About Us

A comment on the idea that perception of sound is an emergent property
and not reducible to perception of test tones or snippets.

As a composer, I've discovered that my brain can sense a pattern before
I consciously understand that pattern. It might be that I enjoy some
music, then go to analyze it and find some simple underlying pattern.
I'm also playing algorithmic music right now, in which I creates music
based on mathematical patterns, not sure what it is going to sound
like, and sometime upon hearing it, I sense clear theme and unity,
although there is nothing concrete to point to.

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second, and very likely, the
listener would be sensitive to details which are actually smaller than
10 ms.

To summarize: there are many ways we become aware of a pattern out in
the world, and not always through direct conscious apprehension. It
stands to reason that the limits on perception would be dependent on
the situation.

I think this idea could use some rigorous investigation, and it seems
that nothing like this as been done before. There appear to be no
experiments about the ear's performance which attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them.

Mike

In article ,
wrote:

A comment on the idea that perception of sound is an emergent property
and not reducible to perception of test tones or snippets.

As a composer, I've discovered that my brain can sense a pattern before
I consciously understand that pattern. It might be that I enjoy some
music, then go to analyze it and find some simple underlying pattern.
I'm also playing algorithmic music right now, in which I creates music
based on mathematical patterns, not sure what it is going to sound
like, and sometime upon hearing it, I sense clear theme and unity,
although there is nothing concrete to point to.

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second, and very likely, the
listener would be sensitive to details which are actually smaller than
10 ms.

To summarize: there are many ways we become aware of a pattern out in
the world, and not always through direct conscious apprehension. It
stands to reason that the limits on perception would be dependent on
the situation.

I think this idea could use some rigorous investigation, and it seems
that nothing like this as been done before. There appear to be no
experiments about the ear's performance which attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them.

Mike

Mike, you once again bring up highly interesting points. May I point
you to a scholarly journal that I'm just starting to get into: The
Journal of Music Perception http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/mp/
I read it at a university library. Very interesting stuff, in my view.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

A comment on the idea that perception of sound is an emergent property
and not reducible to perception of test tones or snippets.

As a composer, I've discovered that my brain can sense a pattern before
I consciously understand that pattern. It might be that I enjoy some
music, then go to analyze it and find some simple underlying pattern.
I'm also playing algorithmic music right now, in which I creates music
based on mathematical patterns, not sure what it is going to sound
like, and sometime upon hearing it, I sense clear theme and unity,
although there is nothing concrete to point to.

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second, and very likely, the
listener would be sensitive to details which are actually smaller than
10 ms.

To summarize: there are many ways we become aware of a pattern out in
the world, and not always through direct conscious apprehension. It
stands to reason that the limits on perception would be dependent on
the situation.

I think this idea could use some rigorous investigation, and it seems
that nothing like this as been done before. There appear to be no
experiments about the ear's performance which attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them.

Mike

Mike, you once again bring up highly interesting points. May I point
you to a scholarly journal that I'm just starting to get into: The
Journal of Music Perception http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/mp/
I read it at a university library. Very interesting stuff, in my view.

Thanks for the pointer.

By the way, I wrote that post in the middle of the night when I
couldn't sleep but had just taken a sleeping pill. I was somewhat
horrified to see the grammatical and spelling errors when I looked at
it again this morning.

In any case, to summarize:

It's my assertion that the performance of the ear/brain system cannot
be usefully gauged in a bottom-up, piecemeal fashion that ignores what
we know about the perception of music as a whole. I will look at this
journal. I can bet you right now that almost every article in this
journal will imply a model of the ear/brain system, from which
listening protocols could be suggested. Quick-switch testing operates
in ignorance of these models.

Mike

wrote:

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second

Whoa, time out. I'm afraid I must disagree vociferously with your
conclusions.

Some musicians are more sensetive to timing variations than others.
Regardless of how much nuance -- shading, inflection, musical
expression [sic] -- the drummer puts on a pattern, some listeners will
hear those timing variations and be able to identify them as such. Some
sensetive (and experienced) musicians will even be able to point out
that shading, inflection et al are being achieved *via* timing
variations.

Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

Take rhythm. If you tested people on their ability to detect regular
and irregular rhythm... let's say we beat a drum on quarter notes, and
each beat could be a little off (a little early or late). We do an
experiment to measure the limits of what people can detect. Say, it has
to be 10 ms off before they can detect an irregularity.

Now have a drummer play music on that drum. Have him shade and inflect
the music by the way he plays, including slight timing variation.

Now the timing various will *not be heard as timing variation*, it will
be heard as *musical expression*

The experience of musicians strongly suggests that first experiment
doesn't have much of a relation to the second

Whoa, time out. I'm afraid I must disagree vociferously with your
conclusions.

Some musicians are more sensetive to timing variations than others.
Regardless of how much nuance -- shading, inflection, musical
expression [sic] -- the drummer puts on a pattern, some listeners will
hear those timing variations and be able to identify them as such. Some
sensetive (and experienced) musicians will even be able to point out
that shading, inflection et al are being achieved *via* timing
variations.

The point of my post was not to strictly categorize and
compartmentalize listening experiences. You rightly point out that
there is a whole spectrum of listening intentions. The point is that
there is no reason to suppose that the limit of human sensitivity from
one situation applies to another situation.

Mike

"There appear to be no experiments about the ear's performance which
attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them."
--Michaelmos

I'm an amateur musician (classical guitar; formerly piano and
harpsichord also) who attends lots of classical, unamplified, concerts
and recitals.

For many years (I'm also 65 years old...), I enjoyed listening to LP's
on my stereo system which has generally been decent and remains so.
When CD's were introduced, I embraced them but soon was noticing that
my listening enjoyment had markedly declined. Eventually it reached
the point that I hardly listened to recorded music any more. These
days, when I do listen to CD's, I have to stop after an hour or so
because I'm feeling so uncomfortable--with a feeling akin to growing
anxiety. I also have always noticed, except on a very few CD's, a
harshness in the sound, mainly when listening with speakers, but also
to a lesser extent with headphone use.

During these post-CD years, my collection of approx. 800 LP's, mainly
classical with some jazz and other genres, had literally gathered dust.
There have been whole years in which I probably did not listen to one
LP.

Recently I decided to give my LP's another go, and behold: I can listen
for hours, with either speakers or headphones, and experience something
close to what I experience when I hear my own live music, or the music
at an (unamplified) concert.

I realize that there's a longstanding a fiercely partisan debate about
the relative accuracy or authenticity of digital versus analog sound.
I can report that analog sound, for me as one accustomed to hearing
live unamplified music virtually daily, is closer to the living
experience than digital reproduction, and that analog sound does not
create uneasiness in me, while digital reproduction on similar-level
equipment, does.

I hope this doesn't sound off-topic; I think it's germane to this
thread because nobody has succeeded yet in demonstrating why people
react differently to different modes of sound reproduction. I believe
this is truly a case where there needs to be consideration of "the
ear's performance" with regard to "the subject as a whole person."

jonrkc wrote:
"There appear to be no experiments about the ear's performance which
attempt to use subject as
a whole person. Or if there are any, I'd like to know about them."
--Michaelmos

I'm an amateur musician (classical guitar; formerly piano and
harpsichord also) who attends lots of classical, unamplified, concerts
and recitals.

For many years (I'm also 65 years old...), I enjoyed listening to LP's
on my stereo system which has generally been decent and remains so.
When CD's were introduced, I embraced them but soon was noticing that
my listening enjoyment had markedly declined. Eventually it reached
the point that I hardly listened to recorded music any more. These
days, when I do listen to CD's, I have to stop after an hour or so
because I'm feeling so uncomfortable--with a feeling akin to growing
anxiety. I also have always noticed, except on a very few CD's, a
harshness in the sound, mainly when listening with speakers, but also
to a lesser extent with headphone use.

During these post-CD years, my collection of approx. 800 LP's, mainly
classical with some jazz and other genres, had literally gathered dust.
There have been whole years in which I probably did not listen to one
LP.

Recently I decided to give my LP's another go, and behold: I can listen
for hours, with either speakers or headphones, and experience something
close to what I experience when I hear my own live music, or the music
at an (unamplified) concert.

I realize that there's a longstanding a fiercely partisan debate about
the relative accuracy or authenticity of digital versus analog sound.
I can report that analog sound, for me as one accustomed to hearing
live unamplified music virtually daily, is closer to the living
experience than digital reproduction, and that analog sound does not
create uneasiness in me, while digital reproduction on similar-level
equipment, does.

I agree with you that it is closer to the living experience. I think
the most rational explanation for this is that it better conveys the
patterns on which we base our experience of music (whatever patterns
correspond to "grooviness" or "sadness" or so on). Could it be the
distortion inherent to analog that makes it more lifelike? I doubt it,
since life is itself a huge variety of "colors" which weave themselves
into complex patterns.. it's hard to see how imposing a single
coloration on life would make it more lifelike. In fact, in my
experience the distortions inherent to analog tape or vinyl TAKE AWAY
from the lifelikeness.. but it is so much better to begin with that it
ends up better anyway.

Mike

Or, allow me to offer a completely different theory, one which has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the "sound" of the media:

The reason listening to LPs for hours on end is more "engaging" is
because, unless you have some ancient BSR record changer, you've got to
PARTICIPATE in the act. You have to get up and go flip the record every
15-20 minutes. There's not nearly enough time for you to get comfy
and/or relaxed and/or bored and/or antsy etc. Your attention *has* to
be focussed on the music or else it'll end and then you'll find
yourself listening to "sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh,
sccrrritchhh..."

I've often advocated a 40 minute maximum per CD, with 10-15 seconds of
silence after the 20 minute mark. I think the *pacing* of an LP is
(through sheer coincidence) physiologically ideal, and the urge to cram
more and more music onto a single CD just defeats the goal of inviting
the listener in to a concise sound world...regardless of what that
world sounds like.

Don't know how much it matters. But I do agree your idea has something
to do with it. 20 minute sides were just about perfect.

Tom Petty on "Full Moon Fever" did record a 40'ish minute CD.
Halfway through it, he put in some swishing noise, and announced
in deference to people with cassette/LP we would allow time for
other people to flip the tape or turnover the LP. Then continued
with the second half of his CD.

I also find I sometimes skip just enough music so I end up with
30-40 minute sessions per CD. Guess if I could program in a pause,
that I would have to re-activate would be even better.

Dennis

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
Or, allow me to offer a completely different theory, one which has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the "sound" of the media:

The reason listening to LPs for hours on end is more "engaging" is
because, unless you have some ancient BSR record changer, you've got to
PARTICIPATE in the act. You have to get up and go flip the record every
15-20 minutes. There's not nearly enough time for you to get comfy
and/or relaxed and/or bored and/or antsy etc. Your attention *has* to
be focussed on the music or else it'll end and then you'll find
yourself listening to "sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh, sccrrritchhh,
sccrrritchhh..."

I've often advocated a 40 minute maximum per CD, with 10-15 seconds of
silence after the 20 minute mark. I think the *pacing* of an LP is
(through sheer coincidence) physiologically ideal, and the urge to cram
more and more music onto a single CD just defeats the goal of inviting
the listener in to a concise sound world...regardless of what that
world sounds like.

An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time. And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

This is an interesting line of thought. I've thought about this,
too--for example, could a distortion somehow work to better convey the
emotion or intention of the musician?

There are several difficulties. One is that analog distortion acts more
to "color" than to strip color. A better question might be: can you
convey the emotion better by tinting a photograph red?

Well, yes, *for some photographs.* For others, red might be all wrong,
and green work better.

The difficulty is that analog distortion is the same mechanism
regardless of what type of music is playing, what mood it conveys, and
so on. And yet many musicians, who are intimately familiar with how the
"colors" of sound are layered to create a specific musical intention,
report that analog is superior in *all* or nearly all music.

The other problem is that if the question were how a distortion
*improves* the art (as opposed to making it more realistic), then a
reproduction might be favored over the live experience. Among the
population of experienced musicians that interests me, that simply
doesn't happen. Reproducing music *never* improves it.

However, if you want to keep discussing this.. the question of how
distortions create a subjective effect.. I'm very interested.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

I predict that you will get sternly lectured to about digital signal
theory.

The only point I will make here is to suggest that life
never operates strictly within the bounds of our theories about it.

I think that analog more accurately reproduces certain patterns in the
music, for whatever reason. It sounds more like live because it *is*
more like live.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time.

I just take a break from listening to CD whenever I need one. It hasn't
improved CD relative to analog.

And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

Agreed.

Mike

jonrkc wrote:

I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable.

You are correct: that *is* scientifically untenable.

But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

If, for the sake of arguement, we try to go along with your
scientifically untenable theory, it breaks down right here. Claiming
that the "molecular structure of vinyl (imposes) an element of
randomness and variety lacking to digital media" conveniently ignores
the fact that ALL digital media has a molecular structure that is just
as "random" [sic] as that of vinyl.

I can understand how you might think the random distribution of
magnetic domains on a piece of audio tape might equate with a
non-regular sampling -- though, considering each magnetic particle is
approximately 0.5 micrometers & tape speed is anywhere from 2 to 30
ips, it doesn't take a whole lot of math to figure out that "sampling
rate" isn't anything to get too excited about -- but the molecular
thing doesn't fly. EVERYTHING is made of molecules!

wrote:

jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

This is an interesting line of thought. I've thought about this,
too--for example, could a distortion somehow work to better convey the
emotion or intention of the musician?

There are several difficulties. One is that analog distortion acts more
to "color" than to strip color. A better question might be: can you
convey the emotion better by tinting a photograph red?

Well, yes, *for some photographs.* For others, red might be all wrong,
and green work better.

The difficulty is that analog distortion is the same mechanism
regardless of what type of music is playing, what mood it conveys, and
so on. And yet many musicians, who are intimately familiar with how the
"colors" of sound are layered to create a specific musical intention,
report that analog is superior in *all* or nearly all music.

So, can you share with us how many musicians you have surveyed, and how
many of those prefer vinyl vs how many prefer CD/digital? Some data
instead of vague handwaving would be nice.

The other problem is that if the question were how a distortion
*improves* the art (as opposed to making it more realistic), then a
reproduction might be favored over the live experience. Among the
population of experienced musicians that interests me, that simply
doesn't happen. Reproducing music *never* improves it.

How many musicians have you surveyed that say a CD does or does not
sound better than listening to the same performance in the concert hall
(with ambient noise, distractions and the non-ideal listening
positions)? Some data instead of vague hand-waving would be nice.

jonrkc wrote:
2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable.

INdeed it is scientifically untenable, as first demonstrated by
Nyquist over 75 years ago and thoroughly demonstrated by
Shannon over a half century ago.

The *effective" sampling rate of ANY information channel is
effectively slightly over twice the bandwidth of that channel.

But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

The difference being that a random process generates artifacts
that are not correlated with the signal, and that is EXACTLY the
reason behind the dithering process. It, in fact, randomizes the
errors in the same fashion as the random processes in magnetic
tape, the major difference then being quantitative and no longer
qualitative., in the sense that the random errors are typically an
order of magnitude lower in current digital end-user delivery
systems as compared to the best current analog end-user delivery
systems.

In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time. And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling? The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

As so often happens, you have valid analogies. Some engineers will
probably jump on you for not expressing these in their own language;
however, that is a very narrow view on their part. There's a lot about
analog which provides variation

- variation in cartridge alignment from beginning to end of the record

- wow and flutter

- signal-dependent distortion mechanisms and noise

It's an interesting theory that variation of any sort would make a
recording more musical. The basic problem is that live music has the
things we love about music the clearest of all; when distortion = 0,
the music is best. However, I value the kind of thinking you are
doing.. trying to make a direct correlation between forms of distortion
and aesthetic experience, rather than using "distortion can sound
pleasing" as a catch-all explanation for anything a listener reports.

Mike

In any pleasurable pursuit, humans seek variety as antidote to boredom
and burnout. Why should it be different for listening to music? I
suggest that the tedious regularity of digital recording and
reproduction may in fact be subconsciously perceived and contribute to,
if not cause, the sense of uneasiness and eventual fatigue experienced
by many listeners, in particular musicians.

The notion of a 40-minute time limit is apt. Almost never does one
experience music for even that long at a stretch at a concert--a
classical concert, anyway. Even most operas don't subject the listener
to paying attention for that long at a time. And I readily admit I've
been perturbed since the introduction of the CD by my inability to
participate actively in the "music-making," e. g. by cleaning records,
untangling cassette snarls, tweaking stylus overhang or anti-skating,
etc. It seems almost an insult for the "music" industry to tell me in
effect to put the CD in the player, shut up, and listen--till the
product disintegrates after a few years, that is, which has happened
with two or three of my CD's already, while my vinyl remains perfectly
playable after fifty years of sub-ideal storage.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

wrote:
jonrkc wrote:

It's an interesting theory that variation of any sort would make a
recording more musical. The basic problem is that live music has the
things we love about music the clearest of all; when distortion = 0,
the music is best.

I agree but there is a catch. There is no suc thing as 0 distortion
recording/playback. In fact nothing is even close. So the idea that
certain inherent distortions may lead to a percieved sound that is more
life like is not such an unreasonable idea.

However, I value the kind of thinking you are
doing.. trying to make a direct correlation between forms of distortion
and aesthetic experience, rather than using "distortion can sound
pleasing" as a catch-all explanation for anything a listener reports.

I think it is well worth investigating.

Scott.

wrote:
jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

This is an interesting line of thought. I've thought about this,
too--for example, could a distortion somehow work to better convey the
emotion or intention of the musician?

There are several difficulties. One is that analog distortion acts more
to "color" than to strip color.

be careful. In photography "color' is a literal term in audio it is
figurative. I wouldn't assume that "colorations" in audio are the same
as more "color" in film.

A better question might be: can you
convey the emotion better by tinting a photograph red?

In some cases most definitely, but this is an artistic decision. This
is more analagous to what artists do in recording than what the
equipment does.

Well, yes, *for some photographs.* For others, red might be all wrong,
and green work better.

The difficulty is that analog distortion is the same mechanism
regardless of what type of music is playing, what mood it conveys, and
so on.

Well, actually no. There is more than one kind of analog distortion and
of the many distortions several can be varied within their type of
distortion.

And yet many musicians, who are intimately familiar with how the
"colors" of sound are layered to create a specific musical intention,
report that analog is superior in *all* or nearly all music.

This could the caused by an inherent distortion compensating for
another inherent distortion in stereo recording and playback. Rather
than a specific variable distortion that can be found in analog
technology.

The other problem is that if the question were how a distortion
*improves* the art (as opposed to making it more realistic), then a
reproduction might be favored over the live experience. Among the
population of experienced musicians that interests me, that simply
doesn't happen. Reproducing music *never* improves it.

It certainly can in pop music. Rare is the pop artist that can even
come close to the recorded quality of his or her or their music in a
live situation.

Scott

However, I value the kind of thinking you are
doing.. trying to make a direct correlation between forms of distortion
and aesthetic experience, rather than using "distortion can sound
pleasing" as a catch-all explanation for anything a listener reports.

Thanks. I also thank those who chastised me for my unscientific
theory, for doing it so civilly despite how such non-tech layman's
woolgathering must grate on many scientific nerves.

The fact is, I have been a musician, albeit an amateur musician, for
over fifty years, and I'm speaking out of what I have experienced
through a tremendous amount of listening to live, unamplified music
over more than a half century. To my ears, analog reproduction sounds
better than almost any digital reproduction I've heard yet. This
listening has been done on less-than-SOA equipment, as I neither
possess vast amounts of money, nor do my socializing in
above-moderate-income circles. Most of it has been done, though, on
equipment better than the average US citizen employs to listen to music
of any kind.

As for distortion's role, it makes no difference to me if distortion is
responsible for greater pleasure; I will vote for greater pleasure over
supposed accuracy every time. But the key phrase in Michaelmos's post
of Jan. 26 is: "when distortion = 0, the music is best." This seems at
first glance to be so self-evident as to be tautological. But it's
actually a subtle concept. To pursue the goal of accurate reproduction
pretty much requires an attitude of: "That didn't work so well; so
let's try..." in regard to everything from microphone selection and
placement to the most finicky (and some would say superstitious)
details of listening-room and equipment setup. But every time one
tries something new, a new artifact is added to the agglomeration. To
take away distortion by adding to the chain seems so futile as to
amount to a losing battle. When I crave "zero distortion," I turn off
the music system and get out my guitar, or head for the concert hall.

The notion that many musicians share my uneasy feeling while listening
to digital recordings is of course presented anecdotally, based on
articles I've read here and there. I wish it could be supported by a
thorough survey.

I would dearly love to see a study in which laypersons with no musical
training, but a love of music; amateur musicians; students and teachers
of music from conservatories; and professional musicians who make their
living playing and singing, could listen to various analog and digital
setups under conditions as controlled as feasible, without knowing what
kind of playback they are hearing, and respond to questions about their
listening experience.

But would anybody wish to--or dare--finance such a study, even if it
were practical?

wrote:
wrote:
jonrkc wrote:

It's an interesting theory that variation of any sort would make a
recording more musical. The basic problem is that live music has the
things we love about music the clearest of all; when distortion = 0,
the music is best.

I agree but there is a catch. There is no suc thing as 0 distortion
recording/playback. In fact nothing is even close.

Live music has distortion = 0.

So the idea that
certain inherent distortions may lead to a percieved sound that is more
life like is not such an unreasonable idea.

I agree it is a possible idea; I would just like to see an explanation
that takes into account such observations as these: in analog,
instrumental "colors" are better differentiated, inner voices are
clearer, harmonic intervals have more of proper character, highs are
better integrated with the midrange, and on and on.. all of which are
details carefully controlled by the musicians in the live performance.
I'd like to see an explanation why changing these details makes them
more like the original intention of the musicians, not just the usual
nonssense about how "pleasing" "artificial ambience" is.

Mike

wrote:
wrote:
jonrkc wrote:
An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

This is an interesting line of thought. I've thought about this,
too--for example, could a distortion somehow work to better convey the
emotion or intention of the musician?

There are several difficulties. One is that analog distortion acts more
to "color" than to strip color.

be careful. In photography "color' is a literal term in audio it is
figurative. I wouldn't assume that "colorations" in audio are the same
as more "color" in film.

Of course. In talking about the conscious experience of music, all we
have at present are analogies. Even an engineering-oriented person such
as Pinkerton tries to explain the preference for analog as the vague
metaphor "whiter than white" (*) which also has nothing to do with the
experience of someone like Jenn or myself.

The word "coloration" in audio is a good metaphor, though, because it
refers to some characterisic that seems imposed on the music and
independent of the music itself.

(*) From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 22 Oct 2005 17:08:45 GMT
Local: Sat, Oct 22 2005 9:08 am
Subject: Heaven!

A better question might be: can you
convey the emotion better by tinting a photograph red?

In some cases most definitely, but this is an artistic decision. This
is more analagous to what artists do in recording than what the
equipment does.

Exactly. Those who propose that distortion is responsible for the
consistent superiority of analog across a wide variety of styles and
performances are essentially claiming that the *equipment* is making an
artistic decision. Seem likely?

Well, yes, *for some photographs.* For others, red might be all wrong,
and green work better.

The difficulty is that analog distortion is the same mechanism
regardless of what type of music is playing, what mood it conveys, and
so on.

Well, actually no. There is more than one kind of analog distortion and
of the many distortions several can be varied within their type of
distortion.

The point is that the distortion doesn't know bluegrass from a brass
quintet.

And yet many musicians, who are intimately familiar with how the
"colors" of sound are layered to create a specific musical intention,
report that analog is superior in *all* or nearly all music.

This could the caused by an inherent distortion compensating for
another inherent distortion in stereo recording and playback. Rather
than a specific variable distortion that can be found in analog
technology.

I agree, but a live microphone feed is better than any recorded signal.
In fact, even among analog enthusiasts, there is always a priority on
reducing distortion as much as possible. I'm not aware of a single
experiment which showed that adding distortion made a reproduction
closer to the original (I've heard there are experiments showing
distortion was vaguely "pleasing" in contexts where no one had any idea
what the original sounded like). As you might notice, the design push
among those who have a very clear idea of the original acoustic event
is always toward less distortion. There is some software, or the cheap
tube mic preamps, which claim to use distortion to "sweeten up" a
recording, but they admit right up front they aren't trying to
reproduce accurately but actually change it.

Mike

jonrkc wrote:

I would dearly love to see a study in which laypersons with no musical
training, but a love of music; amateur musicians; students and teachers
of music from conservatories; and professional musicians who make their
living playing and singing, could listen to various analog and digital
setups under conditions as controlled as feasible, without knowing what
kind of playback they are hearing, and respond to questions about their
listening experience.

This isn't quite what you had in mind, but you have to start here
before you can proceed further:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

IOW, if you're just comparing media, Redbook-resolution digital is
perfectly transparent to analog. In your proposed experiment above,
comparing an LP to a CD created from that LP would be futile. People
wouldn't hear a difference, and their responses to whatever questions
you asked them would essentially be random.

Of course, that's not what you're thinking of. What you're thinking of
is having them compare LP and CD versions of the same recording, just
as you have done in determining that analog sounds better to you. This
opens up a whole host of possible differences. There will be mastering
differences. There will be frequency-response differences. There will
be phase-related distortion in the LP playback. There will be speed
variations in the LP playback. Some low-level details may well be
emphasized on the LP due to the necessity of dynamic compression. Any
and all of these factors (as well as some others) may affect one's
preference for one recording over the other. But all of these factors
will vary, sometimes greatly, from recording to recording and/or from
system to system. So I'm not sure what your proposed experiment would
prove.

bob

jonrkc wrote:
However, I value the kind of thinking you are
doing.. trying to make a direct correlation between forms of distortion
and aesthetic experience, rather than using "distortion can sound
pleasing" as a catch-all explanation for anything a listener reports.

Thanks. I also thank those who chastised me for my unscientific
theory, for doing it so civilly despite how such non-tech layman's
woolgathering must grate on many scientific nerves.

The fact is, I have been a musician, albeit an amateur musician, for
over fifty years, and I'm speaking out of what I have experienced
through a tremendous amount of listening to live, unamplified music
over more than a half century. To my ears, analog reproduction sounds
better than almost any digital reproduction I've heard yet.

Some people would suggest that your experience is meaningless if it
wasn't done under controlled conditions. Their mistake is to forget
that humans perceive abstracted qualities. "The sound of a Bach
trombone" (or the sound of your guitar) is not something specific that
becomes meaningless when a microphone is moved a little bit, or the
dynamic levels change.. it is an abstract quality recognizable from
many perspectives. For example, there are many abstract qualities such
as the emotion conveyed in a musical line which are very clear in live
performance, clear in a live feed, still somewhat clear in analog, and
largely absent from digital. That's a significant observation in
itself, especially when its consistent.

Another common mistake you'll find here is to forget that music itself
comes into being under "non-controlled" conditions. Yo-Yo Ma learned to
play cello under "non-controlled" conditions.

The notion that many musicians share my uneasy feeling while listening
to digital recordings is of course presented anecdotally, based on
articles I've read here and there. I wish it could be supported by a
thorough survey.

It's supported by the fact that we run into them all the time.

I would dearly love to see a study in which laypersons with no musical
training, but a love of music; amateur musicians; students and teachers
of music from conservatories; and professional musicians who make their
living playing and singing, could listen to various analog and digital
setups under conditions as controlled as feasible, without knowing what
kind of playback they are hearing, and respond to questions about their
listening experience.

Great idea! I've been asking about studies like this, or *any* blind
study under normal listening conditions, and received ZERO reports.
Apparently they don't exist. Anyone who claims that we understand the
subjective effects of analog and digital recording is engaging in
purely wishful thinking. And beware anyone who says that digital has no
audible distortion.. if you ask, you will find that their only evidence
for that is the so-called "quick switch" test which has nothing to do
with listening to music as music.

Mike

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
There are several difficulties. One is that analog distortion acts more
to "color" than to strip color.

be careful. In photography "color' is a literal term in audio it is
figurative. I wouldn't assume that "colorations" in audio are the same
as more "color" in film.

Of course. In talking about the conscious experience of music, all we
have at present are analogies. Even an engineering-oriented person such
as Pinkerton tries to explain the preference for analog as the vague
metaphor "whiter than white" (*) which also has nothing to do with the
experience of someone like Jenn or myself.

The word "coloration" in audio is a good metaphor, though, because it
refers to some characterisic that seems imposed on the music and
independent of the music itself.

(*) From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 22 Oct 2005 17:08:45 GMT
Local: Sat, Oct 22 2005 9:08 am
Subject: Heaven!

A better question might be: can you
convey the emotion better by tinting a photograph red?

In some cases most definitely, but this is an artistic decision. This
is more analagous to what artists do in recording than what the
equipment does.

Exactly. Those who propose that distortion is responsible for the
consistent superiority of analog across a wide variety of styles and
performances are essentially claiming that the *equipment* is making an
artistic decision. Seem likely?

I thought not at one time then i reconsidered tht opinion.

Well, yes, *for some photographs.* For others, red might be all wrong,
and green work better.

The difficulty is that analog distortion is the same mechanism
regardless of what type of music is playing, what mood it conveys, and
so on.

Well, actually no. There is more than one kind of analog distortion and
of the many distortions several can be varied within their type of
distortion.

The point is that the distortion doesn't know bluegrass from a brass
quintet.

Actually harmonic distortion in effect does know because the source of
harmonic distortion is the original signal. So harmonic distortion from
a brass quartet is directly related to the sound of a brass quartet.

And yet many musicians, who are intimately familiar with how the
"colors" of sound are layered to create a specific musical intention,
report that analog is superior in *all* or nearly all music.

This could the caused by an inherent distortion compensating for
another inherent distortion in stereo recording and playback. Rather
than a specific variable distortion that can be found in analog
technology.

I agree, but a live microphone feed is better than any recorded signal.
In fact, even among analog enthusiasts, there is always a priority on
reducing distortion as much as possible. I'm not aware of a single
experiment which showed that adding distortion made a reproduction
closer to the original

I remember one recording/mastering engineer claiming that the LPs of
his recordings sounded better (more like the original) than the master
tape. I think it may have been Doug Sax. I'll have to do a search. That
certinly would be a claim that adding distortion made reproduction
closer to the original.

(I've heard there are experiments showing
distortion was vaguely "pleasing" in contexts where no one had any idea
what the original sounded like). As you might notice, the design push
among those who have a very clear idea of the original acoustic event
is always toward less distortion.

No, that is not what i have noticed.

There is some software, or the cheap
tube mic preamps, which claim to use distortion to "sweeten up" a
recording, but they admit right up front they aren't trying to
reproduce accurately but actually change it.

I would suggest checking out what guys like Steve Hoffman and James
Boyk say about this. I think you will find that they use the distortion
of tubes to increase the life like quality of their work.

Scott

On 25 Jan 2006 00:25:06 GMT, "jonrkc"
wrote:

An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

It's generally acknowledged that this impression has two sources:

1) Lighting cameramen really were better in those days.

2) We are accustomed to seeing gritty and emotional images in
monochrome via newspapers.

OTOH, check out the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan for an
opposing viewpoint on the emotional impact of colour images.

As for still photographs, it's regrettably true that there are very
few modern photographers whose work can hold a candle to the masters
of the monochrome era.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling?

No, it isn't.

The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

Absolute nonsense. Digital recording uses dither to achieve randomness
in its individual samples, the real difference is that this randomness
is achieved with *vastly* greater dynamic range than is possible with
any analogue medium.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

I have many analogue recordings which I would much prefer to have on
CD. I could then dispose of my turntable.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 25 Jan 2006 00:25:06 GMT, "jonrkc"
wrote:

An observation, and a pet theory that's nagged at me for a long time:

1. A black-and-white photo (or movie) often conveys stronger emotion
than a color photo or movie. (Remember film buffs' outcry against
"Colorizing" b&w movies?) The absence of color focuses the viewer's
mind more forcefully on pattern and emotion than a color version could.

It's generally acknowledged that this impression has two sources:

Wrong.

1) Lighting cameramen really were better in those days.

In "those days?" Guess what? Black and white photography is still
popular today amoung top photographers. "those days" would be encompass
the entire history of photography.

2) We are accustomed to seeing gritty and emotional images in
monochrome via newspapers.

You are kidding no?

OTOH, check out the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan for an
opposing viewpoint on the emotional impact of colour images.

ironically that footage was desaturated to give an almost black and
white look to give an impression of being older, authentic footage.

As for still photographs, it's regrettably true that there are very
few modern photographers whose work can hold a candle to the masters
of the monochrome era.

1. No such thing as the "monochrom era"
2. There are many a great color photo.

2. I've thought for years that the sampling rate in analog recording
is in effect much higher than that of digital recording. This is, I
suppose, scientifically untenable. But regardless of rate, isn't the
"sampling" in analog media much more of a random process than digital
sampling?

No, it isn't.

Digital varies in sound more than analog? Eh maybe. They both run the
gamut of lousy to excellent in quality.

The irregular structure of a magnetic layer and the
molecular structure of vinyl both impose an element of randomness and
variety lacking to digital media with their unvarying regularity--a
regularity without which digital media could not exist.

Absolute nonsense. Digital recording uses dither to achieve randomness
in its individual samples, the real difference is that this randomness
is achieved with *vastly* greater dynamic range than is possible with
any analogue medium.

Thank goodness some people were using their ears and came up with
dither as an improvement on a medium that was already declared
sonically perfect.

I have many recordings on CD that I wish were on LP instead.

I have many analogue recordings which I would much prefer to have on
CD. I could then dispose of my turntable.........

Why not just make "pefect" copies on CD ROM and go ahead and sell the
table?

Scott