[James Price[_5_]]

I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

[JackA]

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:32:34 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

As I stated, people hear music but don't actually listen to it. So, yes, while some count numbers, I use my ears to tell me what is more exciting. Not that I have a big head, but I was listening to some material I audio enhanced, and it sounds impressive. Why people don't like me - like I'm a showoff.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2016 10:16 AM, James Price wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and
wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are
useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no
one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring
an AE?

Because to the paying customers, what they hear and how they treat it
might sound better than what you hear and how you treat it. We have a
regular poster here who likes to "remix" commercial songs to his liking
and post links to them here. Most of us think they sound worse than the
originals, but if to his ears, they sound better, well, that's his choice.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
James Price wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong =
way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a de=
gree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any d=
egree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

Because using your ears isn't necessarily an easy task at all. In fact it
is likely one of the most difficult things in the world.

You want to hire an engineer with good, well-trained ears, and you want
to hire him for that reason. And if you want to become an engineer, the
first thing you should think about, before anything else, is Dave Moulton's
ear training course. (Actually if you want to become a producer that is
probably not a bad thing either.) Spend an hour a day, every day, working
on it.

I listen to stuff I worked on when I was a kid and I wonder how I missed
squeaks and echoes and comb filtering. Over the years I got better at
hearing some of that, and it took some time and some effort. It's time
and effort well-spent though. And it's not some secret talent, it's
mostly just skills learned through practice and effort.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:32:34 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?
____

Yep. That seems to be the motto here and on other
groups I've frequented: Load all your tracks,
enable all needed plug-ins, and - TURN YOUR MONITOR
OFF and USE YOUR EARS.

Might as well take a sledge hammer to that group
of gauges behind your steering wheel in your car
while yer at it!

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 7:44:38 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article a35bbdec-b3c1-439b-ae62-4roups.com,
James Price malet wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong =
way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a de=
gree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any d=
egree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

Because using your ears isn't necessarily an easy task at all. In fact it
is likely one of the most difficult things in the world.


--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
_________________

Yet YOU were one of those who repeated it to ME
on several occasions when I reported my findings
at the waveform and envelope level on a DAW.

"Use your ears-Use your ears-Use your ea- "SKRAAATCH!!!

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 7:37:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 7:44:38 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article a35bbdec-b3c1-439b-ae62-4roups.com,
James Price malet wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong =
way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a de=
gree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any d=
egree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

Because using your ears isn't necessarily an easy task at all. In fact it
is likely one of the most difficult things in the world.


--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


tastes great less filling.

A spectrum analyzer is great for seeing 15kHz tones in the audio from monitors, (I can't hear that) or problems in the bass down at 20 Hz, (my monitors don't go down that low..

but you can't mix using a spectrum analyzer, you need to use your ears for that...


so as with everything, use the right tool for the right job.

M

[None]

Theckmah @ retards . edu wrote in message
...
On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:32:34 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right
and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements
are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears
and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend
money hiring an AE?
____

Yep. That seems to be the motto here and on other
groups I've frequented: Load all your tracks,
enable all needed plug-ins, and - TURN YOUR MONITOR
OFF and USE YOUR EARS.

Actually, nobody here has advocated turning the video monitor off.
Only a dumb**** could get that from reading this group. The last time
"turning your monitor off" in cretin-caps-lock was raised, it was last
year when you yourself, Theckma the Village Idiot, used it for a straw
man (or, more accurately, a straw hobby horse). As I recall, your
retarded gibbering was promptly spanked down by Dorsey.

The suggestion that you use your ears does not mean to turn the
monitor off, you ****ing brain-damaged idiot. You don't seem to use
your ears at all. You never talk about how something sounds; only how
it looks on your computer screen. "Use Your Ears" might well be a
motto here, but "TURN YOUR MONITOR OFF" is a stinking pile of rotting
horse flesh of your own invention. Dumb ****.




Might as well take a sledge hammer to that group
of gauges behind your steering wheel in your car
while yer at it!

[None]

Theckmahhhhh @ retardedhobbyhorser . shortbus. edu whined like a
little baby in message news:ac92b939-6411-463f-8634- Yet YOU were one
of those who repeated it to ME
on several occasions when I reported my findings
at the waveform and envelope level on a DAW.

"Use your ears-Use your ears-Use your ea- "SKRAAATCH!!!

And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider than
just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end up
proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
some combination.

Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen. That's
a good task for the Village Idiot.

[jason]

On 25 Jun 2016 07:44:35 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article
And if you want to become an engineer, the
first thing you should think about, before anything else, is Dave Moulton's
ear training course.


I began using his course some years ago and was so intimidated
at first that I almost gave up. I persisted, and bit by bit, began
to be able to hear things that had never risen to conscious attention.
It was long and slow but very useful. My wife is a professional musician
for found it valuable too.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason wrote:
On 25 Jun 2016 07:44:35 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" wrote in
article
And if you want to become an engineer, the
first thing you should think about, before anything else, is Dave Moulton's
ear training course.

I began using his course some years ago and was so intimidated
at first that I almost gave up. I persisted, and bit by bit, began
to be able to hear things that had never risen to conscious attention.
It was long and slow but very useful. My wife is a professional musician
for found it valuable too.

Yeah, it's like that. And the sad part is that it's just the beginning of
a long journey. The key is to think of it as a journey and not as just
a huge monolithic stumbling block.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:37:52 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
Theck

And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider than
just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end up
proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
some combination.

Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen. That's
a good task for the Village Idiot.

_________________

Sheesh. No WONDER Edith wants to leave you.

You're a regular Archie Bunker!

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:02:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:37:52 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
Theck

And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider than
just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end up
proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
some combination.

Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen. That's
a good task for the Village Idiot.

_________________

Sheesh. No WONDER Edith wants to leave you.

You're a regular Archie Bunker!

One of these days, Bang, Zoom ...You're Going to the Moon!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: - show quoted text -
"One of these days, Bang, Zoom ...You're Going to the Moon!

Jack "

Wrong show, McFly.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 7:36:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA wrote: - show quoted text -
"One of these days, Bang, Zoom ...You're Going to the Moon!

Jack "

Wrong show, McFly.

Well, you know, via Google, you can create your own "Old CDs Sound Superior" or a "Brickwalled Sound Is A Plague" newsgroup. Even Moderate it, so None gains access.

Jack

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/27/2016 7:43 AM, wrote:
tastes great less filling.

A spectrum analyzer is great for seeing 15kHz tones in the audio from monitors,
(I can't hear that) or problems in the bass down at 20 Hz, (my monitors
don't go down that low..

but you can't mix using a spectrum analyzer, you need to use your ears for that...

so as with everything, use the right tool for the right job.

M

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.
I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

GW

[Trevor]

On 29/06/2016 5:56 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 6/27/2016 7:43 AM, wrote:

so as with everything, use the right tool for the right job.

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.
I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

Isn't that what was just said. Spectrum Analyzer is hardly "the right
tool for the job" in that case.

Trevor.

[None]

thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:37:52 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
Theckhhhmaaah the Retard

And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider
than
just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end
up
proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
some combination.

Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T
HEAR
ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen.
That's
a good task for the Village Idiot.

_________________

Sheesh. No WONDER Edith wants to leave you.

You're a regular Archie Bunker!

That doesn't change the fact that nobody told you to turn off your
monitor, despite your whining lies. You can't use your ears because
they're attached to that chunk of petrified bone that surrounds your
pumpkin-seed-sized brain.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , gray_wolf wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the numbers
actually mean.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , gray_wolf wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the numbers
actually mean.
--scott


Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine for the
past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any breakthroughs. I recall
reading a paper from a university's research team where the author thought that
the human ear's sensitivity and perception were way more advanced than today's
instrumentation and may always be out of reach.

[Trevor]

On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , gray_wolf
wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
numbers
actually mean.
--scott


Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
always be out of reach.


Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , gray_wolf
wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
numbers
actually mean.
--scott


Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
always be out of reach.


Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.

Trevor.

well again I say it depends

there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one

but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.

so, use the right tool for the right job.

Mark

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:29:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , gray_wolf
wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
numbers
actually mean.
--scott


Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
always be out of reach.


Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.

Trevor.

well again I say it depends

there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one

but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.

so, use the right tool for the right job.

Mark

Yeah, Mark, and like many know, most guitar amplifiers are loaded with THD, so what "sounds" good is discretionary.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 30/06/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , gray_wolf
wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
numbers
actually mean.


Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
always be out of reach.


Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.


well again I say it depends

And again you are wrong.


there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities. Which also makes it subjective of course, whereas
instrumentation simply provides objective measurements. There is *NO*
measurement parameter called "good violin" or "bad violin".


but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.

Exactly, and frequencies no one can hear etc. Name *ONE* sound parameter
where a human is superior to the best modern instrumentation?
I'll say it one more time for those who still don't get it, the
difference is the human brain, and it's *subjective* interpretation!

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 6:31:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , gray_wolf
wrote:

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
numbers
actually mean.


Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
always be out of reach.


Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.


well again I say it depends

And again you are wrong.


there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities. Which also makes it subjective of course, whereas
instrumentation simply provides objective measurements. There is *NO*
measurement parameter called "good violin" or "bad violin".


but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.

Exactly, and frequencies no one can hear etc. Name *ONE* sound parameter
where a human is superior to the best modern instrumentation?

3 kHz!!

Never, ever, brought up here or hear, until I, that is, I, brought it up.
THEY make fun of me and tease, since THEY never noticed it!
Yeah, Pro Audio people. Humbug!!

Jack

I'll say it one more time for those who still don't get it, the
difference is the human brain, and it's *subjective* interpretation!

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 11:31, Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from
a bad one

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities. Which also makes it subjective of course, whereas
instrumentation simply provides objective measurements. There is *NO*
measurement parameter called "good violin" or "bad violin".

Not forgetting that a good violin now does not necessarily sound the
same as a good violin did a couple of Centuries ago... Even a
Stradivarius now sounds different to the way that instrument sounded
when it was new. It's almost impossible to reproduce the way the strings
were made, for instance, and the string material has a massive effect on
the tone of any string instrument.

In the Middle Ages, a Viol sounded great, but now sounds odd.

However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:


As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...


I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.



do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 14:01, wrote:


However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.



do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

If there's a difference, it can be measured. The trick is working out
what you need to measure. It might be something as subtle as a constancy
of phase differences between the 3rd and 5th harmonics on different
notes when measured at 5 metres distance, or a difference in the
variation in harmonics when notes are played at different volumes, for
example. The human ear/ brain combination can spot much subtler patterns
than that, as can instrumentation, but the brain is self programming,
can learn form experience and by conferring with others about what
sounds best, while the instrumentation has to be told what to listen for.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.

Wait, wait, I thought the brain was a heatsink used for cooling the blood?
Have there been new developments in the field?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:

However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.

do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

You bet. Give me a spectrum of two notes played on different fiddles at
the same position, and they'll be different.

The question is what parts of those differences make for changes in sound
and which are irrelevant. The other question is which changes are good
and which are bad. The last question is what good and bad means in the
context of fiddle sounds.

It's easy to detect differences, it's really hard to interpret them.

My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 14:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.

Wait, wait, I thought the brain was a heatsink used for cooling the blood?
Have there been new developments in the field?
--scott

Tisk! Do keep up with the research, please. It's well documented, as
long as you're on the correct mailing lists. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:45:18 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.

do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

You bet. Give me a spectrum of two notes played on different fiddles at
the same position, and they'll be different.

The question is what parts of those differences make for changes in sound
and which are irrelevant. The other question is which changes are good
and which are bad. The last question is what good and bad means in the
context of fiddle sounds.

It's easy to detect differences, it's really hard to interpret them.

My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like


Very true. If you see a lot of (limiting) peaks, don't expect to hear robust sound!!! But, I'm talking waveform, not this new fad, spectral stuff.

Jack


, at least to
the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gray_Wolf]

On 7/1/2016 8:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.


Wait, wait, I thought the brain was a heatsink used for cooling the blood?
Have there been new developments in the field?
--scott

Snorting Freon won't help? ;-)

[[email protected]]

My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
a skill would be pretty much useless to have.



there was a guy that could ID a phonograph record by looking at the grooves.

[[email protected]]

My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I would guess that if you had say 5 spectrum plots of 2 violins, (10 total) and you could listen to the 10 samples as well, you would be hard pressed to assign the 10 plots to the 2 instruments.

If it was just some tones with various harmonic amplitudes, yes, it would be easy.

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
cannot be separated in order to still work.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2016 11:22 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/07/2016 14:01, wrote:
However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.



do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY
difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

If there's a difference, it can be measured. The trick is working out
what you need to measure. It might be something as subtle as a constancy
of phase differences between the 3rd and 5th harmonics on different
notes when measured at 5 metres distance, or a difference in the
variation in harmonics when notes are played at different volumes, for
example. The human ear/ brain combination can spot much subtler patterns
than that, as can instrumentation, but the brain is self programming,
can learn form experience and by conferring with others about what
sounds best, while the instrumentation has to be told what to listen for.

So does the human brain, we call that learning, which starts when we are
babies. If you want a computer to do the same you program it with the
appropriate decision tree and AI structure. The problem is we do not
know yet what differences to look for to arrive at an appropriate
algorithm. BUT whatever differences are considered necessary, they CAN
be measured with current instrumentation if we did.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 2/07/2016 1:01 AM, wrote:


However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.



do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY
difference between violins? I would like to see an example.


Get a horrible screechy violin and boost the f**k out of it at 3kHz and
it will then sound better. Apparently.

See that spike on a SA and you'll just KNOW that it must sound amaaaazing.

geoff