Jenn wrote:
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.

Hmmm, here's what you wrote a couple of messages back:

"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."

It would appear to us that you were saying all he wanted to do was to
sell recordings.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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.


I see you make no defense against the original suggestion that you,
while knowing nothing about music-making, feel absolutely certain that
you understand how musicians perceive sound. For example, you have
provided metaphoric descriptions of vinyl distortion mechanisms (such
as Date: 22 Oct 2005 17:08:45 GMT Local: Sat, Oct 22 2005 9:08 am
Subject: Heaven!, "whiter than white") but never bothered once to
ask a musician if these metaphors have any relation to what they hear.

As for your "I know you are but what am I?" retort, you are wrong. I'm
interested in hearing how you desribe the *experience* of listening to
music. In fact, once I literally ASKED YOU this very question, and you
provided no answer:

-------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Sep 2005 14:41:29 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 3 2005 6:41 am
Subject: other ear/brain model
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 15:13:08 GMT, wrote:

The model I believe Bob and Stewart and "bear" are using (and they may
confirm this or explain otherwise, of course):

We are not in sufficient disagreement for any such modelling to be
valid, IMO.

So looking at my first model which shows the relationship of sound,
initial processing, musical reactions, and consciousness, do you find
agreement with that model? Or how would you describe your own mind?
------------------------------------

You never provided an answer to this post. I notice also you have not
replied on the threads where out... and K. Hugues were discussing how
the recent experiments relate to the functioning of the ear.

This gives me the impression that you simply aren't interested in
discussing a functional model of the ear and consciousness. Too bad,
because I think that some key questions require such a model as a step
toward answering them or suggesting more experiements.

(If you are thinking of replying that you already understand the
functioning of ear and consciousness, note that we were discussing NEW
research.)

Mike

In article , chung
wrote:

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?

Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out
for you if you wish.

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

As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations.
IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures
when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal
piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears
only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do.

(which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway).

I have a sound meter available to me from work.

On 7 Dec 2005 03:30:38 GMT, chung wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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?

Neither. It should be noted that the name of any experienced
audiophile could have been appended to Jenn's paragraph above.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , chung
wrote:

big snip for the sake of greater brevity

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?

Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown.
If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as
possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound
sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However,
we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the
audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be
"impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK,
like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that
would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't
judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know
what he was trying to accomplish.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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.

Yes, and I on't undestand why so many elfproclaimed objectivists insist
on doing this sort of thing. It makes the whole philosophy look real
bad.


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.

I think the psychic claims like this also eat away at the credibility
of objectiists.


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 have offered no evidnce that it is the most sensitive method for
distingushing differences between components when a music is being
used.

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.

Talk about posturing, where is your evidence that quick switching is
more sensitive when music is being used?


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.

And yet you have done it for years, go figure.

They know nothing about
music reproduction and they are attempting to butt heads with someone
who has trained his whole life.

Really? You have trained your whole life in music reproduction? Wow.
What have you done with all that training? Produced or engineeered any
recordings? designed any commercial equipment? I mean Jenn makes a
living at what she does. What about you? What have you actually done
with this life time of training in "music reproduction?"

Scott

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.

Jenn, this is exactly what you wrote about Herbert Von Karajan (I hate
htese abbreviations).

So, the question is the same - can we trust his ears or not?

According to you he had his own agenda. Is not it the case for many
other people, including conductors?

vlad

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

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?

Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out
for you if you wish.

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

As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations.
IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures
when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal
piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears
only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do.

Given that a sound level meter does not have the accuracy necessary to
insure level matching between 2 CD players, I would not be surprised
that you could tell them apart blind. It is simply not a good test, if
you want to know whether there really is a sonic difference.

Of course, you are free to do the test whichever way you want. But it
does not follow that you could tell those players apart if the test was
done correctly.

(which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway).

I have a sound meter available to me from work.

You can buy a DVM for less than $10.

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

big snip for the sake of greater brevity

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?

Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown.
If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as
possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound
sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However,
we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the
audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be
"impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK,
like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that
would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't
judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know
what he was trying to accomplish.

So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted
his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you
know, what sounds "good" varies."

You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and
yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one
draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and
musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was
trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to
you.

Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears, what
sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we
trust your ears, or HvK's?

You and some of your friends have claimed that the conductor/musician's
judgment in what sounds good (or life-like) in audio reproduction is
superior to that of the experienced audiophiles. Yet between
musicans/conductors there are disagreements on what sounds good, as you
have demonstrated. So how can we possibly accept your blanket claim?

On 8 Dec 2005 03:29:03 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

They know nothing about
music reproduction and they are attempting to butt heads with someone
who has trained his whole life.

Really? You have trained your whole life in music reproduction?

I was of course not referring to one particular person, but whatever.

Wow.

Luckily absent from CD.....

What have you done with all that training?

Improved my home audio system.

Produced or engineeered any recordings?

As any pro will tell you, that seldom has anything to do with lifelike
reproduction! See Jenn's own comments re HvK.

designed any commercial equipment?

Yes, but it never became well known, and the business case for my own
'MOTI' range collapsed when it became obvious that it would have to
compete with Krell, Boulder etc. Too much like hard sales work, and
I'd been down that road with semi-pro photography - spoils the hobby
when you have to wear your business hat.

I mean Jenn makes a living at what she does.

And what she does has *nothing* to do with the accurate reproduction
of music. This is essentially the 'guitar amplifier' argument.

What about you? What have you actually done
with this life time of training in "music reproduction?"

Enjoyed my hobby.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 8 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Jenn wrote:

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.

But not a medical research specialist. In the same way, if you want to
know which is the more lifelike of two audio systems, you ask an
audiophile who is a regular concert-goer, not a musician..........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , wrote:

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

"His goal was to sell LPs and CDs."

Would you disagree that the goal of a person who makes commercial
recordings is to sell recordings?

In article ,
"vlad" 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.

Jenn, this is exactly what you wrote about Herbert Von Karajan (I hate
htese abbreviations).

So, the question is the same - can we trust his ears or not?

According to you he had his own agenda. Is not it the case for many
other people, including conductors?

vlad

The goal of EVERYONE who records is to sell CDs. In no way did I state
or imply that this is his ONLY or even principal goal. OF COURSE
conductors have different agendas. I'm simply saying that conductors
are well qualified to judge how close a replication is to the real
thing. Some care about that; some don't.

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 7 Dec 2005 03:30:38 GMT, chung wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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?

Neither. It should be noted that the name of any experienced
audiophile could have been appended to Jenn's paragraph above.

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

In article , Chung
wrote:

Hmmm, here's what you wrote a couple of messages back:

"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."

It would appear to us that you were saying all he wanted to do was to
sell recordings.

It wouldn't "appear" that way at all. I didn't say that "all" he wanted
to do was sell CDs. The selling of CDs is a goal of EVERYONE who
records. If you don't sell, you don't record. If the record buying
public wants a certain sound, you produce that sound or you stop
selling, and then you stop recording.

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 03:29:03 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

They know nothing about
music reproduction and they are attempting to butt heads with someone
who has trained his whole life.

Really? You have trained your whole life in music reproduction?

I was of course not referring to one particular person, but whatever.

OK you were just posturing.


Wow.

Luckily absent from CD.....

No there are a few. I haven't dismissed the medium just the majority of
releases on CD. But a few are good enough to say wow.


What have you done with all that training?

Improved my home audio system.

I did the same without any training. Go figure.


Produced or engineeered any recordings?

As any pro will tell you, that seldom has anything to do with lifelike
reproduction!

That is a odd comment. Please tell me how it is possible to persue life
like reproduction of music without a recording engineer involved.

See Jenn's own comments re HvK.

He was a conductor not a recording engineer. I don't believe he had a
life time in training in music "reproduction" like you. Oh wait it
wasn't you you were talking about was it? It was someone that was no
one in particular that Jenn or someone is butting heads with. maybe you
can explain what you meant.


designed any commercial equipment?

Yes, but it never became well known, and the business case for my own
'MOTI' range collapsed when it became obvious that it would have to
compete with Krell, Boulder etc. Too much like hard sales work, and
I'd been down that road with semi-pro photography - spoils the hobby
when you have to wear your business hat.

OK......


I mean Jenn makes a living at what she does.

And what she does has *nothing* to do with the accurate reproduction
of music.

No one said otherwise. I suggest you pay more attention to what *is*
being said. What *is* being said is that her time and efforts and the
time and efforts of others who create live music give those people a
better reference for judging how close reproduced music comes to live
music. I don't see anyone claiming that musicians are better at
engineering recordings.

This is essentially the 'guitar amplifier' argument.

I haven't seen Jenn or anyone else mention guitar amplifiers. I suggest
you try harder to stay on subject.


What about you? What have you actually done
with this life time of training in "music reproduction?"

Enjoyed my hobby.

One can do that without a lifetime of training. After all, it is a
hobby.

Scott

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:

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

And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound
of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium.

Some times the better answers are not the obvious ones.

See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we
keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we
haven't heard any.

Intuition? Who said anything about intuition? The word was "experience"
which is in no way the same thing as intuition. The argument that
experience does not make one a better judge of things simply doesn't
hold water. I cannot for the life of me understand why certain people
are trying to argue that experience has no added value in making
judgements.

Scott

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

big snip for the sake of greater brevity

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?

Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown.
If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as
possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound
sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However,
we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the
audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be
"impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK,
like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that
would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't
judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know
what he was trying to accomplish.

So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted
his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you
know, what sounds "good" varies."

You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and
yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one
draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and
musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was
trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to
you.

Some of them sound "bad" to me because my standard is live music. That
doesn't mean that they sound "bad" to everyone; indeed, it is obvious
that they don't. Most people don't have live music as a standard for
their hi-fis, a statement with which you agreed.

Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears,

I have never said this, of course.

what
sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we
trust your ears, or HvK's?

It's not a matter of whose ears you trust, Chung. It's a matter of not
knowing what HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

You and some of your friends have claimed that the conductor/musician's
judgment in what sounds good (or life-like) in audio reproduction is
superior to that of the experienced audiophiles. Yet between
musicans/conductors there are disagreements on what sounds good,

And there is disagreement between audiophiles.

as you
have demonstrated. So how can we possibly accept your blanket claim?

Simple logic. IF your goal is imitating the sound of live acoustic
music, then those who know the sound of live acoustic music the best are
better judges of how close a hi-fi comes to that sound. If your goal is
to determine WHY one hi-fi fails to reach that goal compared to another
hi-fi, trust a person who knows about THD, etc.

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

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?

Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out
for you if you wish.

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

As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations.
IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures
when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal
piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears
only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do.

Given that a sound level meter does not have the accuracy necessary to
insure level matching between 2 CD players, I would not be surprised
that you could tell them apart blind. It is simply not a good test, if
you want to know whether there really is a sonic difference.

And yet using a sound level meter is much more than the average shopper
will do.

Of course, you are free to do the test whichever way you want. But it
does not follow that you could tell those players apart if the test was
done correctly.

(which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway).

I have a sound meter available to me from work.

You can buy a DVM for less than $10.

Of course.

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 8 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Jenn wrote:

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.

But not a medical research specialist. In the same way, if you want to
know which is the more lifelike of two audio systems, you ask an
audiophile who is a regular concert-goer, not a musician..........

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

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live
acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic
music, the answer is obvious.

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

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

Gosh Bob, why take it sooo pesonally? Anyone can miss even the simplest
of logical explinations every now and then. No one is making this a
logical contest. A number of us see the logic in the claim that
experience and focused attention can be benificial in one's ability to
make judgements. Apparently some don't see it.

Scott

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

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

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

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

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

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

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

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


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

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

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

Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

big snip for the sake of greater brevity

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?

Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown.
If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as
possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound
sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However,
we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the
audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be
"impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK,
like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that
would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't
judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know
what he was trying to accomplish.

So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted
his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you
know, what sounds "good" varies."

You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and
yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one
draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and
musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was
trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to
you.

Some of them sound "bad" to me because my standard is live music. That
doesn't mean that they sound "bad" to everyone; indeed, it is obvious
that they don't. Most people don't have live music as a standard for
their hi-fis, a statement with which you agreed.

Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears,

I have never said this, of course.

what
sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we
trust your ears, or HvK's?

It's not a matter of whose ears you trust, Chung. It's a matter of not
knowing what HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

I guess you have not read what I wrote. The question is independent of
what HvK was trying to make his recording sound like live music, as long
as you agree that he was trying to make his recordings sound good.

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


You and some of your friends have claimed that the conductor/musician's
judgment in what sounds good (or life-like) in audio reproduction is
superior to that of the experienced audiophiles. Yet between
musicans/conductors there are disagreements on what sounds good,

And there is disagreement between audiophiles.

Yes, there is obvious disagreement between audiophiles, therefore we
never say you should trust any audiophile. Yet you and your friends seem
to indicate musicians have such good jugment that their ears are to be
trusted. My point is that among musicians what sounds good varies, so
how can we trust your ears?


as you
have demonstrated. So how can we possibly accept your blanket claim?

Simple logic. IF your goal is imitating the sound of live acoustic
music, then those who know the sound of live acoustic music the best are
better judges of how close a hi-fi comes to that sound. If your goal is
to determine WHY one hi-fi fails to reach that goal compared to another
hi-fi, trust a person who knows about THD, etc.

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

Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

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?

Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out
for you if you wish.

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

As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations.
IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures
when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal
piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears
only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do.

Given that a sound level meter does not have the accuracy necessary to
insure level matching between 2 CD players, I would not be surprised
that you could tell them apart blind. It is simply not a good test, if
you want to know whether there really is a sonic difference.

And yet using a sound level meter is much more than the average shopper
will do.

And of course the average shopper will not be able to reliably
discriminate between CD players, which is something you seem to think
you could do.

Jenn wrote:

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

It's simple logic that the low distortion medium should be better in
reproducing music. Your intuition is the opposite. Of course, you are
free to choose to follow logic, or intuition.

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

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 8 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Jenn wrote:

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.

But not a medical research specialist. In the same way, if you want to
know which is the more lifelike of two audio systems, you ask an
audiophile who is a regular concert-goer, not a musician..........

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live
acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic
music, the answer is obvious.

Oh, you mean circular logic. You should have made that clear.

Logic implies some capability of proof. And yet, weeks ago, when I
asked you how you would prove that professional musicians were better
able to judge which of two components was better able to reproduce the
sound of live acoustic music, you were unable to come up with anything.
So where's the logic? All I see is intuition (and not very good
intuition, at that).

bob

In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live
acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic
music, the answer is obvious.

Oh, you mean circular logic. You should have made that clear.

Logic implies some capability of proof. And yet, weeks ago, when I
asked you how you would prove that professional musicians were better
able to judge which of two components was better able to reproduce the
sound of live acoustic music, you were unable to come up with anything.
So where's the logic? All I see is intuition (and not very good
intuition, at that).

bob

Since I'm having trouble with expressing my thoughts on this issue,
perhaps your superior reasoning skills could answer a question for me:
Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live
music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live
music most often?

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article , chung
wrote:

big snip for the sake of greater brevity

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?

Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown.
If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as
possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound
sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However,
we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the
audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be
"impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK,
like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that
would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't
judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know
what he was trying to accomplish.

So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted
his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you
know, what sounds "good" varies."

You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and
yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one
draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and
musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was
trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to
you.

Some of them sound "bad" to me because my standard is live music. That
doesn't mean that they sound "bad" to everyone; indeed, it is obvious
that they don't. Most people don't have live music as a standard for
their hi-fis, a statement with which you agreed.

Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears,

I have never said this, of course.

what
sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we
trust your ears, or HvK's?

It's not a matter of whose ears you trust, Chung. It's a matter of not
knowing what HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings.

I guess you have not read what I wrote.

Incorrect guess, as I have.

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

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

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

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

Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob"
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live
acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic
music, the answer is obvious.

Oh, you mean circular logic. You should have made that clear.

Logic implies some capability of proof.

No it doesn't. while most of the time lofical arguments are testable it
is not an inherent quality of pure logic.

And yet, weeks ago, when I
asked you how you would prove that professional musicians were better
able to judge which of two components was better able to reproduce the
sound of live acoustic music, you were unable to come up with anything.

Well now you have made an unreasonable leap. even if it were an
inherent property of logic that it is *capable* of being proven it most
certainly is not an a given that the capacity o be proven means that it
*has* been proven. Your demand is simply unreasonable since the
assertion has not been tested. Are you claiming that all untested
assertions are inherently illogical now? Gosh show me the proof that
musicians are not more likely to be beter at telling the differences
between live music and playback. If you can't then by your own
reasoning your assertion must be illogical as well.

So where's the logic?

Good question. Where is the logic in the claim that any assertion that
is untested is therefor illogical?

All I see is intuition (and not very good
intuition, at that).

I think you see what you want to see. You are just burning a strawman
with this intuition nonsense. But please show the proof that musicians
are not better able to discern differences between live music and
playback. If you cannot can we call your assertion just case of bad
intuition as well?

Scott

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

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

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

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

Scott

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

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chung wrote:

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

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

Obviously, being familiar with the sound of live music is, all things
being equal, a benefit to being able to tell if source X sounds like
live music. Whether we should think that being an "experienced
audiophile" counts as a better qualification than having the
conductor's skills will depend on what skills are particular to the
experienced audiophile. So, what are they?

Mark

In article ,
"Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Chung wrote:

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

I have a reasonably good idea of what kinds of ear training a conductor
has to undergo and what sorts of perceptual discriminations he/she is
supposed to make. And I suppose it would not be too difficult to
imagine ways of determining, objectively, whether conductor A is better
than conductor B in this regard. snip

People who study conducting study, practice, and test on aural
discrimination issues all the time. Models for such tests are those
given at the conducting workshops given by the American Symphony
Orchestra League at various workshops and symposia. Many of us continue
to practice and study long after we are our of undergrad or graduate
school.

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

Jenn wrote:

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

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

bob

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

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

bob

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you enlighten us on how to do this? I am sure you can earn our
respect if you can do it .

So if you find 5 people who believe the earth is flat and one who
believes the earth is round, then the earth is flat? I am sure there are
more than 5 members of the flat earth society in this world.


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

Given that CD's outsell vinyl over 100:1 (to be ultra-conservative), I
am sure you will find a lot more people who say CD's sound better
compared to those who say vinyls sound better. So CD must really sound
better, according to your logic? OK with me.