certainly a "performance event" and the musicians are
certainly playing their instruments "live", it's just that the audience
isn't
hearing the direct, live sound of those instruments, but rather, as I said
earlier, a technically augmented facsimile thereof.

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in,
and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you
personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a
PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I
would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric
guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without
meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA
system" they're ELECTRIC guitars!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 18, 6:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 16, 5:20=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head
at least eight of various sizes go off at once) to
sounding very unreal. =3D3DA0Using the SACD version.
=3D3DA0And the culprit....the preamp. =3D3DA0 Audio
Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. =3D3DA0So much for
big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D3D en to it
chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?

No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.

Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
reached completely eroneous conclusions.

Only in your opinion. =A0Now, you're overreaching your position and prete=
nding
to be a cosmic authority.

No Arny not in my opinion. You see (or maybe you don't) DSOTM is a
very popular album and there actually is a great deal of fact based
inofrmation on how it was recorded out there for anyone to read up on
or even watch on DVD. Your eroneous conclusions are not a matter of
opinion. They are a matter of varifiable fact. Just because you didn't
do your homework on the subject of how DSOTM was recorded doesn't mean
it is a mystery to all and subject purely to opinion. one does not
need to be a cosmic authority just basically educated on the subject.
Clearly I am and you are not.



Perhaps you should steer clear of Dark Side of the Moon as a
reference.

Perhaps you should remember that you don't rule the universe. Proof by
assertion is no proof at all. If you've got evidence, then offer it. If y=
ou
have something to say but OSAF , I'm sure we'd be all glad to hear it fro=
m
you.



I see no point in trying to "prove" things that are well documented
and easily accessed by anyone willing to do their homework. What next?
Will you ask me to "prove" Pink Floyd was an actual band? One does not
have to rule the universe to catch you making gross errors in fact on
this subjeect Arny. One just needs to know a litle bit about what
actually went into the making of DSOTM.




If you've miced different instruments in different rooms
different ways, =3D a recording paints a fairly detailed
sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've
worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
fai=3D rly well.
What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead. =3DA0It is co=3D mmon to mic
close and add the sonic perspective electronically
during the mix. Done right, this can fool most
listeners.
And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were
recorded in an acoustically dead studio room with your
experienced ears as a recording engineer you concluded
that the clocks were recorded in a dead studio room and
were close miced.

No such thing!

Wow, wow, Arny, really? You really wanted to post this? Abby Road
Studios dude! Were talking specifically about Abby Road studios.
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/
"Studio One is the world?s largest purpose-built recording studio. The
space can easily accommodate a 110-piece orchestra and 100-piece choir
simultaneously. Studio One?s acoustic is as famous as the location,
offering a supremely warm and clear sound, perfect for numerous types
of recording, from solo piano to large orchestras and film scores. The
live area also has two spacious isolation booths. A Steinway D concert
grand and a celeste are also available
The size of Studio One also makes it a very attractive venue for live
music events."
So what does thing mean Arny? according to you "only a person who has
never been in a real world recording studio and has no clue about how
recording is done in studios could make these claims.(The recording
spaces are hardly dead there (abbt Road Studios)) does this mean that
the people at Abby Road studios making claims about the acoustics of
their own studio have in fact never been inside their own studio?
Could it mean that at Abby Road studio when you record an orchestra
you do so in a dead acoustic envirement? So what next? demands that I
prove that Studio One at Abby Road Studio is actually an acoustically
reverberant studio? You should have quit when you were just way
behind Arny.



Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at
Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there.

Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording studio =
and
has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these claim=
s.

Including some very lively spaces Arny. Something you think only a
person who has never been in an actual recording studio would claim.As
you point out Abby Road Studios has many differnt rooms but your claim
was that "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio
or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly
dead." So 1. what was actually well known but apparently not to you
was that DSOTM was mostly recored in *Abby Road Studios* and you claim
the rooms are generally, with *few* exceptions acoustically dead.
Clearly studio 1 is anything but dead. but lets look at the other
studios to see just how generally dead with "few"exceptions the
studios at Abby Road really are. http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio2/
"Studio Two is probably the most famous studio in the world. It has a
unique design, acoustic and an unparalleled history of recording. The
studio can comfortably accommodate up to 55 musicians for film scores
and overdubs, as well as providing the perfect tracking room for
bands. Available with the studio are a variety of upright pianos and a
Steinway Model D concert grand." definitely not dead. You are 0 for 2
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio3/
"Studio ThreeStudio Three is an incredibly versatile facility with a
history of pioneering projects including Pink Floyd?s ?Wish You Were
Here? and some of the very first 5.1 surround mixes for the Beatles
Anthology, U2 and Coldplay. The recording space was designed to have a
natural and flexible acoustic," 0 for 3 ooh ouch. That's it. Once
again you should have done your homework. None of the sudio spaces at
abby Road are actually dead spaces. None. What did I say? Oh yeah "
Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby Road studios. The
recording spaces are hardly dead there. And what did you say? oh yeah
"Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording
studio and has no clue about how recording is done in studios could
make these claims." Ooooooooops.


Recording studios the size of Abbey Road are composed of multiple highly
dissimilar rooms.

The spaces in a real-world recording studio vary all over the map, and th=
ey
can be modified at will for a given tracking session using portable sound
proofing panels or ad hoc sound absorbing materials such as shipping
blankets.

Arny give it up. We are talking about DSOTM which was recorded mostly
at Abby Road Studios. You apparently didn't even know that was where
DSOTM was recorded. The spaces clearly are anything but dead despite
your claims based on your apparent listening skills as a recordist.
ooooooops. again

Studio three's description says it all: "The recording space was designed=
to
have a natural and flexible acoustic, with multiple isolation booths." =
=A0Hmm,
what do they do with the isolation booths? I'll bet they record in them! =
;-)

It would appear that you have just now learned about studios having
dedicated isolation *booths* so you are betting on yet another
uniformed guess. But we weren't talking about isolation booths Arny
*You* made statements about studios. That being "What is known for
sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." Clearly the three
studios at Abby Road Studios where the recording was mostly made are
anything but dead. Now you discovered they have isolation booths and
you present that as an out for your gross misrepresentation of the
sudios at Abby Road. Are you sure the isolation booths are
acoustically dead at Abby Road Studios? are you sure the one youi
cited even existed when DSOTM was recorded?

So Arny? Is that a bet you want to take in regards to DSOTM? When I
asked you for photos of the mic configuration way back in regards to
the recording of the clocks you said Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room. The DSOTM
recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that close-micing
bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the hi=3D3D gh end
audiophile comments on this thread." when asked if you had any
pictures you said "No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided." now combine that
with these quotes (all quotes here are from above) "If you've miced
different instruments in different rooms different ways, =3D a recording
paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was miced.
If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fai=3D
rly well. What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio
or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly
dead" we essentially have you claiming that by your expertise as a
recordist you were able to listen to DSOTM and determine that the
clocks were were recorded with a close mic in a dead studio room when
in fact they were recorded individually at various clock shops. so do
you really want to make any bets as to how any of the other elements
on DSOTM were recorded Arny? Don't you want to do your homwowrk first?
You have gotten everything so terribly wrong so far. and apparently,
according to you, based on your experience as a recordist. Maybe, just
maybe recording your church group in a highschool auditorium did not
really inform you about how major studio multitrack recordings such as
DSOTM were done back in the day.


Scott, in contrast to =A0your apparent claim there isn't just one studio =
at
Abbey Road. There are three major studios whose size and basic layout and
construction varies considerably, and at least one very small one.

Where did I say Abby Road Studios "has just one studio?" I didn't. If
you are going to build an argument based on something I allegedly said
at least quote me in context so we can know you are getting my claims
right. I do that for you. It is called Abby Road studios (plural) Here
is what I said from above "Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at Abby
Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there." Arny,
"spaces" is a plural of space. Plural meaning more than one.

Furthermore there is considerable evidence that the acoustics of these ro=
oms
is modified to suit for each recording session and also for different
instruments in the same recording session. We have a clear record that th=
ere
are many isolation booths which are typically very dead little rooms.

show me the evidence that this was done with the recording of DSOTM.
That is what we are talking about. You said you can determine these
things due to your expertise as a recordist. Clearly your alleged
expertise as failed you and you have made many gross errors in fact in
regards to the recording of DSOTM. So please show me some evidence
that supports your assertions that the sessions were recorded in
acoiustically dead studios. We know the studios at Abby Road are
anything but dead. Those spaces would be pretty hard to make
acouscally dead. show that they did so in recording DSOTM. Good luck.
here is a hint. It didn't happen.



Also, there are inherent variations in the acoustics of a given room base=
d
on how many musicans are working at any particular time. Move 210 musican=
s
into a room the size of Studio One or 55 into Studio Two, and its acousti=
cs
change dramatically from the same room when it is nearly empty. =A0Both
configurations can make sense depending on what outcome is desired.

That's nice but your claim was " What is known for sure is that DSOTM
was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few exceptions)
acousticaly dead. =3DA0It is co=3D mmon to mic close and add the sonic
perspective electronically during the mix.



Note that the page for the "Penthouse" =A0mentions the following:

Are you sure The Penthouse even existed when they recorded DSOTM?
Might want to check on these things when discussing the recording of
DSOTM at Abby Road Studios. Oooooooooooops.=A0


=A0 Without detailed documentation of each recording
session you have no idea what actually happened.

What happened to this claim of yours from above when I asked for such
documentation? " No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided." ooops again. Feel
free to argue with yourself as much as you want. LOL



Of course Scott in your apparent state of ignorance, inexperience and wit=
h
an overwhelming desire for a rush to judgement, you show zero awareness o=
f
any of the practical exingencies of working in a real world recording
studio.

Funny that this ignorant guy is the one cleaning up all your gross
errors of fact in regards to the recording of DSOTM. Call me ignorant
all you like Arny. The proof of who is actually educated on the
subject should be pretty clear for anyone with the endurance to read
this thread.



Kind of funny that we have this interesting
article from one Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/" since I recorded
an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that the
Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album
did an excellent job of preserving the characteristic
sound of the studio with which I had become so familiar.
Yet when I first listened to the CD layer of the reissue,
it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The sonic
subtleties that identify the recording venue and its
unique reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed
over. They were there on the SACD, so some investigation
was called for."

Scott you just skewered yourself. If all of the spaces at Abbey Road were=
so
reverberent, why did they need to add artifical reverb from a reverb cham=
ber
to some of the recordings?

First off the *echo chamber* (never heard of a reverb chamber) doesn't
add "artificial" reverb. It's real reverb from an actual existing
chamber. I would think one as so knowledgable on all things recording
would know this basic fact. secondly you might want to actually give
DSOTM an actual listen to gain a basic understanding of the actual use
of the echo chamber in the recording of DSOTM. You might then
understand how asking the question shows gross ignorance of the
recording in question. Maybe if you were a regular reader of
Stereophile you wouldn't have made so many gross errors of fact in
regards to the recording.



And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your
expertise as a recordist was "DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." =A0 =A0 ooops......

No oops. Real world experience.

Now you are arguing with yourself again Arny. quote from above "
Without detailed documentation of each recording session you have no
idea what actually happened."



Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the
studio. They were recorded in various clock shops
individually. Do you know of any clock shops that are
acoustically dead?

Any store or workshop can be quite acoustically dead when the machines an=
d
the displays break up the spaces and add diffusion and absorbtion.

But you concluded that they were recorded in an acoustically dead
studio space. Please show me an example of a clock shop being made
acoustically dead. better yet show that this is what Alan Parsons
actually did.



Compare and contrast a car dealership =A0with a fabric store. One is usua=
lly
highly reverberent with tile floors and a lot of glass, while the other o=
ne
is usually very dead for pretty obvious reasons - all those bolts of fabr=
ic
add a lot of absorbtion and some diffusion.

You've never noticed this when you visit stores and workshops, Scott? =A0=
Your
ears must be turned off when you go out into the real world.

I certainly do notice it when I visit fabric shops. Never when
visiting clock shops in London. The walls are covered in clocks. Not
sound absorbing fabric.




Again let's look at your assertions as
quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like
it is entirely =A0possible with the CD version, mid-fi
electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room." "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created
in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced recording
engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach
the conclusion that I've provided."

I'll stick by my statements, Scott.

You go right ahead and do so. Your gun, your foot.

=A0You've just treated us to an exposition
of your lack of awareness of what you hear when you visit the same places=
we
all go to every day. =A0You seem to have just conflated a large complex l=
ike
Abbey Road into just one room, and then claimed that its acoustics are
always the same when we have photographic evidence and experiential evide=
nce
that the acoustics of those rooms can vary all over the map.

Please quote me in context before representing my positions from here
on out. You got all of the above completely wrong. It's getting old.



I thought you worked in the motion picture business, Scott. Haven't you
noticed that making motion pictures involves recording sound as well as
moving pictures and stills?

No Arny, Never noticed. Granted a lot of those guys are now old
friends of mine but I never noticed them recording sound. All those
times they called roll sound I just didn't notice. weird no?

=A0Ever take a look at how they do that? =A0How many
recording spaces are at the studios you work for? How many absorbtive
panels? How many isolation booths? How many gobos?

LOL none Arny. There are no isolation booths on a film set nor are
there any absorbtive panels. clearly you haven't been on an actual
working film set. ooooooooops
Now if you want to talk about the space in which they actually score
the music, i frequently visited that during my seven years on Star
Trek Voyager. No isloations booths used in that either Arny. But at
least you learned about the existance of isolation booths when yo
visited the Abby Road Studios webpage.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:26:23 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:14:35 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background
noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult?
Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.



"So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction
cannot
correct all errors..."

My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath.

But you missed my point when I used "extremely" vs. your "very".
Errors are always fully corrected unless the signal is subsumed by the
noise, a condition that nvers happens except in RF applications when
the signal is either blocked or the distance between the source and
the destination is far beyond the design parameters. In the case of
CDs and DVDs it won't happen unless the player/reader is broken, or
the disc is severely damaged.



First of all I don't recall using the word "very" in the part of my post
that
you quoted. Secondly, my point was that digital can be theoretically
serially
copied forever, or until some situation arises whereby noise so swamps the
data that it's unrecoverable which I also said almost never happens. So
what
are we arguing about, the word "almost"? Give it up!

True, you did not use "very", I did, but I requalified with
"extremely" but you chose to ignore that requalification to suit your
purpose in trying to use my statement to "prove" yours. Well I was
refuting your statement not agreeing with it.

The copying of digtial data to and from CDs and DVDs will always be
completely error free unless a defective device or defective disc is
used. Period.

You're still nit-picking and flogging a deceased equine. I have no more to
say on the subject, and I'm going stop now before I say what I REALLY think
and get myself kicked off this forum.

The reason for my statements was to make it clear to others reading
this thread that digital copying is noise free, contrary to what you
stated. I wouldn't want anyone who didn't understand how digital audio
and the copying of it actually works to be confused.

Your statements earlier in the thread on 14 Feb 2011 in Message ID
were very misleading:

"In reality, of course, the added noise with each generation is THERE,
it's just that the noise is analog and the system is looking for ones
and zeros."

There is never added noise in any generation of digital copying, the
digital data is regenerated with each copy and no analog noise
remains.


--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[KH]

On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in,
and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you
personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a
PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I
would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric
guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost without
meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA
system" they're ELECTRIC guitars!

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is,
*if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording,
then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit. So, do
you claim that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with
*live* electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a
*recording* of same playing through a PA system? If the answer is "no"
then I have to question your claimed acuity. If the answer is "yes",
then perforce "live" amplified music is *LIVE* and readily
distinguishable from a recording. In the latter case, clearly there
would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a reference for
comparison of "live" versus "recorded".

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in,
and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you
personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a
PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playing I
would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electric
guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost
without
meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a "PA
system" they're ELECTRIC guitars!

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole point is,
*if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording,
then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit.

Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non of
that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speakers,
period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that there
is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is
lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement
loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large
concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. The
inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey that
palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why many
people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing like
it.

So, do
you claim that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with
*live* electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a
*recording* of same playing through a PA system?

That's a little difficult to say. Usually in a small club or cafe, there is
really no need for any sound reinforcement other than the guitar amplifiers
needed to make the guitar audible at all and probably a PA system for the
vocals (if any), but the drum kit wouldn't need it (I shouldn't think), nor
would any wind instruments (like a sax or trumpet). If there was an
electronic keyboard of some type, then it too would need an instrument
amplifier/speaker just like the guitars. Certainly the un-amplified drum-kit
or the sound of live brass instruments would be instantly recognizable as
live music in such a venue because no PA system can move that much air,
quickly enough to fool the ear.

If the answer is "no"
then I have to question your claimed acuity. If the answer is "yes",
then perforce "live" amplified music is *LIVE* and readily
distinguishable from a recording.

Not necessarily. See above.

In the latter case, clearly there
would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a reference for
comparison of "live" versus "recorded".


Well, if one accepts your premise... I don't necessarily do so.

[Arny Krueger]

"KH" wrote in message


On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe,
without looking in, and heard a band playing using
electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't
be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA
system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric
guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I
despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as
used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost
without meaning because by definition, electric guitars
are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC
guitars!

I guess that AE is unaware that there are such things as acoustic guitars
with pretty much the same pickup coils that are used on solid body guitars.
They are a practical alternative to simply micing the acoustic guitar. They
are a partial solution to potential problems with acoustic feedback that
come with the mic.

The solid bodies are a practical refinement over just putting pickups on
acoustic guitars. Their major sonic advantage being a reduced tendency
towards acoustic feedback (a mixed blessing), a different tone, and of
course there is the shipping/handling advantage of the durability of a solid
block of wood.

One of the things to remember that a great deal of the characteristic sound
of an acoustic guitar comes from the sounding board which is just an
acoustic impedance matching device and a resonator. In principle there is
no reason why these functions can't be done well electronically.

Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would never say that the
musican's choice of musical instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to
enjoy good music and good musicianship. I like music and musicians too much
for that kind of bias to rule my life.

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The
whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band
is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to
"live" than you seem to want to admit. So, do you claim
that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with *live*
electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a
*recording* of same playing through a PA system?

I've definately experienced situations where I played recordings based on
close-micing and direct-box pickups in a large room and fooled people
outside and just entering the room into thinking that a live performance was
going on inside. The empty stage is a dead give-away and ends the blindness
of the test. ;-)

In another situation I played a digital recording of the output of an
expensive digital organ, and again casual listeners were fooled at least a
little while.

If the answer is "no" then I have to question your claimed
acuity. If the answer is "yes", then perforce "live"
amplified music is *LIVE* and readily distinguishable
from a recording. In the latter case, clearly there
would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a
reference for comparison of "live" versus "recorded".

In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between
electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the
digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony
Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 19, 10:22=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):





On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in,
and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you
personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through=
a
PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were playin=
g I
would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of solid-body electr=
ic
guitars such as used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost
without
meaning because by definition, electric guitars are playing through a =
"PA
system" they're ELECTRIC guitars!

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. =A0The whole point =
is,
*if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and not a recording=
,
then there is far more to "live" than you seem to want to admit.

Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original premise) non =
of
that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They are listening to speake=
rs,
period. I only brought-up walking past a small club to illustrate that th=
ere
is something palpable about the sound of live, un-amplified music that is
lost the moment mixing boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement
loudspeakers come into the equation. This is especially true in a large
concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor. =
The
inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to convey tha=
t
palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of the mark, and why ma=
ny
people still seek out live, un-amplified music. There is simply, nothing =
like
it.


Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for large
venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet spot no?

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"KH" wrote in message


On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe,
without looking in, and heard a band playing using
electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't
be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA
system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric
guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I
despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as
used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost
without meaning because by definition, electric guitars
are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC
guitars!

I guess that AE is unaware that there are such things as acoustic guitars
with pretty much the same pickup coils that are used on solid body guitars.

Don't be absurd, of course I know that. I also know that acoustic guitars
with electric pickups on them don't sound like solid-body rock guitars.

They are a practical alternative to simply micing the acoustic guitar. They
are a partial solution to potential problems with acoustic feedback that
come with the mic.

Again, with the irrelevant pendanticisms.

The solid bodies are a practical refinement over just putting pickups on
acoustic guitars. Their major sonic advantage being a reduced tendency
towards acoustic feedback (a mixed blessing), a different tone, and of
course there is the shipping/handling advantage of the durability of a solid
block of wood.

And the most horrible sound a human being can make and still call music! I'd
rather listen to cats fighting over an inflated bagpipe!

One of the things to remember that a great deal of the characteristic sound
of an acoustic guitar comes from the sounding board which is just an
acoustic impedance matching device and a resonator. In principle there is
no reason why these functions can't be done well electronically.

Then why do acoustic guitars sound so marvelous and electric guitars sound so
ugly?

Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would never say that the
musican's choice of musical instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to
enjoy good music and good musicianship. I like music and musicians too much
for that kind of bias to rule my life.

So you would listen to a ptoomer fart as long as he was farting a good song?
Some sounds are just gross, and the talent of the musician or the quality of
the music won't make an ugly sound beautiful! Nothing can make a solid body
electric guitar sound anything but gross (IMHO).

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The
whole point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band
is "live", and not a recording, then there is far more to
"live" than you seem to want to admit. So, do you claim
that were you to walk, albeit quickly, past that cafe with *live*
electric guitars playing, you could not distinguish them from a
*recording* of same playing through a PA system?

I've definately experienced situations where I played recordings based on
close-micing and direct-box pickups in a large room and fooled people
outside and just entering the room into thinking that a live performance was
going on inside. The empty stage is a dead give-away and ends the blindness
of the test. ;-)

In another situation I played a digital recording of the output of an
expensive digital organ, and again casual listeners were fooled at least a
little while.

If the answer is "no" then I have to question your claimed
acuity. If the answer is "yes", then perforce "live"
amplified music is *LIVE* and readily distinguishable
from a recording. In the latter case, clearly there
would then be a role for *any* music to be used as a
reference for comparison of "live" versus "recorded".

In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between
electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the
digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony
Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-)

Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I
recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic
marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an
electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real
acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the
direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall
stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the
instrument itself, directly into the mixer

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA
systems for large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000
people into the sweet spot no?

With many home stereos it is no harder to fit 100,000 people into the sweet
spot as it is to fit 5. Both are mission impossible.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:24 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 19, 10:22=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without
looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for
example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live
or playing through a PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were
playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of
solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and
2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition,
electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're
ELECTRIC guitars!

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole
point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and
not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to
want to admit.

Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original
premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They
are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a
small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the
sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing
boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come
into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert
venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor.
The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to
convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of
the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified
music. There is simply, nothing like it.

Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for
large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet
spot no?

Probably not. But what does that have to do with the difference between live
direct sound from instruments being played in real time and space and a
concert heard via a sound reinforcement system?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 20, 6:12=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:24 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 19, 10:22=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without
looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for
example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live
or playing through a PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were
playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of
solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and
2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition,
electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're
ELECTRIC guitars!

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole
point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and
not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to
want to admit.

Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original
premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They
are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a
small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the
sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing
boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come
into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert
venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor.
The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to
convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of
the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified
music. There is simply, nothing like it.

Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for
large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet
spot no?

Probably not. But what does that have to do with the difference between l=
ive
direct sound from instruments being played in real time and space and a
concert heard via a sound reinforcement system?-

You tell me. You made the connection. " This is especially true in a
large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a
factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer
technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls
short of the mark," You cited crap PA systems as the reason why "hi-
fii falls short of the mark." But hi-fi/ high end home audio is far
far better and comes much closer to sounding like live acoustic music
when the source material is right than any PA system such as the ones
you are discussing. IME good hi-fi has a lot more in common with live
acoustic music than it does with any PA system at any concert. So I
don't think you can point to PA systems as evidence of the failures of
hi-fi.

Ever been to a classical concert at The Hollywood Bowl? That is crap
live sound because of the PA system. Now the sound of my system
playing back a great LP of orchestral music sounds an awful lot like
the real thing and it sounds really wonderful. and yet the Bowl still
sells tickets ata premium for classical music. There is another
reason. If hi-fi were perfect there would still be a great deal
missing compared to live music. I seek out live music even when it
sounds better at home on the hi-fi.That is why I will go to a
classical concert even at The Bowl. In fact I am planning to do so
August 2nd if I am in town. As bad as the sound at the bowl is for
classical music the tickets fetch a premium and the shows sell very
well. It isn't just sound that gets people to classical concerts. The
failings of PA systems are not an indictment of hi-fi. If anything
they are proof that there are reasons other than great sound why
people go to concerts.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:51:23 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 20, 6:12=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:24 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 19, 10:22=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:53 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without
looking in, and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for
example, you personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live
or playing through a PA system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric guitars were
playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I despise the sound of
solid-body electric guitars such as used by rock musicians, and
2) the question is almost without meaning because by definition,
electric guitars are playing through a "PA system" they're
ELECTRIC guitars!

You seem to be purposely misconstruing the context. The whole
point is, *if* you can tell that an amplified band is "live", and
not a recording, then there is far more to "live" than you seem to
want to admit.

Sure there is, but in a rock concert situation (my original
premise) non of that "live" makes it to the audience's ears. They
are listening to speakers, period. I only brought-up walking past a
small club to illustrate that there is something palpable about the
sound of live, un-amplified music that is lost the moment mixing
boards, PA amplifiers, and sound reinforcement loudspeakers come
into the equation. This is especially true in a large concert
venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a factor.
The inability of current electrionics and transducer technology to
convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls short of
the mark, and why many people still seek out live, un-amplified
music. There is simply, nothing like it.

Not really fair to compare high end home audio to PA systems for
large venues. Pretty tough fitting 100,000 people into the sweet
spot no?

Probably not. But what does that have to do with the difference between l=
ive
direct sound from instruments being played in real time and space and a
concert heard via a sound reinforcement system?-

You tell me. You made the connection. " This is especially true in a
large concert venue. Direct sound from the instruments is simply not a
factor. The inability of current electrionics and transducer
technology to convey that palpable sound of "live" is why hi-fi falls
short of the mark,"

But I wasn't actually comparing the two. It merely stated that electronics
and speakers between the listener and the musical source, whether in a
concert, or via a recording at home, robs the sound of that essential
"liveness" that tells the ear the difference between live music and canned or
technically "augmented".



You cited crap PA systems as the reason why "hi-
fii falls short of the mark." But hi-fi/ high end home audio is far
far better and comes much closer to sounding like live acoustic music
when the source material is right than any PA system such as the ones
you are discussing.


No argument there. I agree completely, but even so, a good stereo still falls
short of that "palpability" we're discussing.

IME good hi-fi has a lot more in common with live
acoustic music than it does with any PA system at any concert. So I
don't think you can point to PA systems as evidence of the failures of
hi-fi.

Of course, I can't speak for you, but I hear live music several times a week
because I record it that often and no hi-fi I've ever heard, regardless of
price or quality has ever fooled me.

Ever been to a classical concert at The Hollywood Bowl? That is crap
live sound because of the PA system.

I agree that it would be. Yet when the HB was first opened, it didn't use
sound reinforcement and in fact, the first time I went there (middle
'sixties) they still didn't use it. I was a long way from the orchestra shell
and I could hear the orchestra fine because of the shape of the acoustic
shell. I am, however more familiar with the shell on the barge at the
Watergate in Washington DC (at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, tied up in
the river. I understand it's gone now). It didn't use sound reinforcement
either and many thousands would attend those concerts on summer nights and
could hear just fine. Rock concerts NEED sound reinforcement in large venues
because the instruments are largely electric and need amplification. but most
classical concerts don't. - especially large symphony orchestras. Many use it
anyway, and I think that's a crime!


Now the sound of my system
playing back a great LP of orchestral music sounds an awful lot like
the real thing and it sounds really wonderful.\

Good for you. I wish I could say that. No hi-fi system has ever fooled me -
even for a second. Some have come close to giving a glimpse of real music,
but it's that pesky "palpability" thing again. Occasionally, with more
intimate musical performances like a jazz quartet, well recorded (usually by
me), one or another instrument will sound almost startlingly realistic for a
few seconds, but the spell is soon broken.


and yet the Bowl still
sells tickets ata premium for classical music.

If I knew that the "Bowl" was using sound reinforcement before I went, They
would never sell a ticket to me. If I'm going to be forced to listen to
speakers, I'd rather listen to speakers of my own choosing. IOW, I'd rather
stay home and listen to recordings of the works on the program than spend the
money to listen to lousy PA speakers.


There is another
reason. If hi-fi were perfect there would still be a great deal
missing compared to live music. I seek out live music even when it
sounds better at home on the hi-fi.That is why I will go to a
classical concert even at The Bowl. In fact I am planning to do so
August 2nd if I am in town. As bad as the sound at the bowl is for
classical music the tickets fetch a premium and the shows sell very
well. It isn't just sound that gets people to classical concerts. The
failings of PA systems are not an indictment of hi-fi.

I never meant that it should be.



If anything they are proof that there are reasons other than great sound why
people go to concerts.

Perhaps there are. Certainly most rock concerts MUST use sound reinforcement
for several reasons, not the least of which is that their performances don't
normally exist outside of the recording studio. Therefore the bands must
carry all of the tools available at a recording studio with them so that they
can recreate that sound on stage. OTOH, the type of music I listen to doesn't
need either the sound-level augmentation or the sonic manipulation afforded
by the use of a PA system, and in fact, is not, in any way, shape, or form
served by being relayed to the audience via sound reinforcement, at least not
in my opinion nor to my tastes.

[KH]

On 2/20/2011 5:45 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

wrote in message


On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe,
without looking in, and heard a band playing using
electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't
be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA
system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric
guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I
despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as
used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost
without meaning because by definition, electric guitars
are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC
guitars!

Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not
the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed.
Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played
through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing
between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live
players, one does not.

Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the
discussion, and to your (and others) insistence that only "live
acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in
reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily
distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used
as a reference for *realism*. Obviously amplified instruments may not
have the same sound from implementation to implementation, but as you
readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g.
drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable
from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the
amplified ones.

It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find
intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience,
cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against
which reproduction accuracy can be compared.

snip

In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between
electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the
digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony
Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-)

Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I
recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an electronic
marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's an
electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real
acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the
direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall
stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the
instrument itself, directly into the mixer

So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your
definition. See the issue?

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/20/2011 5:45 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

wrote in message


On 2/18/2011 2:14 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:00:59 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe,
without looking in, and heard a band playing using
electric guitars, for example, you personally wouldn't
be able to tell if it was live or playing through a PA
system?

First of all, If I walked by a cafe where electric
guitars were playing I would 1) hurry on by, because I
despise the sound of solid-body electric guitars such as
used by rock musicians, and 2) the question is almost
without meaning because by definition, electric guitars
are playing through a "PA system" they're ELECTRIC
guitars!

Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not
the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed.
Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played
through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing
between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live
players, one does not.

Exactly!

Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the
discussion,

True enough, except as a point of departure for the discussion, my musical
tastes have no relevance at all.

and to your (and others) insistence that only "live
acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in
reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily
distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used
as a reference for *realism*.

I don't agree that electric guitars are readily distinguishable from a
recording of same, and even if it were possible, the fact that electric
guitars can either be fed directly into the mixing console in the recording
studio or picked up from their on-stage speakers via microphones, means that
there's no real way for the listener to tell which is which showing that
electric guitars can sound very different depending upon how they are
picked-up. And I do believe that live, acoustic music is the only music that
can be used as a reference and for several reasons, not the least of which I
just mentioned above.

Obviously amplified instruments may not
have the same sound from implementation to implementation,

Correct.

but as you
readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g.
drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable
from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the
amplified ones.

Yes, that's true.

It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find
intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience,
cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against
which reproduction accuracy can be compared.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't LIKE the music doesn't
mean that I haven't been exposed to it enough to make some very pointed
observations about it or that those observations are in any way biased my
musical tastes.

snip

In modern times there is often a lack of hard distinctions between
electronic and non-electronic performances. One only need to consider the
digital bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's Davies Symphony
Hall. Would this drive AE out of the room? ;-)

Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds couldn't be musical. I
recently recorded a jazz ensemble where the main instrument was an
electronic
marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the recording that it's
an
electronic instrument, they don't believe me and insist that it's a real
acoustic instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos - especially when the
direct sound from the instrument amplifier/speaker captured via the overall
stereo microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal from the
instrument itself, directly into the mixer

So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your
definition. See the issue?

If I understand what you're saying, then, no. I recorded a jazz ensemble that
had a mix of both acoustic and electric instruments. I chose to augment the
sound of the electric instruments' stage amplifiers (picked-up along with the
acoustic instruments using an M-S pair) by mixing-in a bit of the electronic
instruments' line-level signal directly and pan-potting them so that they
"overlay" the actual physical location of the instruments as picked up by the
stereo mike. The direct line-level input gave the full spectrum of sound the
instruments were capable of producing (the electric piano, for instance, was
a full 88 key keyboard) and the acoustic pick-up by the mikes gave the
recording real soundstage and the pinpoint imaging that pan-potting alone
simply cannot do.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 20, 8:50=A0pm, KH wrote:

Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the
discussion, and to your (and others) insistence that only "live
acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in
reproduction. =A0If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily
distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used
as a reference for *realism*.

With electric guitars the amp and speaker are generally part of the
overall instrument. Many guitarists go through a number of amps and
speakers to get the one combination that sounds the way they want.
And in the professional music making world the amplifiers are not
often meant to be "straight wires with gain" and the speakers are
deliberately not free of color, but instead they are designed to
impart a specific coloration.

The electric guitar part is only a small part of the actual
instrument, just as an organ keyboard is only a small part of the
organ.

If a rock guitarist plays a particular combination of guitar, amp, and
speakers live and an engineer records it the engineer should make the
record sound like the actual sound the particular combination makes,
and it is as much "live" music as any other.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Then why do acoustic guitars sound so marvelous and
electric guitars sound so ugly?

Human perception may have something to do with it.

I say this because there is no general agreement about your allegations
about electric guitars.

Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would
never say that the musican's choice of musical
instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to enjoy
good music and good musicianship. I like music and
musicians too much for that kind of bias to rule my
life.

So you would listen to a ptoomer fart as long as he was
farting a good song?

Excluded middle argument sloughed by me for pretty obvious reasons.

Some sounds are just gross, and the
talent of the musician or the quality of the music won't
make an ugly sound beautiful! Nothing can make a solid
body electric guitar sound anything but gross (IMHO).

I don't think that the H belongs in your IMHO. Let me suggest an
alternative for you: IMBO. B for bias.

In modern times there is often a lack of hard
distinctions between electronic and non-electronic
performances. One only need to consider the digital
bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's
Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the
room? ;-)

Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds
couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble
where the main instrument was an electronic
marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the
recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't
believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic
instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos -
especially when the direct sound from the instrument
amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo
microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal
from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer

Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you
want to hold onto very tightly.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Then why do acoustic guitars sound so marvelous and
electric guitars sound so ugly?

Human perception may have something to do with it.

I say this because there is no general agreement about your allegations
about electric guitars.

Also, I see some pretty biased perceptions. I would
never say that the musican's choice of musical
instrument necessarily eliminates my ability to enjoy
good music and good musicianship. I like music and
musicians too much for that kind of bias to rule my
life.

So you would listen to a ptoomer fart as long as he was
farting a good song?

Excluded middle argument sloughed by me for pretty obvious reasons.

Some sounds are just gross, and the
talent of the musician or the quality of the music won't
make an ugly sound beautiful! Nothing can make a solid
body electric guitar sound anything but gross (IMHO).

I don't think that the H belongs in your IMHO. Let me suggest an
alternative for you: IMBO. B for bias.

In modern times there is often a lack of hard
distinctions between electronic and non-electronic
performances. One only need to consider the digital
bottom rank of the Ruffati organ in San Francisco's
Davies Symphony Hall. Would this drive AE out of the
room? ;-)

Of course not. I didn't say that electronic sounds
couldn't be musical. I recently recorded a jazz ensemble
where the main instrument was an electronic
marimba/xylophone. When I tell people listening to the
recording that it's an electronic instrument, they don't
believe me and insist that it's a real acoustic
instrument. Ditto when some electronic pianos -
especially when the direct sound from the instrument
amplifier/speaker captured via the overall stereo
microphione is mixed with the direct electronic signal
from the instrument itself, directly into the mixer

Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be something that you
want to hold onto very tightly.



I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (on TV
and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every day
in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and parcel
of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! They
even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV shows
(like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they play
on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till
they're over. GOD, they're offensive!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 21, 4:15=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (o=
n TV
and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every d=
ay
in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and pa=
rcel
of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! =
=A0They
even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV sh=
ows
(like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they =
play
on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till
they're over. GOD, they're offensive!

Where? Don't you mean Who?

The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact.

[KH]

On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip
Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not
the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed.
Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played
through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing
between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live
players, one does not.

Exactly!

Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the
exact opposite position?

Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the
discussion,

True enough, except as a point of departure for the discussion, my musical
tastes have no relevance at all.

and to your (and others) insistence that only "live
acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in
reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily
distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used
as a reference for *realism*.

I don't agree that electric guitars are readily distinguishable from a
recording of same, and even if it were possible, the fact that electric
guitars can either be fed directly into the mixing console in the recording
studio or picked up from their on-stage speakers via microphones, means that
there's no real way for the listener to tell which is which showing that
electric guitars can sound very different depending upon how they are
picked-up.

Electric guitars are an *example*, not intended as a paragon.

And I do believe that live, acoustic music is the only music that
can be used as a reference and for several reasons, not the least of which I
just mentioned above.

Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to
*amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live"
amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent.


Obviously amplified instruments may not
have the same sound from implementation to implementation,

Correct.

but as you
readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g.
drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable
from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the
amplified ones.

Yes, that's true.

It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find
intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience,
cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against
which reproduction accuracy can be compared.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't LIKE the music doesn't
mean that I haven't been exposed to it enough to make some very pointed
observations about it or that those observations are in any way biased my
musical tastes.

I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of
time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening)
to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really?

Not a matter of your bias affecting your evaluation, rather your
preference ensuring you don't *do* any significant critical evaluation
of recorded vs live rock for example.

snip

So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your
definition. See the issue?

If I understand what you're saying, then, no. I recorded a jazz ensemble that
had a mix of both acoustic and electric instruments. I chose to augment the
sound of the electric instruments' stage amplifiers (picked-up along with the
acoustic instruments using an M-S pair) by mixing-in a bit of the electronic
instruments' line-level signal directly and pan-potting them so that they
"overlay" the actual physical location of the instruments as picked up by the
stereo mike. The direct line-level input gave the full spectrum of sound the
instruments were capable of producing (the electric piano, for instance, was
a full 88 key keyboard) and the acoustic pick-up by the mikes gave the
recording real soundstage and the pinpoint imaging that pan-potting alone
simply cannot do.

No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real
instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified
instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be
considered "live". Your point has been that such performances do not
exist in real space, and are thus not "live". My position is that there
is, irrespective of amplification, and ineffable character to a live
performance that will always (IME anyway) identify it as "live". To the
extent this is true, any such performance is usable as a reference
against which to evaluate how closely a reproduction comes to producing
that ineffable quality.

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:02 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip
Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not
the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed.
Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played
through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing
between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live
players, one does not.

Exactly!

Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the
exact opposite position?

But I don't. What you said is exactly what I have been saying: Live music
sounds like live music, music played through speakers either from a recording
or a direct stage pickup via microphone DOES NOT!

Secondly, your hatred for electric guitars is irrelevant to the
discussion,

True enough, except as a point of departure for the discussion, my musical
tastes have no relevance at all.

and to your (and others) insistence that only "live
acoustic" music can possibly be used as a "reference" for realism in
reproduction. If *live* electric guitars - or whatever - are readily
distinguishable from a recording of same, then clearly they can be used
as a reference for *realism*.

I don't agree that electric guitars are readily distinguishable from a
recording of same, and even if it were possible, the fact that electric
guitars can either be fed directly into the mixing console in the recording
studio or picked up from their on-stage speakers via microphones, means that
there's no real way for the listener to tell which is which showing that
electric guitars can sound very different depending upon how they are
picked-up.

Electric guitars are an *example*, not intended as a paragon.

And I do believe that live, acoustic music is the only music that
can be used as a reference and for several reasons, not the least of which I
just mentioned above.

Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to
*amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live"
amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent.

I do not agree with that. One of us is misreading/misunderstanding the
other's posts.

Obviously amplified instruments may not
have the same sound from implementation to implementation,

Correct.

but as you
readily admit, the almost always present non-amplified instruments (e.g.
drums) combine to create a performance that is easily distinguishable
from a recording, even were you correct about the deficiency of the
amplified ones.

Yes, that's true.

It's also rather a stretch to make the claim that any music you find
intolerable, and thus with which you have little, or no experience,
cannot sound "live", and cannot therefore provide a reference against
which reproduction accuracy can be compared.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't LIKE the music doesn't
mean that I haven't been exposed to it enough to make some very pointed
observations about it or that those observations are in any way biased my
musical tastes.

I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of
time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening)
to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really?

I never said that. I said that I had heard enough of the crap to form some
opinions about the sound and how it's achieved.

Not a matter of your bias affecting your evaluation, rather your
preference ensuring you don't *do* any significant critical evaluation
of recorded vs live rock for example.

snip

So, you recorded a "dead" jazz ensemble? Couldn't be "live" by your
definition. See the issue?

If I understand what you're saying, then, no. I recorded a jazz ensemble
that
had a mix of both acoustic and electric instruments. I chose to augment the
sound of the electric instruments' stage amplifiers (picked-up along with
the
acoustic instruments using an M-S pair) by mixing-in a bit of the electronic
instruments' line-level signal directly and pan-potting them so that they
"overlay" the actual physical location of the instruments as picked up by
the
stereo mike. The direct line-level input gave the full spectrum of sound the
instruments were capable of producing (the electric piano, for instance, was
a full 88 key keyboard) and the acoustic pick-up by the mikes gave the
recording real soundstage and the pinpoint imaging that pan-potting alone
simply cannot do.

No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real
instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified
instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be
considered "live".

And so they aren't. But they were part of an ensemble that did include real
acoustic instruments. Would I rather have had a REAL piano and a REAL
marimba to work with? You betcha but I did the best I could with what I had
to work with.

Your point has been that such performances do not
exist in real space, and are thus not "live".

My point is that most rock performances do not exist in real space. They rely
of such things as vocal synthesizers, reverb units, sound-with and sound-on
recorders, extensive EQ, and a myriad of "special effects" that I won't even
guess at. My point being that if a rock band is to recreate their recorded
performances on stage, they must have, at that concert, all the tools that
help them create their "sound" on record.

And while they are certainly performing on stage and in real time, what they
are doing and what the audience is hearing are only "sort of" the same thing.
My position is that there
is, irrespective of amplification, and ineffable character to a live
performance that will always (IME anyway) identify it as "live". To the
extent this is true, any such performance is usable as a reference
against which to evaluate how closely a reproduction comes to producing
that ineffable quality.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Highly manipulated
concert performance and live, acoustic instruments playing to an audience
with NO electronic manipulation or amplification between the instruments and
the listener's ears are not the same thing. In the one case, the audience is
directly listening to the players and the music they are making, and in the
other the audience is listening to a manipulated, electronic facsimile (even
without SFX) of that performance. And just as recorded music doesn't sound
like real music, so such a performance heard through a sound reinforcement
system doesn't sound like real music either and for the same reason. That;s
my opinion and I stand by it.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:43:09 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 21, 4:15=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily (o=
n TV
and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me every d=
ay
in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and pa=
rcel
of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll! =
=A0They
even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV sh=
ows
(like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" they =
play
on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till
they're over. GOD, they're offensive!

Where? Don't you mean Who?

That doesn't make any sense. "... I don't know WHO they get those
"songs"..."????

The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact.

Is it? Never could get past the screaming to notice.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be
something that you want to hold onto very tightly.

I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me
almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of
people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.).

Those are complex system implementations that don't necessarily shed any
specific light on their components.

Electric guitars are terrible

You need to prove that with simple examples.

but they are part and parcel of something else I hate
and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll!

I've mixed rock and roll performed with acoustic instruments ("unplugged")
and I've heard traditional music performed on electric guitars and bass
instruments. It can sound good, even to traditional ears.

They even use some awful rock-n-roll
screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI
and CSI Miami).

Again specific examples of a sub genre of rock and roll.

I don't know where they get those "songs"
they play on those shows for themes,

In many cases, highly popular recordings, some of which are also highly
regarded for their musical art.

but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're
offensive!

....to you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 21, 4:15=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:


I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds
me almost daily (o= n TV and movies, the car audio
systems of people who pull-up beside me every d= ay in
traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they
are part and pa= rcel of something else I hate and can't
really get away from - rock-n-roll! = =A0They even use
some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to
popular TV sh= ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't
know where they get those "songs" they = play on those
shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV
'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive!

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 22, 4:01=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:43:09 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 21, 4:15=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me almost daily=
(o=3D
n TV
and movies, the car audio systems of people who pull-up beside me ever=
y d=3D
ay
in traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they are part and=
pa=3D
rcel
of something else I hate and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll!=
=3D
=3DA0They
even use some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to popular TV=
sh=3D
ows
(like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't know where they get those "songs" th=
ey =3D
play
on those shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till
they're over. GOD, they're offensive!

Where? Don't you mean Who?

That doesn't make any sense. =A0"... I don't know WHO they get those
"songs"..."????

That's right! So now you do.




The "awful" screaming is acoustic though. Ya gotta concede that fact.

Is it?

Yep. They even went out of their way to find the right acoustic space
to record it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 22, 6:37=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 21, 4:15=3DA0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds
me almost daily (o=3D n TV and movies, the car audio
systems of people who pull-up beside me every d=3D ay in
traffic, etc.). Electric guitars are terrible but they
are part and pa=3D rcel of something else I hate and can't
really get away from - rock-n-roll! =3D =3DA0They even use
some awful rock-n-roll screaming for the themes to
popular TV sh=3D ows (like CSI and CSI Miami). I don't
know where they get those "songs" they =3D play on those
shows for themes, but I have to mute the sound on my TV
'till they're over. GOD, they're offensive!

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- Hide=
quoted text -


400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be
something that you want to hold onto very tightly.

I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me
almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of
people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.).

Those are complex system implementations that don't necessarily shed any
specific light on their components.

Electric guitars are terrible

You need to prove that with simple examples.

but they are part and parcel of something else I hate
and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll!

I've mixed rock and roll performed with acoustic instruments ("unplugged")
and I've heard traditional music performed on electric guitars and bass
instruments. It can sound good, even to traditional ears.

They even use some awful rock-n-roll
screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI
and CSI Miami).

Again specific examples of a sub genre of rock and roll.

I don't know where they get those "songs"
they play on those shows for themes,

In many cases, highly popular recordings, some of which are also highly
regarded for their musical art.

but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're
offensive!

...to you.



Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *I*
find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters.

"The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some."

Sir Thomas Beecham

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 22, 9:43=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):





"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:24:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Your hatred for solid body electric guitars seems to be
something that you want to hold onto very tightly.

I don't have to hold onto it at all. The world reminds me
almost daily (on TV and movies, the car audio systems of
people who pull-up beside me every day in traffic, etc.).

Those are complex system implementations that don't necessarily shed an=
y
specific light on their components.

Electric guitars are terrible

You need to prove that with simple examples.

but they are part and parcel of something else I hate
and can't really get away from - rock-n-roll!

I've mixed rock and roll performed with acoustic instruments ("unplugge=
d")
and I've heard traditional music performed on electric guitars and bass
instruments. =A0It can sound good, even to traditional ears.

They even use some awful rock-n-roll
screaming for the themes to popular TV shows (like CSI
and CSI Miami).

Again specific examples of a sub genre of rock and roll.

I don't know where they get those "songs"
they play on those shows for themes,

In many cases, highly popular recordings, some of which are also highly
regarded for their musical art.

but I have to mute the sound on my TV 'till they're over. GOD, they're
offensive!

...to you.

Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *=
I*
find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters.

"The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some."

Sir Thomas Beecham

Not a good idea to go down that road. limited taste is not a sign of
better taste. It can certainly be argued that what you find to be an
offensive scream is in fact a very musical vocal expression with
strong roots in polyphonics from Western Africa. When carefully
studied we find some pretty rich and complex harmonics that some
contend leave western classical vocal styles in the dirt in their
levels of sophistication and complexity. One can find the lineage from
Western Africa through America in it's rich tradition of Blues and
Gospel music. The young Brits of the 60s such as Pete Townsend and
Roger Daltry along with other legends like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page
were avid, no fanatical students of American Blues. Do you really want
to get schooled on the subject? If you don't like that music fine.
Nothing wrong with personal taste. I hate opera.The signing is forced,
the stories are stupid and the presentation is garish. But I know
better than to claim my distaste for opera is a sign of having better
taste. I realize that my not liking opera doesn't mean there is
nothing to like for others. Personal taste is not an arbitrator of
artistic merit.

[KH]

On 2/22/2011 5:01 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:02 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip
Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not
the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed.
Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played
through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing
between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live
players, one does not.

Exactly!

Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the
exact opposite position?

But I don't. What you said is exactly what I have been saying: Live music
sounds like live music, music played through speakers either from a recording
or a direct stage pickup via microphone DOES NOT!

Please read what I wrote; "amplified music *Live* versus *recorded*
music played through a "PA" system" - That is what you were agreeing to,
intentionally or not.


snip

Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to
*amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live"
amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent.

I do not agree with that. One of us is misreading/misunderstanding the
other's posts.

Yes.

snip

I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of
time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening)
to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really?

I never said that.

I know; that's why it was phrased as a question.

I said that I had heard enough of the crap to form some
opinions about the sound and how it's achieved.

And yet you are unfamiliar with rock music with orchestral
accompaniment? You are using a very narrow interpretation of "Rock" to
paint broadly.


snip

No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real
instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified
instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be
considered "live".

And so they aren't. But they were part of an ensemble that did include real
acoustic instruments. Would I rather have had a REAL piano and a REAL
marimba to work with? You betcha but I did the best I could with what I had
to work with.

As is the case with much of the "Rock" you dismiss as not live. I'm not
talking about Mettalica here, or *any* 'stadium' performances - those
are only a portion of the genera.


Your point has been that such performances do not
exist in real space, and are thus not "live".

My point is that most rock performances do not exist in real space. They rely
of such things as vocal synthesizers, reverb units, sound-with and sound-on
recorders, extensive EQ, and a myriad of "special effects" that I won't even
guess at. My point being that if a rock band is to recreate their recorded
performances on stage, they must have, at that concert, all the tools that
help them create their "sound" on record.

"Most" rock being based on your limited exposure.

snip

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Fair enough.

Highly manipulated
concert performance and live, acoustic instruments playing to an audience
with NO electronic manipulation or amplification between the instruments and
the listener's ears are not the same thing.

Nor has anyone claimed they are the "same" thing. Only that, as with
the jazz ensemble you recorded, even though not purely acoustic,
listening to that "live" - including the manipulated electronic music -
won't be mistaken for a recording. It's matter of degree, and you only
allow for the most extreme degree of manipulation to enter into your
evaluation of "Rock", i.e. "stadium" type performances.

In the one case, the audience is
directly listening to the players and the music they are making, and in the
other the audience is listening to a manipulated, electronic facsimile (even
without SFX) of that performance. And just as recorded music doesn't sound
like real music, so such a performance heard through a sound reinforcement
system doesn't sound like real music either and for the same reason.

They don't sound like "real" music by your narrow definition, and your
preferences. But that doesn't mean they can't be readily
distinguishable in comparison to recorded music played in your listening
room. And to the extent you can modify your system to improve the
illusion of being at the actual performance, you can in fact use such
music as a reference for creating realism.

That;s my opinion and I stand by it.

Be my guest :-)

Keith

[KH]

On 2/22/2011 12:05 PM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:43=A0am, Audio wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:37:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in ):

Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *=
I*
find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters.

"The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some."

Sir Thomas Beecham

Not a good idea to go down that road. limited taste is not a sign of
better taste. It can certainly be argued that what you find to be an
offensive scream is in fact a very musical vocal expression with
strong roots in polyphonics from Western Africa. When carefully
studied we find some pretty rich and complex harmonics that some
contend leave western classical vocal styles in the dirt in their
levels of sophistication and complexity. One can find the lineage from
Western Africa through America in it's rich tradition of Blues and
Gospel music. The young Brits of the 60s such as Pete Townsend and
Roger Daltry along with other legends like Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page
were avid, no fanatical students of American Blues. Do you really want
to get schooled on the subject? If you don't like that music fine.
Nothing wrong with personal taste. I hate opera.The signing is forced,
the stories are stupid and the presentation is garish. But I know
better than to claim my distaste for opera is a sign of having better
taste. I realize that my not liking opera doesn't mean there is
nothing to like for others. Personal taste is not an arbitrator of
artistic merit.

I knew someday we'd find a point of agreement! I agree completely -
especially about the Opera part. I can appreciate the talent, but the
results I find as offensive as Mr. Empire finds electric guitars. OTOH,
I don't dismiss Opera as valid *musical* genre.

Keith

[KH]

On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=A0am, "Arny wrote:
wrote in message


Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- Hide=
quoted text -


400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"


Exactly! It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll,
without knowing the Who.

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=A0am, "Arny wrote:
wrote in message


Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- Hide=
quoted text -


400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"


Exactly! It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll,
without knowing the Who.

Keith


But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is that
I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording magazines
about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I've
also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various
girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was only fair,
because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do not
respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical,
generational, crass and without class.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:52:29 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/22/2011 5:01 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:51:02 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/21/2011 6:23 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:50:18 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip
Well, first of all I thought it would be clear that "PA system" was not
the same as "amplified" or "reinforced" music as was being discussed.
Let me clarify - amplified music *Live* versus *recorded* music played
through a "PA" system. Personally, I have no problem distinguishing
between the two in the Cafe situation posited - one sounds like live
players, one does not.

Exactly!

Exactly indeed - so why do you spend the rest of your post stating the
exact opposite position?

But I don't. What you said is exactly what I have been saying: Live music
sounds like live music, music played through speakers either from a
recording
or a direct stage pickup via microphone DOES NOT!

Please read what I wrote; "amplified music *Live* versus *recorded*
music played through a "PA" system" - That is what you were agreeing to,
intentionally or not.

No, it's not what I'm agreeing to. First it might help to define terms. I
used "PA" and "Sound Reinforcement" interchangeably (and perhaps that was
accidentally misleading. If so, I apologize) and I used "PA" as short-hand
for a sound reinforcement system because no matter how sophisticated such a
system might be, it still falls under the heading of a "Public Address"
system.

Next I never said anything about playing recorded music through a PA system
except to say that irrespective of whether the sound reinforcement system's
signal comes from a rock-band's microphone mixer or from a CD player, the
results will be pretty indistinguishable, one from the other. And I repeat,
once the music goes through amplifiers and speakers, any semblance to "live
music" from a sound standpoint is GONE.

snip

Even though you agreed above that there is some ineffable quality to
*amplified* music performed *live* that allows you to distinguish "live"
amplified music from recorded? The two positions are not congruent.

I do not agree with that. One of us is misreading/misunderstanding the
other's posts.

Yes.

snip

I don't think so. You're saying you've spent a significant amount of
time listening critically (not "oh Jeez turn that crap off!!" listening)
to genres' you abhor and instruments you despise? Really?

I never said that.

I know; that's why it was phrased as a question.

I said that I had heard enough of the crap to form some
opinions about the sound and how it's achieved.

And yet you are unfamiliar with rock music with orchestral
accompaniment? You are using a very narrow interpretation of "Rock" to
paint broadly.


Who cares? You know what I mean. No need to get pedantic and nit-pick here.

snip

No, the point is, these were not, as you've previously described "real
instruments in real space". They were amplified/modified
instruments/feeds that by your own prior descriptions cannot be
considered "live".

And so they aren't. But they were part of an ensemble that did include real
acoustic instruments. Would I rather have had a REAL piano and a REAL
marimba to work with? You betcha but I did the best I could with what I had
to work with.

As is the case with much of the "Rock" you dismiss as not live. I'm not
talking about Mettalica here, or *any* 'stadium' performances - those
are only a portion of the genera.

Again, I don't really care. I made clear what I was talking about, and
that's that.


Your point has been that such performances do not
exist in real space, and are thus not "live".

My point is that most rock performances do not exist in real space. They
rely
of such things as vocal synthesizers, reverb units, sound-with and sound-on
recorders, extensive EQ, and a myriad of "special effects" that I won't even
guess at. My point being that if a rock band is to recreate their recorded
performances on stage, they must have, at that concert, all the tools that
help them create their "sound" on record.

"Most" rock being based on your limited exposure.

OK, sure. Nut that's the kind of rock I was referring to, OBVIOUSLY.

snip

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Fair enough.

Highly manipulated
concert performance and live, acoustic instruments playing to an audience
with NO electronic manipulation or amplification between the instruments and
the listener's ears are not the same thing.

Nor has anyone claimed they are the "same" thing.

Well, since that's has been my only point for some days, here, I'd have to
say that SOMEBODY is claiming that.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 22, 2:23=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):





On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=3DA0am, "Arny =A0wrote:
=A0wrote in message

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- =
Hide=3D
quoted text -

400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"

Exactly! =A0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll,
without knowing the Who.

Keith

But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is tha=
t
I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording magazi=
nes
about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I've
also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various
girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was only f=
air,
because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do no=
t
respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical,
generational, crass and without class. =A0-


I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZZZ...ture=3Drelated
ugly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-9_...=3DPLF87F05AD=
2852F466
Crass? without class?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1GH4FF5o7VM
Generational? Without class?

This was just one artist out of sooooooo many.

Guess I'll just pile on a few more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dz2U...DPLA35FE1 08=
63CCE7D0
Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSYc...ture=3Drelated
yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of
Rock and Roll's most famous screamers

[anon[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:

Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *I*
find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters.

"The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some."

Sir Thomas Beecham

FWIW, I think most rock fans are impressed more by the technical ability
of virtuoso guitarists than the sound itself, the latter of which is
completely arbitrary and programmable.

But you want to talk about annoying, is there any instrument more
inherently whiny than a violin? Don't try to pretend that rubbing
horsehair against a string sounds "pure," come on, you know it sounds
like s***.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 22, 2:23=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):





On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=3DA0am, "Arny =A0wrote:
=A0wrote in message

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!- =
Hide=3D
quoted text -

400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"

Exactly! =A0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll,
without knowing the Who.

Keith

But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is tha=
t
I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording magazi=
nes
about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I've
also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various
girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was only f=
air,
because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do no=
t
respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical,
generational, crass and without class. =A0-


I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZZZ...ture=3Drelated
ugly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-9_...=3DPLF87F05AD=
2852F466
Crass? without class?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D1GH4FF5o7VM
Generational? Without class?

This was just one artist out of sooooooo many.

Guess I'll just pile on a few more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dz2U...DPLA35FE1 08=
63CCE7D0
Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSYc...ture=3Drelated
yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of
Rock and Roll's most famous screamers


Again. Who are you trying to convince? And of what? You're certainly not
going to make me care, no matter how many URLs you post. Your rebuttal falls
on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed. This is a matter of taste, and
taste, while it might evolve, is generally not subject to the type of change
that would turn a rock hater into a rock lover. Give it up and I'll not
mention my disdain for modern "pop" music in this thread again.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:37:22 -0800, anon wrote
(in article om):

Audio Empire wrote:

Yes Arny. TO ME! One wouldn't expect that I care how it affects others, *I*
find the noise offensive, and to me that's all that matters.

"The difference between my musical taste and yours is that I have some."

Sir Thomas Beecham

FWIW, I think most rock fans are impressed more by the technical ability
of virtuoso guitarists than the sound itself, the latter of which is
completely arbitrary and programmable.

But you want to talk about annoying, is there any instrument more
inherently whiny than a violin? Don't try to pretend that rubbing
horsehair against a string sounds "pure," come on, you know it sounds
like s***.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. A violin is a gorgeous
instrument , one of the most expressive. In fact the whole viol family is
simply gorgeous sounding when played well by someone who knows how. - the
cello, especially, has a richness of tone matched by few instruments.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 23, 9:16=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 22, 2:23=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=3D3DA0am, "Arny =3DA0wrot=
e:
=3DA0wrote in message

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!=
- =3D
Hide=3D3D
quoted text -

400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"

Exactly! =3DA0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll=
,
without knowing the Who.

Keith

But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is =
tha=3D
t
I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording mag=
azi=3D
nes
about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I=
've
also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various
girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was onl=
y f=3D
air,
because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do=
no=3D
t
respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical,
generational, crass and without class. =3DA0-

I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DZ...re=3D3Drelated
ugly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D-...D1&list=3D3DP=
LF8...
2852F466
Crass? without class?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D1GH4FF5o7VM
Generational? Without class?

This was just one artist out of sooooooo many.

Guess I'll just pile on a few more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3Dz...D1&list=3D3DP=
LA3...
63CCE7D0
Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DS...re=3D3Drelated
yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of
Rock and Roll's most famous screamers

Again. Who are you trying to convince?

You of course. It seems everyone else in this thread is already on
board.

And of what?

That even you could like non acoustic music if you are exposed to the
good stuff that segways easily from classical and jazz

Your rebuttal falls
on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed.

I guess when you put it that way...

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:26:55 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 23, 9:16=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 22, 2:23=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=3D3DA0am, "Arny =3DA0wrot=
e:
=3DA0wrote in message

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the best!=
- =3D
Hide=3D3D
quoted text -

400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think The
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of their
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"

Exactly! =3DA0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and roll=
,
without knowing the Who.

Keith

But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed is =
tha=3D
t
I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording mag=
azi=3D
nes
about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it. I=
've
also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various
girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was onl=
y f=3D
air,
because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I do=
no=3D
t
respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical,
generational, crass and without class. =3DA0-

I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DZ...re=3D3Drelated
ugly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D-...D1&list=3D3DP=
LF8...
2852F466
Crass? without class?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D1GH4FF5o7VM
Generational? Without class?

This was just one artist out of sooooooo many.

Guess I'll just pile on a few more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3Dz...D1&list=3D3DP=
LA3...
63CCE7D0
Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DS...re=3D3Drelated
yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of
Rock and Roll's most famous screamers

Again. Who are you trying to convince?

You of course. It seems everyone else in this thread is already on
board.

And of what?

That even you could like non acoustic music if you are exposed to the
good stuff that segways easily from classical and jazz

Your rebuttal falls
on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed.

I guess when you put it that way...


Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an earlier post that you
hated opera? Would my posting countless URLs about good opera is and how
popular it's become (live Met performances are transmitted to movie theaters
all over the country) change your mind about hating opera? Of course not. You
don't like it and that's that. I don't like rock. I think it's ugly, crass,
has no class, and is entirely generational (the Beatles and the Stones were
both of my generation and I didn't even like them THEN). And that's that.!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 23, 10:48=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:26:55 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 23, 9:16=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 22, 2:23=3D3DA0pm, Audio Empire wro=
te:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/22/2011 9:19 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:37=3D3D3DA0am, "Arny =3D3D=
A0wrot=3D
e:
=3D3DA0wrote in message

Where? Don't you mean Who?

Nice pun. I see that it flew right over AE's head. That's the bes=
t!=3D
- =3D3D
Hide=3D3D3D
quoted text -

400+ posts into this thread. couldn't pass that one up. I think Th=
e
Who were quite happy to be offensive to the older genration of the=
ir
time.

"Why don't you all f-fade away
And don't try to dig what we all say"

Exactly! =3D3DA0It's hard to claim you know the "what" of rock and =
roll=3D
,
without knowing the Who.

Keith

But I don't claim to know the "what" of Rock-n-Roll. All I claimed i=
s =3D
tha=3D3D
t
I've heard enough of it (and read enough articles in pro recording m=
ag=3D
azi=3D3D
nes
about how it's produced) to form some very strong opinions about it.=
I=3D
've
also been dragged (under protest) to enough rock concerts by various
girlfriends over the years to know what they sound like (which was o=
nl=3D
y f=3D3D
air,
because I've dragged them to symphony concerts). I also know that I =
do=3D
=A0no=3D3D
t
respect it as any more than modern "tin-pan-alley" fare, topical,
generational, crass and without class. =3D3DA0-

I present my rebutal in the form of pure evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3Drelated
ugly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3D1&list=
=3D3D...
LF8...
2852F466
Crass? without class?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3D1GH4FF5o7VM
Generational? Without class?

This was just one artist out of sooooooo many.

Guess I'll just pile on a few more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3D1&list=
=3D3D...
LA3...
63CCE7D0
Ugly? Crass? No class? Generational?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D3...=3D3D3Drelated
yes this is acoustic but I just had to add some vocals from one of
Rock and Roll's most famous screamers

Again. Who are you trying to convince?

You of course. It seems everyone else in this thread is already on
board.

=A0And of what?

That even you could like non acoustic music if you are exposed to the
good stuff that segways easily from classical and jazz

Your rebuttal falls
on deaf ears because my opinion is fixed.

I guess when you put it that way...

Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an earlier post that you
hated opera?

yes I did.

Would my posting countless URLs about good opera is and how
popular it's become (live Met performances are transmitted to movie theat=
ers
all over the country) change your mind about hating opera?

I don't know. I remain open.

Of course not.

I don't know that, neither do you. I hated jazz, or so I thought until
someone played me a recording of Coleman Hawkins playing "Time on my
Hands." It was a revelation and opened me up to a whole new world and
a whole new way of listening to music. I am a passionate jazz fan now.

You
don't like it and that's that.

I don't like it and I have some experience actually working on Operas.
But I'm not one to say "that's that." I hated the entire 90s Seatle
grundge scene. I thought Nirvana was just noise and Pearl Jam was
terrible. Then I heard Senead O'Conner do a cover of a Nirvana song
and it was again, a revelation. I went back and gave Nirvana another
listen with a completely different understanding of their music. Now I
am a huge fan. It was Eddie Vedder's sound track music from the movie
Into the Wild that gave me a whole new perspective on him and Pearl
Jam. Clearly opera has merit. maybe someday *I* will come around.


I don't like rock. I think it's ugly, crass,
has no class, and is entirely generational (the Beatles and the Stones we=
re
both of my generation and I didn't even like them THEN). And that's that.=
!-

Clearly we have a different approach to unfamiliar music. I prefer not
to shut the door. I have turned around on countless artists and am
ever so glad for it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Let me put this another way. Did you not say in an
earlier post that you hated opera?

I wonder how Scott feels about "Tommy"?