Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On 3 Jun 2005 00:54:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 1 Jun 2005 00:24:30 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: I'm sorry, but one member of that "ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia" happens to be more up on the implications of what is being discovered than you are. That's why my recomendations are different, and more in line with the professional researchers in the field doing the current cutting-edge work. You mean Oohashi, whose work is unsupported and doesn't appear to agree with your world view in any case, when you look at what he's actually claiming. I take it that by "unsupported" you mean that the experiment has not yet been duplicated. That is so, as I have freely and frequently acknowedged. But it is a relatively short time for such to take place, since the source materials to do so were not available until late 2002. That doesn't demean his work, nor the careful listening lab environment, protocols, and rating system they used for the test. Does it now? No, although your persistent misrepresentation of what he actually reported certainly does demean his work. What you are hearing here, Mark, is audio orthodoxy as it has been practiced over the last 20-25 years. Indeed - and it's 'orthodox' because it's been shown to work. Shown to work when used properly; never validated for use in open-ended evaluation of audio components. It's been validated by constant work to improve its sensitivity. Just because *you* have some wild idea that you can't even be bothered to test, doesn't mean that we should reject many decades of work by real professionals. However, some recent work suggests that the ear/brain *when listening to music* in a way that is emotionally engaging may take as much as two minutes to register, and like-wise to "un-register" if another stimulus does not excite the emotions as much. And *if* so, then we just extend the ABX test, which *never* had any requirement for short snippets, or indeed for quick switching. No problem, and actually easier to set up, if certainly a longer-term exercise. Could be, but the ABX test looses most of its power when deprived of quick-switching, since it is a comparative test. Oh, so now you admit that quick-switching is better when doing a comparitive test? BTW Harry, your 'monadic' test remains a comparitive test, no matter how long the intervals. And in practice its practicioners tend to approximate the IEEE and CCIR guidelines of 20 sec snippets and 1 sec switches. That would be because these guidelines are proven to indicate maximum sensitivity. This is the result of *real* experimentation, not armchair quarterbacking. If you disagree with IEEE and CCIR guidelines, then get out there and *prove* that your method has merit. I noticed in your own recent test description that flat out testing would require and AB completion every three minutes, and probably not even that long allowing for time to eat, drink, and make merry. That's pretty fast back and forth switching if you are serious about it. We are deadly serious, that's why we *do* these comparisons. Tell us Harry, apart from pitching up to heckle Arny at HE2005, what have *you* actually *done* about finding the best-sounding audio gear? This obviously has implications for high-end audio testing, since the long term effect of the equipment is either emotionally satisfying, or not ... a reason why some people regret a choice later. Buyer's remorse is common to all areas of purchase, not just hi-fi. So it's not a 'reason', merely a speculation on your part. Buyer's remorse can be for a lot of reasons, some objectively legitimate as well as some psychological. Finding that music "just doesn't satisfy" could be either. Neither you nor I know which, for a fact, so you are equally guilty of speculation. I didn't speculate, you did. I simply called you on it. Nothing in what you say can *ever* be traced to the actual physical soundfield. These researchers used 3-4 min "whole segments" of music and allowed more than a minute between them (and wished they had left more). Since they are measuring the brains physiological reaction using EEG and MIR as well as conventional audio ratings, they are dealing with "hard," factual phenomena here. They gently suggest that perhaps the previous research was based on false assumptions, as they can make a statistical preference "disappear" simply by shortening the listening snippets to 20 secs. and the time between segments to 1 sec. And *if* this evidence is supported by other researchers, then it's very easy to move forward and change the standard. Unfortunately, all the other evidence gathered over the past fifty-odd years suggests that the smallest differences can be heard via quick-switched short 'snippets' of sound. We'll need a *lot* more evidence before Oohashi's results can be claimed as other than speculative. Cold Fusion, anyone? Well, the pace of brain research in the last 5-10 years outstrips the previous forty in total. So perhaps forty years of telephone and hearing aid research are not the best standard to use when it comes to testing how people/their ears/brains react to music. Or at least, may not be the standards that last or prove accurate in open-ended evaluation of audio equipment. Agreed, but there is only one set of results which has any suggestion that short-switched 'snippets' are less than ideal, that is unsupported, and it does *not* support anything which you have drawn from it regarding your 'monadic' testing. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Ban" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: Well, the pace of brain research in the last 5-10 years outstrips the previous forty in total. So perhaps forty years of telephone and hearing aid research are not the best standard to use when it comes to testing how people/their ears/brains react to music. Or at least, may not be the standards that last or prove accurate in open-ended evaluation of audio equipment. You are underestimating the research, it has nothing to do with hearing aids or cellphones. Already the development of a MP3 codec requires extensive research work of what is audible or not, SACD and even CD have gone to the very edge of audibility, do you think that was done for hearing aid? Your arguments are so thin and your logic is so polemic, at the end you havn't understood or misrepresented your own quotes. I am simply referring to research fields that have been used by objectivists to point out how long audio research has been going on, on this and on other newsgroups. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Ban" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. There is a known effect of "pleasure", but it is *not* from ultrasonic frequencies. The effect is also known as the "disco"-effect, when high SPLs (above 86db) in the bass stimulate some gland in the brain to produce a drug-like substance. It relates to frequencies below 80Hz. I think you mixed that up. :-)) I see your smiley, but I don't get the joke. Joke of straight, there was nothing resembling bass in this test. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
On 3 Jun 2005 20:13:47 GMT, Chung wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: Point taken, but doesn't this support what I have been saying on another thread, which is that recordings are wisely controlled to produce coherent, satisfying musical experiences, rather than to be thought of as having the function of being accurate copies of sonic events? If a judicious application of EQ or compression helps me hear the individual lines, even if that is a departure from accuracy in some sense, why should I value accuracy more? Mark You value accuracy in playback equipment because you want to listen to what the mastering engineers produced. If you have an inaccurate system, you may not be able to listen to what was intended to sound on the recordings. Thanks, I appreciate the reference and found it interesting. Concerning playback equipment, isn't the most relevant intention what the final product, as opposed to some intermediate stage, was intended to sound like? And then don't we have to take into account what sort of systems were envisioned to be used for playback? I am thinking say of some wonderful recordings of the late 1950s or early 60s when it was expected that vinyl would be used for playback. What was intended to sound was the sound of those recordings in vinyl. Was the process not carefully controlled with that final product in mind? So if the original intent is the criterion, it is the inaccurate system, not the accurate one, that conforms to that intention. If on the other hand one produces a CD from the master tape, one is employing it in a technology different from what the original producer/engineer envisioned, and that is an interventionist not purist approach. I am not saying it is not valid, but I don't see how it can be defended by an appeal to original intent. Consider the old Caruso recordings: it was intended that they sound through the horn of a Victrola (or some of them, anyway). I wonder if *any* reproduction on modern equipment captures the original intentions of what they should sound like. This is like the issue of whether to play Bach on original or modern instruments. In any event, how do the producer and mastering engineer arrive at their intention in the first place? How do they choose? As I understand it there are different schools of thought on this, different approaches. One approach would be to recreate as closely as possible the sound heard by a listener at the live performance. Another approach would be more interventionist: the engineer might apply EQ in order to help the listener distinguish the instruments and, as a result, hear and make sense of the music better. That seems to me to have a perfectly valid artistic motivation. Why then does it make a difference if the engineer adds EQ or the listener does? Maybe this would be the beginning of an answer: Compare with my "improving" a Bach prelude by changing the notes as written. We have an independent interest in musical works, not just in streams of sound that please us. If we take a similar attitude toward recordings, we have an interest in what the producer/engineer designed for us to hear. This contrasts with, say, our interest in the products of the chef at Le Bernardin. We do have a certain interest in appreciating what the chef designed for us, but not enough to prevent us from adding salt. Maybe has partly to do with the designer's intentions: the chef expects us to add salt but not ketchup. Does it perhaps make a difference how determinate the producer/engineer's intentions are? Maybe there are some who have a determinate intention, *this* is how my recording should sound, pointing to the master tape, but others take it for granted that listeners may use tone controls. In the latter case, the original intent does not support a purist approach to reproduction of the master tape. Mark Here's what Siegfried Linkwitz said that is germane to hi-fi: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm *** MY OBJECTIVE Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference. Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ... *** |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
On 3 Jun 2005 20:17:13 GMT, Chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: As I said, many audiophiles heard in SACD what they heard, with no explanation at the time of what it was. But they heard it. I heard it, too. But then under controlled conditions, I did not hear it. I think Mark would say the same thing. If you are asking ... This is a very interesting question. Here's what I would say: (1) I seemed to hear a certain quality in SACD that makes it superior to other recordings. (2) Then when I compared SACD and CD (or 16/44.1 wav actually), I seemed to hear distinctive characteristics to each. But I found that when I tried to focus on these characteristics and use them as a basis on which I could identify the sources, they seemed to attach sometimes to one source, sometimes to the other, and in any event I could not reliably identify the sources. A possible argument: a characteristic I associated with SACD in (2) is *identical* to the quality I thought I heard in SACD in (1). And this proves that that quality is entirely the result of expectation bias. However, I'm not sure I buy that argument, because I'm not sure that any characteristic in (2) is identical with said quality in (1). In other words, it is a matter of whether the "it" you say you did not hear (or that moved from one source to another, in my case) is the same as the "it" that you did hear. There is no question that some sort of perceptual illusion is going on at stage (2), but I am not sure how much can be inferred from this about stage (1). My intuition about this is that I really am hearing something in (1) that is a distinctive quality of SACD, and I think that the test in (2) gets me listening in a different way so it is not testing for my perception of that quality at all. The quality in (1) runs away when I try to focus on "what it is like" so I can use it as a basis for reidentification. Perhaps that is because it comes entirely from expectation bias, but I am not sure that that is the only possible conclusion. At any rate, I am not, I think with some justification, satisfied with my present state of understanding of the matter. Mark |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
I listen to a lot of FM from Canada's CBC2. There are a lot of concerts
of Canadian orchestras - some live but most taped. I don't know how much the recording engineers "tweek" these sessions but the sound quality is uniformly excellent. It is MUCH better in fact than most commercial CDs. I suspect that they are mostly done with very few microphones and that the engineers don't try to equalize. I wish the people who control the sessions for the CD labels would leave things alone. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Thanks, that's a helpful distinction, and I'm sorry if I was talking at cross purposes with anyone. But if people on that other thread were talking *only* about the relationship between CD/LP and master tape, how would that respond to Jenn's basic claim, which is that vinyl sounds more like the live thing than CD does? It responds to it by questioning its truth on technical grounds. For a consumer recording to be accurate to the live event, there are two key technical hurdles: 1) An engineer must make a master tape that is accurate to the live event; 2) That master tape must be transferred to a consumer medium that is accurate to the master tape. Outside of the tiny vinylphile clique, no one seriously believes that vinyl is or can be more accurate to a master tape than a CD. That argument would be absurd on technical grounds. And if a CD is more accurate to the master tape than vinyl is, how could vinyl be more *accurate* to the live event? Now, notice that I used the term "accuracy." But that's not the claim you are attributing to Jenn. In your words, she claims that "vinyl SOUNDS more like the live thing than CD does." How could vinyl be less accurate to the live event and yet sound more like it? The answer to that riddle, as you know, is euphonic distortion--there must be something in the distortion introduced by vinyl (and there are several likely suspects) that induces listeners to hear it as "more like live." bob |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On 3 Jun 2005 00:10:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. One problem with this argument is that such "hard-wiring" cannot be accomplished over the relatively short time-span since the invention of most musical instruments. A learned response is possible. Kal |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 3 Jun 2005 20:13:47 GMT, Chung wrote: Mark DeBellis wrote: Point taken, but doesn't this support what I have been saying on another thread, which is that recordings are wisely controlled to produce coherent, satisfying musical experiences, rather than to be thought of as having the function of being accurate copies of sonic events? If a judicious application of EQ or compression helps me hear the individual lines, even if that is a departure from accuracy in some sense, why should I value accuracy more? Mark You value accuracy in playback equipment because you want to listen to what the mastering engineers produced. If you have an inaccurate system, you may not be able to listen to what was intended to sound on the recordings. Thanks, I appreciate the reference and found it interesting. Concerning playback equipment, isn't the most relevant intention what the final product, as opposed to some intermediate stage, was intended to sound like? And then don't we have to take into account what sort of systems were envisioned to be used for playback? I am thinking say of some wonderful recordings of the late 1950s or early 60s when it was expected that vinyl would be used for playback. What was intended to sound was the sound of those recordings in vinyl. Was the process not carefully controlled with that final product in mind? So if the original intent is the criterion, it is the inaccurate system, not the accurate one, that conforms to that intention. If on the other hand one produces a CD from the master tape, one is employing it in a technology different from what the original producer/engineer envisioned, and that is an interventionist not purist approach. I am not saying it is not valid, but I don't see how it can be defended by an appeal to original intent. Consider the old Caruso recordings: it was intended that they sound through the horn of a Victrola (or some of them, anyway). I wonder if *any* reproduction on modern equipment captures the original intentions of what they should sound like. This is like the issue of whether to play Bach on original or modern instruments. In any event, how do the producer and mastering engineer arrive at their intention in the first place? How do they choose? As I understand it there are different schools of thought on this, different approaches. One approach would be to recreate as closely as possible the sound heard by a listener at the live performance. Another approach would be more interventionist: the engineer might apply EQ in order to help the listener distinguish the instruments and, as a result, hear and make sense of the music better. That seems to me to have a perfectly valid artistic motivation. Why then does it make a difference if the engineer adds EQ or the listener does? Maybe this would be the beginning of an answer: Compare with my "improving" a Bach prelude by changing the notes as written. We have an independent interest in musical works, not just in streams of sound that please us. If we take a similar attitude toward recordings, we have an interest in what the producer/engineer designed for us to hear. This contrasts with, say, our interest in the products of the chef at Le Bernardin. We do have a certain interest in appreciating what the chef designed for us, but not enough to prevent us from adding salt. Maybe has partly to do with the designer's intentions: the chef expects us to add salt but not ketchup. Does it perhaps make a difference how determinate the producer/engineer's intentions are? Maybe there are some who have a determinate intention, *this* is how my recording should sound, pointing to the master tape, but others take it for granted that listeners may use tone controls. In the latter case, the original intent does not support a purist approach to reproduction of the master tape. Mark The analogy with adding salt/ketchup is an apt one. You can certainly add salt to any given dish. But do you want to alway add salt to every dish? Having an inaccurate system is akin to someone always adding salt to everything you eat: it may taste better than no salt some of the time, but you really want to have control of when to add salt. I don't think I can explain the importance of accuracy any better than Linkwitz. Sure, some processes are very difficult to make accurate. But where it is straightforward to do so, why not use the most accurate method? That is, use accurate digital audio conversion/storage, preamps, CD/hi-rez players, power amps and cables. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 3 Jun 2005 00:10:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. One problem with this argument is that such "hard-wiring" cannot be accomplished over the relatively short time-span since the invention of most musical instruments. A learned response is possible. Excellent point. I would also like to point out that music is partly intuitive in ways that have nothing to do with so-called 'hardwiring.' That is, consonance, dissonance and rhythm are to large degree based on mathematical and physical principles. Pythagoras showed this with tuning and while the origin of the arrangements of strong and weak beats within different meters is difficult to find, a simple, strong and convincing argument can be made using formal logic. Love that Bulgarian 11/16 meter! (and the 'ruchenitsa' [7/8]) BTW, where's all that ultrasonic music to 'prove' Harry Lavo right? There should even be notation for that if it's as important as he says. ;-) |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 3 Jun 2005 00:10:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. One problem with this argument is that such "hard-wiring" cannot be accomplished over the relatively short time-span since the invention of most musical instruments. A learned response is possible. The scientists who have discovered this have also reacted with wonder...but they don't doubt their findings. Perhaps there is something to this "music of the spheres..." business. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On 14 Jun 2005 23:44:42 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 3 Jun 2005 00:10:57 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. One problem with this argument is that such "hard-wiring" cannot be accomplished over the relatively short time-span since the invention of most musical instruments. A learned response is possible. The scientists who have discovered this have also reacted with wonder...but they don't doubt their findings. Ha! They may not but other qualified neuroscientists are less enthusiastic. Perhaps there is something to this "music of the spheres..." business. Is that 'spheres' short for hemispheres? ;-) Kal |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On 14 Jun 2005 00:04:28 GMT, wrote:
Jenn wrote: In article , wrote: Now, notice that I used the term "accuracy." But that's not the claim you are attributing to Jenn. In your words, she claims that "vinyl SOUNDS more like the live thing than CD does." How could vinyl be less accurate to the live event and yet sound more like it? The answer to that riddle, as you know, is euphonic distortion--there must be something in the distortion introduced by vinyl (and there are several likely suspects) that induces listeners to hear it as "more like live." bob 1. There are, of course, other possible answers to the "riddle." One is that there is something not currently measurable that is happening with CDs; something that I suspect subtracts from some aspect of live sound. Granted, this is purely an idea on my part (and expressed by others as well), and not grounded in any kind of science that I know about. Then perhaps I should say that euphonic distortion is the only scientifically plausible explanation we have. "There might be something else..." isn't an explanation. It's an admission that you (meant generically here) don't have one. And to anticipate the objection that scientists ought to start looking for an alternative explanation--that's not their job. Their job is to explain the unexplained. For this, they already have an explanation. If the term "euphonic distortion" means "whatever it is in the distortion introduced by vinyl that induces listeners to hear it as more like live," then, assuming euphonic distortion exists at all, of course vinyl can be less accurate to the event and yet sound more like it, and what makes it sound that way is (at least in part) euphonic distortion. But that explains nothing. It is a tautology, a "dormitive virtue" "explanation." What would do the real explaining is the likely suspects you mention, and I would like to hear more about them. What interests me is the question of just what it is, in what you call euphonic distortion, that people like. If the likely suspects you mention are only "likely suspects," then scientists do not already have a satisfactory explanation, just hypotheses; there is more work to be done. And to suggest that "there might be something else," i.e., something that people like in LP that is not in itself distortion, is nothing but a suggestion about the range of possible explanations and what a correct explanation *might* look like. It is the job of scientists to find the best, or a correct, explanation. That people like the euphonic distortion in an LP does not preclude the possibility that there is something else, something that is not any form of distortion, that they also like (that is particular to LP). When I suggested this earlier the response was, IIRC, pretty much: that's unlikely because LP is much less accurate in general than CD. That does not strike me as a conclusive argument; it is more like guilt by association. That LP is much less accurate in numerous ways than CD does not imply that LP cannot get a certain dimension *right*. If euphonic distortion is the only plausible explanation we have merely because scientists have not ruled out, or even investigated, other possibilities, that should not give us much confidence in the completeness of that explanation. Mark |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 3 Jun 2005 03:00:29 GMT, wrote: No one disputes the value of what recording and mastering engineers do to "create" the sound of a recording. (And what they do can be highly individualistic and a far cry from what might be called "preserving the original sound.") A good recording engineer can bring out individual voices in a performance, for example. I guess I am confused because it seems to me that people do dispute that. Or anyway, what they say would seem to give reason to dispute it. Linkwitz (whom Chung cites), for example, argues for reproduction of the original without any addition, removal, or falsification. Doesn't Linkwitz's view entail that the engineers' activity of "creating" a sound, not "preserving the original," typically constitutes a "falsification"? If not, why not? Please correct me where I go astray here, but it seems to me that lots of people do think that accuracy is the ideal to strive for -- the goal of audio -- all the way from the original live event (in classical music) to playback. Have I misread everyone? Yes. The technical people who talk about accuracy of reproduction are talking about *reproduction*. They are talking about fidelity to the original master recording. Though I don't know where you're quoting this from, I'm pretty sure that's what Linkwitz meant. bob |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Jun 2005 16:23:55 GMT, wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote: On 3 Jun 2005 03:00:29 GMT, wrote: No one disputes the value of what recording and mastering engineers do to "create" the sound of a recording. (And what they do can be highly individualistic and a far cry from what might be called "preserving the original sound.") A good recording engineer can bring out individual voices in a performance, for example. I guess I am confused because it seems to me that people do dispute that. Or anyway, what they say would seem to give reason to dispute it. Linkwitz (whom Chung cites), for example, argues for reproduction of the original without any addition, removal, or falsification. Doesn't Linkwitz's view entail that the engineers' activity of "creating" a sound, not "preserving the original," typically constitutes a "falsification"? If not, why not? Please correct me where I go astray here, but it seems to me that lots of people do think that accuracy is the ideal to strive for -- the goal of audio -- all the way from the original live event (in classical music) to playback. Have I misread everyone? Yes. The technical people who talk about accuracy of reproduction are talking about *reproduction*. They are talking about fidelity to the original master recording. Though I don't know where you're quoting this from, I'm pretty sure that's what Linkwitz meant. OK. I thought "reproduction" could mean, among other things, reproduction of the sound of an original live event. So if a recording was made on a wax cylinder and it was played back, that was still a reproduction of the original event, even though no master tape was involved. So what *do* people think about accuracy of reproduction in the sense that I have been asking about, that is, accuracy to the original event? Does anyone have a view about it? Do you think that, while accuracy in the sense of fidelity to the original master recording is important, it is not important whether that master recording faithfully preserves the original event? (Would that be consistent, even?) Mark |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Do you think that, while accuracy in the sense of fidelity to the original master recording is important, it is not important whether that master recording faithfully preserves the original event? Depends on what the people making the recording intended. In most cases, at least for pop music, there is no original event, so the question is meaningless. Even on the classical side, there's often lots of processing going on, including multiple takes spliced together to get rid of mistakes. The important point for high-end audio is that you have no control over that. Some audiophiles seek out well-made recordings that offer a sense of "real music in real space," but the extent to which that is "captured" rather than "synthesized" probably varies. Whereas, for the home listener, fidelity to the recording is possible, at least up to the speaker terminals. And that's a goal some of us think is worth achieving. bob |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
enhancing early reflections? | Pro Audio | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 | Pro Audio |