Let's look at some examples in recent posts (my newsreader is not
letting me respond to these posts, so I'll quote them here). For the
definition of the terms I used, see my post on the language of
perception:

===

Jenn wrote:

This is where we differ, I guess. My stance is that I'm not
listening for either THD or rolled off top octave. My approach is
from the other direction, if you will. My first though is, for
example, this trumpet doesn't sound like a trumpet. Then I listed
to another recording. If that trumpet ALSO sounds unlike a trumpet,
I have ask why. THEN I listen for what might be causing this
effect. Are, for example, the overtones of the 4th partial above
the fundamental less in volume than in real live, as heard on
several recordings? If so, it can be assumed that the upper
mid-range of the equipment is less than satisfactory, and I would
therefore not enjoy listening to this equipment in my home. The
first thought is the music, then comes diagnosis; both of which are
informed by what do in my job.

What Jenn is clearly expressing here is the distinction between sonic
and musical percepts. She's listening for musical percepts first and
primarily; and sonic percepts secondarily. Note also that she refers
to a trumpet on a recording sounding unlike a real trumpet; I would
say this is both a "mature" and an "abstract" percept, by which I mean
that she has a large amount of experience with trumpet sounds so that
she has a highly developed taste for them, and has developed an
abstracted concept of the trumpet sound.

===

Chung wrote:

Just some simple questions then: you think live music in a dry
recording studio sounds the same as live music in a full-house
concert hall? And how do you really know what has been recorded on
the medium, i.e., the room acoustics, the equalization applied, the
particular voice of the instruments (a Steinway sounds very
different than a Yamaha, for instance), etc.? Not to mention the way
your system's frequency response can affect the sound you hear from
your home?

Jenn replied:

Fair question. Obviously my opinion would be based on a variety of
recordings, including ones where I know where and how they were
recorded. If I play 5 recodings, and in each of them, they string
sound is poor, when I've heard the string sound be good on a variety
of other equipment, including equipment in the store where I'm
auditioning gear (so the acoustic environment is the same), it can
deduced that the device in question isn't reproducing string sound
well.

Here, Chung is focusing exclusive on "instance" percepts, while Jenn
is talking about abstracted percepts. I've noticed that Bob and Chung
generally deny the relevance of abstracted percepts.

===

Stewart wrote:

You're missing the point. We don't want an opinion about *musical*
subtleties, we want an opinion about live vs recorded, or in this
particular thread, CD vs LP. In that regard, and with all respect
due to your stipulated musical skills, your opinion is no more valid
thatn that of any other regular concert-goer, and certainly less
valid than that of a classical recording engineer, who really *is*
trained to hear differences which are relevant to the hi-fi
community.

Here, Stewart does what is typical for the objectivists, which is to
outright deny the relevance of musical percepts. From his language in
general, it seems that the "differences which are relevant to the
hi-fi community," according to him, are largely about sonic, local,
static, instance, and conrete percepts. Well guess what---a lot of us
hi-fi enthusiasts care more about musical, diffuse, dynamic, abstract,
and holistic percepts.

===

Stewart again:

We don't believe that a conductor is concentrating on the same
things that we are. But a recording engineer certainly is.

Speak for yourself; I care about expressive music, and a conductor is
more familiar with the workings of that than is a recording engineer.

===

Mark DeBellis asked:

I just don't understand how you can separate the two. Is it in fact
possible to determine what "sounds as close as possible" to what,
absent a sense of the musical quality?

Stewart:

Yes, certainly. As a prime example, it's *much* easier to tell
differences among audio components by using clicks and pink noise,
than by listening to music.

Of course, clicks and pink noise are purely sonic percepts; not a whit
of music in them.


Mark BeBellis has a reply more to the point:

That will tell you which gear transmits a signal more accurately.
But it does not tell you what kind of reproduction of music (as
opposed to clicks or pink noise) sounds subjectively as close as
possible to the original. It's not obvious to me that the latter
judgment is separable from the cognitive/emotional act of
understanding the music, and that is something Jenn excels at. So
there is good reason not to dismiss her perspective as being
irrelevant or unimportant for the goals of audio.

Exactly; one of the subtle assumptions of the objectivist is that
reproduction of music can be separated from the understanding the
music, an assumption for which they have no evidence.

Helen Schmidt

On 2 Jul 2005 14:46:55 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote:

Let's look at some examples in recent posts (my newsreader is not
letting me respond to these posts, so I'll quote them here). For the
definition of the terms I used, see my post on the language of
perception:

snip as I'm just replying to Helen's reference to my own posts

Stewart wrote:

You're missing the point. We don't want an opinion about *musical*
subtleties, we want an opinion about live vs recorded, or in this
particular thread, CD vs LP. In that regard, and with all respect
due to your stipulated musical skills, your opinion is no more valid
than that of any other regular concert-goer, and certainly less
valid than that of a classical recording engineer, who really *is*
trained to hear differences which are relevant to the hi-fi
community.

Here, Stewart does what is typical for the objectivists, which is to
outright deny the relevance of musical percepts.

I have no idea where you get that idea, since I am referring to the
musical percepts of the recording engineer.

From his language in
general, it seems that the "differences which are relevant to the
hi-fi community," according to him, are largely about sonic, local,
static, instance, and conrete percepts.

No, they are about 'the closest approach to the original sound'.

Well guess what---a lot of us
hi-fi enthusiasts care more about musical, diffuse, dynamic, abstract,
and holistic percepts.

Well, guess what - this is mere handwaving, with absolutely *zero*
relevance to the real world, or to the argument at hand. A lot of we
highly experienced hi-fi enthusiasts do indeed care very deeply about
musical, diffuse, dynamic, abstract, and holistic percepts - and we
find that CD is superior to vinyl.

Stewart again:

We don't believe that a conductor is concentrating on the same
things that we are. But a recording engineer certainly is.

Speak for yourself; I care about expressive music, and a conductor is
more familiar with the workings of that than is a recording engineer.

I too care about expressive music, but I care that it is *well
recorded*. In that sense, the recording engineer is certainly equally
concerned about sound quality. Once the signal is in the live mic
feed, it has left the hands of the conductor.

Stewart:

Yes, certainly. As a prime example, it's *much* easier to tell
differences among audio components by using clicks and pink noise,
than by listening to music.

Of course, clicks and pink noise are purely sonic percepts; not a whit
of music in them.

OTOH, more revealing of real sonic differences. Shame that you don't
seem to understand this.

one of the subtle assumptions of the objectivist is that
reproduction of music can be separated from the understanding the
music, an assumption for which they have no evidence.

One can of course equally argue that *you* have no evidence that they
can *not* be separated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering