[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

I disagree with this statement. Using high quality
professional mics in a purist configuration it is
certainly possible to capture a recording that sounds
real when played on an system capable of simulating the
original room.

This is very vague.

And to preclude a flurry of exchanges, I am not arguing
that it literally reproduces the original room, but that
it is possible to get close enough that the human brain
can easily suspend disbelief and enjoy it "as if...".

If we have to suspend this much disbelief to agree with the hypothesis about
recording, why is so egregrious to use CD-standard recording, where zero
disbelief needs to be suspended in order to find that the copy sounds like
the original?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , bob
wrote:

To take this from a different angle, the "reference" is not "the sound
of live music." The "reference" is our mental construct of what live
music sounds like (or what we think it sounds like) based on our
experiences of live music, be they many or few.

And if the "reference" is subjective and internal, then the problem
isn't only that the "sound of live music" constantly changes. It's
that we, too, constantly change. Human beings are not calibrated test
instruments. To believe that what we think live music sounds like
today will be the same tomorrow is to deny everything we know about
human psychology and subjective experience.

In short, our perception of "the sound of live music" is hedonic, not
sensory. Saying 'this system sounds like live music" is equivalent to
saying, "I like the sound of this system."

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds of concerts and
I know what live music sounds like and I'm capable of judging
accurately whether an audio system approaches that sound"--May make
you feel good, but it's entirely unrealistic.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but when I refer to using the
sound of live acoustic music as the standard, I'm not speaking of any
specific musical event. There's no doubt in my mind/ears that every bit
of live music that I've experienced...thousands of experiences in a
concert hall, thousands more behind instruments, thousands more in
rehearsal halls in front of instruments/voices and behind them,
thousands in practice cubicles...all have qualities in common. That
they are different one from the other is obvious. But there is much
common ground. And no audio system can come close to presenting an
authentic presentation of those qualities. Those that come closest are
the ones that I like.

[bob]

On May 19, 10:42=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:57:14 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):
snip

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds of concerts and
I know what live music sounds like and I'm capable of judging
accurately whether an audio system approaches that sound"--May make
you feel good, but it's entirely unrealistic.

bob

If that's so, then what is the standard?

The standard, for you and those who think like you, is "Does this
speaker afford me the *illusion* that I am listening to live music?"
Please note the profound difference between an illusion and actual
physical phenomena. In particular:

1. There is no reason to believe that your illusion is constant; quite
the opposite.

2. Because you can't/won't evaluate speakers blind, your illusion is
informed--powerfully informed--by non-sonic factors, aka biases.

Measurements, for many things
(especially transducers) don't mean much, and even if they did, interpret=
ing
those measurements based on the sound that those measurements represent,
would be very difficult for most people.

I would argue that measurements are a much better tool than listening
if the goal is to achieve a reproduction proximate to an original.
Musical instruments alter the sound pressure in a room, and we can
measure those changes. We can also measure the output of an audio
system, and we can correlate those two sets of measurements.

Measurements, however, cannot be correlated to illusions. That's why
they don't work for you.

bob

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

Many years ago I went to showing of Cinerama in Boston. The movie
contained a sound track of an orchestra. It sounded like a live
orchestra was playing.

Wow, you're very fortunate. I've certainly never heard anything coming
from a speaker that came close to sounding like a live orchestra was
playing.


Even further back, I attended concerts at Carnegie Hall in orchestra
seats as well as the balcony. I also went to concerts in Symphony Hall
in Boston as well as several broadcasts of the NBC Symphony in studio 8H
(some conducted by Toscanini). I remember my first exposure to the
Polka and Fugue from Schwanda played by the NBC Symphony. 8H was a
thrilling venue to hear a concert despite it's reputation as a poor
broadcasting hall. My point is that all these halls sounded different
Comparing a stereo system to live music is impossible since live music
is not consistent.

The taste of different brands of mustard is not consistent, but every
one that I've tried tastes like mustard. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

Many years ago I went to showing of Cinerama in Boston.
The movie contained a sound track of an orchestra. It
sounded like a live orchestra was playing.

Wow, you're very fortunate. I've certainly never heard
anything coming from a speaker that came close to
sounding like a live orchestra was playing.

Not as improbable as it seems.

Playing back recordings in a large relaitvely live venue seems to make it
far easier for certain recordings to sound like a live performance in that
venue.

Starting out with a relatively close-miced and dry recording seems to help.

This makes some sense as playing a dry recording in a live venue shares more
than a little with playing the same or similar acoustic instruments in that
venue.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

Many years ago I went to showing of Cinerama in Boston.
The movie contained a sound track of an orchestra. It
sounded like a live orchestra was playing.

Wow, you're very fortunate. I've certainly never heard
anything coming from a speaker that came close to
sounding like a live orchestra was playing.

Not as improbable as it seems.

Playing back recordings in a large relaitvely live venue seems to make it
far easier for certain recordings to sound like a live performance in that
venue.

Starting out with a relatively close-miced and dry recording seems to help.

This makes some sense as playing a dry recording in a live venue shares more
than a little with playing the same or similar acoustic instruments in that
venue.

Well, I guess that I just haven't heard enough sound in such venues, as
I've never heard anything that is even close to sounding like a live
orchestra.

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

Many years ago I went to showing of Cinerama in Boston. The movie
contained a sound track of an orchestra. It sounded like a live
orchestra was playing.

Wow, you're very fortunate. I've certainly never heard anything coming
from a speaker that came close to sounding like a live orchestra was
playing.

I think it can happen to a degree, Jenn. When I was in college, I once
attended a "concert" in my hometown's major park where an audio firm had set
up two huge Altec speakers in a bandshell and played a stereo tape of
Smetana's "Ma Vlast". I don't know how much power they had back in those
old tube days, but it was enough that lying on the lawn 100' away, it
presented a pretty good likeness of a symphony orchestra, weak outdoor bass
and all (despite the bandshell).

Even further back, I attended concerts at Carnegie Hall in orchestra
seats as well as the balcony. I also went to concerts in Symphony Hall
in Boston as well as several broadcasts of the NBC Symphony in studio 8H
(some conducted by Toscanini). I remember my first exposure to the
Polka and Fugue from Schwanda played by the NBC Symphony. 8H was a
thrilling venue to hear a concert despite it's reputation as a poor
broadcasting hall. My point is that all these halls sounded different
Comparing a stereo system to live music is impossible since live music
is not consistent.

The taste of different brands of mustard is not consistent, but every
one that I've tried tastes like mustard. ;-)

And I suspect you would not give much creditability to the claim that if the
mustard and the jar of mayonaise next to it were just equalized with a
"Condiment Transfer Function", they would taste the same. Would you? :-)

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 19, 2:49=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 19, 11:18=A0am, Jenn wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those two
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other? =A0 I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist. =A0Why then
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

Really? One of the most substantial differences between orchestras is
the instruments the musicians play. It is as significant as their
relative talents in many cases. Not sure how one can down play the
significance of such things. Composers actually do include the
instruments in their intentions.

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 19, 2:56=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of live music"
as a "reference", which is the title of the thread. =A0I believe the
very idea is incoherent.

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by definition
something that does not change and is kept handy so other things can
be compared with it.

Please show me such a definition. I completely disagree. I reference
is simply a choice of something we use as a measuring stick. There is
no such definition that I know of that limits our choices to things
that do not vary and are "handy." Seems like an entirely arbitrary
limitation in the world of aesthetic values. No thank you. I don't
accept that limitation in my choice of references.


The sound of live music is not because it changes and can't be kept
handy to compare something with it.

It is a reference if we choose it. If you don't choose it because it
is inconvenient that is *your* choice.


It can certainly be a goal, an ideal to be attained, even if
ultimately unreachable.
But a goal is not a reference, and calling "the sound of live music" a
reference is, to my mind, simple a misuse of the language.

So we are shooting for "goals" with no reference? Isn't this like
shooting freethrows blindfolded?


Nothing wrong with bringing the sound of live music into the
discussion in a forum such as this, so far as I can see. =A0Just,
please, don't call it a "reference". =A0It isn't and it can't be.

I am going to call it a reference. It is for me and it can be for
anyone who chooses it to be.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 20, 11:51=A0am, Scott wrote:

One of the most substantial differences between orchestras is
the instruments the musicians play.

Well, I prefer that the flautists play the flute, and not the
clarinet, but I as a listener could not care less what exact brand of
flute.

It is as significant as their
relative talents in many cases.

There are many more differences between different brands of
instruments than their sound, such as ease of play. But those
differences don't really matter much to the listener.

Not sure how one can down play the
significance of such things. Composers actually do include the
instruments in their intentions.

Um, how many of them specify the exact type or brand of each
instrument? Did Tchaikowski write a "Concerto for Yamaha Piano and
Orchestra"? Is there a "Sonata for Gibson guitar"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On May 19, 2:56 pm, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of
live music" as a "reference", which is the title of the
thread. I believe the very idea is incoherent.

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by
definition something that does not change and is kept
handy so other things can be compared with it.

Please show me such a definition. I completely disagree.

Interesting Harry, as you paraprhase what I said immediately below:

I reference is simply a choice of something we use as a
measuring stick.

I can work with that.

So Harry, you're saying that you use measuring sticks that change
signficiantly in accordance with

(a) some random variable?

(b) your whims or fancies?

??????????

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 20, 12:08=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On May 19, 2:56=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

I reference
is simply a choice of something we use as a measuring stick.

Measuring sticks aren't very useful if they change every time you use
them. When measuring the length of something I want to know that the
centimeter marks on my ruler are pretty much the same as on on every
ruler. A meter stick with the mater mark at 101 centimeters isn't
very useful.

There is
no such definition that I know of that limits our choices to things
that do not vary and are "handy." Seems like an entirely arbitrary
limitation in the world of aesthetic values. No thank you. I don't
accept that limitation in my choice of references.

You can do that if you like, but what it means to me is that you
reject any possibility of a reasonable discussion. A foot is also
"an entirely arbitrary limitation", but if we are trying to build a
house from a blueprint we'd be well advised to have a suitable
reference for the length of a foot and the measurement of an angle
handy. High end audio is not not an art. It is a technology for
conveying an artistic performance to the home for listening pleasure.

So we are shooting for "goals" with no reference? Isn't this like
shooting freethrows blindfolded?

Do players in hockey or football shoot for the "reference" then? Last
I heard they shoot for the "goal".

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 20, 4:31=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 20, 12:08=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On May 19, 2:56=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
I reference
is simply a choice of something we use as a measuring stick.

Measuring sticks aren't very useful if they change every time you use
them. =A0When measuring the length of something I want to know that the
centimeter marks on my ruler are pretty much the same as on on every
ruler. =A0A meter stick with the mater mark at 101 centimeters isn't
very useful.

That would all be relavent if we were talking about literal measuring
sticks and we were talking about measuring objective distances. But we
are not talking about that are we? We are talking about the subjective
measure of aesthetic experiences. In measuring/evaluating that I find
the broad sphere sounds one can find from well played live acoustic
music with excellent instruments in an excellent hall or space from an
excelent listener position to be a very useful meter by which to judge
playback. That reference is not exactly something you can break down
into centimeters. But IMO that is the real hang up with certain
audiophiles. You can't easily quantify subjective aesthetic
perceptions so you would rather dismiss them. But it is those
subjective aesthetic perceptions that are the very reason for
audiophilia for me. That is the point of audio. Dismiss the point of
audio and what are you left with? Semi literal measuring sticks
otherwise as "meters." No thanks. Not interested in reading a meter.
Objective measurements are only of use IMO if they serve the
subjective aesthetic experience. Throw out the subjective aesthetic
values because it is hard to put an objective meter on them and you
throw out the very point of high end audio.




There is
no such definition that I know of that limits our choices to things
that do not vary and are "handy." Seems like an entirely arbitrary
limitation in the world of aesthetic values. No thank you. I don't
accept that limitation in my choice of references.

You can do that if you like, but what it means to me is that you
reject any possibility of a reasonable discussion.

Well there is a fine non sequitor. But it does kinda go back to the
point I just made. I think you are limiting the world of reason to
that which is easily quantifiable. There is more in the rational world
than that which is simple, steady state, handy and easily quantified.

=A0A foot =A0is also
"an entirely arbitrary limitation",

Well no it is not. A foot is neither "arbitrary" nor a "limitation."
It is a standard measure of distance. Do you have an equivalent handy,
non varying, objective, quantifiable standard of measure for aesthetic
beauty? If so let's talk about that. Or do you believe that one cannot
speak of such things as aesthetic beauty in a "reasonable discussion "
of our choice of reference for audio recording and playback? I think
the dismissal of subjective aesthetic values raises it's ugly head in
your assertion that we cannot have a "reasonable discussion" if I do
not accept your limitations on what I choose as a reference for my
aesthetic values.

but if we are trying to build a
house from a blueprint we'd be well advised to have a suitable
reference for the length of a foot and the measurement of an angle
handy.


How on earth do you make any logical connection with "trying to build
a house" and making aesthetic evaluations of sound quality? Sorry but
that is just a totally misplaced analogy.


=A0 High end audio is not not an art. =A0It is a technology for
conveying an artistic performance to the home for listening pleasure.


That would be relative if perhaps we were talking about the design of
equipment but we are not. We are talking about the aesthetic
evaluation of the end result of playback equipment and recording and
what to use as a gauge for the aesthetic values of that result.


So we are shooting for "goals" with no reference? Isn't this like
shooting freethrows blindfolded?

Do players in hockey or football shoot for the "reference" then? =A0Last
I heard they shoot for the "goal".

Well we agree that hockey players and soccer players are trying to
score goals in the literal sense. Not sure what that has to do with
one's choice of reference for audio playback.

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 20, 4:26=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 20, 11:51=A0am, Scott wrote:

One of the most substantial differences between orchestras is
the instruments the musicians play.

Well, I prefer that the flautists play the flute, and not the
clarinet, but I as a listener could not care less what exact brand of
flute.

I do care. Not so much about the brand name but the sound. The sound
does vary pretty greatly depending on the quality of the instrument. I
don't think Strads fetch 7 figures just because they are status
symbols.



It is as significant as their
relative talents in many cases.

There are many more differences between different brands of
instruments than their sound, such as ease of play. =A0 But those
differences don't really matter much to the listener.

You think? Ease of play doesn't affect performance? Performance
doesn't matter much to the listener?



Not sure how one can down play the
significance of such things. Composers actually do include the
instruments in their intentions.

Um, how many of them specify the exact type or brand of each
instrument? =A0Did Tchaikowski write a "Concerto for Yamaha Piano and
Orchestra"? =A0Is there a "Sonata for Gibson guitar"?

One need not overtly specify to have something specific in mind. I'm
pretty confident that Tchaikowski composed his piano concertos with a
propper concert hall and grand piano in mind rather than a high school
auditroium and a stand up piano that may or may not be in tune in
mind. No doubt many a composer of classical guitar had very specific
guitars in mind when they wrote their compositions. Composers and
playwrights know very well that their works are in effect unfinished
art and that someone some where else will finish them with a
performance. They all know very well that it may be some snot nosed
kid in some deadful setting performing dreadfully. That understanding
does not preclude writers and composers from having a fairly specific
vision for their finished work. I'm sure they all know that stating
such specifics is largely fruitless. But the big point is that The
great orchestras are not just great because they have better talent.
They are great in large part due to their instruments. Take away their
superior instruments and give them lesser ones and they are no longer
nearly as great. This factor is IMO as significant as the relative
talent of these competing orchestras. You may think this is an
insignificant factor. I don't.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

That would all be relavent if we were talking about
literal measuring sticks and we were talking about
measuring objective distances. But we are not talking
about that are we? We are talking about the subjective
measure of aesthetic experiences. In measuring/evaluating
that I find the broad sphere sounds one can find from
well played live acoustic music with excellent
instruments in an excellent hall or space from an
excelent listener position to be a very useful meter by
which to judge playback. That reference is not exactly
something you can break down into centimeters. But IMO
that is the real hang up with certain audiophiles. You
can't easily quantify subjective aesthetic perceptions so
you would rather dismiss them. But it is those subjective
aesthetic perceptions that are the very reason for
audiophilia for me. That is the point of audio. Dismiss
the point of audio and what are you left with? Semi
literal measuring sticks otherwise as "meters." No
thanks. Not interested in reading a meter. Objective
measurements are only of use IMO if they serve the
subjective aesthetic experience. Throw out the subjective
aesthetic values because it is hard to put an objective
meter on them and you throw out the very point of high
end audio.

Let me illustrate the measuring stick problem with a real world example.

I go to a hifi store and audition 3 different speakers.

Obviously, the recording used in these audition is some kind of a subjective
reference.

The salesman lets me audition the 3 speakers but insists that he uses 3
different recordings. I must audition each speaker with a different
recording.

What's wrong with this pciture? ;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

snip


Let me illustrate the measuring stick problem with a real world example.

I go to a hifi store and audition 3 different speakers.

Obviously, the recording used in these audition is some kind of a
subjective
reference.

The salesman lets me audition the 3 speakers but insists that he uses 3
different recordings. I must audition each speaker with a different
recording.

What's wrong with this pciture? ;-)


What's wrong is that this analagy is appropro to nothing under discussion.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message

On May 19, 2:56 pm, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of
live music" as a "reference", which is the title of the
thread. I believe the very idea is incoherent.

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by
definition something that does not change and is kept
handy so other things can be compared with it.

Please show me such a definition. I completely disagree.

Interesting Harry, as you paraprhase what I said immediately below:

I reference is simply a choice of something we use as a
measuring stick.

I can work with that.

So Harry, you're saying that you use measuring sticks that change
signficiantly in accordance with

(a) some random variable?

(b) your whims or fancies?

??????????

I guess if an email clearly written by Scott can be attributed to me, Arny,
then anything is possible, isn't it?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 6:47=A0am, Scott wrote:

There are many more differences between different brands of
instruments than their sound, such as ease of play. =3DA0 But those
differences don't really matter much to the listener.

You think? Ease of play doesn't affect performance? Performance
doesn't matter much to the listener?

I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. Read what I said
again. It neither says nor implies that performance is not important.

Not sure how one can down play the
significance of such things. Composers actually do include the
instruments in their intentions.

That's their concern and to them it is valid and important. But as a
listener it isn't my concern and I don't have to know about them to
enjoy the music.

But the big point is that The
great orchestras are not just great because they have better talent.
They are great in large part due to their instruments. Take away their
superior instruments and give them lesser ones and they are no longer
nearly as great. This factor is IMO as significant as the relative
talent of these competing orchestras. You may think this is an
insignificant factor. I don't.

Again I think you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
These things are vitally important when it comes to creating an
artistic performance of a piece of music, and I never suggested nor
implied that they aren't. In conveying that performance accurately to
a listener they are almost completely unimportant. To me as a
listener both the performance and the reproduction are only a means of
conveying something that to me even more important, namely the
communication of a musical experience from the mind of the composer to
mine.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 6:47=A0am, Scott wrote:
I reference
is simply a choice of something we use as a measuring stick.

Measuring sticks aren't very useful if they change every time you use
them.
That would all be relavent if we were talking about literal measuring
sticks and we were talking about measuring objective distances. t we
are not talking about that are we?

Yes we are, if we're talking high end audio as a technology to convey
an accurate representation of an art to the consumer.

We are talking about the subjective
measure of aesthetic experiences.

I don't think we are. I think that that is merely a sidetrack and
leads us down sidetracks toward the "woo" end of the matter. The Art
bit ends mostly at the performance, with a bit of it in the studio,
but once the record is made the rest is, or should be, technology.
There is art in creating technology of course, but it's not the
important thing.



You can do that if you like, but what it means to me is that you
reject any possibility of a reasonable discussion.

Well there is a fine non sequitor.

Well, no it isn't, in my opinion.

But it does kinda go back to the
point I just made. I think you are limiting the world of reason to
that which is easily quantifiable.

No i am not. Most of the important things in life are not easily
quantifiable. You can't really quantify the making of art. That's a
mysterious human process that we cannot really intellectually
understand, let alone quantify.
But high end audio is not about making art, it is about conveying an
artistic experience to a listener, which is an entirely different
thing, a technology not an art.

Well no it is not. A foot is neither "arbitrary" nor a "limitation."

Of course it is arbitrary. It has no physical reality and the
original length of a "foot" was the "length of the King's foot" and so
changed when the King changed. That is certainly arbitrary. That
doesn't change the fact that it is useful and necessary.

It is a standard measure of distance. Do you have an equivalent handy,
non varying, objective, quantifiable standard of measure for aesthetic
beauty?

So far as high end audio that's not relevant. Beauty is relevant in
the concert hall, not in the reproduction change except to the extent
that if we accurately convey a copy the physical event the beauty
comes along with it. A photo of the Mona Lisa captures much of the
beauty, but not all of it. So with audio.

If so let's talk about that. Or do you believe that one cannot
speak of such things as aesthetic beauty in a "reasonable discussion "

In a reasonable discussion of "high end audio" it is not particularly
important. The beauty is in the performance, which is an event which
we try, more or less well, to convey. But in the conveyance the
"beauty" is not very relevant. In recording and reproducing we don't
need to worry about beauty we need to worry about accuracy. We can
define and measure accuracy reasonably well so we should concentrate
on that. And amazingly, if the beauty is there and we convey the
event accurately, the beauty mysteriously comes along.

I am going to stop here and ignore the rest of your points. These
messages are showing signs of growing without limit and, even though I
am retired, my time is not unlimited. It would be helpful, by the
way, if you would do a little snipping when you quote me.

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 21, 10:14=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 21, 6:47=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

There are many more differences between different brands of
instruments than their sound, such as ease of play. =3D3DA0 But those
differences don't really matter much to the listener.

You think? Ease of play doesn't affect performance? Performance
doesn't matter much to the listener?

I wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

Where did I put words in your mouth Ed? Your words. "There are many
more differences between different brands of instruments than their
sound, such as ease of play. But those differences don't really
matter much to the listener." I believe those difference do matter to
some listeners given that those differences will affect performance.
But the other differences, you know, the sonic differences also do
matter to me as a listener.

=A0Read what I said
again. =A0It neither says nor implies that performance is not important.

I read it again and unless you think there is a real world disconnect
between how an instrument plays and the affect that has on performance
my response remains the same.


Not sure how one can down play the
significance of such things. Composers actually do include the
instruments in their intentions.

That's their concern and to them it is valid and important. =A0But as a
listener it isn't my concern and I don't have to know about them to
enjoy the music.

Fine, I get it. You are not concerned. It is a concern for *me* as a
listener. I think it is a big deal. So much so that I actually pay a
premium to see certain orchestras. I think they do all "sound"
different and those differences are worth the premium in many cases.
If you don't care about those differences that is your choice.


But the big point is that The
great orchestras are not just great because they have better talent.
They are great in large part due to their instruments. Take away their
superior instruments and give them lesser ones and they are no longer
nearly as great. This factor is IMO as significant as the relative
talent of these competing orchestras. You may think this is an
insignificant factor. I don't.

Again I think you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
These things are vitally important when it comes to creating an
artistic performance of a piece of music, and I never suggested nor
implied that they aren't. =A0In conveying that performance accurately to
a listener they are almost completely unimportant. =A0To me as a
listener both the performance and the reproduction are only a means of
conveying something that to me even more important, namely the
communication of a musical experience from the mind of the composer to
mine.

Don'ty know what to say to this. Either the sound of the instruments
are important or they are not. In the same paragraph you seem to say
it is vital and almost completely unimportant. I don't really know how
to respond to that. You really can't seperate the "performance" and
the sound of the instruments or the "musical experience."

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 21, 7:57=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







That would all be relavent if we were talking about
literal measuring sticks and we were talking about
measuring objective distances. But we are not talking
about that are we? We are talking about the subjective
measure of aesthetic experiences. In measuring/evaluating
that I find the broad sphere sounds one can find from
well played live acoustic music with excellent
instruments in an excellent hall or space from an
excelent listener position to be a very useful meter by
which to judge playback. That reference is not exactly
something you can break down into centimeters. But IMO
that is the real hang up with certain audiophiles. You
can't easily quantify subjective aesthetic perceptions so
you would rather dismiss them. But it is those subjective
aesthetic perceptions that are the very reason for
audiophilia for me. That is the point of audio. Dismiss
the point of audio and what are you left with? Semi
literal measuring sticks otherwise as "meters." No
thanks. Not interested in reading a meter. Objective
measurements are only of use IMO if they serve the
subjective aesthetic experience. Throw out the subjective
aesthetic values because it is hard to put an objective
meter on them and you throw out the very point of high
end audio.

Let me illustrate the measuring stick problem with a real world example.

I go to a hifi store and audition 3 different speakers.

Obviously, the recording used in these audition is some kind of a subject=
ive
reference.

The salesman lets me =A0audition the 3 speakers but insists that he uses =
3
different recordings. I must audition each speaker with a different
recording.

What's wrong with this pciture? ;-)

What is wrong with this picture? It has no relavence to any of my
points or reality? I don't see how it illustrates any problem in
using live music as an aesthetic meter to measure playback. Has this
happened to you? Seems terribly unrealistic.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 3:34=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Don'ty know what to say to this. Either the sound of the instruments
are important or they are not.

That's just a false dichotomy, and as far as I can see an example of
absolutist thinking.

Things are "important" or not depending on their context. Nothing has
any absolute importance in and of itself. Something may be important
to me in one moment and completely unimportant the next.

If someone is playing a flute for you the sound is probably
important. On the other hand if they are beating you about the head
with that flute, it is probably not important.

If I am listening to the flute as part of a symphony orchestra it's
brand is certainly unimportant to me and the differences in sound
between brands is probably undetectable, at least by me. I've heard
live symphony orchestras and when I was listening the question of who
made the instruments they were playing never entered my mind. Why
then should I care if a sound system will allow me to differentiate
between the brands of flute being played? How will that help me
appreciate Beethoven? Or Procol Harum?

[Harry Lavo]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 3:34=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Don'ty know what to say to this. Either the sound of the instruments
are important or they are not.

That's just a false dichotomy, and as far as I can see an example of
absolutist thinking.

Things are "important" or not depending on their context. Nothing has
any absolute importance in and of itself. Something may be important
to me in one moment and completely unimportant the next.

If someone is playing a flute for you the sound is probably
important. On the other hand if they are beating you about the head
with that flute, it is probably not important.

If I am listening to the flute as part of a symphony orchestra it's
brand is certainly unimportant to me and the differences in sound
between brands is probably undetectable, at least by me. I've heard
live symphony orchestras and when I was listening the question of who
made the instruments they were playing never entered my mind. Why
then should I care if a sound system will allow me to differentiate
between the brands of flute being played? How will that help me
appreciate Beethoven? Or Procol Harum?


Because if it allows you to differentiaat between brands of flute being
played, it will help reproduce music from many instruments in many genres
with just that much more finesse and palpability. And after all, isn't that
why we listen to hi-fi systems rather than boom boxes?

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 21, 4:46=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 21, 3:34=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

Don'ty know what to say to this. Either the sound of the instruments
are important or they are not.

That's just a false dichotomy, and as far as I can see an example of
absolutist thinking.

No, it's me simply pointing out you can't have it both ways but you
did have it both ways in your claim.


If I am listening to the flute as part of a symphony orchestra it's
brand is certainly unimportant to me and the differences in sound
between brands is probably undetectable, at least by me.

I attend many concerts at home at Disney Hall and I go see many of
the visiting orchestras. Maybe you can't tell the difference between
the sound of different orchestras. I certainly can. IMO they are
pretty significant. Certainly *some* of that difference is the players
but just as certainly the difference in sound is mostly the
instruments themselves.

=A0I've heard
live symphony orchestras and when I was listening the question of who
made the instruments they were playing never entered my mind. =A0 Why
then should I care if a sound system will allow me to differentiate
between the brands of flute being played? =A0How will that help me
appreciate Beethoven? =A0Or Procol Harum?

Do all orchestras sound the same to you? They don't to me. If they do
sound different to you maybe you just never thought about why. Doesn't
mean why doesn't matter. How will the instrument being used affect
your appreciation of Beethoven? Does it matter to you if a Beethoven
sonata is played on a Steinway grand piano or a cheap standup paino
from Sears? Procol Harum? You think their choice of instruments
mattered not?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

If I am listening to the flute as part of a symphony orchestra it's
brand is certainly unimportant to me and the differences in sound
between brands is probably undetectable, at least by me. I've heard
live symphony orchestras and when I was listening the question of who
made the instruments they were playing never entered my mind. Why
then should I care if a sound system will allow me to differentiate
between the brands of flute being played? How will that help me
appreciate Beethoven? Or Procol Harum?

In live performance, the difference between brands of flutes is quite
obvious, if you are very familiar with the differences. If the system
masks those differences when the information is available on the
recording, the system obviously isn't revealing the nuances present on
the recording.

[KH]

On 5/21/2010 3:34 PM, Scott wrote:
On May 21, 10:14 am, Ed wrote:


snip

Again I think you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
These things are vitally important when it comes to creating an
artistic performance of a piece of music, and I never suggested nor
implied that they aren't. In conveying that performance accurately to
a listener they are almost completely unimportant. To me as a
listener both the performance and the reproduction are only a means of
conveying something that to me even more important, namely the
communication of a musical experience from the mind of the composer to
mine.

Don'ty know what to say to this. Either the sound of the instruments
are important or they are not. In the same paragraph you seem to say
it is vital and almost completely unimportant. I don't really know how
to respond to that. You really can't seperate the "performance" and
the sound of the instruments or the "musical experience."

Well, Ed can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear that
he's saying that nothing upstream of the actual performance has any
relevance - just the actual performance (i.e. the aggregate aural
event). You seem to think that the "path to the performance" has some
sonic relevance to the listener, but that seems to have no apparent
basis. If the performance is such that all the emotion and beauty of
the composition is conveyed to the listener, then what matter the
instruments used?

The fact that such beauty is more readily achieved using the best
instruments is irrelevant, from the listener's perspective. The
instruments are basically transparent to the process as long as the
resulting performance conveys the aesthetic experience to the listener.
Your position seems akin to saying the type of wing used would be
paramount to conveying the beauty of the experience of flying.

Keith Hughes

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 21, 6:59=A0pm, KH wrote:

Well, Ed can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear that
he's saying that nothing upstream of the actual performance has any
relevance - just the actual performance (i.e. the aggregate aural
event).

It seems he may very well be saying that. but that would mean that a
Beethoven sonata played on a Steinway grand and on a Sears stand up
would be equal aesthetic beauty so long as the performance was the
same. (which is actually impossible because you really can't perform
exactly the same way on both instruments a point I made) Can't say I
would go along with that. Despite claims of false dichotomy either the
sound of the instrument and how it can be played by a musician either
affects our aesthetic experience when we hear it played or it doesn't.
I say it does so quite profoundly. Much more than most peopel seem to
realize when it comes to the sound of an orchestra.

=A0You seem to think that the "path to the performance" has some
sonic relevance to the listener,

Of course I do. At least to *me* as a listener. I think there is no
doubt it affects the end result whether the listener is interested in
that path or not. Maybe you and Ed aren't interested in How say Ben
Webster would burn his reids of his sax to get that breathy sound that
is his signature sound and obviously profoundly affects how he conveys
the emotional content of his art. I found it interesting. Either way
it clearly had a profound impact on his sound and on his performances.
It_mattered_tremendously if you like Ben Webster's music.

but that seems to have no apparent
basis. =A0If the performance is such that all the emotion and beauty of
the composition is conveyed to the listener, then what matter the
instruments used?

So what you and Ed are saying is ignorance is bliss. OK fine. I don't
know how my computer works and yet it works just fine anyway. I get
that. But I'm not saying the path needs to be known (although I think
it allows one to make better informed decisions as consumers of music)
I'm simply saying "the path to the performance" matters. It matters
greatly whether we know about it or not. The instruments a musician
uses matters tremendously to the sound the musician gets. We are
talking about sound quality here. Well, at least I am. So the
instruments are a key element in that quality.


The fact that such beauty is more readily achieved using the best
instruments is irrelevant, from the listener's perspective.

That depends on the listener. Maybe ignorance is bliss for you and Ed.
No big deal. I find it a point of interest. Whether or not one wants
to know about it the relavence lies in the fact that it does matter to
the sound we hear. Different instruments do sound different and some
sound better than others subjectively.

=A0The
instruments are basically transparent to the process as long as the
resulting performance conveys the aesthetic experience to the listener.

The instruments are an inseperable part of the process. They are
anything but irrelevant to the resulting performance and how it
sounds. Whether the listener is aware of it or not.

=A0 Your position seems akin to saying the type of wing used would be
paramount to conveying the beauty of the experience of flying.

So wing design doesn't affect the experience of flying? I'm no expert
on such matters but I'm guessing you don't get the same aesthetic
experience of flying from every different design of airplane wing. I'm
guessing flight on a 747 and an F-15 are pretty different aesthetic
experiences and the wing design is an inseperable part of that truth.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 6:56=A0pm, Jenn wrote:

In live performance, the difference between brands of flutes is quite
obvious, if you are very familiar with the differences. =A0

To whom? To someone listening in the tenth row to a Beethoven
symphony?

If the system
masks those differences when the information is available on the
recording, the system obviously isn't revealing the nuances present on
the recording.

First, you assume that the recording has these nuances on it, but you
provide no actual evidence that it does. No recording medium is
perfectly transparent.

In any event it seems a fallacy to assume that complete transparency
is necessary to appreciate a performance. I have known musicians who
listen to transistor radios when they want to listen. They don't seem
to need perfect transparency.

How much transparency to I need? Clearly I need a certain amount, but
do I need absolute transparency? Do I need to hear when a member of
the orchestra cuts the cheese less than perfectly quietly, or coughs
quietly into a sleeve? Is it important that I hear the squeak of the
bass player's fingers as he moves them up and down the strings?

No, it isn't. Speaking for myself I don't need or want absolute
transparency. What you want is your own matter.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 6:59=A0pm, KH wrote:

Well, Ed can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear that
he's saying that nothing upstream of the actual performance has any
relevance - just the actual performance (i.e. the aggregate aural
event). =A0

Well, given that the stuff upstream is done well, of course. There
are lots of things that can go wrong and mess things up, but if these
are avoided, then yes, exactly.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 6:56=A0pm, Scott wrote:
If I am listening to the flute as part of a symphony orchestra it's
brand is certainly unimportant to me and the differences in sound
between brands is probably undetectable, at least by me.

=A0I attend many concerts at home at Disney Hall and I go see many of
the visiting orchestras. Maybe you can't tell the difference between
the sound of different orchestras. I certainly can.

When did I suggest I couldn't hear or care about the differences
between one orchestra and another? Why, I didn't! There you go
again.

IMO they are
pretty significant. Certainly *some* of that difference is the players
but just as certainly the difference in sound is mostly the
instruments themselves.

Actually the difference is almost entirely the players and how they
play, as I am sure you know very well. And another very large
component is the sound of the hall, or even your particular seat in
the hall. Then there is the matter of how the recording is made. All
these things make so much difference that I don't think the brand of a
particular violin within a violin section playing well together makes
any significant difference at all to a listener in the hall, or to a
recording of the same event.

If on the other hand the exact brand of each instrument is a major
concern to you during a performance of, say, the Messiah, then I
suggest you relax and start enjoying the music instead.

Does it matter to you if a Beethoven
sonata is played on a Steinway grand piano or a cheap standup paino
from Sears?

Who is playing either and how well they play is much much more audible
and much much more important. I would rather hear Beethoven sonata
than not hear it at all if a standup piano was all that is available.
If you have a choice of the local concertmeister playing a violin
piece on a hundred dollar fiddle or me on a Strad, which would you
pick?

Procol Harum? You think their choice of instruments
mattered not?

I didn't say that it didn't matter. It very likely mattered a lot, to
them. It doesn't matter at all to me. It is a very simple and
straightforward difference, and I am quite sure you can tell the
difference. But I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words
into my mouth in that way, and I wonder why you apparently feel the
need to do so.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 22, 7:19=A0am, Scott wrote:
On May 21, 6:59=A0pm, KH wrote:

Well, Ed can correct me if I'm wrong...,

It seems he may very well be saying that. but that would mean that a
Beethoven sonata played on a Steinway grand and on a Sears stand up
would be equal aesthetic beauty so long as the performance was the
same.

Since such a thing is impossible in principal there is no point bring
it up. I would far rather hear it well than badly played on either.
The differences between the performances and the players is much more
important to me than who made the piano.

=A0You seem to think that the "path to the performance" has some
sonic relevance to the listener,

Of course I do. At least to *me* as a listener. I think there is no
doubt it affects the end result whether the listener is interested in
that path or not. Maybe you and Ed aren't interested in How say Ben
Webster would burn his reids of his sax

You don't seem to understand what the "path to the listener" means.
How the reeds are burned are not part of that path.

If the performance is such that all the emotion and beauty of
the composition is conveyed to the listener, then what matter the
instruments used?

So what you and Ed are saying is ignorance is bliss.

This is an absolutely blatant misrepresentation of what I or Keith
said. Please stop that.

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 22, 2:06=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 22, 7:19=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On May 21, 6:59=3DA0pm, KH wrote:

Well, Ed can correct me if I'm wrong...,
It seems he may very well be saying that. but that would mean that a
Beethoven sonata played on a Steinway grand and on a Sears stand up
would be equal aesthetic beauty so long as the performance was the
same.

Since such a thing is impossible in principal there is no point bring
it up.

Well it's nice that you conveniently edited out my saying that it is
impossible. Kinda ironic for one who is crying foul about
misrepresenting what is being said.

=A0I would far rather hear it well than badly played on either

What does that have to do with anything I have been saying? This
thread is about live music as a reference for playback. It's about
what these things *sound like* not how well they are played. This
whole thing about rather hearing music played well on inferior
instruments than played badly on excellent instruments is a complete
red herring and has no bearing whatsoever on my arguemtnabout the
importance of the sound of the instruemtns themselves.

The differences between the performances and the players is much more
important to me than who made the piano.

What does that have to do with my point that the instruments matter
when it comes to the quality of *sound*?


=3DA0You seem to think that the "path to the performance" has some
sonic relevance to the listener,

Of course I do. At least to *me* as a listener. I think there is no
doubt it affects the end result whether the listener is interested in
that path or not. Maybe you and Ed aren't interested in How say Ben
Webster would burn his reids of his sax

You don't seem to understand what the "path to the listener" means.
How the reeds are burned are not part of that path.

Who are you quoting here Ed and what are you talking about? Looks to
me like the quote was "path to the perofrmance." You really think that
how Ben Webster prepared his reeds was an insignificant part of the
path to his performances? Are you familiar with Ben Webster's music
and his *sound*? I don't know what you meant by "path to the listener"
but how Ben Webster prepared his reeds was huge in his path to his
performances. Huge.


If the performance is such that all the emotion and beauty of
the composition is conveyed to the listener, then what matter the
instruments used?
So what you and Ed are saying is ignorance is bliss.

This is an absolutely blatant misrepresentation of what I or Keith
said. =A0Please stop that.

Are you or are you not saying you are not concerned with *knowing*
what instruments are used by the musicians? Seems to me you have said
on numerous occassions that you are not at all concerned with knowing
this. Not knowing is ignorance by definition. If that makes you happy
that is bliss by defintion.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 23, 7:58=A0am, Scott wrote:

This is an absolutely blatant misrepresentation of what I or Keith
said. =A0Please stop that.

Are you or are you not saying you are not concerned with *knowing*
what instruments are used by the musicians? Seems to me you have said
on numerous occassions that you are not at all concerned with knowing
this.

No actually, I haven't. I said I'm not terribly concerned with the
*brands* of the instruments the musicians are playing. But you left
that little word "brands" out, didn't you?

Not knowing is ignorance by definition.

So then are you claiming that we have to know everything? Do you know
everything? Do you know how many sunspots are presently in existence
on the far side of the sun? On the near side? If you say you don't
know and don't care doesn't that mean that you believe that ignorance
is bliss? Why no actually, it doesn't, does it?

If that makes you happy that is bliss by definition.

I think that that is pejorative and I, as one person to another,
request that withdraw it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


On May 21, 10:14 am, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:

Your words.
"There are many more differences between different brands
of instruments than their sound, such as ease of play.

But those differences don't really matter much to the
listener." I believe those difference do matter to some
listeners given that those differences will affect
performance. But the other differences, you know, the
sonic differences also do matter to me as a listener.

My own current involvement with music is being one of a few people who are
directly and/or indirectly involved with organizing the musicans, obtaining
the music, configuring the venue, producing the performance, etc. for a
weekly event that is attended by 300-450 people who are paying an average of
$30-40 per person per weekly event that they attend. We play both
traditional and contemporary music. If I don't do it hands-on, I work
closely (face-to-face) with the people who do.

My experience is that the perceived value of the music to the listener is
easily as much due to the quality of the process as it is due to the quality
of the equipment.

[dtunetrader]

On May 19, 2:56=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of live music"
as a "reference", which is the title of the thread. =A0I believe the
very idea is incoherent.

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by definition
something that does not change and is kept handy so other things can
be compared with it.

The sound of live music is not because it changes and can't be kept
handy to compare something with it.

It can certainly be a goal, an ideal to be attained, even if
ultimately unreachable.
But a goal is not a reference, and calling "the sound of live music" a
reference is, to my mind, simple a misuse of the language.

Nothing wrong with bringing the sound of live music into the
discussion in a forum such as this, so far as I can see. =A0Just,
please, don't call it a "reference". =A0It isn't and it can't be.

it isn't 'a' reference, like a favorite component that some reviewer
keeps coming back to in reviewing.... it's 'The' reference that
most audiophiles i have known in my 40+ years of analogue
listening , lp collecting, component trading, and tube rolling,
refer to in virtually every instance of critical analysis or
comparison:
like what difference did i hear after recapping my tube amp with the
new paper in oil caps? my favorite 'live' recordings sounded more
like 'live' music... or: why would i spend two house payments for
a
certain moving coil cartridge? because it made my favorite 'live'
recordings sound more like 'live' music.

if you really prefer an mp3 type musical experience, why would you
want to hang out with a bunch of delusional high-enders, anyway???

[dtunetrader]

On May 19, 2:49=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 19, 11:18=A0am, Jenn wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those two
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

yeah, one such acoustical circumstance that may make those two guitars
sound similar might just be playback on ed's system: see below


In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other? =A0 I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist. =A0Why then
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

what gives you the idea that playback so distorted as to obscure
the sonic signatures of these instruments, which very sound is the
reason
they can cost small fortunes.... what gives you the idea that such
distorted
playback is good enough to convey the intention of the composer or the
performer?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 29, 7:54=A0am, dtunetrader wrote:
On May 19, 2:49=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

what gives you the idea that playback so distorted as to obscure
the sonic signatures of these instruments, which very sound is the
reason they can cost small fortunes.... =A0what gives you the idea that s=
uch
distorted playback is good enough to convey the intention of the composer=
or the
performer?

Well, give me one example of an instance in which a composer has
specified that a particular brand of, say, flute, is the only
instrument that should be used.

Do you have any evidence that a listener to a concert is able to tell
what brand of clarinet is being played based on it's sound alone?

Your words about "so distorted as to obscure" imply that you are able
to do so. Have you ever submitted yourself to a blind test to prove
that you can hear that difference? If not you then it would appear
are merely using loaded language to bolster what seems to be a rather
weak case.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 29, 7:38=A0am, dtunetrader wrote:
On May 19, 2:56=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Nothing wrong with bringing the sound of live music into the
discussion in a forum such as this, so far as I can see. =3DA0Just,
please, don't call it a "reference". =3DA0It isn't and it can't be.

it isn't 'a' reference, like a favorite component that some reviewer
keeps coming back to in reviewing.... =A0 it's 'The' reference that
most audiophiles i have known in my 40+ years of analogue
listening , lp collecting, component trading, and tube rolling,
refer to in virtually every instance of critical analysis or

IE, it is a "reference" in some special meaning that what you
"audiophiles" seem to have made up, but which has no clear meaning.

comparison:
like what difference did i hear after recapping my tube amp with the
new paper in oil caps? =A0 =A0

Got any evidence that you did hear such a difference?

my favorite 'live' recordings sounded more
like 'live' music... =A0 or: =A0why would i spend two house payments for
a certain moving coil cartridge? =A0

I can think of several reasons other than sound. Well, it's your
money, spend it as you please of course, no questions asked by me.
But until you can tell people what this "sounding more like live
music" actually consists of then they can have no idea what you mean.
I would say that, observationally, there is no such thing as "the
sound of live music" to compare your new sound to.

if you really prefer an mp3 type musical experience, why would you
want to hang out with a bunch of delusional high-enders, anyway???

I will thank you if you cease putting words in my mouth. I have said
no such thing, and I don't think you are arguing fairly when you
suggest I did.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 29, 7:54=A0am, dtunetrader wrote:

yeah, one such acoustical circumstance that may make those two guitars
sound similar might just be playback on ed's system: =A0see below

What do you know about my system, and if it satisfies me what does it
matter to you?
And, by the way, you are once again putting words into my mouth that I
never said, since I was plainly talking about circumstances on the
recording end of the chain, and you are responding with insinuations
about the quality of my home system as if that has anything to do with
the matter.

[KH]

On 5/29/2010 7:54 AM, dtunetrader wrote:
On May 19, 2:49 pm, Ed wrote:
On May 19, 11:18 am, wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those two
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

yeah, one such acoustical circumstance that may make those two guitars
sound similar might just be playback on ed's system: see below


In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other? I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist. Why then
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

what gives you the idea that playback so distorted as to obscure
the sonic signatures of these instruments, which very sound is the
reason
they can cost small fortunes.... what gives you the idea that such
distorted
playback is good enough to convey the intention of the composer or the
performer?

Perhaps if you're going to quote Ed, you should actually read the text
you're quoting. Which part of "...given that it is good enough to
convey the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?" is
unclear to you? He is not talking about "distortion" at all, he is
saying that the particular instruments used are irrelevant *given that*
they are sufficient to allow the performers to create a presentation
that is representative of what (we believe) the composer's intention was/is.

For example, is it your contention that unless you can clearly identify
the manufacturer of each and every instrument in a reproduced symphony,
then that playback is "distorted"? Good luck with that.

Similarly, you must think that even if a recording and playback chain is
sufficient to reliably distinguish between the same performer on a
Bosendorfer versus a Steinway while playing Mozart, that the Steinway
performance must somehow be "distorted" since clearly it was never
Mozart's *intention* to have his music performed on a Steinway, no?

Bosendorfer or Steinway, a Mozart performance proficiently executed on
either will convey the aesthetic that Mozart intended. It is not
*necessary* to either care about, or to have the ability to, distinguish
between the two instruments in order to fully appreciate the aesthetic
that Mozart intended to convey. That you may *prefer* one or the other
is irrelevant in this context (well, unless it's your contention that
Mozart on a Steinway is some unlistenable travesty - good luck with that
one as well). That's what Ed was saying above. The instruments are a
*means* to the desired end (i.e. the aural presentation), and that the
instruments are *sufficient* to effect that end was a clearly stipulated
prerequisite for his position that the specific instruments used are
irrelevant.

Keith Hughes