"Richard Dale" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do?
Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery
medium. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

The answer is both simple and a medical fact of life. Neither of them
possess the hearing acuity they had 30 years ago and are probably fortunate
that they can engage in social conversation without a hearing aid. This goes
equally well for Harry Pearson or *anyone* their age (like myself).


Enough said?

B&D wrote:

Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...

Well......... Last time I had the benefit of checking - cars at least do actually
'run in'. The engine and probably transmission too, 'loosen up' with the result of
less friction and higher performance peaking after around 10k miles.


Graham

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do?

Indeed.

Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery
medium.

True. But their claims about audible difference do not.

Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16
bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is
that?

Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End
audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?


Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly
wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative
effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?
No, not really.

"Richard Dale" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound
quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time
(compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported
what
Mr. Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is
simply an
attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.
I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack..

Bring me up to speed here. Who is Doug Sax, and how did he gain guru
status?

Norm Strong

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Can you respond without putting words into my mouth? Did I say I
disagreed?
Where in the original post or the followup? Here is the only thing
I said:
"I simply reported what Mr. Sax said." What part of that do you
not
understand?

When you quote someone without comment, you are inferring that you
agree with that quote. Barry Goldwater did it back in 1964 when he
said that "some have suggested sealing off the (Vietnam) border with
low yield nuclear weapons." His failure to say otherwise means that
he is at least sympathetic to that point of view. When politicians do
this it's called a "trial balloon". The hope is that, if and when
the balloon is shot out of the sky, the politician can point out that
he never advocated this action.

Norm Strong

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 8/17/2004 8:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:


...snip to specific comment.....

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the
sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"?

It is a question built on a false premise. Sax does not claim the sound will
change.



I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar over
time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to live
acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time?

Again, your question is based on a false premise. When audiophiles take home a
new piece of gear they are not likely to have a practical live reference to use
as a standard.



In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Not everyone agrees with you. Some experienced listeners feel they need more
time to get the full effect and digest it's merits.

Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are
electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine.
It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers
can attest to each.
Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would
not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the
suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does
not occur, which is just silly.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article ,
"Nousaine"
wrote:

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very
dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the
component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months"
to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how
does the sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for
several months"?

Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have
found that
listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of
your
music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much
you want
to listen to music - and which music.

I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of
equipment
brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious
at
first blush.

Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but
you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...

On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

Kal

"normanstrong" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Can you respond without putting words into my mouth? Did I say I
disagreed?
Where in the original post or the followup? Here is the only thing
I said:
"I simply reported what Mr. Sax said." What part of that do you
not
understand?

When you quote someone without comment, you are inferring that you
agree with that quote. Barry Goldwater did it back in 1964 when he
said that "some have suggested sealing off the (Vietnam) border with
low yield nuclear weapons." His failure to say otherwise means that
he is at least sympathetic to that point of view. When politicians do
this it's called a "trial balloon". The hope is that, if and when
the balloon is shot out of the sky, the politician can point out that
he never advocated this action.


Boy, that's news to me. As I said, some of what Mr. Sax said I agree with;
some I don't. I simply was amplifying my comment that it was a provacative
article by including more of what Mr. Sax said than did the original post.

On 8/19/04 8:23 PM, in article , "Uptown Audio"
wrote:

Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are
electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine.
It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers
can attest to each.
Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would
not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the
suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does
not occur, which is just silly.

Bipolar Transistors do take a set after time (I *think* the hFE changes a
bit). I have no idea if it has impact sonically, though....

Norman Schwartz wrote:

The answer is both simple and a medical fact of life. Neither of them
possess the hearing acuity they had 30 years ago and are probably fortunate
that they can engage in social conversation without a hearing aid. This goes
equally well for Harry Pearson or *anyone* their age (like myself).


Enough said?
======================================

Only if you can get Harry to admit it. G

-GP

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what
happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what
way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would
require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to
pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts'
audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when
they were young farts.)

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve,
should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs.


However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16
bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is
that?

Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer
makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound.
But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds
that something affects the sound, is necessarily true.


Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End
audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?

Branding certainly has its uses.


Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly
wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative
effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?
No, not really.


Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the
audible effect
of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no
audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief
have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever.
Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of
something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic
results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs.

What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are
many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one
would question can make an audible difference to the result:
EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes
to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain,
which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time
demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences.
So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a
scientific basis.

Then there are those that at present
have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily
audibly degraded compared to
their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims
require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*.

The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices,
that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound.

--


-S.

Subject: Audio quackwatch
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 8/21/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a
Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve,
should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs.


However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16
bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is
that?

Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer
makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound.
But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds
that something affects the sound, is necessarily true.

Unfortunately your analogies simply don't hold water. A pig farmer's success in
decision making does not depend on his beliefs in evolution. A mastering
engineer's success does depend on his ability to make decisons based on his or
her ability to discern what they are hearing.


Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End
audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?

Branding certainly has its uses.


Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly
wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative
effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?
No, not really.


Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the
audible effect
of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no
audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief
have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever.
Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of
something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic
results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs.

If he believes that things are making a difference which in fact are not. His
ability to judge by ear is more suspect than another mastering engineer who is
not making such mistakes. People who make decisions by ear on a daily basis and
are good at it should be less likely to make such mistakes than the average
person.



What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are
many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one
would question can make an audible difference to the result:

But one could and should question the quality of the choice.


EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes
to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain,
which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time
demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences.

He has had a lifetime of work to show he is a good decision maker. That has to
start with a perceptive ear/brain reciever.


So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a
scientific basis.

Then there are those that at present
have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily
audibly degraded compared to
their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims
require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*.


He is not out to prove anything.

The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices,
that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound.

--


-S.

On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what
happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what
way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would
require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to
pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts'
audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when
they were young farts.)

NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing
as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these
guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis
disqualifies them.

Kal

S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio quackwatch
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 8/21/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a
Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve,
should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs.


However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16
bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is
that?

Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer
makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound.
But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds
that something affects the sound, is necessarily true.

Unfortunately your analogies simply don't hold water. A pig farmer's success in
decision making does not depend on his beliefs in evolution.

Please deomnstarte to me that a mastering engineer's success *depends on*
the audibility of digitial copying, or of the phsuyiological effects of
PCM.

A mastering
engineer's success does depend on his ability to make decisons based on his or
her ability to discern what they are hearing.

Again, some of those decisions are certainly going to affect sound.
It is those decisions that actually affect the product...not the
superstitions.

Or are you saying that mastering engineers never hold untrue beliefs about
what affects sound?


audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?

Branding certainly has its uses.


Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly
wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative
effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?
No, not really.


Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the
audible effect
of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no
audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief
have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever.
Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of
something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic
results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs.


If he believes that things are making a difference which in fact are not.

Which can happen, wouldn't you agree? How would you verify? OR do you
simply accept what the engineer believes as true? Then you're back where
you started.

His
ability to judge by ear is more suspect than another mastering
engineer who is not making such mistakes.

'Mistakes' that in reality involve superstitious belief aren't going to
make a real difference in the products of either engineer. YOu need to
prove that successful mastering engineers are less prone to superstitions
than other humans. My unscientific sample, from reading what they say, is
that they are fully as prone to confirmation bias of objectively
unconfirmed beliefs, as anyone.

People who make decisions by ear on a daily basis and
are good at it should be less likely to make such mistakes than the average
person.

But are they less prone to known psychoacoustic/psychological effects? I
want evidence that that's true. The TAS roundtable provides
*counterevidence*, if anything. You seem to think that no independent
verificiation is needed for a mastering engineer's belief about audible
difference. Decades of research say otherwise.


What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are
many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one
would question can make an audible difference to the result:

But one could and should question the quality of the choice.

Exactly. The quality of the choice made, *for choices that make a sonic
difference*, are what determine the quality of the product. The
'quality' of choices that make no sonic difference, *doesn't matter*.

So Sax et al. should either put up evidence that digital copying is a
choice that *does matter* , or focus on the stuff that unassailably
*does matter*. "I heard it, therefore it's true' is simply insufficient
for some classes of difference, as we've known for *decades* now.

EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes
to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain,
which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time
demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences.

He has had a lifetime of work to show he is a good decision maker. That has to
start with a perceptive ear/brain reciever.

Perceptive, but certainly not infallible. So demonstrate to me that his
decisions re *digital copying*, and not, say, EQ curves or other stuff
that practically can't *help* but make a difference, are what determined
the quality of the result.

So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a
scientific basis.

Then there are those that at present
have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily
audibly degraded compared to
their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims
require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*.

He is not out to prove anything.

Nor is he immune from critique, simply by virtue of having an opinion.
You want to argue from his position of authority, yet you don't want his
authority questioned on matters audio.

I repeat:

The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices,
that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound.

On 8/21/04 11:00 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve,
should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs.

Perhaps not - but if he said that pigs behaved a certain way under
circumstances - should we brandish our book and academic paper at him and
accuse him of being an ignoramus?

On 18 Aug 2004 16:42:11 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this?**Where*in*my*post?**I*simply*reported*what
Mr. Sax said.**Some*I*may*agree*with;*some*I*may*not.**Thi s*is*simply*an
attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.
I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack..

Not when Doug says that tape has a lower noise floor than CD, it
doesn't! He may be an ace vinyl mastering engineer, but he sounds
like he's getting nervous about all those hard-won analogue skills now
being effectively obsolete...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 20 Aug 2004 00:19:49 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do?

Indeed.

Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery
medium.

True. But their claims about audible difference do not.

Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16
bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is
that?

He has a good ear, superb mixdown skills, and can master an average
studio multitrack tape into a great-sounding end product - that
doesn't make him right about digital............

Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End
audio/professional equipment.

Indeed he has - ever wonder why?

The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?

Because so-called 'high end' customers just lurrrve designer labels,
even thought the actual designer is Harvey Q Knucklehead Junior. Sure
Levinson's own products sounded good - but then *any* decent amp with
solid power rails sounds good - this isn't exactly rocket science!

Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly
wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative
effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?

No, not really.

Ah, well.......................

BTW, you do realise that the 'Red Rose' amplifier is a Chinese OEM job
which is rebadged by ML, and then has the price jacked by a factor of
four or five, don't you? POrobably sounds just fine, but never had
anything to do with Mark Levinson.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 21 Aug 2004 15:00:44 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices,
that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound.

To expand this somewhat, Tim de Paravicini is one of the best
transformer designers and rebuilders of classic tubed tape decks such
as the Revox G36, on the face of the planet, and James Boyk is a
talented recording engineer with a superb knowledge of microphone
sound, but both of them have uttered *seriously* whacko pronouncements
regarding the tweakier end of audio. It may be coincidental, but note
that neither ot them is actually a trained electronics engineer, yet
the 'off the wall' pronouncements they have made have been in the
engineering arena, regarding such things as 'wire sound' and
resolution.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 20 Aug 2004 00:20:31 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Bring me up to speed here. Who is Doug Sax, and how did he gain guru
status?

You can find him easily on Google, but perhaps his best-known work to
'high end' audiophiles, is that he produced most (all?) of the classic
Sheffield Labs direct-cut LPs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what
happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what
way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would
require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out
to
pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts'
audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously
when
they were young farts.)

NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing
as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these
guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis
disqualifies them.

If one is going to compensate for diminished response to higher frequencies
by jacking up the (entire) volume in order to attempt to learn and hear
what's going on up there, what happens to the bottom (lower) end?, it too
gets louder and could easily become overwhelming. I can't see how that type
of listening is meaningful in any way whatsoever.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what
happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what
way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would
require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out
to
pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts'
audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously
when
they were young farts.)

NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing
as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these
guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis
disqualifies them.

I don't know about little vs. significant, but sticking your head into the
sand, just a little doesn't make for the best listening experience.

From: Stewart Pinkerton =20
Date: 8/22/2004 9:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 18 Aug 2004 16:42:11 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality o=
f a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared=
to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.
=20
Did I say I agreed with this?=A0=A0Where=A0in=A0my=A0post?=A0=A0I=A0s=
imply=A0reported=A0what
Mr. Sax said.=A0=A0Some=A0I=A0may=A0agree=A0with;=A0some=A 0I=A0may=A0=
not.=A0=A0This=A0is=A0simply=A0an
attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.
I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack..

Not when Doug says that tape has a lower noise floor than CD, it
doesn't! He may be an ace vinyl mastering engineer, but he sounds
like he's getting nervous about all those hard-won analogue skills now
being effectively obsolete...............
--=20



Not likely. He does plenty of work with digital. He may be disappointed a=
bout
doing less in analog but that would only be because of his honest opinion=
s on
it's virtues. Obviously his skills in analog are not obsolete as long as =
there
is a demand for them.

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 8/22/2004 9:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio quackwatch
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 8/21/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a
Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been
in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.
Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30
years,
then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'.

So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve,
should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs.


However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including
16
bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why
is
that?

Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer
makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound.
But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds
that something affects the sound, is necessarily true.

Unfortunately your analogies simply don't hold water. A pig farmer's
success in
decision making does not depend on his beliefs in evolution.

Please deomnstarte to me that a mastering engineer's success *depends on*
the audibility of digitial copying, or of the phsuyiological effects of
PCM.

Why? Shouldn't you ask the relevant question? Is a mastering engineer's success
dependent on his or her ability to evaluate what they hear and make decisions
based on what they hear? The answer to that is yes.


A mastering
engineer's success does depend on his ability to make decisons based on his
or
her ability to discern what they are hearing.

Again, some of those decisions are certainly going to affect sound.
It is those decisions that actually affect the product...not the
superstitions.

Those decisions hinge upon the mastering engineer's ability to evaluate what
they hear. That does speak to their ability to hear subtle differences and
recognize them.


Or are you saying that mastering engineers never hold untrue beliefs about
what affects sound?

Hardly. But I am saying your analogy doesn't hold water.




audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson'
is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man
no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?

Branding certainly has its uses.


Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be
*utterly
wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the
degradative
effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?
No, not really.


Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the
audible effect
of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no
audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief
have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever.
Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of
something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic
results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs.


If he believes that things are making a difference which in fact are not.

Which can happen, wouldn't you agree?

Sure it can happen. Experts make mistakes, whether they are mastering engineers
or pig farmers. If they are not less prone to such mistakes via their
experience and talent then they are not likely to be an exceptional mastering
engineer.

How would you verify?

You probably don't. Mastering engineers are in the business of mastering not
proving audibility.
OR do you simply accept what the engineer believes as true?

It isn't an either or situation. You listen to their work and take it for what
it is. As a consumer you support work that you like and pass on work you do not
like.

Then you're back where
you started.

Not really. You can listen for yourself and see if you agree or disagree with
the views of any audio expert.



His
ability to judge by ear is more suspect than another mastering
engineer who is not making such mistakes.

'Mistakes' that in reality involve superstitious belief aren't going to
make a real difference in the products of either engineer.

The suseptability to make mistyakes, the inablity to know when you are being
fooled will, in the long run, be reflected in a mastering engineer's work IMO.
Unlike the pig farmer whose beliefs in evolution will not likely ever be
reflected in the quality of his ham. That is the problem with your analogy.
Failure to discern what one is hearing will be reflected in one's work if they
are a mastering engineer.

YOu need to
prove that successful mastering engineers are less prone to superstitions
than other humans.

No I don't.

My unscientific sample, from reading what they say, is
that they are fully as prone to confirmation bias of objectively
unconfirmed beliefs, as anyone.

I agree that your sample and your theory are not terribly scientific.



People who make decisions by ear on a daily basis and
are good at it should be less likely to make such mistakes than the average

person.

But are they less prone to known psychoacoustic/psychological effects?

I'd bet they are.

I
want evidence that that's true.

Some one would have to put it to the test. That has not been done to my
knowledge. Until it has we are just speculating.

The TAS roundtable provides
*counterevidence*, if anything.

Nah, you just don't like their views.

You seem to think that no independent
verificiation is needed for a mastering engineer's belief about audible
difference.

I don't think verification is needed for belief. If we are really worried about
proving or disproving their beliefs then varification would be needed.I don't
expect opinions to need scientific varification unless they are presented as
scientifically valid claims.Gosh, I think The Much Box makes the best burger in
town. I don't feel a need to conduct blind taste tests to hold that opinion.

Decades of research say otherwise.

Please cite the decades of research that suggests experienced, excellent
mastering engineers are equaly suseptable to bias effects as is the average
person.



What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are
many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one
would question can make an audible difference to the result:

But one could and should question the quality of the choice.

Exactly. The quality of the choice made, *for choices that make a sonic
difference*, are what determine the quality of the product. The
'quality' of choices that make no sonic difference, *doesn't matter*.

The ability to discern what one is hearing does matter in *al* decisions. If a
mastering engineer is no better at this than the average Joe I would be
surprised if he is really an exceptional mastering engineer.



So Sax et al. should either put up evidence that digital copying is a
choice that *does matter* , or focus on the stuff that unassailably
*does matter*.

I disagree, They should go about their business and let the consumers decide if
they are good at what they do. They do not owe us anything more than that.

"I heard it, therefore it's true' is simply insufficient
for some classes of difference, as we've known for *decades* now.

No one is twisting your arm to believe them or anyone else.


EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes
to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain,
which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time
demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences.

He has had a lifetime of work to show he is a good decision maker. That has
to
start with a perceptive ear/brain reciever.

Perceptive, but certainly not infallible.

Who is claiming infalibility? I bet the best pig farmers make mistakes too.

So demonstrate to me that his
decisions re *digital copying*, and not, say, EQ curves or other stuff
that practically can't *help* but make a difference, are what determined
the quality of the result.

I don't need to. It is not relevant to your failed analogy. Besides, there is
no practical way for me to prove anything one way or another.I could ask you to
demonstrate that his decisions re *digital copying* did *not* make a
difference. You can't. The request either way is completely unreasonable due to
practicality alone.



So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a
scientific basis.

Then there are those that at present
have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily
audibly degraded compared to
their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims
require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*.

He is not out to prove anything.

Nor is he immune from critique, simply by virtue of having an opinion.

Who said he was?


You want to argue from his position of authority, yet you don't want his
authority questioned on matters audio.

Not at all. I take his opinions more seriously than the average audiophile
because his work supports the notion that he might know what he hears. I don't
take them as irrefutable fact.


I repeat:

The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices,
that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound.

Tell it to someone claiming infalibility.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Aug 2004 00:19:49 GMT, Richard Dale

The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is
so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no
longer has any association with them. Why is that?

Because so-called 'high end' customers just lurrrve designer labels,
even thought the actual designer is Harvey Q Knucklehead Junior. Sure
Levinson's own products sounded good - but then *any* decent amp with
solid power rails sounds good - this isn't exactly rocket science!

Once again demonstrating the principle: if you (or someone working for
you) do the *important stuff* right, how you do the *ridiculous stuff*
really shouldn't matter.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what
happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what
way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would
require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out
to
pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts'
audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously
when
they were young farts.)

NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing
as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these
guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis
disqualifies them.

I believe this is wishful thinking on your part. When I first started
listening to my Tympanis I always padded down the tweeter ribbons feeling
uncomfortable listening to them "full range" regardless of the source
material (phono, tape, CD, tuner), amplification -or- the listening room
they were in. Within the last couple of years this in no longer the case,
the resistors have been removed and I'm content with their present sound.
There may be more than a bit of truth in the adage commenting that the
silver disc is dedicated to the nursing home crowd (CDs that were once to
bright and edgy at the top end have now become acceptable). The old gray
mare isn't what it used to be and I know that I can't tell youngins how the
tunes may actually sound *to them*. I'm merely happy that I can appreciate
them at my level.

On 22 Aug 2004 23:41:37 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

I believe this is wishful thinking on your part. When I first started
listening to my Tympanis I always padded down the tweeter ribbons feeling
uncomfortable listening to them "full range" regardless of the source
material (phono, tape, CD, tuner), amplification -or- the listening room
they were in. Within the last couple of years this in no longer the case,
the resistors have been removed and I'm content with their present sound.
There may be more than a bit of truth in the adage commenting that the
silver disc is dedicated to the nursing home crowd (CDs that were once to
bright and edgy at the top end have now become acceptable). The old gray
mare isn't what it used to be and I know that I can't tell youngins how the
tunes may actually sound *to them*. I'm merely happy that I can appreciate
them at my level.

You may be right but that's just speculation unless you have some
measurements of the speakers and your ears over the relevant years.

Kal

On 22 Aug 2004 17:20:09 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

If one is going to compensate for diminished response to higher frequencies
by jacking up the (entire) volume in order to attempt to learn and hear
what's going on up there, what happens to the bottom (lower) end?, it too
gets louder and could easily become overwhelming. I can't see how that type
of listening is meaningful in any way whatsoever.

You are confusing threshhold with sensitivity.

Kal

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote in message
...
today's entries....


Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats
digital because it has 'at least
an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing
1/4 inch tape to CD -- that
is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP
to CD, or p[roduction
digital to production analog, but that's not clarified.



Well, I don't know what planet Doug gets his analog tape decks from,
but I've never encountered a 1/4" *or* 1/2" machine with a "better"
noise floor than Red Book CD.

But he's right about the extra octave, that's just a given. The issue
is whether or not this extra octave+ is audible to humans...or audible
beneath that aforementioned analog noise floor!

And at Doug's age, he hasn't heard a sound above 14KHz in years! So what's
he yammering about an extra octave? He might as well be barking at the moon
as to being able to hear any difference between vinyl or digital.
Maybe he can't hear the vinyl ticks and pops anymore! That CERTAINLY would
make vinyl sound better. Ha!
Regards,
Tom

Kalman Rubinson wrote:



On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

Kal

Mead Killion of Etymotic Research described hearing loss as such. He noted that
there are musicians in there 70s with significant hearing loss who are still
making significant musical contribution because their loss is a threshold
function ---- if its loud enough their hearing may be close to normal.

That's why he developed the Musician's Ear Plugs with balanced attenuation and
the absence of occlusal effect.

Are they needed? Well I just returned from the Bayfront Blues Festival in
Duluth MN where I measured and recorded (on paper) the actual sound pressure
during performances. Want to guess what the Maximum and Average SPL might have
been at 60 yards from one stage (next to the sound-board tent)?
How about within 5 yards of the right monitor stack? How about at the further
stage (perhaps 120 yards from the microphone)?

Within 5 yards of the right stack the SPL measured Flat at Fast integration was
122 dB Max and 114 dB Average over 2-3 minutes. At 60 yards it was 114 dB Max
and 107 Average. The peak SPL at 5-yards was 80-100 Hz; and at 60 yards it was
between 125 and 160 Hz. At 120 yards the SPL was 3-4 dB less but the Stack at
that stage was apparently larger.

This was at an outdoor event located on the bay in Duluth. There were no nearby
significant reflective surfaces other than the stages themselves.

My point? You DO need Musicans's Ear Plugs at these events. ER-15 (15-dB
attenuation) is a good compromise. I have ER-9 and ER-25 to accomodate every
venue.

Uptown Audio wrote:

Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are
electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine.
It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers
can attest to each.
Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would
not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the
suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does
not occur, which is just silly.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article ,
"Nousaine"
wrote:

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very
dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the
component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months"
to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how
does the sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for
several months"?

Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have
found that
listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of
your
music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much
you want
to listen to music - and which music.

I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of
equipment
brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious
at
first blush.

Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but
you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...

The latter comment has nothing to do with 'break-in.' It has to do with the
driver acclimating himself to the vehicle and the relative incidence or lack-of
problems.

But the former comment is simply OSAF; with audio products, even speakers,
there is no evidence that break-in is a function of electronics or
loudspeakers. In the first case Mil-Spec requires break-in but that's simply to
eliminate crib-death and other early-failure modes. It's not a function of
adjusting to performance.

I've personally conducted three break-in studies of loudspeakers and found that
there-ain't-no-such-thing.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 8/17/2004 8:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its
provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:


...snip to specific comment.....

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the
sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"?


It is a question built on a false premise. Sax does not claim the sound will
change.

So why do you have to "live with it" to see if it satisfies? I just don;t get
it if the accuracy of the sound compared to live music is to be the reference.

I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar
over
time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to
live
acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time?

Again, your question is based on a false premise. When audiophiles take home
a
new piece of gear they are not likely to have a practical live reference to
use
as a standard.

So what you are saying is that live acoustical music is not the reference. I
guess I just couldn't believe that it wasn't.

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Not everyone agrees with you. Some experienced listeners feel they need more
time to get the full effect and digest it's merits.

To get the 'full effect' of a static sound system (one that is not changing
with time)? Then whatever adjustment is a function of the listener and not the
system. Thank you for making that clear.

What I find interesting is that I've never found a music enthusiast who had any
trouble desciding whether a live performance in audio or musical performance
was satisfactory or not. To me, that means that when home-audio high-end
enthusiasts must need time to adjust psychologically-socially because the sound
sure isn't changing.

On 8/23/04 7:19 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Uptown Audio wrote:

Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are
electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine.
It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers
can attest to each.
Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would
not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the
suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does
not occur, which is just silly.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"B&D" wrote in message
...
On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article ,
"Nousaine"
wrote:

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very
dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the
component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months"
to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how
does the sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for
several months"?

Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have
found that
listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of
your
music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much
you want
to listen to music - and which music.

I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of
equipment
brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious
at
first blush.

Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but
you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...

The latter comment has nothing to do with 'break-in.' It has to do with the
driver acclimating himself to the vehicle and the relative incidence or
lack-of
problems.

Depends - I have found that *I* break in to a new pair of speakers, for
instance, by playing a lot of my music on it and hearing how it presents it
to me in a slightly new way (more detail, tonal balance or timing or
whatever).

I would surmise that when one buys ANYTHING that is supposed to enhance an
experience - there is a period of time where one gets used to it.


But the former comment is simply OSAF; with audio products, even speakers,
there is no evidence that break-in is a function of electronics or
loudspeakers. In the first case Mil-Spec requires break-in but that's simply
to
eliminate crib-death and other early-failure modes. It's not a function of
adjusting to performance.

I've personally conducted three break-in studies of loudspeakers and found
that
there-ain't-no-such-thing.

But the incidence of break in of the listener is a widespread fact, though,
which is what my point was

rote:

Nousaine wrote:

My point? You DO need Musicans's Ear Plugs at these events. ER-15 (15-dB
attenuation) is a good compromise. I have ER-9 and ER-25 to accomodate
every
venue.

While I would agree that wearing ear plugs is necessary at such events, it
begs the question: If people have to wear ear plugs to go to an event
such as you describe safely, what rational reason on earth is there to use
such levels in the first place?

That's my point. But these levels actually exist. And people aren't generally
aware of how loud their exposure really is. I began using Musician's Ear
Plug's more than a decade ago ........simply to protect myself from what I
thought were unusually loud sound pressure levels I was getting at Car Audio
Events.



IMO, it's just a very sick syndrome. Greater musical expression actually
comes from quiet sounds as it takes more advantage of our hearing
capabilities.

Think clavichord. A crescendo on such an instrument is really more effective

as far as musical communication with emotions rather than hitting one on the
head with a sledge by using deafening (and dangerous) levels.

Well I just wanted to record exactly how loud people would be exposing
themselves to at a popular event (this one was the 16th annual Bayfront Blues
Festival.) And aside from the loud sound pressure I have found the event to be
spectacularly wonderful.

"Norman Schwartz" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
Kalman Rubinson wrote:



On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

Enough said?

I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and
exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher
frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder.

Kal

Mead Killion of Etymotic Research described hearing loss as such. He noted
that
there are musicians in there 70s with significant hearing loss who are
still
making significant musical contribution because their loss is a threshold
function ---- if its loud enough their hearing may be close to normal.

BS. In order to hear significantly loud tape hiss from (non-Dolby encoded)
O/R tapes I have to jack up the gain to a point that it makes it impossible
to comfortably listen to the music for more than 20 seconds.

Please take my comments in conterxt. If you have a problem with what Killion
said please take that up with him.


Within 5 yards of the right stack the SPL measured Flat at Fast integration
was
122 dB Max and 114 dB Average over 2-3 minutes. At 60 yards it was 114 dB
Max
and 107 Average. The peak SPL at 5-yards was 80-100 Hz; and at 60 yards it
was
between 125 and 160 Hz. At 120 yards the SPL was 3-4 dB less but the Stack
at
that stage was apparently larger.

This was at an outdoor event located on the bay in Duluth. There were no
nearby
significant reflective surfaces other than the stages themselves.

My point? You DO need Musicans's Ear Plugs at these events. ER-15 (15-dB
attenuation) is a good compromise. I have ER-9 and ER-25 to accomodate
every
venue.

I recently attended one of Rod Stewart's current cycle of concerts in an
auditorium with plenty of amplification (of course), was about 75 yards from
the stage and used no hearing protection. Perhaps at my age little hearing
remains that might be worth protecting. Nevertheless I'm under the
impression that attenuating the sound level would have deprived me of much
of the fun.

That may be your perception. l am simply reporting what I measured at a recent
event. IMO I would have been remiss at NOT protecting myself at this event.

According to the discussion here I should have been able to hear
higher frequencies as well as any bats in attendance.

There were plenty of Bats; not the least of which were Ko KJo Taylor and Little
Richard.

On 19 Aug 2004 23:36:28 GMT, Pooh Bear
wrote:

B&D wrote:

Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...

Well......... Last time I had the benefit of checking - cars at least do actually
'run in'. The engine and probably transmission too, 'loosen up' with the result of
less friction and higher performance peaking after around 10k miles.

And then, of course, they wear out......................

There are many speakers and amplifiers which have been running happily
every day for twenty years, and show no sign of wear, making the
'break in' phenomenon unlikely, to say the least.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 24 Aug 2004 23:40:58 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote:

I'm not attempting to distinguish threshold with sensitivity, but merely
commenting on your implied suggestion that turning up the juice is going to
make older folk's hearing = that of younger people. It isn't and therefore
older listeners are not in any position to comment and audio matters.

Nice try Norman (I'm guessing that you're quite young?), but if you
want an opinion on musical or hi-fi matters, you don't usually ask a
teenager. Experience counts, and no one has suggested that anything
other than treble threshold is affected with age.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

B&D wrote:

.....snip to content.....

I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of
equipment
brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious
at
first blush.

Why not? Is the "sound" different? If not why would anyone care?


Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but
you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...

The latter comment has nothing to do with 'break-in.' It has to do with the
driver acclimating himself to the vehicle and the relative incidence or
lack-of
problems.

Depends - I have found that *I* break in to a new pair of speakers, for
instance, by playing a lot of my music on it and hearing how it presents it
to me in a slightly new way (more detail, tonal balance or timing or
whatever).

Sure.... the sound isn't changing only your opinion of it is. Doesn'tit seem
obvious that the 'tonal balance' or 'timing' can't possibly change?

I would surmise that when one buys ANYTHING that is supposed to enhance an
experience - there is a period of time where one gets used to it.

I'm not buying this line. IF the performance doesn't differ (even if the user
needs to get-used-to the functionality) how is it possible for the experience
to get better with usage UNLESS the listener changes his/her standards?


But the former comment is simply OSAF; with audio products, even speakers,
there is no evidence that break-in is a function of electronics or
loudspeakers. In the first case Mil-Spec requires break-in but that's
simply
to
eliminate crib-death and other early-failure modes. It's not a function of
adjusting to performance.

I've personally conducted three break-in studies of loudspeakers and found
that
there-ain't-no-such-thing.

But the incidence of break in of the listener is a widespread fact,

Sure; but all the break-in talk, except for the first-time with you, doesn't
say anything about the "listener."

though,
which is what my point was

That customers will gladly "buy" even sub-standard performance when they're
given enough time to acclimate?

On 8/25/04 9:18 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Depends - I have found that *I* break in to a new pair of speakers, for
instance, by playing a lot of my music on it and hearing how it presents it
to me in a slightly new way (more detail, tonal balance or timing or
whatever).

Sure.... the sound isn't changing only your opinion of it is. Doesn'tit seem
obvious that the 'tonal balance' or 'timing' can't possibly change?

Might not - but you may not really notice it until later so it might seem
new to you.