[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message


The answer then depends upon the %age of musicians vs.
non-musicians who are in constant pursuit of better
re-masterings.
Since the activity I made reference to takes place with
respect to 'historical recordings' recordings, I believe
it is very nearly only musicians which are making fuss
about the sound of those. It goes to say whether the
listen on a table radio or a super rig, they do care
about sound, not to mention Joshua Bell owns a $4 million
dollar violin because of its special sound.
http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issue...overstory.html

The idea that musicans don't know what they actually sound like while they
play, is probably an explanation for those who favor extremely expensive
instruments. I don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they can,
but they don't have any direct evidence for what they do actually sound like
to the audience. Therefore they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

There are a couple of ways that musicians know the difference in sound
produced by different instruments:
1. They know the difference in sound as they play it. If, for example,
an instrument sounds "darker" to the player, why wouldn't it sound
"darker" in the audience?
2. When making an investment in an instrument, I ALWAYS have another
player play it while I listen. Of course, there are differences among
players, but if I play the instrument and it sounds "darker" than
another instrument, then I hear another player play it and it also
sounds darker than another instrument, the chances are darned good that
it's a darker instrument. When spending substantial money, I have
someone who plays with a sound similar to mine play the instrument to me.


As a live sound technician, I've been abused by classically-trained
musicians who on the one hand would not cooperate with technical efforts to
make them sound better, and on the other hand tried to ruin my reputation
with gossip, and tried to get me fired because I was unable to use the
technology they hobbled to cover up their lack of talent and unwillingness
to rehearse.

Hmmm, interesting.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in
message

The answer then depends upon the %age of musicians vs.
non-musicians who are in constant pursuit of better
re-masterings.
Since the activity I made reference to takes place with
respect to 'historical recordings' recordings, I believe
it is very nearly only musicians which are making fuss
about the sound of those. It goes to say whether the
listen on a table radio or a super rig, they do care
about sound, not to mention Joshua Bell owns a $4
million dollar violin because of its special sound.
http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issue...overstory.html

The idea that musicans don't know what they actually
sound like while they play, is probably an explanation
for those who favor extremely expensive instruments. I
don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they
can, but they don't have any direct evidence for what
they do actually sound like to the audience. Therefore
they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

There are a couple of ways that musicians know the
difference in sound produced by different instruments:

1. They know the difference in sound as they play it.
If, for example, an instrument sounds "darker" to the
player, why wouldn't it sound "darker" in the audience?

A different sound for the audience than the musician is very possible. Every
instrument's sound is affected by its acoustic environment, and it creates a
sound field that varies with direction. Since the musican is in a different
acoustic environment, and in a different location and distance with respect
to the instrument, he simply hears a different sound. Without further
specific evidence we do not know what the rules are for these differences.
They probably vary with instrument and venue, as well as differences in the
relative location of the instrument and the listener.

2. When making an investment in an instrument, I ALWAYS
have another player play it while I listen. Of course,
there are differences among players, but if I play the
instrument and it sounds "darker" than another
instrument, then I hear another player play it and it
also sounds darker than another instrument, the chances
are darned good that it's a darker instrument. When
spending substantial money, I have someone who plays with
a sound similar to mine play the instrument to me.

As you say, your perceptions are similarities and not identities.
Furthermore your perceptions of similarities may not be reliable. I think
you may be making a good effort, but in fact you still don't know what you
sound like to a person in the audence.

As a live sound technician, I've been abused by
classically-trained musicians who on the one hand would
not cooperate with technical efforts to make them sound
better, and on the other hand tried to ruin my
reputation with gossip, and tried to get me fired
because I was unable to use the technology they hobbled
to cover up their lack of talent and unwillingness to
rehearse.

Hmmm, interesting.

IME classically-trained musicans are generally adverse to the application of
technology to the distribution of the fruits of their art. This seems to
grow stronger as their rank in the musical world increases, at least to some
point.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in
message

The answer then depends upon the %age of musicians vs.
non-musicians who are in constant pursuit of better
re-masterings.
Since the activity I made reference to takes place with
respect to 'historical recordings' recordings, I believe
it is very nearly only musicians which are making fuss
about the sound of those. It goes to say whether the
listen on a table radio or a super rig, they do care
about sound, not to mention Joshua Bell owns a $4
million dollar violin because of its special sound.
http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issue...overstory.html

The idea that musicans don't know what they actually
sound like while they play, is probably an explanation
for those who favor extremely expensive instruments. I
don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they
can, but they don't have any direct evidence for what
they do actually sound like to the audience. Therefore
they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

There are a couple of ways that musicians know the
difference in sound produced by different instruments:

1. They know the difference in sound as they play it.
If, for example, an instrument sounds "darker" to the
player, why wouldn't it sound "darker" in the audience?

A different sound for the audience than the musician is very possible. Every
instrument's sound is affected by its acoustic environment, and it creates a
sound field that varies with direction. Since the musican is in a different
acoustic environment, and in a different location and distance with respect
to the instrument, he simply hears a different sound. Without further
specific evidence we do not know what the rules are for these differences.
They probably vary with instrument and venue, as well as differences in the
relative location of the instrument and the listener.

All of this is true and obvious, but the debate is not about the music
sounding exactly the same to the player as it does in the audience.
It's about different instruments sounding different, both to the player
and to the audience. If two instruments sound different from where the
player sits, why wouldn't it sound different from where the audience
sits, or from where recording mics are placed?


2. When making an investment in an instrument, I ALWAYS
have another player play it while I listen. Of course,
there are differences among players, but if I play the
instrument and it sounds "darker" than another
instrument, then I hear another player play it and it
also sounds darker than another instrument, the chances
are darned good that it's a darker instrument. When
spending substantial money, I have someone who plays with
a sound similar to mine play the instrument to me.

As you say, your perceptions are similarities and not identities.
Furthermore your perceptions of similarities may not be reliable. I think
you may be making a good effort, but in fact you still don't know what you
sound like to a person in the audence.

So you would also say that a recording engineer also doesn't know what
the musicians sound like to a person in the audience?


As a live sound technician, I've been abused by
classically-trained musicians who on the one hand would
not cooperate with technical efforts to make them sound
better, and on the other hand tried to ruin my
reputation with gossip, and tried to get me fired
because I was unable to use the technology they hobbled
to cover up their lack of talent and unwillingness to
rehearse.

Hmmm, interesting.

IME classically-trained musicans are generally adverse to the application of
technology to the distribution of the fruits of their art. This seems to
grow stronger as their rank in the musical world increases, at least to some
point.

The only time I've ever experienced such a thing is when the engineers
try to apply something obviously gross, such too much 'verb, etc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

The idea that musicians don't know what they actually
sound like while they play, is probably an explanation
for those who favor extremely expensive instruments. I
don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they
can, but they don't have any direct evidence for what
they do actually sound like to the audience. Therefore
they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

There are a couple of ways that musicians know the
difference in sound produced by different instruments:

1. They know the difference in sound as they play it.
If, for example, an instrument sounds "darker" to the
player, why wouldn't it sound "darker" in the audience?

A different sound for the audience than the musician is
very possible. Every instrument's sound is affected by
its acoustic environment, and it creates a sound field
that varies with direction. Since the musician is in a
different acoustic environment, and in a different
location and distance with respect to the instrument, he
simply hears a different sound. Without further specific
evidence we do not know what the rules are for these
differences. They probably vary with instrument and
venue, as well as differences in the relative location
of the instrument and the listener.

All of this is true and obvious, but the debate is not
about the music sounding exactly the same to the player
as it does in the audience.

The original statement was that:

"Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live precludes sitting in the
audience. Furthermore, musicians have the disturbing tendency to listen to
the music, not the details of the reproduction."

It's about different
instruments sounding different, both to the player and to
the audience.

That seems to be completely irrelevant to the original statement, which is
reproduced above exactly as it originally appeared.

May I humbly ask that discussion resume being relevant to the statement that
was being debated?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

The idea that musicians don't know what they actually
sound like while they play, is probably an explanation
for those who favor extremely expensive instruments. I
don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they
can, but they don't have any direct evidence for what
they do actually sound like to the audience. Therefore
they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

There are a couple of ways that musicians know the
difference in sound produced by different instruments:

1. They know the difference in sound as they play it.
If, for example, an instrument sounds "darker" to the
player, why wouldn't it sound "darker" in the audience?

A different sound for the audience than the musician is
very possible. Every instrument's sound is affected by
its acoustic environment, and it creates a sound field
that varies with direction. Since the musician is in a
different acoustic environment, and in a different
location and distance with respect to the instrument, he
simply hears a different sound. Without further specific
evidence we do not know what the rules are for these
differences. They probably vary with instrument and
venue, as well as differences in the relative location
of the instrument and the listener.

All of this is true and obvious, but the debate is not
about the music sounding exactly the same to the player
as it does in the audience.

The original statement was that:

"Most performing musicians don't know what the audience
hears when they perform because performing live precludes sitting in the
audience. Furthermore, musicians have the disturbing tendency to listen to
the music, not the details of the reproduction."

It's about different
instruments sounding different, both to the player and to
the audience.

That seems to be completely irrelevant to the original statement, which is
reproduced above exactly as it originally appeared.

May I humbly ask that discussion resume being relevant to the statement that
was being debated?

It's clearly germane to your first paragraph above, the one concerning
instrument choice. If you don't wish to debate that statement, that's
fine. But you brought it up.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:01 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in
message

The answer then depends upon the %age of musicians vs.
non-musicians who are in constant pursuit of better
re-masterings.
Since the activity I made reference to takes place with
respect to 'historical recordings' recordings, I believe
it is very nearly only musicians which are making fuss
about the sound of those. It goes to say whether the
listen on a table radio or a super rig, they do care
about sound, not to mention Joshua Bell owns a $4
million dollar violin because of its special sound.
http://www.stringsmagazine.com/issue...overstory.html

The idea that musicans don't know what they actually
sound like while they play, is probably an explanation
for those who favor extremely expensive instruments. I
don't blame them for wanting to sound as good as they
can, but they don't have any direct evidence for what
they do actually sound like to the audience. Therefore
they are susceptible to potentially poor economic
choices.

There are a couple of ways that musicians know the
difference in sound produced by different instruments:

1. They know the difference in sound as they play it.
If, for example, an instrument sounds "darker" to the
player, why wouldn't it sound "darker" in the audience?

A different sound for the audience than the musician is very possible.
Every
instrument's sound is affected by its acoustic environment, and it creates
a
sound field that varies with direction. Since the musican is in a different
acoustic environment, and in a different location and distance with respect
to the instrument, he simply hears a different sound. Without further
specific evidence we do not know what the rules are for these differences.
They probably vary with instrument and venue, as well as differences in the
relative location of the instrument and the listener.

All of this is true and obvious, but the debate is not about the music
sounding exactly the same to the player as it does in the audience.
It's about different instruments sounding different, both to the player
and to the audience. If two instruments sound different from where the
player sits, why wouldn't it sound different from where the audience
sits, or from where recording mics are placed?

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of them
sound different. I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's. I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.


2. When making an investment in an instrument, I ALWAYS
have another player play it while I listen. Of course,
there are differences among players, but if I play the
instrument and it sounds "darker" than another
instrument, then I hear another player play it and it
also sounds darker than another instrument, the chances
are darned good that it's a darker instrument. When
spending substantial money, I have someone who plays with
a sound similar to mine play the instrument to me.

As you say, your perceptions are similarities and not identities.
Furthermore your perceptions of similarities may not be reliable. I think
you may be making a good effort, but in fact you still don't know what you
sound like to a person in the audence.

So you would also say that a recording engineer also doesn't know what
the musicians sound like to a person in the audience?


As a live sound technician, I've been abused by
classically-trained musicians who on the one hand would
not cooperate with technical efforts to make them sound
better, and on the other hand tried to ruin my
reputation with gossip, and tried to get me fired
because I was unable to use the technology they hobbled
to cover up their lack of talent and unwillingness to
rehearse.

Hmmm, interesting.

IME classically-trained musicans are generally adverse to the application
of
technology to the distribution of the fruits of their art. This seems to
grow stronger as their rank in the musical world increases, at least to
some
point.

The only time I've ever experienced such a thing is when the engineers
try to apply something obviously gross, such too much 'verb, etc.

To me the words "sound reinforcement" are anathema. I have walked out of
concerts and recitals and even jazz clubs when I see the hated stacks of
speakers and the forest of microphones feeding them. If I wanted to listen to
speakers, I could have stayed at home and listened to much BETTER speakers
than any sound-reinforcement setup would provide. In the first place, most of
the time, they are simply unnecessary. People went to clubs featuring live
musicians as the entertainment for decades before somebody decided to use
sound reinforcement. I remember going to a night club a few years ago to hear
a good Brazilian samba group. They had the PA turned up so loud that one had
to cup one's hands around the ear of the person next to one and scream at the
top of their lungs to make themselves heard over the din. It just wasn't
necessary. The venue was small enough that they could have played
acoustically and everyone would have heard them just fine. I realize that
rock and pop concerts where the bands are playing to thousands of fans NEED
sound reinforcement for the size of the venues being used, but that's
different. Most rock and pop doesn't really exist outside of a studio anyway,
so taking the studio with them is part of a band's sound. But I don't listen
to rock or pop and therefore don't care if they use sound reinforcement
there, but when I'm listening to classical or jazz or acoustical folk, I want
to hear the real instruments playing in real space, not some stack of
speakers being fed by thousands of watts!

[bob]

On Jul 30, 7:39*pm, Sonnova wrote:

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of them
sound different. I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's. I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), *and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

A lot of people claim they can tell the difference between, say,
violins, but the evidence that they actually can is thin on the
ground:

http://www.abcviolins.com/blindlistening.html

bob

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:01 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

All of this is true and obvious, but the debate is not about the music
sounding exactly the same to the player as it does in the audience.
It's about different instruments sounding different, both to the player
and to the audience. If two instruments sound different from where the
player sits, why wouldn't it sound different from where the audience
sits, or from where recording mics are placed?

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of them
sound different.

Yep, and I think that anyone can reliably pick out those differences, if
they listen enough to those instruments.

I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's.

For sure.

I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

I agree. Speaking of "they do all sound like violins", I continue to be
surprised at how many recordings from major labels contain the sound of
instruments that could NEVER have existed. Same with synth instruments.
They can sound enough like the instrument that you know what it's
supposed to be, but not like any instrument (violin, etc.) that actually
ever existed.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article , bob
wrote:

On Jul 30, 7:39*pm, Sonnova wrote:

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of
that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of
them
sound different. I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's. I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), *and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

A lot of people claim they can tell the difference between, say,
violins, but the evidence that they actually can is thin on the
ground:

http://www.abcviolins.com/blindlistening.html

bob

A few points:

It's harder to tell on violins, for several reasons.

Note that the author is a maker of new violins.

I'm curious about how one would "blind" the player, for a DBT.

There are, of course, wonderful contemporary violins and crappy Stads.

I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between, say, a Yamaha
and a Bosendorffer, you are either inexperienced or not trying hard
enough.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:34:03 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 30, 7:39*pm, Sonnova wrote:

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of
that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of
them
sound different. I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's. I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), *and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

A lot of people claim they can tell the difference between, say,
violins, but the evidence that they actually can is thin on the
ground:

http://www.abcviolins.com/blindlistening.html

bob


Well, When I was in a guy's living room who had borrowed the three Cremonese
violins and he played the same piece on each, the differences were not
subtle. The Amati sounded very treble-heavy and some strident, the Strad was
very mellow and laid-back, and the Guaneri had a very forward sound. I'm not
saying that I could pick any of them out of a string section, or tell you
that some violin solo was being played on one or the other, but when all
three were were in one room all played by the same violinist, I certainly
found that each had a unique character.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:11:36 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:01 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

All of this is true and obvious, but the debate is not about the music
sounding exactly the same to the player as it does in the audience.
It's about different instruments sounding different, both to the player
and to the audience. If two instruments sound different from where the
player sits, why wouldn't it sound different from where the audience
sits, or from where recording mics are placed?

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of
that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of
them
sound different.

Yep, and I think that anyone can reliably pick out those differences, if
they listen enough to those instruments.

I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's.

For sure.

I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

I agree. Speaking of "they do all sound like violins", I continue to be
surprised at how many recordings from major labels contain the sound of
instruments that could NEVER have existed. Same with synth instruments.
They can sound enough like the instrument that you know what it's
supposed to be, but not like any instrument (violin, etc.) that actually
ever existed.


This is especially true with synthesized instrument. Even sampled instruments
- which should sound like the real thing (after all they are just "digital
recordings" of the instruments that they are supposed to be) don't sound like
the real thing. Some of it has to do with the way the sampled instruments are
played You can't get the proper intonation of a bowed instrument by playing
back a sampled one on a keyboard. But that's only part of it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:26:01 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

As a live sound technician, I've been abused by
classically-trained musicians who on the one hand
would not cooperate with technical efforts to make
them sound better, and on the other hand tried to
ruin my reputation with gossip, and tried to get me
fired because I was unable to use the technology they
hobbled to cover up their lack of talent and
unwillingness to rehearse.

Hmmm, interesting.

IME classically-trained musicians are generally adverse
to the application of
technology to the distribution of the fruits of their
art. This seems to grow stronger as their rank in the
musical world increases, at least to some
point.

The only time I've ever experienced such a thing is when
the engineers try to apply something obviously gross,
such too much 'verb, etc.

On one occasion, I was berated for not applying enough 'verb to cover up the
failings of their intonation, this in a room that is well-known to have
excessive reverberation.

I suspect that you generally deal with a more professional group of
classically-trained musicians than I have. Like I said, one of their agendas
was to blame the predictable consequences of their lack of willingness to
rehearse on poor sound reinforcement.

To me the words "sound reinforcement" are anathema.

On the best day of its life, SR is little but a necessary evil.

I have walked out of concerts and recitals and even jazz
clubs when I see the hated stacks of speakers and the
forest of microphones feeding them.

That's a choice you get to make.

If I wanted to listen
to speakers, I could have stayed at home and listened to
much BETTER speakers than any sound-reinforcement setup
would provide.

As a SR technician, I am often embarrassed by exactly this situation. In
this day and age home theatre can be a viable and even preferable to
actually being at the so-called live show.

I've been at so-called live shows where there was obvious pantomiming and
even substitution of video clips for live performances.

In the first place, most of the time, they
are simply unnecessary.

I think you might be surprised the problems that SR is used to mitigate.

People went to clubs featuring
live musicians as the entertainment for decades before
somebody decided to use sound reinforcement.

Well, we've got a few problems:

(1) Musical instruments that are inherently electronic.

(2) Styles of singing that are incompatible with classical voice training.

(3) Venues that are so large that is has been impossible to adequately cover
all the seats using just acoustical instruments and unassisted vocalists of
even the highest caliber.

I remember
going to a night club a few years ago to hear a good
Brazilian samba group. They had the PA turned up so loud
that one had to cup one's hands around the ear of the
person next to one and scream at the top of their lungs
to make themselves heard over the din. It just wasn't
necessary.

One of the major innovations of recent decades involves electronic
monitoring for musicians, either dedicated loudspeakers or earphones.
Decoupling the sound field for the performers from the sound field for FOH
has many benefits. If the musicians want ear-splitting volumes, the FOH need
not suffer as much. If the venue is huge, there is no need for the musicians
to suffer being in the sound field of high-SPL speaker systems.

The venue was small enough that they could
have played acoustically and everyone would have heard
them just fine.

Another problem is that some acoustical instruments, such as brass and
percussion, are just plain loud when played errr, enthusiastically.

I realize that rock and pop concerts
where the bands are playing to thousands of fans NEED
sound reinforcement for the size of the venues being
used, but that's different.

Often the SPLs go well beyond that which is needed for high-resolution
listening.

Most rock and pop doesn't
really exist outside of a studio anyway, so taking the
studio with them is part of a band's sound.

Agreed.

But I don't
listen to rock or pop and therefore don't care if they
use sound reinforcement there, but when I'm listening to
classical or jazz or acoustical folk, I want to hear the
real instruments playing in real space, not some stack of
speakers being fed by thousands of watts!

I'm unsure how ears-bleeding SPLs became part of the musical experience. It
may have started with drums and horns in a very small, very acoustically
live venue.

[bob]

On Jul 30, 11:45*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:34:03 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):



On Jul 30, 7:39*pm, Sonnova wrote:

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of
that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of
them
sound different. I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's. I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), *and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

A lot of people claim they can tell the difference between, say,
violins, but the evidence that they actually can is thin on the
ground:

http://www.abcviolins.com/blindlistening.html

bob

Well, When I was in a guy's living room who had borrowed the three Cremonese
violins and he played the same piece on each, the differences were not
subtle. The Amati sounded very treble-heavy and some strident, the Strad was
very mellow and laid-back, and the Guaneri had a very forward sound. I'm not
saying that I could pick any of them out of a string section, or tell you
that some violin solo was being played on one or the other, but when all
three were were in one room all played by the same violinist, I certainly
found that each had a unique character.

Yes, but what you don't know, among other things, is whether he
*played* the instruments differently, knowing what they are. If he
thinks the Strad is mellower than the Amati, and (perhaps
subconsciously) plays the two to exaggerate that difference,

My guess is that an expert could tell these instruments apart in a
true DBT, assuming one were possible. But my other guess is that the
differences between these instruments are more subtle than today's
experts think they are. (Once you've determined that the Strad sounds
a little mellower, it probably starts to sound a LOT mellower.) And
these experts would be in for a rude shock the first time they took a
DBT; then, with a little work, they'd figure it out.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha". There are
thousands of them, different models, different maintenance histories,
different states of tune, and of course they are in different rooms. Ditto
for the Bosendorfers, except no doubt far fewer samples.

I suspect that if we recorded a certain Bosendorfer in a certain place on
two successive days, played by a machine that was far more repeatable than a
human player, we'd still be able to ABX them successfully.

A few months back, I did some tests in a large room, which involved
recording 1 minute segments of pink noise from a loudspeaker on the
ceiling. There were a number of control recordings including recording two
successive segments with as many parameters held constant as possible. These
two recordings were far more different than can be reasonably expected from
two different random samples of pink noise from the same source. I concluded
that the room was changing due to thermals, etc.

I conclude that if I did two recordings of the piano in that room, with as
many parameters held constant as possible, they could probably be
differentiated in an ABX test.

[bob]

On Jul 30, 11:44*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article , bob
wrote:



On Jul 30, 7:39*pm, Sonnova wrote:

They do. Many people can tell the make (and model) of an instrument being
played just by hearing it. Obviously, this is easier if the recording of
that
instrument is a solo, but I've seen people pick the sound of a violin or a
piano out of an orchestral recording. For instance, Steinway, Baldwin,
Yamaha, Bosendorffer and Kawai all make concert grand pianos, but all of
them
sound different. I've even read that today's Steinways sound different from
those made up to the late 1960's. I don't know why. I, myself, have
witnessed, in person, a "shoot-out" between a Stradivarius, an Amati and a
Guarnerius violin. They sound NOTHING alike (except that in the broader
context, of course, they do all sound like violins), *and are unmistakeable
to anyone who have heard all three together.

A lot of people claim they can tell the difference between, say,
violins, but the evidence that they actually can is thin on the
ground:

http://www.abcviolins.com/blindlistening.html

bob

A few points:

It's harder to tell on violins, for several reasons.

Note that the author is a maker of new violins.

Heh, heh. Good point.

I'm curious about how one would "blind" the player, for a DBT.

Depending on the instrument, that could be tough. I think you'd have
to find a player who was pretty good, but not familiar with different
instruments, for starters. That's probably a narrow pool.

There are, of course, wonderful contemporary violins and crappy Stads.

I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between, say, a Yamaha
and a Bosendorffer, you are either inexperienced or not trying hard
enough.

You may well be right. Confirming that isn't so easy.

bob

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha".

Of course. But they all share tonal characteristics, almost the polar
opposite to Bosendorffers.

There are
thousands of them, different models, different maintenance histories,
different states of tune,

The degree of intonation difference doesn't affect the rather large
tonal difference between Ys and Bs. Perhaps by "states of tune" you
don't mean intonation?

and of course they are in different rooms. Ditto
for the Bosendorfers, except no doubt far fewer samples.

I suspect that if we recorded a certain Bosendorfer in a certain place on
two successive days, played by a machine that was far more repeatable than a
human player, we'd still be able to ABX them successfully.

A few months back, I did some tests in a large room, which involved
recording 1 minute segments of pink noise from a loudspeaker on the
ceiling. There were a number of control recordings including recording two
successive segments with as many parameters held constant as possible. These
two recordings were far more different than can be reasonably expected from
two different random samples of pink noise from the same source. I concluded
that the room was changing due to thermals, etc.

I conclude that if I did two recordings of the piano in that room, with as
many parameters held constant as possible, they could probably be
differentiated in an ABX test.

No doubt true, sometimes. Atmospheric conditions play a major role.
That's why good instruments should be stored in controlled spaces IRT
temperature and humidity.

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha".

Of course. But they all share tonal characteristics,

Do they? How would we determine this? Is there something
particular about Yamaha construction that would lead one to believe
they will have a sound characterstic enough that they would sound
MORE different from a Bosendorfer, than two Bosendorfers
would be from each other?

almost the polar
opposite to Bosendorffers.

And again...?

This implies that it would be easier to tell any Bosendorfer from
any Yamaha, than it would to tell one Yamaha from another (or one
Bosendorfer from another).

Let us confine ourselves to grand pianos, just to make it fair.
(It would't be fair to compare and upright to a grand, I hope
you agree)

Has this ever been confirmed by anything more than musician lore?

There are
thousands of them, different models, different maintenance histories,
different states of tune,

The degree of intonation difference doesn't affect the rather large
tonal difference between Ys and Bs. Perhaps by "states of tune" you
don't mean intonation?

Again, what accounts for this large tonal difference?

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha".

Of course. But they all share tonal characteristics,

Do they? How would we determine this?

Spend years listening to Yamahas and other pianos.

Is there something
particular about Yamaha construction that would lead one to believe
they will have a sound characterstic enough that they would sound
MORE different from a Bosendorfer, than two Bosendorfers
would be from each other?

They've made certain construction and material decisions to create a
certain sound. I'm not an expert on these differences.


almost the polar
opposite to Bosendorffers.

And again...?

This implies that it would be easier to tell any Bosendorfer from
any Yamaha, than it would to tell one Yamaha from another (or one
Bosendorfer from another).

That's the way I hear it. Both companies strive for a very specific
sound, and they are successful at getting it.


Let us confine ourselves to grand pianos, just to make it fair.
(It would't be fair to compare and upright to a grand, I hope
you agree)

Of course.


Has this ever been confirmed by anything more than musician lore?

I don't know the lore; I know only what I hear. I HAVE heard similar
observations by others. I know that every single time I hear a live
piano concert or a fine recording, and there is a certain sound
presented, when I get close enough to look at the logo or check the
liner notes, it's a Yamaha. Every time. I don't recall ever being
wrong on that.


There are
thousands of them, different models, different maintenance histories,
different states of tune,

The degree of intonation difference doesn't affect the rather large
tonal difference between Ys and Bs. Perhaps by "states of tune" you
don't mean intonation?

Again, what accounts for this large tonal difference?

I don't know, specifically. I've heard that the Ys are a little lighter
build in the wood parts, and that they are set up for lighter gauge
strings.

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha".

Of course. But they all share tonal characteristics,

Do they? How would we determine this?

Spend years listening to Yamahas and other pianos.

And how would we demonstrate that that gave you the ability to determine
Yamahas from Bosendorfers, sight unseen?


Is there something
particular about Yamaha construction that would lead one to believe
they will have a sound characterstic enough that they would sound
MORE different from a Bosendorfer, than two Bosendorfers
would be from each other?

They've made certain construction and material decisions to create a
certain sound. I'm not an expert on these differences.

It would be a stronger argument if you could at least name some.


almost the polar
opposite to Bosendorffers.

And again...?

This implies that it would be easier to tell any Bosendorfer from
any Yamaha, than it would to tell one Yamaha from another (or one
Bosendorfer from another).

That's the way I hear it. Both companies strive for a very specific
sound, and they are successful at getting it.


Let us confine ourselves to grand pianos, just to make it fair.
(It would't be fair to compare and upright to a grand, I hope
you agree)

Of course.


Has this ever been confirmed by anything more than musician lore?

I don't know the lore; I know only what I hear.


And this is the crux of the matter.

No, you don't necessarily know what you hear. You THINK you do.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1521 - Release Date: 6/26/2008 11:20 AM

[Harry Lavo]

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

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha".

Of course. But they all share tonal characteristics,

Do they? How would we determine this?

Spend years listening to Yamahas and other pianos.

And how would we demonstrate that that gave you the ability to determine
Yamahas from Bosendorfers, sight unseen?


Is there something
particular about Yamaha construction that would lead one to believe
they will have a sound characterstic enough that they would sound
MORE different from a Bosendorfer, than two Bosendorfers
would be from each other?

They've made certain construction and material decisions to create a
certain sound. I'm not an expert on these differences.

It would be a stronger argument if you could at least name some.


almost the polar
opposite to Bosendorffers.

And again...?

This implies that it would be easier to tell any Bosendorfer from
any Yamaha, than it would to tell one Yamaha from another (or one
Bosendorfer from another).

That's the way I hear it. Both companies strive for a very specific
sound, and they are successful at getting it.


Let us confine ourselves to grand pianos, just to make it fair.
(It would't be fair to compare and upright to a grand, I hope
you agree)

Of course.


Has this ever been confirmed by anything more than musician lore?

I don't know the lore; I know only what I hear.


And this is the crux of the matter.

No, you don't necessarily know what you hear. You THINK you do.

Steven, after your initial set of questions yesterday, I started to answer
them for Jenn. Then realized I had only impressions and would ask an
expert, my friend Barbara who is a classical pianist who spent most of her
life as artistic director and principle pianist with a chamber group,
playing with the same group of folks who constitue the Lincoln Center group.
She owns a very rare 9' Steinway, and as Artistic Director had the task of
chosing pianos for the group from the Steinways at Steinway in NYC, and as
you will see below, sometimes Bosendoerfers. Since she spent a lot of time
in practice halls and some time in recording studios, I thought she might
comment cogently. So rather than provide any remarks of my own, I will give
you her reply to me verbatim (I had sent her your post and my tentative
replies):

(And I might add before you say it, she is not talking about "seeing" the
piano at a live concert.....she is talking about standing backstage or in
the wings and "hearing" the piano. I followed up on this with her. )
"Well, this is an interesting discussion. You are correct in your statements
about Yamahas...very bright and glassy. Not enough depth and fullness of
tone. However, I have played on a few concert grand Yamahas, in their NYC
showroom during rehearsals, where I was very impressed. The quality changes
dramatically in the 9' piano. In fact, I have never noticed such a dramatic
change in tone between the smaller ones & the concert grand in any other
piano builder. As much as I would like to believe it, I don't think I could
tell the difference ..on a recording...between an excellent Yamaha concert
grand & a Boesendorfer.(live concert would be a much easier test).

"Although I'm not as familiar with the current crop of Boesendorfers, my
exprerience being limited to one Mozart Festival when they sponsored us,
plus playing on Jacques's Imperial, I would have to say that they do share
some of the characteristics of the Yamaha, though in lesser degree: glassy
in the treble, a bit wooden in the bass (I had called the Boesendorfers
"ponderous" sounding...HL). The difference might be slight, but it would be
tonal; overall, the Boes. having the superior tone quality. I played on
nothing but Boesendorfers when I was in Salzburg at the Mozarteum. Even back
then, they were beautiful sounding instruments WHEN NEW. But they didn't
hold up well over time. This was generally regarded conventional wisdom. For
a better discussion of B's, I would have to defer to Garrick Ohlsson, who
plays them exclusively. We had to rent one for him.

"Having said all that, I do believe that I can tell the difference between a
Steinway and either of these pianos, especially an American Steinway. After
having rented Hamburg Steinways all those years, I think I can even tell
.....on a recording...the difference between the German & American ones. Of
course, at a live concert, it's so different..and much easier to tell the
difference between pianos. Recordings are, after all is said and done,
"manufactured sound". And pianos, as we both know, are very hard to record,
especially for tonal quality. Too often the percussive element gets in the
way of the sound. Anyway, that's all I can offer on this subject @ 6:20am.
Good luck with your newsgroup.

"Oh, and "different states of tune" should be retired by whomever said it.
If one were to have a comparison piano discussion at any level...recording
or live concert...one would have to assume that the piano is tuned properly.
Otherwise, the whole discussion is meaningless. Now, this is not the case
with jazz recordings, as you know, where I have heard some whoppers as far
as bad tuning, as well as bad pianos, are concerned. "

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I maintain that if you can't tell the difference between,
say, a Yamaha and a Bosendorffer, you are either
inexperienced or not trying hard enough.

Thing is, there isn't any such single thing as "a Yamaha".

Of course. But they all share tonal characteristics,

Do they? How would we determine this?

Spend years listening to Yamahas and other pianos.

And how would we demonstrate that that gave you the ability to determine
Yamahas from Bosendorfers, sight unseen?

I can't think of one time that I've been wrong in the concert hall or on
recordings.



Is there something
particular about Yamaha construction that would lead one to believe
they will have a sound characterstic enough that they would sound
MORE different from a Bosendorfer, than two Bosendorfers
would be from each other?

They've made certain construction and material decisions to create a
certain sound. I'm not an expert on these differences.

It would be a stronger argument if you could at least name some.

I'm no expert on the construction of pianos; I'm just quite experienced
in how they sound. I could find out about the differences if you're
really interested. I do know that they are constructed to sound
different.



almost the polar
opposite to Bosendorffers.

And again...?

This implies that it would be easier to tell any Bosendorfer from
any Yamaha, than it would to tell one Yamaha from another (or one
Bosendorfer from another).

That's the way I hear it. Both companies strive for a very specific
sound, and they are successful at getting it.


Let us confine ourselves to grand pianos, just to make it fair.
(It would't be fair to compare and upright to a grand, I hope
you agree)

Of course.


Has this ever been confirmed by anything more than musician lore?

I don't know the lore; I know only what I hear.


And this is the crux of the matter.

It is? The lore more important than how they sound?


No, you don't necessarily know what you hear. You THINK you do.

OK. After years and years of hearing pianos of all types and always
correctly identifying the whether the instrument is a B or a Y, I THINK
that I can hear the difference. That's the way I'll state it from now
on.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume,
"On Miracles"
(1748)

[avidlistener]

On Jul 12, 9:32*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
You've got to realize that for some
people, ABX testing is all about high anxiety.

This is quite true. It is also true that for others, it is about a mild,
distracting anxiety. That's one of the flaws of the abx methodology.

What sort of flaw is it to ask one to listen for difference in order
to see if there is one. I don't do comparisons for enjoyment of
anything other than gaining of knowledge, which I consider a
pleasure. If I find a difference, I have learned something, and that
pleases me.

If I want to enjoy music I don't do short term comparisons, I just
listen and let the emotion take me where it will.
If I want some knowledge about audio equipment, some short bits of
music or special test tones will be better and lead me to the later
long term pleasure I buy audio equipment for.

For people afraid to find out their 1000 watt Pass monoblocks don't
sound different than a Pioneer reciever, I can see where they might
have some anxiety.

[avidlistener]

On Jul 13, 10:37*am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 13, 12:14*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:



Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:14*pm, Sonnova wrote:
I'd really like to hear some opinions on this, but I'd also ask that you
actually go and read the paper before commenting. I'd like
for .these comments to be on Harley's words, not on my
capsule summation, above.
Thanks.
After digging through a good deal of, with all due respect, sewerage
( *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sewerage*), I find *the
article written both at the top of the author's lungs, and in *terms
that are so carefully chosen for his self-serving purposes as to *be
entirely meaningless to anyone cursed with the ability to think. *And,
sadly, the article *is* sufficiently well-crafted as to have the
awful ability to baffle those who might be inclined towards its
premise. Now as to my opinion on double-blind testing - it is *about
as useful as sighted testing - that is as much as the proverbial *tit
on the proverbial bull.
Explanation:
ABX testing is useful in discerning the *OBVIOUS* differences *between
any given items. And if it can be reliably discerned in ABX *testing,
it surely exists.

Actaully, ABX (DBT) is very useful in discerning quite subtle differences,
particularly when discrimination training is employed.
So the rest of your argument falls apart.

With respect, not hardly.

What I am "arguing" is that one should purchase and maintain what one
chooses and enjoys. Tests notwithstanding, opinion (of others)
notwithstanding, cost notwithstanding, smoke-and-mirrors
notwithstanding. One should arrive at the choice by whatever means one
chooses - same "notwithstandings" as above.

The end.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Pretty safe since the overwhelming majority of audio equipment are
built well enough that they all sound identical, save speakers, which
continue to be the weakest link in the audio chain.

Personally I like to put the bulk of my money into speakers since they
are the only thing that will make a real big difference.

[Andrew Barss]

Sonnova wrote:


Coke vs. Pepsi


Have a look at the interesting discussion of this in Malcolm Gladwell's
book Blink. He reviews the "Pepsi challenge", which caused huge sales
increasees in Pepsi in the 80s, as well as reviewing an ABX test
which people consistently failed at.


What I recall from the discussion (been awhile):

a) a majority of people prefer Pepsi to Coke if allowed one ounce
(the original Pepsi challenge).

b) a majority of people prefer Coke to Pepsi if allowed a full glass.

c) In an ABX test, with one ounce each of Coke and Pepsi, followed by
a third drink which was one of the two, no significant result in correctly
identifying the third. This is interpreted to show the fleeting nature
of taste memory.


The (a) vs. (b) difference is discussed, with one possible explanation being that
Pepsi is sweeter, thus appealing in small doses, less so at larger servings.
(reminiscent of the loudness wars and the fatiguing effect of
DRC).


-- Andy Barss

[Harry Lavo]

I am a serious amateur photographer as well as music lover and high-fi nut,
and in reading a book on lighting which I bought over the weekend, I was
struck by this passage.

"Typically, the eye flickers rapidly over a scene even without conscious
direction in a pattern of what are called saccidic movements. The order is
related to elements of interest, and so varies from individual to
individual....by rapid adjustiments of the iris, the eye can alter its
sensitivity, so that while it has a fairly limited dynamic range if staring
at a small focused area, it can "add up" a number of areas that vary widely
in brightness to arrive at a perceived overall image with a high dynamic
range."

The Complete Guide to Light and Lighting in Digital Photography, Michael
Freeman, Lark Books, NY, NY, page 128.

(The dynamic range of our sight when excercised as a whole is about 16-17EV,
while the range when fixed on one part of a scene is just a bit greater than
6EV, according to this book.)

This seemed an apt analogy to my hypothesis about the conscious, directed
"choosing" in an ABX test versus the relaxed, listening to music approach
which I propose in my "control test". If the brain can so supercede the mere
physical in processing sight, is it not probable that it is equally (if not
greater) in its sophistication in decoding music. Perhaps this also helps
explain why scientists are finding that some rythmic patterns seem
hardwired, and why at least one test suggest ultrasonics may trigger
pleasure reaction while not traditionally "heard".

And if this is true, does not it suggest that listening "as a whole to
music" may be quite different than listening in a conscious, focused way for
a single "distortion" within that music?

From antecdotal discussion it seems to me that this is the "unconscious" way
that problems or characterisics arise to consciousness and identity
themselves when listening to an audio system...in the context of the musical
"whole". One develops a feeling that the bass is not solid enough or is
"sluggish", or that somethow the soundstage is flatter than it should be,
etc etc. In other words the big musical picture in its total aural and
mental impact (the full "seeing" in this analagy) indicates something is
just not right. But then when we consciously try to concentrate on just one
limited aspect, in direct, conscious examination, it often goes away. Or in
the words of the passage above, the examination "has a limited dynamic
range" that fails to convey the musical whole.

I offer it as food for thought, and a reason why perhaps the "science" of
audio is not quite as cut and dry as some would prefer. And why I and
others will not accept assurances that it is and that definitive testing is
at hand.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


This seemed an apt analogy to my hypothesis about the
conscious, directed "choosing" in an ABX test versus the
relaxed, listening to music approach which I propose in
my "control test". If the brain can so supercede the mere
physical in processing sight, is it not probable that it
is equally (if not greater) in its sophistication in
decoding music. Perhaps this also helps explain why
scientists are finding that some rhythmic patterns seem
hardwired, and why at least one test suggest ultrasonics
may trigger pleasure reaction while not traditionally
"heard".

The fallacy presented above for what seems to be the thousandth time, is the
strange idea that one can not do an ABX test while listening in a relaxed
way. Both this and the equally strange idea that one can not do an ABX test
during long term listening experiences are commonly presented by people who
have some other axe to grind.

[[email protected]]

"This seemed an apt analogy to my hypothesis about the conscious, directed
"choosing" in an ABX test versus the relaxed, listening to music approach
which I propose in my "control test". If the brain can so supercede the
mere
physical in processing sight, is it not probable that it is equally (if
not
greater) in its sophistication in decoding music. Perhaps this also helps
explain why scientists are finding that some rythmic patterns seem
hardwired, and why at least one test suggest ultrasonics may trigger
pleasure reaction while not traditionally "heard".

And if this is true, does not it suggest that listening "as a whole to
music" may be quite different than listening in a conscious, focused way
for
a single "distortion" within that music?

From antecdotal discussion it seems to me that this is the "unconscious"
way
that problems or characterisics arise to consciousness and identity
themselves when listening to an audio system...in the context of the
musical
"whole". One develops a feeling that the bass is not solid enough or is
"sluggish", or that somethow the soundstage is flatter than it should be,
etc etc. In other words the big musical picture in its total aural and
mental impact (the full "seeing" in this analagy) indicates something is
just not right. But then when we consciously try to concentrate on just
one
limited aspect, in direct, conscious examination, it often goes away. Or
in
the words of the passage above, the examination "has a limited dynamic
range" that fails to convey the musical whole.

I offer it as food for thought, and a reason why perhaps the "science" of
audio is not quite as cut and dry as some would prefer. And why I and
others will not accept assurances that it is and that definitive testing
is
at hand."

May I suggest reading the NY Times article about human perception found
off a link in the recently posted thread about what magic has to teach
audiophiles. Your speculation might then take another direction. In
short, the brain makes it up as it goes along regarding decoding sensory
input on a second to second basis and sums it all up by mashing it into
stored models of information and expectation that is its own creation by
which to make sense of the world. In other words, its easy to trick
perception.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...

snip, to avoid repetition of my original post

May I suggest reading the NY Times article about human perception found
off a link in the recently posted thread about what magic has to teach
audiophiles. Your speculation might then take another direction. In
short, the brain makes it up as it goes along regarding decoding sensory
input on a second to second basis and sums it all up by mashing it into
stored models of information and expectation that is its own creation by
which to make sense of the world. In other words, its easy to trick
perception.


And may I ask you how you manage to listen to music or validly critique a
music-reproduction system without relying on perception?

[[email protected]]

May I suggest reading the NY Times article about human perception found
off a link in the recently posted thread about what magic has to teach
audiophiles. Your speculation might then take another direction. In
short, the brain makes it up as it goes along regarding decoding sensory
input on a second to second basis and sums it all up by mashing it into
stored models of information and expectation that is its own creation by
which to make sense of the world. In other words, its easy to trick
perception.


"And may I ask you how you manage to listen to music or validly critique a
music-reproduction system without relying on perception?"

Your question is a non sequitur. We use perception to experience the
objective reality we tap into by way of our senses. Stored information
and expectation heavily lard and modify how we percieve sensory input.

If the sensory input being recieved doesn't include knowledge of what the
source of it is the usually triggered perception process is at a loss to
modify it in the familiar ways.

This is the case with a blind test of two amps for example. For music it
is pattern recognition that is evoked which is another brain process.

Because perception is involved we must remove as much as possible that
sensory input,ie. sighted or brand etc., information which triggers the
perception process falsely.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...

snip, to avoid repetition of my original post

May I suggest reading the NY Times article about human perception found
off a link in the recently posted thread about what magic has to teach
audiophiles. Your speculation might then take another direction. In
short, the brain makes it up as it goes along regarding decoding sensory
input on a second to second basis and sums it all up by mashing it into
stored models of information and expectation that is its own creation by
which to make sense of the world. In other words, its easy to trick
perception.


And may I ask you how you manage to listen to music or validly critique a
music-reproduction system without relying on perception?

It's not so much an issue of having perceptions, as what claims are made
based on them.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)