Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 02:43:12 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:43:58 GMT, wrote:

and are confirmed by the engineers in charge of
mastering for Linn records.

Really? I'd like to see a quote from one of the "mastering engineers in
charge of mastering for Linn records." But even if they do so they do
not speak for everyone.

Nor do those you quoted.


never said they Stewart, they speak for themselves.


Note that they are 'audiophile' mastering
engineers, not producing general commercial vinyl.


Note that this forum is called rec audio high end. Its about things for
the audiophile




You claimed the *only* exception was the MoFis.
You are simply wrong.

Actually, I didn't claim any such thing.


Here's what you said.
"It's seledom denied that it has the *capability*, but it's also a
known fact that the reality is rolloff above 12-15kHz to avoid
overheating cutter heads. MFSL half-speed masters may be the
exception." If you cite one exception it implies all else follows this
rule. so you did claim that all others rolloff above 12-15 kHz.


Sheffield Labs and other
direct-cut vinyl likely had the flattest possible cuts, but half-speed
mastering is an obvious way to avoid cutter problems.


But not the only way.




Are you suggesting that Linn vinyl is not
state of the art?

I would go much further than that. I have bought not one, not two, not
three but four sonic disasters from the Linn catlog. I'd say they
aren't even on the track in the race for SOTA.

Oh dear - you're in trouble now......... :-)


Are the guys from Lynn going to come get me? Don't tell me you consider
their LPs to be SOTA.




Furthermore, are you aware of *any* vinyl (aside
from the old subcarrier quad stuff!) which has any musical content
above 20kHz?

Your question is irrelevant to the fact that your post about roll off
on all records above 12-15 kHz is flattly false.

Lack of response noted.

Not much point in responding to irrelevant claims except to point out
their lack of relevance



Scott

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some
93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were
you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'?

Stewart, do not confuse headroom with dynamic range. They are
not one and the same thing.

Studio personel define headroom as the ability to record above
the nominal max recording level. CD has zero headroom,
while analogue tape can have as much as +6dB.

Cordially.,

Iain

" Iain M Churches wrote:


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

If you happen to live in Finland you might get the idea that Sibelius is the
greatest composer of the 20th century. But I doubt that this opinion
prevails elsewhere.

Norm Strong

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.

Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering
facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old
Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after)

Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the
*added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously
'lost' by the digital process.

I assume that they ask for an analogue pass as the result of feedback
from the listening public regarding the perception of digital quality.

The client makes up his own mind, and takes the decision which
best suits his product, and the reputation of his label. That's fine
as far as I am concerned. The client is happy, and we all get paid:-)


Cordially,
Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

I do however have plenty of engineering training and qualifications,
and plenty of experience of live music of many forms.

No doubt. But that still does not elevate you from your
passive role in music.

and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.

Others regard his work as overblown and largely depressing, so you are
simply expressing your own prejudice, as usual.

No. I did not express my own view, but quoted from the Times
critique following a Sibelius season of concerts in the UK.

Overblown and largely depressing? You clearly do not have the
slightest understanding of the composer. Take time to study the
7th Symphony. It is not an easy work to appreciate, so buy a
full score, and study the composition in depth.. You will find
it to be a truly monumental work.

Of course, that you
actually *live* in darkest Finland does partially explain that
particular prejudice.

Darkest Finland? It is generally known as The Land of the
Midnight Sun. Is your glass always half empty? :-))

Thank you for your usual personal attack and hilariously hypocritical
signoff.

I make no personal attack. Why should I?
As regards my "sign off" your lack of knowledge of the music and
musicians indicates that you do not appreciate its origin:-))
I notice that several who do, have also adopted it on
Usenet and in closed groups.


Cordially,
Iain

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

Sibelius is just OK. I much prefer Bartok and Stravinsky
and Janacek, myself.

I did not nominate Sibelius as a personal preference.
I was quoting the Times critique after a recent Sibelius
season of concerts in the UK. Though I cannot understand
how the 7th can be regarded as " just OK" ...............:-))

Stravinsky too is one of my favourites, as is Anton Dvorak
whose death in 1904 just about qualifies him as a C20th
composer. I am currently involved in a recording project of
his works. Another great favourite of mine is Einar Englund -
a composer little known in the UK and USA, but well worth
listening too.

Btw, Sibelius' reputation has hardly been monolithically solid.
It has never been a faux pas to *not* consider him the
*greatest* composer of the 20th C -- nor even to consider
him something much less than that.

Again , I refer you to the 7th. Each of us can make his/her own
evaluation.

With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

Nonsense. Check out the stereo system of the average 'professional
musician', and compare it to Stewart's.

Aural perception is partly a gift, and partly acquired by study and
training of a musician over a long period of time.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the pecuniary value of
one's stereo system. If only it were that simple, Stewart would
be giving recitals at the Wigmore Hall:-))

The possession of a baroque instrument by Nicholas Lupot does not
make one a cello virtuoso, any more than expensive canvas, brushes
and palette make one a great painter. If a person does not take part
in the creative process of making/recording music, then no-one can
form a positive opinion as to his/her skills in that field.

Iain

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I
love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just
so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on
several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are
thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around,
but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more
of
it!

We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion.

The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could
accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think
vinyl is truer to life.

For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness",
"enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc.

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.


Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering
facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old
Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after)

'recent' years? People were introducing analog stages into the digital
recording chain back in the mid 80's. See the SPARRS code of
Peter Gabriel's 'So' for example.

Yes of course. And also at that time there were still a high percentage
of analogue masters, plus a grreat deal of analogue outboard
processing equipment. Interesting that in this digital age, mic
preamps from Ampex 351 tape recorders, Pultec, Urei, and
later Neve 2254A limiters, and early Neuman M47,M49 and M50
microphones command very high prices indeed.

There was however a long period, in my experience where the
mastering chain was totally digital. I know of three mastering
rooms here in Scandinavia that have bought (at great expense)
Studer C37s in very recent years. Each of us can draw his/her
own conclusion.


Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

rarely, I suspect, do they ever do a proper blind A/B to see how much
their preference is influenced by non-audio factors.

It is the responsibility of the mastering engineer to offer the
various alternatives, but the final decision is made by the client,
and he who pays the fiddler calls the tune:-)

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Oct 2005 02:21:00 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


It sounds as though you have been using a poor
turntable/arm/cartridge, and have not bothered
to take care of your vinyl:-((

It sounds as though you are determined to ignore the basic physical
limitations of the medium. You of all people should know better.
--

Many people, like myself, have a turntable because a large number of
definitive recordings have never been released on CD.
Well cared for, and kept in clean condition, vinyl does not have to
sound like a breakfast cereal.

As stated many times before, it is the performance not the medium on
which it is recorded that is important. I get equal enjoyment from CD,
vinyl and 78rpm shellac recordings, and accept the strengths and
weaknesses of each.


Cordially,

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Oct 2005 02:21:25 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Perhaps Stewart would care to tell us about his experiences in disc
cutting. He is not, and never has been, a professional in the record
industry.

Nor have I ever claimed to be.

Good. At least we have got that straight:-))

Perhaps Iain would care to tell us
about his experiences of recovering 20kHz signals at 20cm/sec from
vinyl...............................

If you study the levels on the Decca test disc, to which I
referred, you will find that the sweep tone 20Hz to 20kHz is
cut at the "standard test level" of -10dBm

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no instance
in music where a signal of 20kHz occurs at peak level.

Cordially,

Iain Churches

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your
word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my
attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay
attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening.

And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter
goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions.

Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering
facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old
Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after)

Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the
*added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously
'lost' by the digital process.

It proves only that *some* people like analog *some* of the time for
*some* reason that may or may not have to do with audibility of analog
"artifacts."

If "what clients often ask for" is proof of anything, then the fact
that old vinyl is good condition is highly valuable, while digital
copies of it could be had virtually for free, makes exactly the
opposite point.

Mike

In article ,
"Iain M Churches" wrote:

Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.

What a joke that statement is.

Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

And your role, as a concert goer, is to leap to the stage
shouting "No! No! He should have written it this way!" ?

With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

That's not only silly on the face of it, in some ways it's the
opposite of what's true - quite a feat. Most musicians are not
interested in the kinds of things that excite your typical
high-end audio hobbyist - they tend to listen for the "idea" of
the music and its interpretation rather than for a few db in dips
and spikes in a playback system.

On 29 Oct 2005 02:39:53 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some
93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were
you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'?

Stewart, do not confuse headroom with dynamic range. They are
not one and the same thing.

Yes, they are. Shame that you do not understand this.

Studio personel define headroom as the ability to record above
the nominal max recording level. CD has zero headroom,
while analogue tape can have as much as +6dB.

Typical engineering ignorance from you. The nominal max recording
level on a CD can be set to 10dB below FFFF should you be daft enough
to want to do this, while still retaining greater dynamic range than
analogue tape. The great thing about CD as a *distribution* medium is
that, at the mastering stage, you don't *need* headroom, as peak
levels are exactly defined. Any competent recordist is well aware that
one of the nice things about *recording* at the ubiquitous 24/96
standard, is that you have an extra 48dB of headroom for mistakes with
mic levels and as much EQ as you like.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message
...
" Iain M Churches wrote:


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

If you happen to live in Finland you might get the idea that Sibelius is
the
greatest composer of the 20th century. But I doubt that this opinion
prevails elsewhere.

Norm Strong


Hello Norm.

As stated elsewhere, this is not my personal opinion, but a quote from
The Times. My personal favourite are Shostokovich, Dvorak, and Thomas
Arne:-)

Iain

On 29 Oct 2005 02:50:42 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:
Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process,
by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue
recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and
then converted back to digital for mastering.

Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the
*added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously
'lost' by the digital process.

It proves only that *some* people like analog *some* of the time for
*some* reason that may or may not have to do with audibility of analog
"artifacts."

If "what clients often ask for" is proof of anything, then the fact
that old vinyl is good condition is highly valuable, while digital
copies of it could be had virtually for free, makes exactly the
opposite point.

I don't consider job lots for a pound in car boot sales to be 'highly
valuable', and anything else is a collectors item, not of value for
the sound quality. As noted, if you want that distinctive vinyl sound,
just make a digital recording of it!

Of course, if you want the sound of the original mixdown master tape -
bypass vinyl and go straight to digital.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

Sibelius is just OK. I much prefer Bartok and Stravinsky
and Janacek, myself.

I did not nominate Sibelius as a personal preference.
I was quoting the Times critique after a recent Sibelius
season of concerts in the UK. Though I cannot understand
how the 7th can be regarded as " just OK" ...............:-))


And iif I find an two articles in a similar newspaper
claiming someone else is the greatest composter of the
20th C, do I win?

Personally I prefer his 4th.

Btw, Sibelius' reputation has hardly been monolithically solid.
It has never been a faux pas to *not* consider him the
*greatest* composer of the 20th C -- nor even to consider
him something much less than that.

Again , I refer you to the 7th. Each of us can make his/her own
evaluation.


Indeed...there's nothing objective about it in the least. So why
so adamant?


With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

Nonsense. Check out the stereo system of the average 'professional
musician', and compare it to Stewart's.

Aural perception is partly a gift, and partly acquired by study and
training of a musician over a long period of time.

One need not be a musician to acquire this gift of 'aural perception'.

Perhaps you should try another tack.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

wrote:

If "what clients often ask for" is proof of anything, then the fact
that old vinyl is good condition is highly valuable, while digital
copies of it could be had virtually for free, makes exactly the
opposite point.

Not at all. The vast majority of "old vinyl" to be found in a large
used-record emporium sells for less than the (used) CD equivalent.
That's probably a pretty good indicator of relative demand.

The only major exception is in the jazz bins, where old LPs are highly
prized by collectors. But their prices reflect scarcity as much as
anything else.

bob

wrote in message
...

If "what clients often ask for" is proof of anything, then the fact
that old vinyl is good condition is highly valuable, while digital
copies of it could be had virtually for free, makes exactly the
opposite point.

It is true that vinyl does command very high prices in the second
hand market. Recently a Decca contract pressing of the Beatles
LP Please Please Me, on Parlophone was sold for more than
GBP600. The CD can be had second hand for Euro 2.

But what has that to do with current practices in CD
mastering?

Iain

wrote in message
...
¨
If you happen to live in Finland you might get the idea that Sibelius is
the
greatest composer of the 20th century. But I doubt that this opinion
prevails elsewhere.

Despite my living here. I am a British subject, so I am not influence by
the "national pride" that a Finn might have in Sibelius or any
other Finnish composer. In fact my enthusiasm for Russian music
sometimes raises an eyebrow or two here.

I travel often in the other Scandi countries, but that does not give me a
special affinity for the works of Greig, Nielsen or Freudenthal either:-)

I remember as a boy in England being impressed the Karelia Suite,
which was used as the title music of a BBC documentary series,
Panorama IIRC, and thinking then what a wonderfully descriptive
piece of music it was.

Since then, I have had the opportunity to spend time in Karelia,
both north (Finnish Karelia) and south (now Russian Karelia)
which gives a far greater insight into the impressions which Sibelius
must have got from the area. After all, he was a composer of tone poems.

Many of my favourites are found in the list of English early and
baroque composers, Dowland, Arne, and of course George Freidrich
Handel, the greatest English baroque composer of them all:-)

Iain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 29 Oct 2005 02:39:53 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some
93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were
you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'?

Stewart, do not confuse headroom with dynamic range. They are
not one and the same thing.

Yes, they are. Shame that you do not understand this.

Please refer to the Tonmeister course material, the Broadcasting training
manuals, The Recording Studio Handbook (John Woram) or course
matrial from any major studio. You will find the correct definition
of headroom as follows:

"Headroom is the difference between the standard operating level,
and the 3% distortion point"

Studio personnel define headroom as the ability to record above
the nominal max recording level. CD has zero headroom,
while analogue tape can have as much as +6dB.

Typical engineering ignorance from you. The nominal max recording
level on a CD can be set to 10dB below FFFF should you be daft enough
to want to do this, while still retaining greater dynamic range than
analogue tape

You will find that many digital masters, particularly in classical recording
and broadcasting peak at -10dB FS, so many recording professionals
are indeed daft enough (as you put it) to do this. Digital recording has
zero headroom.

Do you have access to a studio analogue and a digital recorder
Stewart? Drive the digital recorder at +3dB FS with a tone of 1kHz.
Then do the same with an analogue tape and compare the THD
figs.

Oh and by the way, don't get the idea that I have a preference
for analogue. I have probably made more recordings in the digital
domain than in analogue, but am quite happy to work in either.
Both are interesting. Digital is easier. Analogue editing, requires
a higher level of skill. It takes a stout heart to approach a 2"
multirack analogue tape with chinagraph pencil and razor blade:-)
We still do enough analogue multitrack work to keep
the assistants on their toes - setting up a 24tr with Dolby
SR right through from SAT to record level,bias, EQ, azimuth,
is good for the soul:-)

The great thing about CD as a *distribution* medium is
that, at the mastering stage, you don't *need* headroom, as peak
levels are exactly defined.

A Swedish mastering engineer with whom I work often smiles when
he states the headroom of a digital master to be -3dB (Think about it:-)


Cordially,

Iain

"Billy Shears" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain M Churches" wrote:

Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.

What a joke that statement is.

Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

And your role, as a concert goer, is to leap to the stage
shouting "No! No! He should have written it this way!" ?

Hardly:-) My role as a concert goer is like many other
musicians, who study the score and recordings of the
particular work they are to hear. Comparison between
interpretations of the same composition is of great interest.

With no formal training, it is fairly certain that your level of aural
perception is far below that of a professional musician.

That's not only silly on the face of it, in some ways it's the
opposite of what's true - quite a feat. Most musicians are not
interested in the kinds of things that excite your typical
high-end audio hobbyist - they tend to listen for the "idea" of
the music and its interpretation rather than for a few db in dips
and spikes in a playback system.


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?
Perhaps you don't take your music very seriously? :-)

Iain

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is
certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my
sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

Sibelius is just OK. I much prefer Bartok and Stravinsky
and Janacek, myself.

I did not nominate Sibelius as a personal preference.
I was quoting the Times critique after a recent Sibelius
season of concerts in the UK. Though I cannot understand
how the 7th can be regarded as " just OK" ...............:-))


And iif I find an two articles in a similar newspaper
claiming someone else is the greatest composter of the
20th C, do I win?

Of course. If you feel the need to win:-)

Personally I prefer his 4th.

A good choice. Perhaps this is not the correct place to go
into your reasons for this choice. Interestingly JS himself
thought the 4th OP63 A minor was not his finest work.

One of my favourite composers is Samuel Scheidt (1587-1654)
One of my lecturers observed that this gentleman's unfortunate
name might well have detracted from his popularity:-)



Btw, Sibelius' reputation has hardly been monolithically solid.
It has never been a faux pas to *not* consider him the
*greatest* composer of the 20th C -- nor even to consider
him something much less than that.

Again , I refer you to the 7th. Each of us can make his/her own
evaluation.


Indeed...there's nothing objective about it in the least. So why
so adamant?

No adamancy on my part. The interesting thing about music is
the way in which different composers/compositions affect different
people in different ways. Some of us are passionate about music,
others couldn't care less. One man's meat.......

Aural perception is partly a gift, and partly acquired by study and
training of a musician over a long period of time.

One need not be a musician to acquire this gift of 'aural perception'.

You are absolutely right - but it is more common in musicians than in
say postal workers. Aural perception can also be acquired by study
and application, but is not usually very highly developed in most people.


Iain

In article ,
"Iain M Churches" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is
certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my
sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

Sibelius is just OK. I much prefer Bartok and Stravinsky
and Janacek, myself.

I did not nominate Sibelius as a personal preference.
I was quoting the Times critique after a recent Sibelius
season of concerts in the UK. Though I cannot understand
how the 7th can be regarded as " just OK" ...............:-))


And iif I find an two articles in a similar newspaper
claiming someone else is the greatest composter of the
20th C, do I win?

Of course. If you feel the need to win:-)

Personally I prefer his 4th.

A good choice. Perhaps this is not the correct place to go
into your reasons for this choice. Interestingly JS himself
thought the 4th OP63 A minor was not his finest work.

One of my favourite composers is Samuel Scheidt (1587-1654)
One of my lecturers observed that this gentleman's unfortunate
name might well have detracted from his popularity:-)



Btw, Sibelius' reputation has hardly been monolithically solid.
It has never been a faux pas to *not* consider him the
*greatest* composer of the 20th C -- nor even to consider
him something much less than that.

Again , I refer you to the 7th. Each of us can make his/her own
evaluation.


Indeed...there's nothing objective about it in the least. So why
so adamant?

No adamancy on my part. The interesting thing about music is
the way in which different composers/compositions affect different
people in different ways. Some of us are passionate about music,
others couldn't care less. One man's meat.......

Aural perception is partly a gift, and partly acquired by study and
training of a musician over a long period of time.

One need not be a musician to acquire this gift of 'aural perception'.

You are absolutely right - but it is more common in musicians than in
say postal workers. Aural perception can also be acquired by study
and application, but is not usually very highly developed in most people.

Just as it's possible that anyone might be able to hit a 90 mph fast
ball, but a professional baseball player would be more likely to have
that ability.

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

In article , wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

You would be correct if Bob said that musicians are *less* qualified to
hear subtle differences. But Bob did not say that.

However, note that the ability to discern subtle differences is also
found among audiophiles, who have vast experiences listening to the
quality of the *reproduction of recorded sound*. In that regard,
audiophiles are easily the equal of musicians, if the latter actually
were to train themselves to hear the minute differences that might or
might not be there, in *sound reproduction*.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain M Churches" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 05:38:30 GMT, wrote:


Oh please, enough with the pretension! I've been a regular
concert-goer for forty years, and my musical appreciation is
certainly
a match for many musicians. OTOH, as a long-term audiophile, my
sense
of the *fidelity* of a reproduced musical event is certainly more
acute than that of most of the professional musicians of my
acquaintance. In point of fact, musos are *notorious* for their
poor
hi-fi rigs, since they are generally listening on a different
plane.


Stewart. You have admitted earlier that you have no musical
training or qualifications, and from your derisory comments
regarding the works of Jean Sibelius, regarded by many as
the greatest composer of the C20th, it is clear that you have
a poor understanding of composition and classical form.
Your role, as a concert goer is purely passive.

Sibelius is just OK. I much prefer Bartok and Stravinsky
and Janacek, myself.

I did not nominate Sibelius as a personal preference.
I was quoting the Times critique after a recent Sibelius
season of concerts in the UK. Though I cannot understand
how the 7th can be regarded as " just OK" ...............:-))


And iif I find an two articles in a similar newspaper
claiming someone else is the greatest composter of the
20th C, do I win?

Of course. If you feel the need to win:-)

Personally I prefer his 4th.

A good choice. Perhaps this is not the correct place to go
into your reasons for this choice. Interestingly JS himself
thought the 4th OP63 A minor was not his finest work.

One of my favourite composers is Samuel Scheidt (1587-1654)
One of my lecturers observed that this gentleman's unfortunate
name might well have detracted from his popularity:-)



Btw, Sibelius' reputation has hardly been monolithically solid.
It has never been a faux pas to *not* consider him the
*greatest* composer of the 20th C -- nor even to consider
him something much less than that.

Again , I refer you to the 7th. Each of us can make his/her own
evaluation.


Indeed...there's nothing objective about it in the least. So why
so adamant?

No adamancy on my part. The interesting thing about music is
the way in which different composers/compositions affect different
people in different ways. Some of us are passionate about music,
others couldn't care less. One man's meat.......

Aural perception is partly a gift, and partly acquired by study and
training of a musician over a long period of time.

One need not be a musician to acquire this gift of 'aural perception'.

You are absolutely right - but it is more common in musicians than in
say postal workers. Aural perception can also be acquired by study
and application, but is not usually very highly developed in most people.

Just as it's possible that anyone might be able to hit a 90 mph fast
ball, but a professional baseball player would be more likely to have
that ability.

Yes. It takers practice. Hours and hours of practice.
I have noticed that audiophiles seem sometimes to have a poor opinion
of the skills and capabilities of musicians.

Iain

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 29 Oct 2005 02:39:53 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some
93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were
you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'?

Stewart, do not confuse headroom with dynamic range. They are
not one and the same thing.

Yes, they are. Shame that you do not understand this.

Please refer to the Tonmeister course material, the Broadcasting training
manuals, The Recording Studio Handbook (John Woram) or course
matrial from any major studio. You will find the correct definition
of headroom as follows:

"Headroom is the difference between the standard operating level,
and the 3% distortion point"

This definition has no relevance in digital recording or mastering.
Standard operating level is such as to not clip the ADC's, in digital
recording, unless the intention is to clip so as to generate higher
average level. Not clipping is trivially easy, unless you are talking
about a one-take-only live recording event. In all cases, having that
extra dynamic range, especially in the case of 24 bit processing, makes
life much simpler.



Studio personnel define headroom as the ability to record above
the nominal max recording level. CD has zero headroom,
while analogue tape can have as much as +6dB.

Typical engineering ignorance from you. The nominal max recording
level on a CD can be set to 10dB below FFFF should you be daft enough
to want to do this, while still retaining greater dynamic range than
analogue tape

You will find that many digital masters, particularly in classical recording
and broadcasting peak at -10dB FS, so many recording professionals
are indeed daft enough (as you put it) to do this. Digital recording has
zero headroom.

So, what is the relevance of this? One simply has to insure that at peak
output from a given recording, one does not exceed full-scale.

Do you have access to a studio analogue and a digital recorder
Stewart? Drive the digital recorder at +3dB FS with a tone of 1kHz.
Then do the same with an analogue tape and compare the THD
figs.

Digital and analog recorders are different. As you no doubt know,
digital is extremely accurate, unless you clip it.


Oh and by the way, don't get the idea that I have a preference
for analogue. I have probably made more recordings in the digital
domain than in analogue, but am quite happy to work in either.
Both are interesting. Digital is easier.

That should have been obvious to the most casual observer, irrelevant
issues like "headroom" notwithstanding.

Analogue editing, requires
a higher level of skill. It takes a stout heart to approach a 2"
multirack analogue tape with chinagraph pencil and razor blade:-)

But why bother? Typing on a typewriter requires a lot more skill than
typing on a computer using a work processing program. You know which one
we would rather do.

We still do enough analogue multitrack work to keep
the assistants on their toes - setting up a 24tr with Dolby
SR right through from SAT to record level,bias, EQ, azimuth,
is good for the soul:-)

The great thing about CD as a *distribution* medium is
that, at the mastering stage, you don't *need* headroom, as peak
levels are exactly defined.

A Swedish mastering engineer with whom I work often smiles when
he states the headroom of a digital master to be -3dB (Think about it:-)

One can also define headroom to be dB above noise, if one chooses to,
and it would be more useful. And you know which one wins, in that case.



Cordially,

Iain

wrote in message ...
Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

Good. That was the point I was trying to make. Music of any kind can be
enjoyed at many different levels.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece.

So you don't subscribe to the view held by many that all competently
designed amplifiers sound the same, then?

I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

I think you will find that musicians who are trained in subtleties of
pitch, timbre and tone colour have a greater sensitivity to the changes
you describe than most others. The ability of a musician to differentiate
between an oboe and a cor Anglais, or a Bb clarinet and an Eb clarinet
playing in the same register represent basic skills which perhaps may
not have been acquired by an audiophile. Have you ever wondered how
a composer chooses the key in which he writes?

Presumably when you say "components" you mean items of equipment
and not the individual components, resistors, capacitors, ICs, transistors
or valves from which they are made.

Over the years, I have been involved in a number of experiments in
aural perception with three groups. Professional musicians, audiophiles
and the public at large. An interesting example was quote to me by
a friend who lectures in recorded arts in Sweden. He had a recording
of a clarinet concerto, in which the clarinet was recorded on its own track.
During a playback session, the pitch of the clarinet track was slowly raised
with reference to the other tracks with a digital pitch shift processor
without affecting the tempo. This was done slowly, the small
incremental steps, while reaction from the listeners was observed.
The professional musicians among them began to look uncomfortable
very quickly while even at one quarter-tone 4% most members of
the other two groups noticed nothing,

When I mentioned this test elsewhere, the editor of a hi-fi magazine
wrote to me to ask for more details, as he was interested to try the same
experiment. You could I suppose do it with a solo recording and raise the
pitch in steps of say 0.1% over a longish period - but having a piece of
music in which the pitch of the rest of the ensemble remains constant
in a root key as a reference is of more interest.

Iain

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Headroom is the difference between the standard operating level,
and the 3% distortion point"

This definition has no relevance in digital recording or mastering.
Standard operating level is such as to not clip the ADC's, in digital
recording, unless the intention is to clip so as to generate higher
average level. Not clipping is trivially easy, unless you are talking
about a one-take-only live recording event. In all cases, having that
extra dynamic range, especially in the case of 24 bit processing, makes
life much simpler.

I presume you have never sat in the hot seat on a classical, or any
other kind of large recording session? I do it as a profession.
Believe me, trivial it is not! Your heartbeat will probably be louder
than the monitors if you are there for the first time:-)

No conductor has the patience and no record company the resources
for you to take and retake to get it right, so you must regard every take
as the one and only.

One can also define headroom to be dB above noise, if one chooses to, and
it would be more useful. And you know which one wins, in that case.

No. that is dynamic range. No one has denied the increased dynamic of
the digital medium, but you probably did not know that a Studer A80
analogue recorder with Dolby SR has a noise floor of -95dB.

I am as happy working in the digital as the analogue domain. The
client chooses what he thinks it right for the project, and I am happy
with that:-)

Analogue editing, requires
a higher level of skill. It takes a stout heart to approach a 2"
multitrack analogue tape with chinagraph pencil and razor blade:-)

But why bother? Typing on a typewriter requires a lot more skill than
typing on a computer using a work processing program. You know which one
we would rather do.

Even 25 years into the digital age, clients still ask for analogue
multitrack recording, and so it is important to keep the skills
which it requires honed. Studer still manufacture the 820 series
analogue multitrack, and second hand machines are very much
in demand. To be able to work in either domain is a distinct
advantage. One has to have experience in all types of recording, studio
and concert. Versatility is paramount if you want to keep busy:-)

Cordially,

Iain

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

You would be correct if Bob said that musicians are *less* qualified to
hear subtle differences. But Bob did not say that.

Actually, the point I was trying to make was that being trained to hear
certain kinds of differences does not necessarily mean that you are
better at hearing other kinds of differences. Musicians are not trained
to recognize the various forms of audio distortion, for example. And
while they are trained to recognize imbalances between instruments
within an ensemble, that is not the same thing as recognizing that
there is an overall dip in a particular frequency range--when every
instrument in that range is out of balance. There's also the matter of
scale to consider.

However, note that the ability to discern subtle differences is also
found among audiophiles, who have vast experiences listening to the
quality of the *reproduction of recorded sound*. In that regard,
audiophiles are easily the equal of musicians, if the latter actually
were to train themselves to hear the minute differences that might or
might not be there, in *sound reproduction*.

But I suspect that most self-proclaimed audiophiles have not trained
themselves properly (although many think they have). Which is why I
specifically did not say that audiophiles would be better than
musicians at recognizing subtle differences in audio reproduction.

bob

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message ...

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece.

So you don't subscribe to the view held by many that all competently
designed amplifiers sound the same, then?

Yikes! Where did you get that from what I wrote?

I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

I think you will find that musicians who are trained in subtleties of
pitch, timbre and tone colour have a greater sensitivity to the changes
you describe than most others.

I, in turn, think you have no evidence for this assertion.

The ability of a musician to differentiate
between an oboe and a cor Anglais, or a Bb clarinet and an Eb clarinet
playing in the same register represent basic skills which perhaps may
not have been acquired by an audiophile.

I would hazard a guess that most audiophiles cannot do this. But as I
replied to Chung, being able to do this does not mean that you are able
to recognize other things, like forms of audio distortion or even
overall frequency imbalances. It's possible, I suppose, but unproven,
that I know of.

Have you ever wondered how
a composer chooses the key in which he writes?

Presumably when you say "components" you mean items of equipment
and not the individual components, resistors, capacitors, ICs, transistors
or valves from which they are made.

Yes.

Over the years, I have been involved in a number of experiments in
aural perception with three groups. Professional musicians, audiophiles
and the public at large. An interesting example was quote to me by
a friend who lectures in recorded arts in Sweden. He had a recording
of a clarinet concerto, in which the clarinet was recorded on its own track.
During a playback session, the pitch of the clarinet track was slowly raised
with reference to the other tracks with a digital pitch shift processor
without affecting the tempo. This was done slowly, the small
incremental steps, while reaction from the listeners was observed.
The professional musicians among them began to look uncomfortable
very quickly while even at one quarter-tone 4% most members of
the other two groups noticed nothing,

Exactly as I would expect, given that they were listening to the very
thing that musicians are trained for. It would have been interesting if
they had repeated that experiment, this time with a change over a
frequency range, rather than a single instrument. If the musicians
recognized that change sooner, it would support your thesis.

Note also that, according to what you've told us, the audiophiles did
no better than the general public. That doesn't surprise me.

bob

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

You would be correct if Bob said that musicians are *less* qualified to
hear subtle differences. But Bob did not say that.

However, note that the ability to discern subtle differences is also
found among audiophiles, who have vast experiences listening to the
quality of the *reproduction of recorded sound*. In that regard,
audiophiles are easily the equal of musicians, if the latter actually
were to train themselves to hear the minute differences that might or
might not be there, in *sound reproduction*.

I ask again: Which factor(s) in the listening to gear is not part of
the musician's training and experience? It is clear that trained
musicians listen for the SAME things that audiophiles listen for. Would
you disagree with that statement? If so, your answer to the first
question would be illuminating. In addition, I know of no audiophile
who spends more hours listening to both live (the standard) and
reproduced sound for the very same things that audiophiles listen for
(and a great deal more). Much of the specific training that musicians
(especially classical musicians) receive in BA/BA, MA/MM, and Phd/DMA
programs, as well as in their day to day work, is training to LISTEN to
the very same things that audiophiles listen for.

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

You would be correct if Bob said that musicians are *less* qualified to
hear subtle differences. But Bob did not say that.

Wrong. Bob said that musicians are not trained about the differences
between audio components. Jenn pointed out that's wrong, which it is.

You guys are funny. What do you think performances are made of?
Differences in sound, including subtle differences in sound. Duh.

Mike

wrote:
Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece.

There are usually large changes between performances of a piece, that's
true... but like most non-musicians, you don't seem to realize what
goes *into* *learning* to perform a piece:

Sensitivity to very small changes in sound.

It's that simple. A musician could never evolve their performance
toward something wonderful if they weren't sensitive to all the small
changes along the way.

Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that a legally-blind person
could learn to produce a finely detailed painting. The motor skills are
there, remember.. there's no reason a legally blind person couldn't
learn to move their hands in the way that produces the result.. except
this teeny little point that *they can't see what they are doing.*

Mike

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

You would be correct if Bob said that musicians are *less* qualified to
hear subtle differences. But Bob did not say that.

However, note that the ability to discern subtle differences is also
found among audiophiles, who have vast experiences listening to the
quality of the *reproduction of recorded sound*. In that regard,
audiophiles are easily the equal of musicians, if the latter actually
were to train themselves to hear the minute differences that might or
might not be there, in *sound reproduction*.

I ask again: Which factor(s) in the listening to gear is not part of
the musician's training and experience?

Do musicians listen for slightly or subtly different dynamic ranges?
Presences and absenses of noise and distortion? Very subtle differences
in soundstages? Differences in frequency responses such as differences
in sibilances for instance? Or like some audiophiles like to wax poetic
over, differences in microdynamics, air, transparency, etc.?

It is clear that trained
musicians listen for the SAME things that audiophiles listen for. Would
you disagree with that statement?

Some of things musicians train to listen for are similar to things
audiophiles train for. But that does not mean that musicians are
*superior* than audiophiles in detecting differences in sound reproduction.

If so, your answer to the first
question would be illuminating.

You got both questions now, and I hope I have provided illumination.

In addition, I know of no audiophile
who spends more hours listening to both live (the standard) and
reproduced sound for the very same things that audiophiles listen for
(and a great deal more).

Note that some of the things audiophiles are listening for are artifacts
of *sound reproduction*.

Much of the specific training that musicians
(especially classical musicians) receive in BA/BA, MA/MM, and Phd/DMA
programs, as well as in their day to day work, is training to LISTEN to
the very same things that audiophiles listen for.

But not all the things audiophiles listen for.

wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece. I wouldn't expect
non-musicians to be particularly sensitive to the latter. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect musicians to be more discerning than others about the
differences between audio components. It's not what they're trained
for.

bob

You would be correct if musicians were trained to only hear differences
in interpretation. However trained musicians are also trained to hear
very subtle differences in SOUND (timbre, tone quality, frequency,
balance, etc.) How, exactly, is this different than hearing the
differences in audio components? Which factor in the listening to gear
is not part of the musician's training and experience?

You would be correct if Bob said that musicians are *less* qualified to
hear subtle differences. But Bob did not say that.

Wrong. Bob said that musicians are not trained about the differences
between audio components. Jenn pointed out that's wrong, which it is.

Wrong. Bob said that one would not expect musicians to be more
discerning about differences between audio components. Jenn was trying
to say that musicians are trained to also listen for differences in
gear, which is not correct.


You guys are funny. What do you think performances are made of?
Differences in sound, including subtle differences in sound. Duh.

You apparently have no concept about differencs between music
performances, and audio performances.


Mike

wrote:
wrote:
Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece.

There are usually large changes between performances of a piece, that's
true... but like most non-musicians, you don't seem to realize what
goes *into* *learning* to perform a piece:

Sensitivity to very small changes in sound.


But not necesarily the ones that matter for *audio gear*.
No amp or cable or speaker, for example, is going to alter
the pitch or tempo of a recording. No human player is
going to introduce THD, or a nonlinearity of frequency
response, or a reduction of dynamic range due to noise,
into their playing.

The difference that musicians ARE trained to listen
for, are, by objective (measurable) standards, *gross*
differences. Nor is there an 'ideal' to compare to,
whereas in home audio, the goal is high-fidelity
reproduction: ideally a playback chain that does not
distort the recorded signal.
Thus 'high fidelity' has no meaning in musical
*performance*. Being faithful to a *score* is not
high-fidelity in home audio terms. And even the 'highest
fidelity' attempt by musicians to copy another performance
-- to behave like a home audio recording/playback chain --
is going to include *gross* errors
by the standards used to measure audio gear.


So please, stop comparing apples to oranges.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Iain M Churches wrote:


I take part in many post recording evaluation sessions with
artists and musicians, in the process of choosing takes etc.
Their level of perception is extremely high, and they notice
shortcomings in the performance which would probably not
be apparent to a hobbyist. That's what makes them professionals.

Are you saying that audiophiles are listening to the equipment
on which the music is performed, but not the performance itself?

Well, the equipment itself doesn't make any sound, so listening to it
would be rather boring. And presumably most of the time audiophiles are
indeed listening to the performance, although they are unlikely to
appreciate its nuances as a trained musician would.

But in audio discussions of differences between gear (this goes for
either analog-digital or audibility debates), the performance is
assumed held constant, and we are talking about the differences in the
reproduction of a performance by the gear in question. The differences
between two pieces of audio gear are quite distinct from the
differences between two performances of a piece.

There are usually large changes between performances of a piece, that's
true... but like most non-musicians, you don't seem to realize what
goes *into* *learning* to perform a piece:

Sensitivity to very small changes in sound.


But not necesarily the ones that matter for *audio gear*.

I doubt you have any evidence for this one way or the other. Show me
the scientific study that demonstrates that sensitivity to sound is
compartmentalized.


Mike

Jenn wrote:

I ask again: Which factor(s) in the listening to gear is not part of
the musician's training and experience? It is clear that trained
musicians listen for the SAME things that audiophiles listen for. Would
you disagree with that statement? If so, your answer to the first
question would be illuminating. In addition, I know of no audiophile
who spends more hours listening to both live (the standard) and
reproduced sound for the very same things that audiophiles listen for
(and a great deal more). Much of the specific training that musicians
(especially classical musicians) receive in BA/BA, MA/MM, and Phd/DMA
programs, as well as in their day to day work, is training to LISTEN to
the very same things that audiophiles listen for.

Let me try to come at this from a different angle. If somebody walked
up behind me and started playing a reed, I probably wouldn't be able to
tell you whether it was an oboe or an English horn. Whereas you would
have no trouble making the distinction.

Similarly, an audiophile who had trained himself to recognize small
differences in harmonic distortion might be able to distinguish between
a good amplifier and a marginally bad one, whereas they would sound the
same to you.

This would be the case even though the differences here are similar in
kind. Both relate to relative levels of harmonics. But the pattern of
harmonic differences between an oboe and an English horm is very
different from the pattern of harmonic differences between a clean amp
and a distorting one. You've trained to recognize specifically the
pattern of the former--and many others, of course. But you haven't
trained to recognize the pattern of the latter.

This is why, in psychoacoustics research, if you want to test
thresholds, you have to train your subjects in the specific
sound/artifact/difference your are testing for. There's no such thing
as general training to recognize subtle sonic differences.

Now, that doesn't mean that musicians wouldn't be better at some things
related to audio. For example, I suspect you could tell when a
turntable's speed wasn't accurate sooner than I could. But that doesn't
mean you'd be more sensitive to jitter.

bob

Iain M Churches wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...

Iain M Churches wrote:

"Headroom is the difference between the standard operating level,
and the 3% distortion point"

This definition has no relevance in digital recording or mastering.
Standard operating level is such as to not clip the ADC's, in digital
recording, unless the intention is to clip so as to generate higher
average level. Not clipping is trivially easy, unless you are talking
about a one-take-only live recording event. In all cases, having that
extra dynamic range, especially in the case of 24 bit processing, makes
life much simpler.


I presume you have never sat in the hot seat on a classical, or any
other kind of large recording session? I do it as a profession.
Believe me, trivial it is not!

I agree that if you have one shot to record a live event, and you have
no idea what the highest peaks are, then it is not easy to record at the
optimal level (no clipping, and good signal-to-noise ratio), digital or
analog. However, in a studio recording, where you have a good idea about
what the peak levels are, it is easy to record so as not to clip the
ADC's. This is especially true in the case of mastering, where you
*know* exactly what the higheset levels are in the recording.

Your heartbeat will probably be louder
than the monitors if you are there for the first time:-)

Yeah, the first time in anything can be scary. Digital, especially with
24 bit processing, gives you a much more useful range and latitude.


No conductor has the patience and no record company the resources
for you to take and retake to get it right, so you must regard every take
as the one and only.

One can also define headroom to be dB above noise, if one chooses to, and
it would be more useful. And you know which one wins, in that case.


No. that is dynamic range.

Which is a much more useful concept in digital recordings. 3% distortion
point, and "standard operating level" are rather meaningless in digital
recording and mastering.

No one has denied the increased dynamic of
the digital medium, but you probably did not know that a Studer A80
analogue recorder with Dolby SR has a noise floor of -95dB.

And a state-of-the-art ADC has a noise floor of -120 dB.


I am as happy working in the digital as the analogue domain. The
client chooses what he thinks it right for the project, and I am happy
with that:-)


No one argues otherwise, but the clients asking for analog recording are
a dying breed...


Analogue editing, requires
a higher level of skill. It takes a stout heart to approach a 2"
multitrack analogue tape with chinagraph pencil and razor blade:-)


But why bother? Typing on a typewriter requires a lot more skill than
typing on a computer using a work processing program. You know which one
we would rather do.


Even 25 years into the digital age, clients still ask for analogue
multitrack recording, and so it is important to keep the skills
which it requires honed.

No one argues otherwise, just like someone probably needs to know how to
replace the cartridge on an IBM Selectric.

Studer still manufacture the 820 series
analogue multitrack, and second hand machines are very much
in demand. To be able to work in either domain is a distinct
advantage. One has to have experience in all types of recording, studio
and concert. Versatility is paramount if you want to keep busy:-)

Cordially,

Iain