In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In
music however, for me, the sound of live acoustic music, even with its
differences, is so recognizable as to provide a standard. And, it's
quite easy to tell which audio gear approaches that standard.
It is when you know what's playing. But if you try to do this blind
(and level-matched), you will find that your judgments are, in many
cases, quite inconsistent and unreliable.

I'd love to know what my biases are, if any.

We can't answer that question. All we can do is show that you have them--and
tell you how to limit their influence over your perceptions.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/o...ave/direct/01/

Bob Marcus wrote:
In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In
music however, for me, the sound of live acoustic music, even with its
differences, is so recognizable as to provide a standard. And, it's
quite easy to tell which audio gear approaches that standard.
It is when you know what's playing. But if you try to do this blind
(and level-matched), you will find that your judgments are, in many
cases, quite inconsistent and unreliable.

I'd love to know what my biases are, if any.

We can't answer that question. All we can do is show that you have them--and
tell you how to limit their influence over your perceptions.

...and that won't be by saying to yourself 'now that I know I am subject
to typical psychological biases, I can avoid them just by reminding myself
to avoid them."

If it were that easy, scientists wouldn't bother with blind controls.
And orchestra auditions wouldn't be done blind either.




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

In article ,
"Bob Marcus" wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In
music however, for me, the sound of live acoustic music, even with its
differences, is so recognizable as to provide a standard. And, it's
quite easy to tell which audio gear approaches that standard.
It is when you know what's playing. But if you try to do this blind
(and level-matched), you will find that your judgments are, in many
cases, quite inconsistent and unreliable.

I'd love to know what my biases are, if any.

We can't answer that question. All we can do is show that you have them--and
tell you how to limit their influence over your perceptions.

Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

When you interpret a piece for performance, don't you lean in certain
directions?, Sharper attacks, longer or shorter pauses, softer, louder, etc.
etc. If you don't do that you must be fearful of performing pieces in a
standard, e.g.. middle European fashion, i.e. boring. Don't you listen to
recordings by other conductors to learn from them, do what they do, avoid
what they do? In short, I DO NOT trust your ears!

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

While I really am trying to drop this thread (I admit weakness!), this
is principally about music, so I'll give it a go:

When you interpret a piece for performance, don't you lean in certain
directions?, Sharper attacks, longer or shorter pauses, softer, louder, etc.
etc.

It's up to the score and what my study of it tells me to do, based on
historical style, composer, etc.

If you don't do that you must be fearful of performing pieces in a
standard, e.g.. middle European fashion, i.e. boring.

No, that doesn't follow. If I don't interpret, I'm not doing my job as
a musician, and, with very rare exception, I'm not doing what the
composer expects me to do. I don't see your point.

Don't you listen to
recordings by other conductors to learn from them, do what they do, avoid
what they do?

Now that's an interesting question. When I was younger, yes, I did
listen to recordings to learn from others. And actually I still do at
times. But I don't listen to a recording to learn a work. I might
listen to a conductor's work AFTER I've studied the score throughly and
formed MY opinion of the interpretation. But it's important to form MY
interpretation before I do that. Otherwise, I would end up just
regurgitating another person's work, and that's not what I'm paid to do.
For a more complete discussion of this see Erich Leinsdorf: "The
Composer's Advocate". Actually, this would be interesting reading for
anyone here interested in what conductors do.

In short, I DO NOT trust your ears!

Sorry; I'm sure that I'm being slow, but I don't follow your reasoning.

Jenn wrote:
Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

We don't have to know exactly what your biases are in order to know
that you have them. When you listen to two things that are exactly
identical, and report that they sound different to you, clearly some
bias or other is at work--it's all that higher brain processing
influencing your lower brain processing, as discussed on another
thread.

By extension, when you listen to two things that are not quite
identical, and they sound different when you know what they are but you
can't tell them apart when their identities are hidden from you, we can
infer that, again, some bias mechanism is responsible for your sighted
impression. We don't know whether you're influenced by price tags,
fancy faceplates, reviews, smooth-talking salesmen, brand reputations,
sunspots, whatever. But it's something.

In an absolute sense, you can't completely trust your ears--ever. Those
mechanisms are always at work. (Yes, even when you're
conducting--hence the need for blind auditions.) On a practical level,
it would be impossible to audition everything blind if you are not Sean
Olive. So each consumer must decide for herself how much trouble she's
willing to endure in her listening comparisons. There's nothing wrong
with that consumer saying, "I'm not going to endure any!" But if that's
the way she chooses to go, then she can't use her experience to
support a claim that "some CD players are better than others at
conveying the true sound of music."

Bias, by the way, isn't the only thing that foils subjectivist
comparisons. There's also levels. Those CD players you listened to may
really have sounded different, but only because one was playing
(imperceptibly) louder than the other. Again, that hardly constitutes
evidence that they are different. But we can't expect consumers to
bring their voltmeters to the audio salon when they want to audition
components.

bob

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:



In short, I DO NOT trust your ears!

Sorry; I'm sure that I'm being slow, but I don't follow your reasoning.

When you listen to, judge audio/audio equipment as a conductor you are
imprinted with certain information. Audio and audio systems which follow the
line of that imprint is good, if it does not, it is poor. Someone without
any biases, thoughts, expectations on how things ought to sound is not
influenced by any sound patterns imprinted in their cerebrum.
Generally speaking it is often said that Bernstein, van Karajan, Stokowski
influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way. Sorry, as a
conductor, again, I do not trust your ears.

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

We don't have to know exactly what your biases are in order to know
that you have them. When you listen to two things that are exactly
identical, and report that they sound different to you,

When has that happened?

clearly some
bias or other is at work--it's all that higher brain processing
influencing your lower brain processing, as discussed on another
thread.

By extension, when you listen to two things that are not quite
identical, and they sound different when you know what they are but you
can't tell them apart when their identities are hidden from you, we can
infer that, again, some bias mechanism is responsible for your sighted
impression. We don't know whether you're influenced by price tags,
fancy faceplates, reviews, smooth-talking salesmen, brand reputations,
sunspots, whatever. But it's something.

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

In an absolute sense, you can't completely trust your ears--ever. Those
mechanisms are always at work. (Yes, even when you're
conducting--hence the need for blind auditions.)

Well, actually, one doesn't conduct during auditions. Also, blind
auditions are done to eliminate the claim of discrimination based on
gender, race, etc. Unions demand this in collective bargaining
agreements. It's NOT done in order to better determine which musician
is sounding better. On a conducting level, all adjustments in rehearsal
are done "sighted" of course.

On a practical level,
it would be impossible to audition everything blind if you are not Sean
Olive. So each consumer must decide for herself how much trouble she's
willing to endure in her listening comparisons. There's nothing wrong
with that consumer saying, "I'm not going to endure any!" But if that's
the way she chooses to go, then she can't use her experience to
support a claim that "some CD players are better than others at
conveying the true sound of music."

I understand your thinking here, but as you state, on a practical level,
there is only so much that can be done during auditioning equipment to
provide blind conditions. Therefore, the vast majority of that activity
must be done "sighted". Since that is true, it's logical to use one's
experience in listening to do the best one can. Again, if one is
testing for which artificial sweetener tastes most like sugar, it makes
sense to use a tester who best knows the taste of sugar.

Bias, by the way, isn't the only thing that foils subjectivist
comparisons. There's also levels. Those CD players you listened to may
really have sounded different, but only because one was playing
(imperceptibly) louder than the other. Again, that hardly constitutes
evidence that they are different. But we can't expect consumers to
bring their voltmeters to the audio salon when they want to audition
components.

Exactly.

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:



In short, I DO NOT trust your ears!

Sorry; I'm sure that I'm being slow, but I don't follow your reasoning.

When you listen to, judge audio/audio equipment as a conductor you are
imprinted with certain information. Audio and audio systems which follow the
line of that imprint is good, if it does not, it is poor.

Yes, I'm "imprinted" with the sound of real instruments.

Someone without
any biases, thoughts, expectations on how things ought to sound is not
influenced by any sound patterns imprinted in their cerebrum.

Such a person exists?

Generally speaking it is often said that Bernstein, van Karajan, Stokowski
influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way. Sorry, as a
conductor, again, I do not trust your ears.

It is "often said" by whom? Could you provide a reference?

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

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

How many times have you tried? I usually get different results when I run a
blind test. Perhaps our definitions of "blind" are different.

Norm

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

We don't have to know exactly what your biases are in order to know
that you have them. When you listen to two things that are exactly
identical, and report that they sound different to you,

When has that happened?

Happens all the time. "You" is meant hypothetically here, but you
personally could easily demonstrate it for/on yourself. Do a
same-different test (i.e., listen to two presentations, and decide
whether they are the same or different). You'll find yourself declaring
differences where none exist a high percentage of the time.

clearly some
bias or other is at work--it's all that higher brain processing
influencing your lower brain processing, as discussed on another
thread.

By extension, when you listen to two things that are not quite
identical, and they sound different when you know what they are but you
can't tell them apart when their identities are hidden from you, we can
infer that, again, some bias mechanism is responsible for your sighted
impression. We don't know whether you're influenced by price tags,
fancy faceplates, reviews, smooth-talking salesmen, brand reputations,
sunspots, whatever. But it's something.

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

That's because you've never done blind tests.

In an absolute sense, you can't completely trust your ears--ever. Those
mechanisms are always at work. (Yes, even when you're
conducting--hence the need for blind auditions.)

Well, actually, one doesn't conduct during auditions. Also, blind
auditions are done to eliminate the claim of discrimination based on
gender, race, etc. Unions demand this in collective bargaining
agreements. It's NOT done in order to better determine which musician
is sounding better. On a conducting level, all adjustments in rehearsal
are done "sighted" of course.

And all this time I've taken you seriously! Blind auditions are done
because music directors think white male musicians are better before
they even play a note. That's not just my opinion. There's solid
research on the subject. Blind auditions are indeed better at
determining which musician is superior, precisely because sighted
auditions discriminate against women and minorities who really are
better but never got jobs in orchestras before blind auditioning came
along because too many conductors are racist and/or sexist. You should
be ashamed of yourself for not knowing this.

On a practical level,
it would be impossible to audition everything blind if you are not Sean
Olive. So each consumer must decide for herself how much trouble she's
willing to endure in her listening comparisons. There's nothing wrong
with that consumer saying, "I'm not going to endure any!" But if that's
the way she chooses to go, then she can't use her experience to
support a claim that "some CD players are better than others at
conveying the true sound of music."

I understand your thinking here, but as you state, on a practical level,
there is only so much that can be done during auditioning equipment to
provide blind conditions. Therefore, the vast majority of that activity
must be done "sighted". Since that is true, it's logical to use one's
experience in listening to do the best one can. Again, if one is
testing for which artificial sweetener tastes most like sugar, it makes
sense to use a tester who best knows the taste of sugar.

And what if your supposed expert in the taste of sugar is really just
dazzled by fancy packaging?

bob

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Great, I'm all for that. However, the presumption by some seems to be
that these unknown biases affect my judgement in some way. Since we
can't know what my biases are, what is the point, exactly? If the point
is to test blindly as much as is possible as a consumer, I can go with
that. If the point is that my ears are summarily not to be trusted, I
would disagree.

We don't have to know exactly what your biases are in order to know
that you have them. When you listen to two things that are exactly
identical, and report that they sound different to you,

When has that happened?

Happens all the time. "You" is meant hypothetically here

I see.

, but you
personally could easily demonstrate it for/on yourself. Do a
same-different test (i.e., listen to two presentations, and decide
whether they are the same or different). You'll find yourself declaring
differences where none exist a high percentage of the time.

I've done a bit of this with friends, and I do well on front ends,
digital and analogue.

clearly some
bias or other is at work--it's all that higher brain processing
influencing your lower brain processing, as discussed on another
thread.

By extension, when you listen to two things that are not quite
identical, and they sound different when you know what they are but you
can't tell them apart when their identities are hidden from you, we can
infer that, again, some bias mechanism is responsible for your sighted
impression. We don't know whether you're influenced by price tags,
fancy faceplates, reviews, smooth-talking salesmen, brand reputations,
sunspots, whatever. But it's something.

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

In an absolute sense, you can't completely trust your ears--ever. Those
mechanisms are always at work. (Yes, even when you're
conducting--hence the need for blind auditions.)

Well, actually, one doesn't conduct during auditions. Also, blind
auditions are done to eliminate the claim of discrimination based on
gender, race, etc. Unions demand this in collective bargaining
agreements. It's NOT done in order to better determine which musician
is sounding better. On a conducting level, all adjustments in rehearsal
are done "sighted" of course.

And all this time I've taken you seriously! Blind auditions are done
because music directors think white male musicians are better before
they even play a note. That's not just my opinion. There's solid
research on the subject. Blind auditions are indeed better at
determining which musician is superior, precisely because sighted
auditions discriminate against women and minorities who really are
better but never got jobs in orchestras before blind auditioning came
along because too many conductors are racist and/or sexist. You should
be ashamed of yourself for not knowing this.

If you look at my paragraph above, I state that orchestras have blind
auditions to counter the claim of discrimination on the basis of, among
other things, RACE and GENDER. While it is undeniable that there has
always been bias on the basis of those things (believe me, I know), that
wasn't the reason that blind auditions started. They started because
music directors and principal chair players would chose new section
players based on an "old boy's network" of who is friends with who, who
is a favorite student of who, etc. You're conversing with someone who
has taken part in such auditions as a player, as a music director, and
as a committee member. You're also conversing with someone who is a
female conductor (still rare in professional circles; if you're of above
average knowledge you MIGHT be able to name TWO in the whole world), and
a person whose principal orchestral instrument is trombone (still rare
in professional circles.) So I have a bit of experience in this area,
Bob. This is not at all the same as "sighted auditions" in the way that
the term is used in audio.

On a practical level,
it would be impossible to audition everything blind if you are not Sean
Olive. So each consumer must decide for herself how much trouble she's
willing to endure in her listening comparisons. There's nothing wrong
with that consumer saying, "I'm not going to endure any!" But if that's
the way she chooses to go, then she can't use her experience to
support a claim that "some CD players are better than others at
conveying the true sound of music."

I understand your thinking here, but as you state, on a practical level,
there is only so much that can be done during auditioning equipment to
provide blind conditions. Therefore, the vast majority of that activity
must be done "sighted". Since that is true, it's logical to use one's
experience in listening to do the best one can. Again, if one is
testing for which artificial sweetener tastes most like sugar, it makes
sense to use a tester who best knows the taste of sugar.

And what if your supposed expert in the taste of sugar is really just
dazzled by fancy packaging?

You test blind, if practical, to determine that. I've not argued
against that. I've only pointed out that in matters audio, it's usually
not practical when shopping. With the person most familiar with the
taste of sugar, you stand a better chance of getting a true result,
obviously.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

Generally speaking it is often said that Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski
influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way. Sorry, as
a
conductor, again, I do not trust your ears.

It is "often said" by whom? Could you provide a reference?

IIRC Lenny asked the Columbia engineers to goose up the violins in certain
of their Haydn symphony recordings with the New York Philharmonic. I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If I can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

Generally speaking it is often said that Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski
influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way. Sorry, as
a
conductor, again, I do not trust your ears.

It is "often said" by whom? Could you provide a reference?

IIRC Lenny asked the Columbia engineers to goose up the violins in certain
of their Haydn symphony recordings with the New York Philharmonic.

So? That in no way shows that Generally speaking it is often said
that "Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way."

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If I can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

Jenn wrote:
, but you
personally could easily demonstrate it for/on yourself. Do a
same-different test (i.e., listen to two presentations, and decide
whether they are the same or different). You'll find yourself declaring
differences where none exist a high percentage of the time.

I've done a bit of this with friends, and I do well on front ends,
digital and analogue.

For analog, that's not so surprising. The last time you did it
comparing two CD players, how many trials did you do, and how many did
you get right? And you level-matched with a voltmeter, right?

clearly some
bias or other is at work--it's all that higher brain processing
influencing your lower brain processing, as discussed on another
thread.

By extension, when you listen to two things that are not quite
identical, and they sound different when you know what they are but you
can't tell them apart when their identities are hidden from you, we can
infer that, again, some bias mechanism is responsible for your sighted
impression. We don't know whether you're influenced by price tags,
fancy faceplates, reviews, smooth-talking salesmen, brand reputations,
sunspots, whatever. But it's something.

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never
cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you
obviously haven't enjoyed yet.

In an absolute sense, you can't completely trust your ears--ever. Those
mechanisms are always at work. (Yes, even when you're
conducting--hence the need for blind auditions.)

Well, actually, one doesn't conduct during auditions. Also, blind
auditions are done to eliminate the claim of discrimination based on
gender, race, etc. Unions demand this in collective bargaining
agreements. It's NOT done in order to better determine which musician
is sounding better. On a conducting level, all adjustments in rehearsal
are done "sighted" of course.

And all this time I've taken you seriously! Blind auditions are done
because music directors think white male musicians are better before
they even play a note. That's not just my opinion. There's solid
research on the subject. Blind auditions are indeed better at
determining which musician is superior, precisely because sighted
auditions discriminate against women and minorities who really are
better but never got jobs in orchestras before blind auditioning came
along because too many conductors are racist and/or sexist. You should
be ashamed of yourself for not knowing this.

If you look at my paragraph above, I state that orchestras have blind
auditions to counter the claim of discrimination on the basis of, among
other things, RACE and GENDER. While it is undeniable that there has
always been bias on the basis of those things (believe me, I know), that
wasn't the reason that blind auditions started. They started because
music directors and principal chair players would chose new section
players based on an "old boy's network" of who is friends with who, who
is a favorite student of who, etc. You're conversing with someone who
has taken part in such auditions as a player, as a music director, and
as a committee member. You're also conversing with someone who is a
female conductor (still rare in professional circles; if you're of above
average knowledge you MIGHT be able to name TWO in the whole world), and
a person whose principal orchestral instrument is trombone (still rare
in professional circles.) So I have a bit of experience in this area,
Bob. This is not at all the same as "sighted auditions" in the way that
the term is used in audio.

Actually it's very much the same: It's evidence that people--even the
most highly trained people in the world--cannot help but be influenced
by non-sonic factors when making judgments about something directly
related to their musical training. So how much credence should we put
in their sighted judgments on a question--what sounds most like "live"
music?--that they have no specific training for? Not much. And how much
credence should we put in their sighted judgments about gear which no
one has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish? None at all.

bob

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

Generally speaking it is often said that Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski
influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way. Sorry, as
a
conductor, again, I do not trust your ears.

It is "often said" by whom? Could you provide a reference?

IIRC Lenny asked the Columbia engineers to goose up the violins in certain
of their Haydn symphony recordings with the New York Philharmonic.

So? That in no way shows that Generally speaking it is often said
that "Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way."

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If I can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe? Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

Generally speaking it is often said that Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski
influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way. Sorry, as
a
conductor, again, I do not trust your ears.

It is "often said" by whom? Could you provide a reference?

IIRC Lenny asked the Columbia engineers to goose up the violins in certain
of their Haydn symphony recordings with the New York Philharmonic.

So? That in no way shows that Generally speaking it is often said
that "Bernstein, van Karajan,
Stokowski influenced the final result, equalizations, etc. in a BAD way."

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If I can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

At what point in his career? In the sixties or when he turned to a
complete hack?


Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

Yes you are. I would make no such assumption about him late in his
career. i wouldn't even asume he was trying to do good performances.
It's hard to believe that someone who was once as good as he was would
become as bad as he did later in his career by accident.




In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.


No one is asking you to trust anyone else's ears other than your own.
Whose ears do you trust other than your own for purchasing decisions?



Scott

In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other. I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings. Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right? Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
, but you
personally could easily demonstrate it for/on yourself. Do a
same-different test (i.e., listen to two presentations, and decide
whether they are the same or different). You'll find yourself declaring
differences where none exist a high percentage of the time.

I've done a bit of this with friends, and I do well on front ends,
digital and analogue.

For analog, that's not so surprising.

I agree.

The last time you did it
comparing two CD players, how many trials did you do,

I don't know, perhaps 5 or so.

and how many did
you get right?

4 or 5, as I recall.

And you level-matched with a voltmeter, right?

No, we did it as closely as possible with a dB meter. Again, in terms
of practical reality when shopping, this is about the best that can be
expected.
snip

That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never
cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you
obviously haven't enjoyed yet.

Here we go again with the "cocky" attribution that you and other like to
assign to me. I honestly don't know where this comes from, but I find
it to be a bit humorous, frankly. I say once AGAIN: I've NEVER claimed
to have better hearing than anyone else. Heck, for all I know, your
hearing measures better than mine. What I'm claiming is daily
professional experience in listening, and serious years-long training in
the sound of instruments. This is not being "cocky." This is simply
stating a fact. What do you do for a living? Let's say that you're a
construction contractor. You could rightfully claim that you would then
have a greater understanding of construction techniques, building codes,
etc. than I am likely to have. That wouldn't be "cocky" of you; it's
simply recognizing your training and experience.

snip

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

Call it a lucky guess.

I think it would be more accurate to call it an unlucky guess since you
were wrong. I don't think luck had anything to do with it though. I
think it was bias effects.


Scott

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:


That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never
cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you
obviously haven't enjoyed yet.

Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost
nothing about music-making asserting things about what goes one in the
minds of musicians.


Here we go again with the "cocky" attribution that you and other like to
assign to me. I honestly don't know where this comes from, but I find
it to be a bit humorous, frankly. I say once AGAIN: I've NEVER claimed
to have better hearing than anyone else. Heck, for all I know, your
hearing measures better than mine.

It's pretty typical for an objectivist to reduce hearing ability to
some kind of scale, some kind of number. Ignoring that hearing music is
largely about perceiving abstract, diffuse, complex patterns in the
sound. This is one reason they persist in the absurd belief that
quick-switching is revealing of musical differences between equipment,
because they assume (without ever examing the key questions) that all
differences are perceivable in short segments.

What I'm claiming is daily
professional experience in listening, and serious years-long training in
the sound of instruments.

It's hardly worth arguing with these guys. They know nothing about
music-making and they are attempting to butt heads with someone who has
trained her whole life.

Mike

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:
, but you
personally could easily demonstrate it for/on yourself. Do a
same-different test (i.e., listen to two presentations, and decide
whether they are the same or different). You'll find yourself declaring
differences where none exist a high percentage of the time.

I've done a bit of this with friends, and I do well on front ends,
digital and analogue.

For analog, that's not so surprising. The last time you did it
comparing two CD players, how many trials did you do, and how many did
you get right? And you level-matched with a voltmeter, right?

clearly some
bias or other is at work--it's all that higher brain processing
influencing your lower brain processing, as discussed on another
thread.

By extension, when you listen to two things that are not quite
identical, and they sound different when you know what they are but you
can't tell them apart when their identities are hidden from you, we can
infer that, again, some bias mechanism is responsible for your sighted
impression. We don't know whether you're influenced by price tags,
fancy faceplates, reviews, smooth-talking salesmen, brand reputations,
sunspots, whatever. But it's something.

Again, when has that happened? I can't recall ever listening to
anything "blind" and also "sighted" where I had different results.

That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never
cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you
obviously haven't enjoyed yet.

As we've seen it was a wrong guess.. your cockiness is showing
brilliantly.


In an absolute sense, you can't completely trust your ears--ever. Those
mechanisms are always at work. (Yes, even when you're
conducting--hence the need for blind auditions.)

Well, actually, one doesn't conduct during auditions. Also, blind
auditions are done to eliminate the claim of discrimination based on
gender, race, etc. Unions demand this in collective bargaining
agreements. It's NOT done in order to better determine which musician
is sounding better. On a conducting level, all adjustments in rehearsal
are done "sighted" of course.

And all this time I've taken you seriously! Blind auditions are done
because music directors think white male musicians are better before
they even play a note. That's not just my opinion. There's solid
research on the subject. Blind auditions are indeed better at
determining which musician is superior, precisely because sighted
auditions discriminate against women and minorities who really are
better but never got jobs in orchestras before blind auditioning came
along because too many conductors are racist and/or sexist. You should
be ashamed of yourself for not knowing this.

If you look at my paragraph above, I state that orchestras have blind
auditions to counter the claim of discrimination on the basis of, among
other things, RACE and GENDER. While it is undeniable that there has
always been bias on the basis of those things (believe me, I know), that
wasn't the reason that blind auditions started. They started because
music directors and principal chair players would chose new section
players based on an "old boy's network" of who is friends with who, who
is a favorite student of who, etc. You're conversing with someone who
has taken part in such auditions as a player, as a music director, and
as a committee member. You're also conversing with someone who is a
female conductor (still rare in professional circles; if you're of above
average knowledge you MIGHT be able to name TWO in the whole world), and
a person whose principal orchestral instrument is trombone (still rare
in professional circles.) So I have a bit of experience in this area,
Bob. This is not at all the same as "sighted auditions" in the way that
the term is used in audio.

Basically, bob has a soundbite argument: "sighted observations are
biased." He thinks this is the central issue in literally everything,
and he's so cocky he's willing to try to outguess someone with vast
experience.


Actually it's very much the same: It's evidence that people--even the
most highly trained people in the world--cannot help but be influenced
by non-sonic factors when making judgments about something directly
related to their musical training. So how much credence should we put
in their sighted judgments on a question--what sounds most like "live"
music?--that they have no specific training for? Not much. And how much
credence should we put in their sighted judgments about gear which no
one has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish? None at all.

So, bob, tell me who in this world has formed a judgment about CD and
LP by blind listening alone? Who was born never having seen a CD player
or turntable, didn't know that ticks/pops would give away the
turntable.. then having listened only to live music, first sat down
before a blank screen and was played CD, then LP recordings of that
concert. Then all subsequent listening, over the span of hundreds of
recordings, was blind, so that a fair general assessment could be
performed?

You are arguing against the ability of anyone to make a judgment.

Note you are also suggesting that recording engineers can't do their
jobs properly without blind a/b comparisons of microphones, microphone
positions, monitor speakers, and so forth.

In the end, Jenn is right: we all must do the best we can under the
conditions, and the person with more experience of live music is in the
best position to make the judgment.

You selectively apply your argument to her simply because you don't
like the idea that she knows a heck of a lot more about music than you
do.

Mike

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.


Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that). You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
, but you
personally could easily demonstrate it for/on yourself. Do a
same-different test (i.e., listen to two presentations, and decide
whether they are the same or different). You'll find yourself declaring
differences where none exist a high percentage of the time.

I've done a bit of this with friends, and I do well on front ends,
digital and analogue.

For analog, that's not so surprising.

I agree.

The last time you did it
comparing two CD players, how many trials did you do,

I don't know, perhaps 5 or so.

and how many did
you get right?

4 or 5, as I recall.

And you level-matched with a voltmeter, right?

No, we did it as closely as possible with a dB meter. Again, in terms
of practical reality when shopping, this is about the best that can be
expected.
snip

Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported
in this message?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b

"Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago,
I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all
sounded unique to me."

wrote in message
...

It's pretty typical for an objectivist to reduce hearing ability to
some kind of scale, some kind of number. Ignoring that hearing music is
largely about perceiving abstract, diffuse, complex patterns in the
sound. This is one reason they persist in the absurd belief that
quick-switching is revealing of musical differences between equipment,
because they assume (without ever examing the key questions) that all
differences are perceivable in short segments.

I must agree with you. Quick switching may not be revealing of musical
differences in 2 presentations. The question is: Does it take longer to
make a decision in a blind comparison than it does sighted? If it does,
then we have to assume that non-sonic factors are influencing the signted
judgment. Isn't eliminating such non-sonic factors the purpose of blind
comparison?

The last question I would ask: Does a long listening period--sighted or
blind--give one enough information to then make it possible to differentiate
between components in a much shorter comparison? i.e. if you are throughly
familiar with the sound of 2 pieces of equipment, can you then tell them
apart blind?

Norm Strong

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that). You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you.

So far so good.


It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon.


Still OK

So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?


Good or bad is a matter of taste in this case. Just because the taste
of conductors may vary from one to another does not mean that their
ability to discern live music from playback is affected by their
personal tastes. Again, no one is aking you to trust the ears of a
conductor or any other person.



Scott

wrote:
wrote in message
...

It's pretty typical for an objectivist to reduce hearing ability to
some kind of scale, some kind of number. Ignoring that hearing music is
largely about perceiving abstract, diffuse, complex patterns in the
sound. This is one reason they persist in the absurd belief that
quick-switching is revealing of musical differences between equipment,
because they assume (without ever examing the key questions) that all
differences are perceivable in short segments.

I must agree with you. Quick switching may not be revealing of musical
differences in 2 presentations. The question is: Does it take longer to
make a decision in a blind comparison than it does sighted? If it does,
then we have to assume that non-sonic factors are influencing the signted
judgment. Isn't eliminating such non-sonic factors the purpose of blind
comparison?

The last question I would ask: Does a long listening period--sighted or
blind--give one enough information to then make it possible to differentiate
between components in a much shorter comparison? i.e. if you are throughly
familiar with the sound of 2 pieces of equipment, can you then tell them
apart blind?


I would expect familiarity with one's system would make them more
sensitive to changes in that system, blind or sighted.


Scott

In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to
replicate the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings
sound as good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his
goals when he made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not
sound good?

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his
intentions of making good sounding recordings. And for exactly the same
reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact,
I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I
would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course,
when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a
conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between
judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction.

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

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:


Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to replicate
the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings sound as
good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his goals when he
made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not sound good?

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his intentions
of making good sounding recordings. And for exactly the same reason, we
should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state
that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather
trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes
to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment.
But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and
quality of audio reproduction.

Jenn has clearly challenged HvK's professional integrity, by writing that
all he wanted to do was to sell recordings. It appears that although he was
indeed a self-centered individual, his integrity in the making and producing
good sounding recordings and videos was of the highest order and is not in
the least bit questionable. He did not succeed in transferring his hall
talent to making good sounding recordings for the small living area, a point
which I have already put forth. He must have sat down and listened to his
CDs before he nodded his OK for their release. I don't believe one receives
a life time appointment as Music Director of the Berlin Philharmonic
Orchestra easily, nor by being a phony solely preoccupied with financial
success (the latter, which he had already achieved). However his later DGG
recordings speak for themselves and add testimony to the statement "trust my
ears", whoever they happen to belong to, should go out the window.
Additionally some of his DG's, which I own, sound excellent

chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to
replicate the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings
sound as good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his
goals when he made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not
sound good?

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his
intentions of making good sounding recordings. And for exactly the same
reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori.

The same argument applies to trusting audiophiles.

In fact,
I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I
would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile.

This seems to be your real argument. The stuff about "different
opinions" applies just as much in this case; so all you are really
saying is that you would rather trust an audiophile.

Of course,
when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a
conductor's judgment.


But obviously there is a big difference between
judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction.

But that wasn't the question. The question is whether one who is very
familiar with live music is in a good position to judge the
authenticity of a reproduction.

I think so, and such a person will bring a much deeper and more mature
perspective than someone who spends most of their time listening to
different *reproductions*.

Mike

In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded
in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go.
(If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to
replicate the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings
sound as good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his
goals when he made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not
sound good?

My point is clear: I can't comment on his goals for his recordings, as
I don't know them. Was his goal to make "life-like" recordings? I
don't know. Was the goal to make "impressive" recordings? I don't
know. I'm sure that he wanted his recordings to sound good, whatever
that meant to him. But as you know, what sounds "good" varies.

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his
intentions of making good sounding recordings.

No it's not. See above.

And for exactly the same
reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact,
I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I
would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course,
when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a
conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between
judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction.

Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We
deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm
each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not
diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability,
not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my
colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND,
you simply don't know what we do everyday.

chung wrote:
Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported
in this message?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b

"Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago,
I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all
sounded unique to me."

No. This happened about three weeks ago.

wrote:
chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to
replicate the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings
sound as good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his
goals when he made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not
sound good?

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his
intentions of making good sounding recordings. And for exactly the same
reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori.

The same argument applies to trusting audiophiles.

Sure, but you seem to have said that musicans are so much better than
audiophiles in discriminating audio equipment...


In fact,
I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I
would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile.

This seems to be your real argument. The stuff about "different
opinions" applies just as much in this case; so all you are really
saying is that you would rather trust an audiophile.

Hello? Is there an echo here?


Of course,
when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a
conductor's judgment.


But obviously there is a big difference between
judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction.

But that wasn't the question.

Was there a question?

The question is whether one who is very
familiar with live music is in a good position to judge the
authenticity of a reproduction.

Oh, that is the question you are trying to answer...

I wasn't asnwering a question at all, but just making the point that
even conductors don't trust other conductors' ears, so why should we?


I think so, and such a person will bring a much deeper and more mature
perspective than someone who spends most of their time listening to
different *reproductions*.

HvK was such a person, IMO. But clearly Jenn does not trust his ears.

Jenn wrote:
chung wrote:
Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported
in this message?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b

"Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago,
I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all
sounded unique to me."

No. This happened about three weeks ago.

Care to share with us which CD players were being tested?

A point to bear in mind us that it is almost impossible to level match
CD players with a sound meter. You really need a test disc and a
voltmeter (which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway).

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded
in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go.
(If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to
replicate the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings
sound as good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his
goals when he made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not
sound good?

My point is clear: I can't comment on his goals for his recordings, as
I don't know them. Was his goal to make "life-like" recordings? I
don't know. Was the goal to make "impressive" recordings? I don't
know. I'm sure that he wanted his recordings to sound good, whatever
that meant to him. But as you know, what sounds "good" varies.

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his
intentions of making good sounding recordings.

No it's not. See above.

And for exactly the same
reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact,
I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I
would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course,
when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a
conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between
judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction.

Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We
deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm
each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not
diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability,
not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my
colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND,
you simply don't know what we do everyday.


But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies.
What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why
would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what
sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you?

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

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

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:


Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell
records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to replicate
the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings sound as
good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his goals when he
made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not sound good?

It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his intentions
of making good sounding recordings. And for exactly the same reason, we
should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state
that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather
trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes
to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment.
But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and
quality of audio reproduction.

Jenn has clearly challenged HvK's professional integrity,

No, I have not.

by writing that
all he wanted to do was to sell recordings.

I wrote nothing of the kind. Please don't misrepresent what I have
written.


It appears that although he was
indeed a self-centered individual, his integrity in the making and producing
good sounding recordings and videos was of the highest order and is not in
the least bit questionable.

I have never stated otherwise.

He did not succeed in transferring his hall
talent to making good sounding recordings for the small living area, a point
which I have already put forth. He must have sat down and listened to his
CDs before he nodded his OK for their release. I don't believe one receives
a life time appointment as Music Director of the Berlin Philharmonic
Orchestra easily, nor by being a phony solely preoccupied with financial
success (the latter, which he had already achieved). However his later DGG
recordings speak for themselves and add testimony to the statement "trust my
ears", whoever they happen to belong to, should go out the window.
Additionally some of his DG's, which I own, sound excellent

I agree. Some sound good. Many others do not.

On 4 Dec 2005 17:41:28 GMT, wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

That's because you've never done blind tests.

You know this, how?

Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never
cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you
obviously haven't enjoyed yet.

Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost
nothing about music-making asserting things about what goes one in the
minds of musicians.

Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost
nothing about audio asserting things about what goes on in the
minds of audiophiles.

Here we go again with the "cocky" attribution that you and other like to
assign to me. I honestly don't know where this comes from, but I find
it to be a bit humorous, frankly. I say once AGAIN: I've NEVER claimed
to have better hearing than anyone else. Heck, for all I know, your
hearing measures better than mine.

It's pretty typical for an objectivist to reduce hearing ability to
some kind of scale, some kind of number.

Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost
nothing about audio asserting things about what goes on in the
minds of audiophiles. You have never seen any 'objectivist' make any
such comment, except in relation to well-known physiological limits of
human hearing.

Ignoring that hearing music is
largely about perceiving abstract, diffuse, complex patterns in the
sound. This is one reason they persist in the absurd belief that
quick-switching is revealing of musical differences between equipment,
because they assume (without ever examing the key questions) that all
differences are perceivable in short segments.

You have offered no evidence whatever to suggest that level-matched
time-proximate sampling is *not* the most sensitive method for
fdetermining subtle differences between two pieces of audio equipment.
You use terms like 'absurd belief', when what is truly absurd is your
continual posturing with no evidential or logical base for your wild
assertions.

What I'm claiming is daily
professional experience in listening, and serious years-long training in
the sound of instruments.

It's hardly worth arguing with these guys. They know nothing about
music-making and they are attempting to butt heads with someone who has
trained her whole life.

It's hardly worth arguing with these folks. They know nothing about
music reproduction and they are attempting to butt heads with someone
who has trained his whole life.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

I'm of
the belief that it is equally well known that von Karajan succeeded in
pushing DGG further into mult-micing than they were willing to go. (If
I
can
find links to literature citations, I'll be happy post them.)

Karajan was into multi-micing in a big way, which is probably why so
many of his recordings sound so bad. He was so into total control of
every aspect of the product, multi-micing plays right into that, I
suppose.

So you probably don't trust Karajan's ears when it comes to audio
reproduction, I believe?

I don't have any opinion on it one way or the other.

Really? I thought you said that many of his recordings sound "so bad",
and that he has total control of his products.

And I stand by that. But I have no opinion on his audio reproduction
chops because I don't know what his goals were.


I don't know what
HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You don't think they were to make them sound the best to him?

Sure, but perhaps not to replicate the sound of live music.


Surely you know that
for most people in the world the sonic goal for their hi-fis is not the
closest reproduction to actual music possible, but rather that it
"sounds good" or "sounds impressive", right?

That was what I told you, too, so I am glad that you agree.

That's nice.


Most people don't even
consider the sound of live music in their purchase of hi-fi equipment or
the sound of recordings.

Indeed.

See, we agree again :-)



Of course I am assuming that Karajan wanted to
make the most life-like reproduction possible.

See above.

In a similar way, we certainly would not presume to trust your ears, or
any conductor's ears, when it comes to what sounds life-like in audio
reproduction, *a-priori*. Because even you would not trust other
conductors' ears in what sounds like-like in audio reproduction.

Sure I would, in comparison to those who know less about the sound of
music.

Let's pursue this a little further. Let's say that HvK's goal is to make
the recordings sound good (but not necessarily sound life-like since you
seem to have doubts about that).

I have doubts about that based on the quality of many of his recordings.

You find many of his recordings sound
"so bad", and you know that he had total control of his recordings. That
means that what sounded good to HvK, a top conductor, does not
necessarily sound good to you. It follows then that among conductors,
what sounds good is not commonly agreed upon. So how can we trust any
conductor's ears, *a priori*, when clearly they do not all have the same
opinion of what sounds good or bad?

Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is
likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to
replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs.
So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that.

Read what you have written, I did not put any words in your mouth.

"His goal was to sell LPs and CDs."

In article , chung
wrote:

I wasn't asnwering a question at all, but just making the point that
even conductors don't trust other conductors' ears, so why should we?

Two M.D.s can disagree about a treatment. Still, a M.D. is probably the
person to trust for medical advice.


I think so, and such a person will bring a much deeper and more mature
perspective than someone who spends most of their time listening to
different *reproductions*.

HvK was such a person, IMO. But clearly Jenn does not trust his ears.

Please don't misrepresent what I've said. What I actually said was that
I have no opinion regarding HvK's audio work, as I don't know what his
aural priorities were for his recordings. I've been quite clear about
that.