On 12 Dec 2005 05:02:00 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote:

No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live
music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician.

But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where
the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit.

Really? Where you come from they don't let musicians listen to other
musicians?

Indeed they do, but I've certainly never seen any evidence that they
have better hearing than non-musicians, in the context of determining
how close to reality is any given sound system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 12 Dec 2005 05:03:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

As to CD's vs LP's, one can logically conclude that CD's are more popular.
That is all one can conclude. Says nothing about the sound.

Actually, one can conclude a lot more than that by examining the
technical capabilities of the two media. That says a *lot* about the
sound.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Mark DeBellis wrote:

Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

I have a reasonably good idea of what kinds of ear training a conductor
has to undergo and what sorts of perceptual discriminations he/she is
supposed to make. And I suppose it would not be too difficult to
imagine ways of determining, objectively, whether conductor A is better
than conductor B in this regard. But I have very little sense of what
sorts of perceptual training an "experienced audiophile" engages in, or
how it can be determined objectively that one audiophile is more
proficient in the relevant skills than another. So could someone
please enlighten me as to what they are?

I'll give you a simple example. A certain conductor may not even know
that it is important to match levels when comparing CD players, and
concludes that the majority of CD players he/she listens to sound
different. Or he/she may think that level matching with a sound meter is
sufficient when comparing CD players. He/she then prefers one because of
his/her belief that it sounds "closer to live music".

An experienced listener would have realized the importance of level
matching (and blindness) when detecting subtle differences. That's a
knowledge that the conductor may not have.


Obviously, being familiar with the sound of live music is, all things
being equal, a benefit to being able to tell if source X sounds like
live music.

You are making the logical mistake that you *have* to be a
conductor/musician to know what live music sound like. You can become
familiar with the sound of live music without being a musician/conductor
yourself. The importance of being a musician/conductor is grossly
exaggerated in these threads, when we are trying to determine if one of
two pieces of audio gear sounds more realistic. I am not a professional
musician, yet I know intimately well how a piano sounds, for instance.
Those audiophiles who love acoustic music no doubt have experiences
listening to live acoustic music, so I don't understand the belief among
certain people that only musicians/conductors are familiar with the
sound of acoustic music.

And do not forget that the majority of music people listen to are not
acoustic in nature, so musicians/condictors who deal with acoustic
instruments only really have no advantage at all, compared to the
experienced listeners. Just like Jenn have no idea how rap music is
supposed to sound like. To be fair, I don't, either .

Whether we should think that being an "experienced
audiophile" counts as a better qualification than having the
conductor's skills will depend on what skills are particular to the
experienced audiophile. So, what are they?

Knowledge about how to conduct meaningful tests. Knowledge about audible
artifacts like distortion, noise, frequency response aberrations and how
to test for them. To name a few.


Mark

Harry Lavo wrote:

. . .


Since when is the judgment of what is logical a popular vote?

It is logical that a lower distortion will reproduce the sound of those
instruments better than a high-distortion one. That logic obviously is
defied by the very few vinylphiles here. By the way, if you believe the
populat vote is important, CD has beaten vinyl, somewhere between 15 and
20 years ago.

Logic is a human application of some set principles. When five people say
the argument is logical, and one doesn't, one can normally give the benefit
of the doubt to the five. Of course, the argument can be broken down using
boolean algebra for a proof.

As to CD's vs LP's, one can logically conclude that CD's are more popular.
That is all one can conclude. Says nothing about the sound.

Harry,

you conveniently overlooked the fact that majority of the public
considers CD as superior sounding in relation to LP.

So you have to make a choice, if majority vote is equivalent to logical
conclusion or not. On the last page of you text book you will find that
the answer is 'no'. Logic is independent of majority vote.

vlad

Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

Very clever, but by the same reasoning the ability to read Russian is
not a qualification for reading War and Peace in the original, since
there is a diversity of critical opinion among such readers.

And *I* get accused (by others) of sophistry!

Mark

Jenn wrote:

Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?

No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person. Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment. You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

bob

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:

[snip]

The question is independent of
what HvK was trying to make his recording sound like live music, as long
as you agree that he was trying to make his recordings sound good.

So since he has control of his recordings, he tried to make his
recordings sound good to him. You found so many of his recordings sound
bad. Should we trust your judgment, or his?


Again.... His recordings don't sound "bad" to me if the standard is
what most people are looking for in their hi-fi systems. His recordings
sound "impressive." They have "good bass." They have good dynamic
range. They "sound good" if your standard is not the best imitation of
actual symphonic music possible (this refers to the DGG recordings; his
older EMI LPs are actually very good by this standard.) I simply have
this little personality quirk that doesn't allow me to say that his
recordings "sound good" when so often the instruments are literally
unrecognizable. Witness the "trumpet" sound in his last Tchaikovsky 5
recording: There ARE no trumpets that sound like that in any hall. I
can't imagine ANYONE who knows what trumpets sound like disagreeing with
that statement. But what the heck... they're loud and "impressive."

Reading this thread, I was reminded of a story I'd read about the sound
engineers who worked on the recordings with George Szell when he was
with the Cleveland Orchestra. The engineers would arrive at a mix they
thought sounded good, and then they would give Szell a master tape to
take home to listen to on his home stereo; Szell would invariably bring
it back and indicate that he wanted it remixed so that it would be
"brighter" (that's my word), i.e., he thought it sounded dull, and he
wanted the treble increased more.

This happened repeatedly, with at least a few recordings being issued
this way. Eventually, one or more of the recording engineers visited
Szell's home, only to find that, placed immediately in front of his very
large and nice (for the time) speakers, there was a very large and
very plush couch.

Chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live
acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic
music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make
those judgments.

And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound
of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium.
See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we
keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we
haven't heard any.

bob

Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic.

And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine
because...?

bob

Because you're outvoted. You've already heard from Porky George and Jenn, so
that makes it 2:1 and I'll make it 3:1.

I lived my entire adult life as an audiophile, with my two closest friends
being full time professional musicians. I taught them some things; they
taught me a lot. They had a good quality system. And I can attest that they
*can* and *did* hear things in the audio reproduction that allowed them (and
usually rightly in my opinion) to differentiate accurate from inaccurate
reproduction. They also can tell good vs not-so-good recording of
instruments across a variety of gear, and were less likely to be fooled by
acoustics vs equipment tonality than I am.


You can also count Mikemsossey in. He practically worships misucians .

Such odd behavior for a music lover.


Since when is the judgment of what is logical a popular vote?

Never, I thought it was just dry humor.


It is logical that a lower distortion will reproduce the sound of those
instruments better than a high-distortion one.

That is a logical claim when presented in such a simple form. however
the reality of the situation is far more complex than that. The essence
of that logical claim though was the reason I bought into the idea of
CDs having inhernetly superior sound. I held that belief until I did my
first head to head comparison betwen a CD player and a real high end
turntable using my own CDs and LPs of the same titles. It did seem to
defy logic and I found it quite disturbing at first.

That logic obviously is
defied by the very few vinylphiles here.

No, it is defied by the sound we hear. We are not defying the logic
ourselves.

By the way, if you believe the
populat vote is important, CD has beaten vinyl, somewhere between 15 and
20 years ago.

I don't believe in the popular vote when it comes to excellence.

Scott

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Dec 2005 05:02:00 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote:

No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live
music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician.

But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where
the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit.

Really? Where you come from they don't let musicians listen to other
musicians?

Indeed they do,

Then your point had no real validity did it?

but I've certainly never seen any evidence that they
have better hearing than non-musicians, in the context of determining
how close to reality is any given sound system.

Of course you have seen no such evidence. Have you seen any eidence
that they do not have better judgement in determining diffeences
between live music and playback?

Scott

Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

Very clever, but by the same reasoning the ability to read Russian is
not a qualification for reading War and Peace in the original, since
there is a diversity of critical opinion among such readers.


Your analogy is seriously wrong: it's nowhere close to being the same
reasoning.

You, as a non-musician/non-conductor, are absolutely qualified to judge
which one of two pieces of gear sounds closer to "that live acoustic
instrument sound". All you need is enough experience with audio
equipment and knowledge of how to make meaningful comparisons, plus some
memory of how real instruments sound like (ignoring the massive changes
to the sound in the recording/mastering processes which are much bigger
than those from competent electronics, for the sake of this discussion).
Memory of real instruments' sound can be obtained through
concert/retical attendance easily. You don't need to be a professional
musician/conductor to have a reliable memory of how instruments sound to
you.

OTOH, if you do not read Russian, then you cannot read War and Peace in
the original. See the big difference, and therefore your faulty analogy?

And *I* get accused (by others) of sophistry!

And do you understand why?


Mark

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?

No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc.

I understand your point, but I disagree (of course!):-) Allow me to
clarify my position on this a bit in a different way than before. I
agree that under the umbrella of "live acoustic music" there are a great
many variations. That's a given. But as in every other subjective
aspect of life, there are aspect to the sound of music that cross these
variations. Let me try this metaphor: there are many different shades
of blue, but they are all blue. One cannot look at orange and say that
color is blue. When I hear the timbres of voices or instruments being
screwed up by a poor recording or a piece of gear, it's like telling me
that something is blue when I know darned well that it's really orange.
I could tell that it's orange in this light or that light, when I'm
sleepy or wide awake, if it has the smallest speck of blue mixed in, or
if I wake up dead drunk on a desert island; the darned thing is simply
orange, not blue. One can, in other words, tell that it's orange under
a whole variety of conditions. That's what it's like in music, for me.

On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan.

Again, this point would be well taken IF we are comparing apples with
apples, which we don't know. If HvK raises up and tells me, "Jenn,
those recordings that I put my stamp of approval on were my best attempt
to capture the sound of live instruments" as opposed to "Those
recordings were my best attempt to make a sound that would sell to the
record buying public" THEN your point works, and I would concede your
point. As we've said before, the vast majority of people who buy
recordings never even consider the possibility that "life-like" is a
goal to reach for. The same goes for recording musicians. And as an
aside, in music listening sessions with my colleagues, we've never that
I recall had disagreement over which recordings sound the most "real."

So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person.

And I concede that an EE will be better at some things than the average
person. Hey, maybe we're getting somewhere! :-)

Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment. You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

Well, there's a simple and honest difference between us, which is fine.
I want to assume as little as possible.


But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

Understood, but the obvious detection of such things as the trumpet
situation seems to happen in spite of even obvious level mismatches that
should work AGAINST a preference; in other words, the terrible trumpet
tone being detected in the SOFTER of two pieces of gear.

bob

Best,
Jenn

In article , Chung
wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:

Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

I have a reasonably good idea of what kinds of ear training a conductor
has to undergo and what sorts of perceptual discriminations he/she is
supposed to make. And I suppose it would not be too difficult to
imagine ways of determining, objectively, whether conductor A is better
than conductor B in this regard. But I have very little sense of what
sorts of perceptual training an "experienced audiophile" engages in, or
how it can be determined objectively that one audiophile is more
proficient in the relevant skills than another. So could someone
please enlighten me as to what they are?

I'll give you a simple example. A certain conductor may not even know
that it is important to match levels when comparing CD players, and
concludes that the majority of CD players he/she listens to sound
different. Or he/she may think that level matching with a sound meter is
sufficient when comparing CD players. He/she then prefers one because of
his/her belief that it sounds "closer to live music".


An experienced listener would have realized the importance of level
matching (and blindness) when detecting subtle differences. That's a
knowledge that the conductor may not have.

I wonder to what degree the psycho-acoustical effects trump the, to me,
gross differences in the specific area of instrumental and vocal timbre.
On a scale ranging in difference from the very subtle to the obvious by
a half deaf person who has never heard an actual instrument, where do
the effects of level matching, for example start ruling the day? For
example, even in grossly miss-matched levels, one can tell the obvious
difference between, say, Te Kanawa and Studer. When, if ever, does
difference in level take over? This is not a rhetorical question on my
part. If you or anyone else as a link to a journal piece or a book
commonly available in a university library (concise, please!) please let
me know. After Christmas Eve, I have a 10 day break, so I'd be willing
to devote part of it to reading on this topic.


Obviously, being familiar with the sound of live music is, all things
being equal, a benefit to being able to tell if source X sounds like
live music.

You are making the logical mistake that you *have* to be a
conductor/musician to know what live music sound like. You can become
familiar with the sound of live music without being a musician/conductor
yourself. The importance of being a musician/conductor is grossly
exaggerated in these threads, when we are trying to determine if one of
two pieces of audio gear sounds more realistic. I am not a professional
musician, yet I know intimately well how a piano sounds, for instance.
Those audiophiles who love acoustic music no doubt have experiences
listening to live acoustic music, so I don't understand the belief among
certain people that only musicians/conductors are familiar with the
sound of acoustic music.

I have seen no one express that belief.


And do not forget that the majority of music people listen to are not
acoustic in nature, so musicians/condictors who deal with acoustic
instruments only really have no advantage at all, compared to the
experienced listeners. Just like Jenn have no idea how rap music is
supposed to sound like. To be fair, I don't, either .

:-) Nor have I claimed to; just to be clear. I can tell the sound of
a Fender from that of a Gretsch any day though :-)

On 13 Dec 2005 03:39:29 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Dec 2005 05:02:00 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote:

No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live
music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician.

But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where
the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit.

Really? Where you come from they don't let musicians listen to other
musicians?

Indeed they do,

Then your point had no real validity did it?

My point was that *from that perspective*, musicians have no special
standing, indeed you could certainly argue that their notion of
correct sound balance is highly skewed by all the time they spend in
the *wrong* place.

but I've certainly never seen any evidence that they
have better hearing than non-musicians, in the context of determining
how close to reality is any given sound system.

Of course you have seen no such evidence. Have you seen any eidence
that they do not have better judgement in determining diffeences
between live music and playback?

No, except among those (rare) ones who are also audiophiles.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"vlad" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

. . .


Since when is the judgment of what is logical a popular vote?

It is logical that a lower distortion will reproduce the sound of those
instruments better than a high-distortion one. That logic obviously is
defied by the very few vinylphiles here. By the way, if you believe the
populat vote is important, CD has beaten vinyl, somewhere between 15
and
20 years ago.

Logic is a human application of some set principles. When five people
say
the argument is logical, and one doesn't, one can normally give the
benefit
of the doubt to the five. Of course, the argument can be broken down
using
boolean algebra for a proof.

As to CD's vs LP's, one can logically conclude that CD's are more
popular.
That is all one can conclude. Says nothing about the sound.

Harry,

you conveniently overlooked the fact that majority of the public
considers CD as superior sounding in relation to LP.

So you have to make a choice, if majority vote is equivalent to logical
conclusion or not. On the last page of you text book you will find that
the answer is 'no'. Logic is independent of majority vote.

vlad

Either you and others are intent on creating a straw man argument, or I did
not make myself perfectly clear. I'll assume the latter for now....so....

I never said logic was determined by vote. What I said was that humans have
the ability, to a greater or lesser degree, to determine what is logical.
So if five people read an argument, and four say it is logical, and one says
it is illogical....I am more likely to assume the former are correct. But
as I also said, logic is subject to analysis and "proof" so if I had to make
an important decision on it, I would subject the argument to that process.

Reread my original assertion in that light.

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:


Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?


No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Let me propose (yet another) analogy. To say that "musicians must be a
better judge of whether a piece of gear can reproduce the sound of live
music" is analogous to saying that "a film-critic/actor/director must be
a better judge of how good a movie is". But better judge than whom?
Given that critics/actors/directors do not always agree on goodness of
movies, to trust their judgment a priori is really worse than trusting a
fellow moviegoer whose taste in movies you're familiar with. And only
*you* know how good a movie is, to *you*.


Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person. Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment.

Before I make that deferral, I would first make sure that her playback
system is set up correctly, and what she hears from her speakers is
close to what you would hear from yours. And does she have a bias
against von Karajan? What if another musician says that those trumpets
really sound like trumpets? I don't think there is universal agreement
among musicians that those trumpets do not sound like trumpets. So whose
opinion would you trust?

You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

And there very well might be musicians and conductors who think those
trumpets sound like real trumpets.


But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

In a similar vein, if she says that CD's as a group do not reproduce
acoustic music as well as vinyl, then I have totally lost confidence in
her judgment . Because *I* find CD's better in reproducing live music.


bob

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

Understood, but the obvious detection of such things as the trumpet
situation seems to happen in spite of even obvious level mismatches that
should work AGAINST a preference; in other words, the terrible trumpet
tone being detected in the SOFTER of two pieces of gear.

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory. Second, assuming level mismatches are at work, we cannot say
whether the louder or the softer presentation would be perceived as
"more like the timbre of real instruments." It's usually the case that
the louder presentation will be preferred. If you are saying that the
trumpets sounded worse on the softer presentation, that would seem to
offer some support for something I suggested a while back: That you are
really making judgments about accuracy based on your preferences (i.e.,
since the louder one sounded better to you, you determined that it
sounded more accurate).

So thanks. I had no evidence to back that theory up before. Now I do.

bob

chung wrote:
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:


Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?


No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Let me propose (yet another) analogy. To say that "musicians must be a
better judge of whether a piece of gear can reproduce the sound of live
music" is analogous to saying that "a film-critic/actor/director must be
a better judge of how good a movie is". But better judge than whom?
Given that critics/actors/directors do not always agree on goodness of
movies, to trust their judgment a priori is really worse than trusting a
fellow moviegoer whose taste in movies you're familiar with. And only
*you* know how good a movie is, to *you*.

I expect she'll reply that "good/bad" is an aesthetic judgment, while
"accurate/inaccurate" is not. I've already argued that she really is
making an aesthetic judgment, and just doesn't realize it.

Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person. Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment.

Before I make that deferral, I would first make sure that her playback
system is set up correctly, and what she hears from her speakers is
close to what you would hear from yours. And does she have a bias
against von Karajan? What if another musician says that those trumpets
really sound like trumpets? I don't think there is universal agreement
among musicians that those trumpets do not sound like trumpets. So whose
opinion would you trust?

Oh, come on, Chung, I was trying to be nice to her for once! I don't
have the luxury of polling a representative cross-section of all
professional musicians. Absent any better information, I would give
some weight to the opinion of one such musician. Besides, she and I are
already known to share certain opinions about conductors.

You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

And there very well might be musicians and conductors who think those
trumpets sound like real trumpets.


But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

In a similar vein, if she says that CD's as a group do not reproduce
acoustic music as well as vinyl, then I have totally lost confidence in
her judgment . Because *I* find CD's better in reproducing live music.

I just decided to ignore that one for the time being. But it is another
problematic case.

bob

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Dec 2005 03:39:29 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Dec 2005 05:02:00 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote:

No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live
music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician.

But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where
the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit.

Really? Where you come from they don't let musicians listen to other
musicians?

Indeed they do,

Then your point had no real validity did it?

My point was that *from that perspective*, musicians have no special
standing, indeed you could certainly argue that their notion of
correct sound balance is highly skewed by all the time they spend in
the *wrong* place.

You could argue that if you choose to ignore my point, that being
musicians still spend plenty of quality time from the *right* place
listening to live music.


but I've certainly never seen any evidence that they
have better hearing than non-musicians, in the context of determining
how close to reality is any given sound system.

Of course you have seen no such evidence. Have you seen any eidence
that they do not have better judgement in determining diffeences
between live music and playback?

No,

Of course not. Since there is no evidence either way.

except among those (rare) ones who are also audiophiles.

OK what is the evidence that proves audiophile/musicians are not any
better than the average Joe at discerning differences between live
music and playback?

Scott

chung wrote:
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:


Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?


No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Let me propose (yet another) analogy. To say that "musicians must be a
better judge of whether a piece of gear can reproduce the sound of live
music"

Is that an actual quote? Did somebody say they must be?

is analogous to saying that "a film-critic/actor/director must be
a better judge of how good a movie is".

It would be analogous. Film critic/actor/ directors are usually
substantially better at judging how good a movie is than the average
movie goer.

But better judge than whom?

Non film critic/actor/ directors.

Given that critics/actors/directors do not always agree on goodness of
movies, to trust their judgment a priori is really worse than trusting a
fellow moviegoer whose taste in movies you're familiar with. And only
*you* know how good a movie is, to *you*.

I would agree. But you do keep falling into the same trap. Life like
sound is not nearly as subjective as quality of movies. I agree that
your example is analogous in that people with intense insight and
experience in a gien field are better able to make quality judgements
within that field, generally speaking. But there is a huge difference
when one has a distict standard of measure and the other does not.



Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person. Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment.

Before I make that deferral, I would first make sure that her playback
system is set up correctly, and what she hears from her speakers is
close to what you would hear from yours.

That would be fair and reasonable.

And does she have a bias
against von Karajan?

I have a bia against him. I can still evaluate his work and the sound
of his work.

What if another musician says that those trumpets
really sound like trumpets?

That's a fine what if.

I don't think there is universal agreement
among musicians that those trumpets do not sound like trumpets.

But yo really don't know do you? besides, there are acceptions to rules
like this. There probably are any number of musicians that might make
that mistake. No one is saying *all* musiians are superior to *all*
other non-musicians at discerning live music from playback.

So whose
opinion would you trust?

You seem to be really stuck on this trusting opinions thing. I trst my
own. I pay attention to others based on credibility. Big difference.


You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

And there very well might be musicians and conductors who think those
trumpets sound like real trumpets.

So what? There are a few "scientists" out there that believe in ID.
Does that mean no scientist ha any credibility in thier beliefs about
the history of life?



But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

In a similar vein, if she says that CD's as a group do not reproduce
acoustic music as well as vinyl, then I have totally lost confidence in
her judgment . Because *I* find CD's better in reproducing live music.

That's fine. The same sort of thing has a lot to do with why I lost
confidence in objectivists. Their claims simply ran contrary to my
experiences far too often.

Scott

In article , chung
wrote:

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:


Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?


No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Let me propose (yet another) analogy. To say that "musicians must be a
better judge of whether a piece of gear can reproduce the sound of live
music" is analogous to saying that "a film-critic/actor/director must be
a better judge of how good a movie is".

No, it isn't. The film critic et al is no more equipped to make that
judgement because what is relatively unique to them has nothing to do
with judging the quality of the movie. On the other hand, a
professional acoustic musician is much more likely to be familiar with
the judgement that we are discussing: which hi-fi sound most like
acoustic music. This likelihood exists because of the musician's unique
exposure to that which is basis of the judgement, and because of
rigorous training in listening skills. Your analogy actually has nothing
to do with my position.

Also, I've never stated the "musicians MUST be a better judge..." I've
consistently said, "musicians are MORE LIKELY TO be the better judge
relative to the sound of live acoustic music."

But better judge than whom?
Given that critics/actors/directors do not always agree on goodness of
movies, to trust their judgment a priori is really worse than trusting a
fellow moviegoer whose taste in movies you're familiar with. And only
*you* know how good a movie is, to *you*.


Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person. Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment.

Before I make that deferral, I would first make sure that her playback
system is set up correctly,

It is.

and what she hears from her speakers is
close to what you would hear from yours. And does she have a bias
against von Karajan?

Only politically; certainly not musically. In fact, in the literature
in which he excelled, I would have a bias FOR him if anything.

What if another musician says that those trumpets
really sound like trumpets?

If another person who has heard the sound of trumpets recently makes
that judgement, I would bet big money that the person has hearing
damage. It's that bad.

I don't think there is universal agreement
among musicians that those trumpets do not sound like trumpets.

You obviously haven't heard them.

So whose
opinion would you trust?

You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

And there very well might be musicians and conductors who think those
trumpets sound like real trumpets.

No musician that I've ever known.


But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

In a similar vein, if she says that CD's as a group do not reproduce
acoustic music as well as vinyl, then I have totally lost confidence in
her judgment .

I'm so wounded :-)

Because *I* find CD's better in reproducing live music.

Good for you. Enjoy.

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

Understood, but the obvious detection of such things as the trumpet
situation seems to happen in spite of even obvious level mismatches that
should work AGAINST a preference; in other words, the terrible trumpet
tone being detected in the SOFTER of two pieces of gear.

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory.

Of course. LOL. What can possibly be "illusory" about my statement
above? Perhaps the sentence wasn't constructed well. What I mean is
that I've consistently been able to detect the OBVIOUSLY poor trumpet
sound even when the level mismatch was in the direction that I've been
told time and time again here should have worked the other way, i.e.
disliking the louder sound and liking the less loud sound.

Second, assuming level mismatches are at work, we cannot say
whether the louder or the softer presentation would be perceived as
"more like the timbre of real instruments." It's usually the case that
the louder presentation will be preferred. If you are saying that the
trumpets sounded worse on the softer presentation, that would seem to
offer some support for something I suggested a while back: That you are
really making judgments about accuracy based on your preferences (i.e.,
since the louder one sounded better to you, you determined that it
sounded more accurate).

So thanks. I had no evidence to back that theory up before. Now I do.

I'm actually stunned by this statement. I'm NOT saying that trumpets
sounded worse on EVERY softer presentation, or EVERY louder
presentation. However, I've consistently been told here that due to
psychoacoustical effects, non-level matched tests are illegit because
the listener will almost always prefer the louder sample. I'm simply
stating that I detect this obviously bad trumpet sound, for example,
regardless of which way the levels are. So, no; you have no evidence
for your theory.

bob

wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Dec 2005 03:39:29 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Dec 2005 05:02:00 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote:

No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what
live
music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician.

But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where
the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit.

Really? Where you come from they don't let musicians listen to other
musicians?

Indeed they do,

Then your point had no real validity did it?

My point was that *from that perspective*, musicians have no special
standing, indeed you could certainly argue that their notion of
correct sound balance is highly skewed by all the time they spend in
the *wrong* place.

You could argue that if you choose to ignore my point, that being
musicians still spend plenty of quality time from the *right* place
listening to live music.

My professional musician friends and their fellow musicians almost always
will steal around the back and into the hall to hear another of their peers
perform, when they are only on, say, one-half of the program.


but I've certainly never seen any evidence that they
have better hearing than non-musicians, in the context of determining
how close to reality is any given sound system.

Of course you have seen no such evidence. Have you seen any eidence
that they do not have better judgement in determining diffeences
between live music and playback?

No,

Of course not. Since there is no evidence either way.

except among those (rare) ones who are also audiophiles.

OK what is the evidence that proves audiophile/musicians are not any
better than the average Joe at discerning differences between live
music and playback?

Scott

Rare? About one out of five-to-ten, in my experience. And the ratio of
audiophiles to the general population is....?

In article , "bob"
wrote:

chung wrote:
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:


Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?


No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Let me propose (yet another) analogy. To say that "musicians must be a
better judge of whether a piece of gear can reproduce the sound of live
music" is analogous to saying that "a film-critic/actor/director must be
a better judge of how good a movie is". But better judge than whom?
Given that critics/actors/directors do not always agree on goodness of
movies, to trust their judgment a priori is really worse than trusting a
fellow moviegoer whose taste in movies you're familiar with. And only
*you* know how good a movie is, to *you*.

I expect she'll reply that "good/bad" is an aesthetic judgment, while
"accurate/inaccurate" is not.

Well, your expectation is false.

I've already argued that she really is
making an aesthetic judgment, and just doesn't realize it.

Incorrect. I understand the nature of aesthetic judgments; that too is
an important part of my job. An aesthetic judgment regarding the sound
of instruments would be a statement indicating that I prefer the quality
of this instrument (or the playing of that instrument) over another.
That's not my argument at all.

Now, lest you think I'm just being pigheaded, let me remind you that I
have conceded that professional musicians will certainly be better at
some things than the average person. Let me take that a bit further: If
you say that the trumpets on von Karajan's recordings don't sound like
real trumpets, I'm inclined to defer to your judgment.

Before I make that deferral, I would first make sure that her playback
system is set up correctly, and what she hears from her speakers is
close to what you would hear from yours. And does she have a bias
against von Karajan? What if another musician says that those trumpets
really sound like trumpets? I don't think there is universal agreement
among musicians that those trumpets do not sound like trumpets. So whose
opinion would you trust?

Oh, come on, Chung, I was trying to be nice to her for once! I don't
have the luxury of polling a representative cross-section of all
professional musicians. Absent any better information, I would give
some weight to the opinion of one such musician. Besides, she and I are
already known to share certain opinions about conductors.

You certainly
have a better sense of that than I do; I'm more willing to "suspend
disbelief" and just assume they're trumpets.

And there very well might be musicians and conductors who think those
trumpets sound like real trumpets.


But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

In a similar vein, if she says that CD's as a group do not reproduce
acoustic music as well as vinyl, then I have totally lost confidence in
her judgment . Because *I* find CD's better in reproducing live music.

I just decided to ignore that one for the time being. But it is another
problematic case.

Gentlemen, this has grown tiresome and dull. Let me bow out somewhat
gracefully by reminding everyone how this discussion started many weeks
ago: I stated that there are qualities exhibited many samples of LP
playback that remind me of live acoustic music that I've never heard on
CD. I was basically told that this is impossible, and my preference
MUST be due to:
level mismatch
sighted listening
euphonic effects
defective speaker placement
nostalgia

In each case, I've shown that in spite of the possible effects of the
above, my judgments are consistent. I brought up my constant exposure
to live music to show that I do indeed have intimate knowledge of the
sound of music; much more than so than the average home listener.
Experience seems to matter in making judgments, except in audio matters.
The contortions that have been presented to me to "disprove" the value
of my training and experience have been both revealing and humorous.

Thanks for the discussion; see you around.

bob wrote:

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory.

I suspect that in their hearts that audio 'subjectivists' simply don't
believe this essential fact is true. If they did,
I don't see why there's be cause for all these debates.

Jenn wrote:

Gentlemen, this has grown tiresome and dull. Let me bow out somewhat
gracefully by reminding everyone how this discussion started many weeks
ago: I stated that there are qualities exhibited many samples of LP
playback that remind me of live acoustic music that I've never heard on
CD. I was basically told that this is impossible,

No one has ever said this. It is quite possible that what you hear on
LP reminds you of what you have heard in the concert hall. What we have
been arguing with has been the conclusion that because it so reminds
you, and because you are so much more expert than we are, therefore
there must be something about LP that really IS more like what you hear
in the concert hall.

and my preference
MUST be due to:
level mismatch
sighted listening
euphonic effects
defective speaker placement
nostalgia

In each case, I've shown that in spite of the possible effects of the
above, my judgments are consistent. I brought up my constant exposure
to live music to show that I do indeed have intimate knowledge of the
sound of music; much more than so than the average home listener.
Experience seems to matter in making judgments, except in audio matters.

The right kind of experience matters. You want us to accept without
evidence that you have the right kind of experience. No can do.

bob

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and
to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of
either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

Understood, but the obvious detection of such things as the trumpet
situation seems to happen in spite of even obvious level mismatches
that
should work AGAINST a preference; in other words, the terrible trumpet
tone being detected in the SOFTER of two pieces of gear.

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory.

Of course. LOL. What can possibly be "illusory" about my statement
above? Perhaps the sentence wasn't constructed well. What I mean is
that I've consistently been able to detect the OBVIOUSLY poor trumpet
sound even when the level mismatch was in the direction that I've been
told time and time again here should have worked the other way, i.e.
disliking the louder sound and liking the less loud sound.


Jenn, that won't stop the argument. When I bought a more expenseive set of
speaker cables and then thought the degraded the sound, and sold them at a
loss, I was told that I had suffered buyer remorse and secretly really
didn't want the cables, that's why I had a preference for my older cables.

Those arguing the objectivist line here have an excuse for every situation
that seems to contradict their theology. But that is exactly what they are
....... excuses....glibly pulled out whenever an inconvenient fact appears.

Second, assuming level mismatches are at work, we cannot say
whether the louder or the softer presentation would be perceived as
"more like the timbre of real instruments." It's usually the case that
the louder presentation will be preferred. If you are saying that the
trumpets sounded worse on the softer presentation, that would seem to
offer some support for something I suggested a while back: That you are
really making judgments about accuracy based on your preferences (i.e.,
since the louder one sounded better to you, you determined that it
sounded more accurate).

So thanks. I had no evidence to back that theory up before. Now I do.

I'm actually stunned by this statement. I'm NOT saying that trumpets
sounded worse on EVERY softer presentation, or EVERY louder
presentation. However, I've consistently been told here that due to
psychoacoustical effects, non-level matched tests are illegit because
the listener will almost always prefer the louder sample. I'm simply
stating that I detect this obviously bad trumpet sound, for example,
regardless of which way the levels are. So, no; you have no evidence
for your theory.


LOL! Don't let the facts get in the way...simply invent another excuse.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory.

I suspect that in their hearts that audio 'subjectivists' simply don't
believe this essential fact is true. If they did,
I don't see why there's be cause for all these debates.


Gentlemen, the world is not all black, nor all white. Subjectivists can
accept the obvious ability to be aurally "fooled". It is just the extremity
of your arguments, even in the face of evidence pointing directly against
your theories in specific cases, sucha as Jenn's trumpets, that cause us to
"reject the obvious". Because sometimes rejection is appropriate, sometimes
it is not. You are not open to even considering the possibility that some
people can live with a little uncertainty, or be able to balance two kinds
of potential errors and choose to believe that the balance falls aginst your
beloved blind abx testing or other cherished "truths".

If you want subjectivists to cross over to your point of view, I submit
pulling up the draw-bridge behind you is not a great way to go about it.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory.

I suspect that in their hearts that audio 'subjectivists' simply don't
believe this essential fact is true.

As a subjectivist I believe it is quite true. I just don't let it taint
everything I enjoy. When I found LPs played back on a high end TT
sounding better than CDs I eventually got over the fact that it wasn't
supposed to be that way. Same thing when I found tube amps sounding
better than my SS equipment. I have heard that objectivists have under
sighted conditions found exotic tube amos to be sonically superior to
"competent" SS equipment. Would you believe that?

If they did,
I don't see why there's be cause for all these debates.

Maybe because objectivists have trouble accepting preferences in an
imperfect world.

Scott

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

But if you say that one CD player reproduces the sound of trumpets
better than another CD player, I'm inclined not to believe you, and to
suspect that the difference you think you hear is the result of either
a level mismatch or a psychoacoustic illusion. Why do I trust you in
one case and not the other? Because bad recordings are common, while
bad CD players appear to be decidely uncommon, based on
state-of-the-art listening tests.

Understood, but the obvious detection of such things as the trumpet
situation seems to happen in spite of even obvious level mismatches that
should work AGAINST a preference; in other words, the terrible trumpet
tone being detected in the SOFTER of two pieces of gear.

This doesn't wash. First of all, we know that what seems obvious can be
illusory. Second, assuming level mismatches are at work, we cannot say
whether the louder or the softer presentation would be perceived as
"more like the timbre of real instruments." It's usually the case that
the louder presentation will be preferred. If you are saying that the
trumpets sounded worse on the softer presentation, that would seem to
offer some support for something I suggested a while back: That you are
really making judgments about accuracy based on your preferences (i.e.,
since the louder one sounded better to you, you determined that it
sounded more accurate).

Clearly she isn't saying that at all. Looks to me she is saying the
recording stinks so badly that levels are irrelevent. It sounds wrong
at every level.


So thanks. I had no evidence to back that theory up before. Now I do.

No you don't. OTOH you have managed to support your claim that even
what seems obvious can be illusionary. but then nobody has enied that
claim. At times objectivists do seem to forget they are subject to it
as well.

Scott

bob wrote:
chung wrote:
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:


Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?


No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc. On top
of that, we have an apparently very wide variability of opinion among
professional musicians about how things should sound. If musicians
brought special expertise to this question, we should see some
convergence of viewpoint between, say, you and von Karajan. So we have
a lot of gray area at both ends of the equation, enough that the
assertion "professional musicians know the sound of live music" doesn't
seem to me to say very much. In fact, it may not say much more than,
"professional musicians know what they like."

Let me propose (yet another) analogy. To say that "musicians must be a
better judge of whether a piece of gear can reproduce the sound of live
music" is analogous to saying that "a film-critic/actor/director must be
a better judge of how good a movie is". But better judge than whom?
Given that critics/actors/directors do not always agree on goodness of
movies, to trust their judgment a priori is really worse than trusting a
fellow moviegoer whose taste in movies you're familiar with. And only
*you* know how good a movie is, to *you*.

I expect she'll reply that "good/bad" is an aesthetic judgment, while
"accurate/inaccurate" is not.

And you don't agree with such an argument?

I've already argued that she really is
making an aesthetic judgment, and just doesn't realize it.

Since when is accuracy an aesthetic judgement? Aren't you an engineer
or something like that? Is that the engineer's perspective on accuracy?
That it is an aesthetic judgement?

Snip content.

In a similar vein, if she says that CD's as a group do not reproduce
acoustic music as well as vinyl, then I have totally lost confidence in
her judgment . Because *I* find CD's better in reproducing live music.

I just decided to ignore that one for the time being. But it is another
problematic case.

IOW your opinion on her ability to discern differences between live
music and playback has to do with your biases v. her opinions. that's
what i figured all along. I can not see how any reasonable person could
argue against the value of experience in making judgements about such
things. i almost fell out of my chai=r laughing when it was suggested
that audiophiles may be better judges of such things by the very people
who have ben attacking the judgement of most audiophiles for so many
years now. so maybe Harry Pearson is a good judge of what components
sound more like live music than others according to the loccal
objectivists. At least this thread has been entertaining.

Scott

Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:


Obviously, being familiar with the sound of live music is, all things
being equal, a benefit to being able to tell if source X sounds like
live music.

You are making the logical mistake that you *have* to be a
conductor/musician to know what live music sound like. You can become
familiar with the sound of live music without being a musician/conductor
yourself. The importance of being a musician/conductor is grossly
exaggerated in these threads, when we are trying to determine if one of
two pieces of audio gear sounds more realistic. I am not a professional
musician, yet I know intimately well how a piano sounds, for instance.
Those audiophiles who love acoustic music no doubt have experiences
listening to live acoustic music, so I don't understand the belief among
certain people that only musicians/conductors are familiar with the
sound of acoustic music.

I think it's more that some of us who have had our hearing exercised
and changed over time are acutely aware that there isn't just one thing
that constitutes "how a piano sounds." What a person hears depends on
experience, attitude, interests, and training. And (as Bob and others
have suggested) what do we mean, anyway, by a recording "sounding like"
the real thing? Any two things are alike in infinitely many ways, and
different in infinitely many ways. Which ways are relevant here? This
is, to some extent, a matter for decision rather than discovery. Me,
personally, I would go for respects of similarity that seem relevant to
a person with good ears for live music, all else being equal ...

Mark

Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

Very clever, but by the same reasoning the ability to read Russian is
not a qualification for reading War and Peace in the original, since
there is a diversity of critical opinion among such readers.


Your analogy is seriously wrong: it's nowhere close to being the same
reasoning.

You, as a non-musician/non-conductor, are absolutely qualified to judge
which one of two pieces of gear sounds closer to "that live acoustic
instrument sound". All you need is enough experience with audio
equipment and knowledge of how to make meaningful comparisons, plus some
memory of how real instruments sound like (ignoring the massive changes
to the sound in the recording/mastering processes which are much bigger
than those from competent electronics, for the sake of this discussion).
Memory of real instruments' sound can be obtained through
concert/retical attendance easily. You don't need to be a professional
musician/conductor to have a reliable memory of how instruments sound to
you.

But what justifies this claim, that I am "absolutely qualified" to do
this? That this is all I need? Is everyone equally qualified to make
"meaningful comparisons"? What things are most relevant or
"meaningful" to compare, anyway? Why shouldn't differences in
perceptual skills be relevant? And is the way instruments sound to
*me*, at this moment, necessarily the best standard? I may be
interested in others' judgments with the purpose of helping me educate
my ears.


OTOH, if you do not read Russian, then you cannot read War and Peace in
the original. See the big difference, and therefore your faulty analogy?

It's not my fault that, if your argument were valid, then it would
equally well imply that absurd conclusion.


And *I* get accused (by others) of sophistry!

And do you understand why?

I do not claim to have much understanding of their motives, and,
frankly, I'd like to keep it that way.

Mark

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?

No one, but...

I've argued before that I don't think "the sound of live music" works
as a meaningful reference--it's too indeterminate, and our sense of it
is compromised by perceptual "noise," aesthetic judgments, etc.

I understand your point, but I disagree (of course!):-) Allow me to
clarify my position on this a bit in a different way than before. I
agree that under the umbrella of "live acoustic music" there are a great
many variations. That's a given. But as in every other subjective
aspect of life, there are aspect to the sound of music that cross these
variations. Let me try this metaphor: there are many different shades
of blue, but they are all blue. One cannot look at orange and say that
color is blue. When I hear the timbres of voices or instruments being
screwed up by a poor recording or a piece of gear, it's like telling me
that something is blue when I know darned well that it's really orange.
I could tell that it's orange in this light or that light, when I'm
sleepy or wide awake, if it has the smallest speck of blue mixed in, or
if I wake up dead drunk on a desert island; the darned thing is simply
orange, not blue. One can, in other words, tell that it's orange under
a whole variety of conditions. That's what it's like in music, for me.


Well put. What you're describing is constancy under different
perspectival conditions, which is one of the basic concepts of
psychology. Without it, we would not be able to recognize the same
object from different vantage points, under different lighting
conditions, etc.

Mark

Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

Very clever, but by the same reasoning the ability to read Russian is
not a qualification for reading War and Peace in the original, since
there is a diversity of critical opinion among such readers.


Your analogy is seriously wrong: it's nowhere close to being the same
reasoning.

You, as a non-musician/non-conductor, are absolutely qualified to judge
which one of two pieces of gear sounds closer to "that live acoustic
instrument sound". All you need is enough experience with audio
equipment and knowledge of how to make meaningful comparisons, plus some
memory of how real instruments sound like (ignoring the massive changes
to the sound in the recording/mastering processes which are much bigger
than those from competent electronics, for the sake of this discussion).
Memory of real instruments' sound can be obtained through
concert/retical attendance easily. You don't need to be a professional
musician/conductor to have a reliable memory of how instruments sound to
you.

But what justifies this claim, that I am "absolutely qualified" to do
this?

I thought I explained in that paragraph. Because you also know how live
instruments sound, and you can acquire the knowledge of how to make
comparisons.

That this is all I need? Is everyone equally qualified to make
"meaningful comparisons"?

With some training, yes.

What things are most relevant or
"meaningful" to compare, anyway?

Make sure that you are really comparing the sounds of two pieces of
gear, and not affected by perceptual bias. Level-matching, blindness,
using music/tones that are revealing of differences, etc.

Why shouldn't differences in
perceptual skills be relevant?

Some skills are relevant, but they are skills that you do not have to be
musicians/conductors to acquire. At the end of the day, you are making a
comparsion for yourself.

And is the way instruments sound to
*me*, at this moment, necessarily the best standard?

For you yourself, at this moment, yes.

I may be
interested in others' judgments with the purpose of helping me educate
my ears.

Sure, ask your friends who are knowledgeable in music and in audio to
help you out.



OTOH, if you do not read Russian, then you cannot read War and Peace in
the original. See the big difference, and therefore your faulty analogy?

It's not my fault that, if your argument were valid, then it would
equally well imply that absurd conclusion.

If you need to bring in a wrong analogy to claim that my argument is
absurd, then you simply have failed to make any valid point, other than
the fact that you have made a logic mistake.



And *I* get accused (by others) of sophistry!

And do you understand why?

I do not claim to have much understanding of their motives, and,
frankly, I'd like to keep it that way.

You don't need to understand their motives, just the basis for such
accusation: your arguments are convoluted, and you draw the wrong
conclusions.


Mark

Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:

Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly
vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no
way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should
trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's,
since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live
music to us. Simple logic, eh?

Very clever, but by the same reasoning the ability to read Russian is
not a qualification for reading War and Peace in the original, since
there is a diversity of critical opinion among such readers.


Your analogy is seriously wrong: it's nowhere close to being the same
reasoning.

You, as a non-musician/non-conductor, are absolutely qualified to judge
which one of two pieces of gear sounds closer to "that live acoustic
instrument sound". All you need is enough experience with audio
equipment and knowledge of how to make meaningful comparisons, plus some
memory of how real instruments sound like (ignoring the massive changes
to the sound in the recording/mastering processes which are much bigger
than those from competent electronics, for the sake of this discussion).
Memory of real instruments' sound can be obtained through
concert/retical attendance easily. You don't need to be a professional
musician/conductor to have a reliable memory of how instruments sound to
you.

But what justifies this claim, that I am "absolutely qualified" to do
this?

...

Why shouldn't differences in
perceptual skills be relevant?

Some skills are relevant, but they are skills that you do not have to be
musicians/conductors to acquire.

That's your assertion, but I don't see the slightest reason for drawing
the line where you do.

At the end of the day, you are making a
comparsion for yourself.

And is the way instruments sound to
*me*, at this moment, necessarily the best standard?

For you yourself, at this moment, yes.

There we disagree. Critics have a role in shaping our tastes because
they point out things that we did not recognize as significant, but
come to recognize as being so. And they help us learn what to listen
*for*.


I may be
interested in others' judgments with the purpose of helping me educate
my ears.

Sure, ask your friends who are knowledgeable in music and in audio to
help you out.

Right; but the whole concept of their "helping" me would be absurd if
what you say above were true.




OTOH, if you do not read Russian, then you cannot read War and Peace in
the original. See the big difference, and therefore your faulty analogy?

It's not my fault that, if your argument were valid, then it would
equally well imply that absurd conclusion.

If you need to bring in a wrong analogy to claim that my argument is
absurd, then you simply have failed to make any valid point, other than
the fact that you have made a logic mistake.

Your argument, basically, is that if "experts" supposedly qualified in
a certain way should disagree, then their supposed qualification is no
qualification at all. Obviously that's false: doctors disagree over
diagnoses; readers disagree over critical evaluations. I was not
making an analogy, but showing the absurdity of your argument by
applying it to another instance. If you think your conclusion follows
about HvK and Jenn but not in other instances, then it relies on
further assumptions that you have not taken care to spell out.




And *I* get accused (by others) of sophistry!

And do you understand why?

I do not claim to have much understanding of their motives, and,
frankly, I'd like to keep it that way.

You don't need to understand their motives, just the basis for such
accusation: your arguments are convoluted, and you draw the wrong
conclusions.


Yes, apparently I make "something that is simple so hard to
understand."[1]

Mark

[1]Chung, Aug, 19, Message-ID:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:


And is the way instruments sound to
*me*, at this moment, necessarily the best standard?

For you yourself, at this moment, yes.

There we disagree. Critics have a role in shaping our tastes because
they point out things that we did not recognize as significant, but
come to recognize as being so. And they help us learn what to listen
*for*.

Exactly. I've mentioned the same thing. Even if experts disagree, their
perceptions are generally deeper, broader, more nuanced, and built on
higher-level abstract concepts. Which makes them useful as guides.

It also makes them useful in an investigation of the properties of
different modes of reproduction. If an expert such as Jenn happens to
find analog more authentic, I think that is good reason to investigate
the possibility that analog better reproduces those abstract patterns
on which her recognition is based.

Certainly the analog distortion mechanisms advanced by Chung, for
example, don't fit what "analog-philes" perceive. For one thing, they
are all monolithic, superficial (non-abstract) qualities. There are
many observations which Chung's proposed mechanisms don't fit, but just
for one, I find that listening to analog helps me follow the inner
voices better. The counterpoint is clearer.. just as it is in live
music.



I may be
interested in others' judgments with the purpose of helping me educate
my ears.

Sure, ask your friends who are knowledgeable in music and in audio to
help you out.

Right; but the whole concept of their "helping" me would be absurd if
what you say above were true.




OTOH, if you do not read Russian, then you cannot read War and Peace in
the original. See the big difference, and therefore your faulty analogy?

It's not my fault that, if your argument were valid, then it would
equally well imply that absurd conclusion.

If you need to bring in a wrong analogy to claim that my argument is
absurd, then you simply have failed to make any valid point, other than
the fact that you have made a logic mistake.

Your argument, basically, is that if "experts" supposedly qualified in
a certain way should disagree, then their supposed qualification is no
qualification at all. Obviously that's false: doctors disagree over
diagnoses; readers disagree over critical evaluations.

And just because a pattern in the world is abstract to the point where
it can't be precisely defined, doesn't mean it's not real. For example,
musical styles. It takes an expert to categorize a just-discovered
piece of unknown origin into a music style. This expert would not be
able to explain his process to someone with no musical understanding.

Mike

Mark DeBellis wrote:

There we disagree. Critics have a role in shaping our tastes because
they point out things that we did not recognize as significant, but
come to recognize as being so. And they help us learn what to listen
*for*.

Well, they might help us, but we should be careful about putting too
much stock in one (or even mroe than one) critic's opinion. We should
also look carefully at the basis for that critic's opinion--Did he
actually see the movie, or did he just read a synopsis? That sounds
silly, of course, but consider an analogy: Did he listen to the
component he is reviewing in a way that will reveal the true sonic
nature of the component, independent of any bias on his part? Or did he
listen to it in a way that did not allow him (or us) to separate out
the true sonic nature of the component from his own subconscious
imaginings about it?

snip

Your argument, basically, is that if "experts" supposedly qualified in
a certain way should disagree, then their supposed qualification is no
qualification at all. Obviously that's false: doctors disagree over
diagnoses;

Sure, but if doctors' diagnoses of a particular ailment were all over
the map, that would be evidence that doctors really don't know how to
diagnose this ailment, despite their many years of day-to-day
experience diagnosing ailments.

Do we have evidence that the music profession is converging on a
judgment that analog is more accurate to live acoustic music than
digital? No, we do not. Hence, appeals to expertise on this question
will not help us.

Here's a question that might shed some light: When conservatories and
university music departments have a choice between using an LP version
of a recording and a CD, which do they generally use? CD is more
convenient, but I took Music 101 back in the analog age, and the prof
managed just fine. Surely if LP really were superior in sound, you'd
see a fairly high level of LP use in music instruction and training. Do
you?

Or do they all use iPods now? I can think of one lecturer who plans to.

bob

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Gentlemen, this has grown tiresome and dull. Let me bow out somewhat
gracefully by reminding everyone how this discussion started many weeks
ago: I stated that there are qualities exhibited many samples of LP
playback that remind me of live acoustic music that I've never heard on
CD. I was basically told that this is impossible, and my preference
MUST be due to:
level mismatch
sighted listening
euphonic effects
defective speaker placement
nostalgia

In each case, I've shown that in spite of the possible effects of the
above, my judgments are consistent.

I understand what you are saying; you are talking about judgments
regarding the nature of abstract properties of the sound in a variety
of contexts.

You might take note that these "effects" provided by the objectivists
are observed largely in time-proximate, short exposure listening. The
objectivists haven't provided any data about long-term, evaluative
listening for abstract attributes. You intuitively know their arguments
don't address your experience or your point; I myself know a few things
about signal processing and psychology, and I can tell you that these
facts are consistent with your experience.

I brought up my constant exposure
to live music to show that I do indeed have intimate knowledge of the
sound of music; much more than so than the average home listener.
Experience seems to matter in making judgments, except in audio matters.
The contortions that have been presented to me to "disprove" the value
of my training and experience have been both revealing and humorous.

Even though these arguments are often about "facts" and "evidence" and
so on, it's obvious that Chung/Stewart/Bob/etc have a different way of
relating to music than you do. Someone like Bob who tries to run
circles around the notion of live music and its inherent attributes by
invoking logic and "empiricism"[*] is clearly coming from a radically
different perspective. I would say it's left-brain
listening---listening analytically rather than fully involving the body
and the emotions. Concepts which are obvious to you, coming out of a
lifetime of direct involvement with music, are foreign to him. It's
like trying to explain Latin to someone who thinks it is gibberish and
refuses to accept that it takes on meaning once you get to know it.
[*] Date: 13 Nov 2005 00:31:05 GMT
Local: Sat, Nov 12 2005 4:31 pm
Subject: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense

"I don't answer it because it cannot be answered. You are trying to
make
an empirical statement: "Trained musicians are better than
non-musicians at doing X." But the most basic requirement of an
empirical statement is that it be testable. Your statement isn't
testable, because you cannot define in any independent way what X is."

"bob" wrote in message
...
Mark DeBellis wrote:

There we disagree. Critics have a role in shaping our tastes because
they point out things that we did not recognize as significant, but
come to recognize as being so. And they help us learn what to listen
*for*.

Well, they might help us, but we should be careful about putting too
much stock in one (or even mroe than one) critic's opinion. We should
also look carefully at the basis for that critic's opinion--Did he
actually see the movie, or did he just read a synopsis? That sounds
silly, of course, but consider an analogy: Did he listen to the
component he is reviewing in a way that will reveal the true sonic
nature of the component, independent of any bias on his part? Or did he
listen to it in a way that did not allow him (or us) to separate out
the true sonic nature of the component from his own subconscious
imaginings about it?

snip

Your argument, basically, is that if "experts" supposedly qualified in
a certain way should disagree, then their supposed qualification is no
qualification at all. Obviously that's false: doctors disagree over
diagnoses;

Sure, but if doctors' diagnoses of a particular ailment were all over
the map, that would be evidence that doctors really don't know how to
diagnose this ailment, despite their many years of day-to-day
experience diagnosing ailments.

Do we have evidence that the music profession is converging on a
judgment that analog is more accurate to live acoustic music than
digital? No, we do not. Hence, appeals to expertise on this question
will not help us.

Here's a question that might shed some light: When conservatories and
university music departments have a choice between using an LP version
of a recording and a CD, which do they generally use? CD is more
convenient, but I took Music 101 back in the analog age, and the prof
managed just fine. Surely if LP really were superior in sound, you'd
see a fairly high level of LP use in music instruction and training. Do
you?

Or do they all use iPods now? I can think of one lecturer who plans to.

At the Oberlin Conservatory library, every study station is equiped with a
phonograph as well as a cd player, amplifier, and headphones. Equal
opportunity listening. For those who don't know, the Oberlin Conservatory
of Music is the country's leading undergraduate conservatory for classical
musicians, and an up and coming one for jazz musicians. Plus it spins off a
pop star or two on occasion, such as Aimee Mann. It also was the first
place to have jazz musicians perform on stage, and started the "Jazz Goes to
College" craze of the fifties. Brubeck's Fantasy "Jazz Goes to Oberlin" is
the classic release of this series.

In article , "bob"
wrote:

snip
Or do they all use iPods now? I can think of one lecturer who plans to.

bob

If you're referring to my comment, the iPod will be used for the sake of
its convenience.