Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs. So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that. That's an unusual perspective. So you think that HvK wanted to sell records/CD's (which we all agree), and yet was not (a) trying to replicate the sound of live music, or (b) trying to make his recordings sound as good as possible (yet sounding bad to you)? So what was his goals when he made a recording? To make them sound not life-like, or not sound good? It's really clear that you do not trust the ears of HvK, or his intentions of making good sounding recordings. And for exactly the same reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction. Jenn has clearly challenged HvK's professional integrity, No, I have not. by writing that all he wanted to do was to sell recordings. I wrote nothing of the kind. Please don't misrepresent what I have written. Hmmm, here's what you wrote a couple of messages back: "Just like most of the general population, it is likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs." It would appear to us that you were saying all he wanted to do was to sell recordings. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 17:41:28 GMT, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: That's because you've never done blind tests. You know this, how? Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you obviously haven't enjoyed yet. Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost nothing about music-making asserting things about what goes one in the minds of musicians. Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost nothing about audio asserting things about what goes on in the minds of audiophiles. I see you make no defense against the original suggestion that you, while knowing nothing about music-making, feel absolutely certain that you understand how musicians perceive sound. For example, you have provided metaphoric descriptions of vinyl distortion mechanisms (such as Date: 22 Oct 2005 17:08:45 GMT Local: Sat, Oct 22 2005 9:08 am Subject: Heaven!, "whiter than white") but never bothered once to ask a musician if these metaphors have any relation to what they hear. As for your "I know you are but what am I?" retort, you are wrong. I'm interested in hearing how you desribe the *experience* of listening to music. In fact, once I literally ASKED YOU this very question, and you provided no answer: ------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Sep 2005 14:41:29 GMT Local: Sat, Sep 3 2005 6:41 am Subject: other ear/brain model Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Sep 2005 15:13:08 GMT, wrote: The model I believe Bob and Stewart and "bear" are using (and they may confirm this or explain otherwise, of course): We are not in sufficient disagreement for any such modelling to be valid, IMO. So looking at my first model which shows the relationship of sound, initial processing, musical reactions, and consciousness, do you find agreement with that model? Or how would you describe your own mind? ------------------------------------ You never provided an answer to this post. I notice also you have not replied on the threads where out... and K. Hugues were discussing how the recent experiments relate to the functioning of the ear. This gives me the impression that you simply aren't interested in discussing a functional model of the ear and consciousness. Too bad, because I think that some key questions require such a model as a step toward answering them or suggesting more experiements. (If you are thinking of replying that you already understand the functioning of ear and consciousness, note that we were discussing NEW research.) Mike |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: chung wrote: Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported in this message? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b "Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago, I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all sounded unique to me." No. This happened about three weeks ago. Care to share with us which CD players were being tested? Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out for you if you wish. A point to bear in mind us that it is almost impossible to level match CD players with a sound meter. You really need a test disc and a voltmeter As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations. IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do. (which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway). I have a sound meter available to me from work. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
On 7 Dec 2005 03:30:38 GMT, chung wrote:
Jenn wrote: Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Neither. It should be noted that the name of any experienced audiophile could have been appended to Jenn's paragraph above. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , chung
wrote: big snip for the sake of greater brevity And for exactly the same reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction. Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown. If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However, we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be "impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK, like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know what he was trying to accomplish. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 17:41:28 GMT, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: That's because you've never done blind tests. You know this, how? Call it a lucky guess. People who've done good blind tests are never cocky about their hearing prowess. It's a humbling experience which you obviously haven't enjoyed yet. Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost nothing about music-making asserting things about what goes one in the minds of musicians. Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost nothing about audio asserting things about what goes on in the minds of audiophiles. Yes, and I on't undestand why so many elfproclaimed objectivists insist on doing this sort of thing. It makes the whole philosophy look real bad. Here we go again with the "cocky" attribution that you and other like to assign to me. I honestly don't know where this comes from, but I find it to be a bit humorous, frankly. I say once AGAIN: I've NEVER claimed to have better hearing than anyone else. Heck, for all I know, your hearing measures better than mine. It's pretty typical for an objectivist to reduce hearing ability to some kind of scale, some kind of number. Actually what comes off as really cocky is people who know almost nothing about audio asserting things about what goes on in the minds of audiophiles. You have never seen any 'objectivist' make any such comment, except in relation to well-known physiological limits of human hearing. I think the psychic claims like this also eat away at the credibility of objectiists. Ignoring that hearing music is largely about perceiving abstract, diffuse, complex patterns in the sound. This is one reason they persist in the absurd belief that quick-switching is revealing of musical differences between equipment, because they assume (without ever examing the key questions) that all differences are perceivable in short segments. You have offered no evidence whatever to suggest that level-matched time-proximate sampling is *not* the most sensitive method for fdetermining subtle differences between two pieces of audio equipment. You have offered no evidnce that it is the most sensitive method for distingushing differences between components when a music is being used. You use terms like 'absurd belief', when what is truly absurd is your continual posturing with no evidential or logical base for your wild assertions. Talk about posturing, where is your evidence that quick switching is more sensitive when music is being used? What I'm claiming is daily professional experience in listening, and serious years-long training in the sound of instruments. It's hardly worth arguing with these guys. They know nothing about music-making and they are attempting to butt heads with someone who has trained her whole life. It's hardly worth arguing with these folks. And yet you have done it for years, go figure. They know nothing about music reproduction and they are attempting to butt heads with someone who has trained his whole life. Really? You have trained your whole life in music reproduction? Wow. What have you done with all that training? Produced or engineeered any recordings? designed any commercial equipment? I mean Jenn makes a living at what she does. What about you? What have you actually done with this life time of training in "music reproduction?" Scott |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung wrote: . . . Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs. So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that. Jenn, this is exactly what you wrote about Herbert Von Karajan (I hate htese abbreviations). So, the question is the same - can we trust his ears or not? According to you he had his own agenda. Is not it the case for many other people, including conductors? vlad |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: chung wrote: Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported in this message? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b "Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago, I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all sounded unique to me." No. This happened about three weeks ago. Care to share with us which CD players were being tested? Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out for you if you wish. A point to bear in mind us that it is almost impossible to level match CD players with a sound meter. You really need a test disc and a voltmeter As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations. IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do. Given that a sound level meter does not have the accuracy necessary to insure level matching between 2 CD players, I would not be surprised that you could tell them apart blind. It is simply not a good test, if you want to know whether there really is a sonic difference. Of course, you are free to do the test whichever way you want. But it does not follow that you could tell those players apart if the test was done correctly. (which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway). I have a sound meter available to me from work. You can buy a DVM for less than $10. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , chung wrote: big snip for the sake of greater brevity And for exactly the same reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction. Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown. If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However, we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be "impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK, like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know what he was trying to accomplish. So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you know, what sounds "good" varies." You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to you. Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears, what sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we trust your ears, or HvK's? You and some of your friends have claimed that the conductor/musician's judgment in what sounds good (or life-like) in audio reproduction is superior to that of the experienced audiophiles. Yet between musicans/conductors there are disagreements on what sounds good, as you have demonstrated. So how can we possibly accept your blanket claim? |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
On 8 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Jenn wrote:
In article , chung wrote: I wasn't asnwering a question at all, but just making the point that even conductors don't trust other conductors' ears, so why should we? Two M.D.s can disagree about a treatment. Still, a M.D. is probably the person to trust for medical advice. But not a medical research specialist. In the same way, if you want to know which is the more lifelike of two audio systems, you ask an audiophile who is a regular concert-goer, not a musician.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article ,
"vlad" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: . . . Apples and oranges. Just like most of the general population, it is likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs. So it follows that he was produce product that he believed would do that. Jenn, this is exactly what you wrote about Herbert Von Karajan (I hate htese abbreviations). So, the question is the same - can we trust his ears or not? According to you he had his own agenda. Is not it the case for many other people, including conductors? vlad The goal of EVERYONE who records is to sell CDs. In no way did I state or imply that this is his ONLY or even principal goal. OF COURSE conductors have different agendas. I'm simply saying that conductors are well qualified to judge how close a replication is to the real thing. Some care about that; some don't. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 7 Dec 2005 03:30:38 GMT, chung wrote: Jenn wrote: Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Neither. It should be noted that the name of any experienced audiophile could have been appended to Jenn's paragraph above. I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , Chung
wrote: Hmmm, here's what you wrote a couple of messages back: "Just like most of the general population, it is likely that HvK's goals in audio reproduction were not related to replicating the sound of live music. His goal was to sell LPs and CDs." It would appear to us that you were saying all he wanted to do was to sell recordings. It wouldn't "appear" that way at all. I didn't say that "all" he wanted to do was sell CDs. The selling of CDs is a goal of EVERYONE who records. If you don't sell, you don't record. If the record buying public wants a certain sound, you produce that sound or you stop selling, and then you stop recording. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 03:29:03 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: They know nothing about music reproduction and they are attempting to butt heads with someone who has trained his whole life. Really? You have trained your whole life in music reproduction? I was of course not referring to one particular person, but whatever. OK you were just posturing. Wow. Luckily absent from CD..... No there are a few. I haven't dismissed the medium just the majority of releases on CD. But a few are good enough to say wow. What have you done with all that training? Improved my home audio system. I did the same without any training. Go figure. Produced or engineeered any recordings? As any pro will tell you, that seldom has anything to do with lifelike reproduction! That is a odd comment. Please tell me how it is possible to persue life like reproduction of music without a recording engineer involved. See Jenn's own comments re HvK. He was a conductor not a recording engineer. I don't believe he had a life time in training in music "reproduction" like you. Oh wait it wasn't you you were talking about was it? It was someone that was no one in particular that Jenn or someone is butting heads with. maybe you can explain what you meant. designed any commercial equipment? Yes, but it never became well known, and the business case for my own 'MOTI' range collapsed when it became obvious that it would have to compete with Krell, Boulder etc. Too much like hard sales work, and I'd been down that road with semi-pro photography - spoils the hobby when you have to wear your business hat. OK...... I mean Jenn makes a living at what she does. And what she does has *nothing* to do with the accurate reproduction of music. No one said otherwise. I suggest you pay more attention to what *is* being said. What *is* being said is that her time and efforts and the time and efforts of others who create live music give those people a better reference for judging how close reproduced music comes to live music. I don't see anyone claiming that musicians are better at engineering recordings. This is essentially the 'guitar amplifier' argument. I haven't seen Jenn or anyone else mention guitar amplifiers. I suggest you try harder to stay on subject. What about you? What have you actually done with this life time of training in "music reproduction?" Enjoyed my hobby. One can do that without a lifetime of training. After all, it is a hobby. Scott |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. Some times the better answers are not the obvious ones. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. Intuition? Who said anything about intuition? The word was "experience" which is in no way the same thing as intuition. The argument that experience does not make one a better judge of things simply doesn't hold water. I cannot for the life of me understand why certain people are trying to argue that experience has no added value in making judgements. Scott |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , "bob"
wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , Chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: big snip for the sake of greater brevity And for exactly the same reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction. Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown. If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However, we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be "impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK, like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know what he was trying to accomplish. So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you know, what sounds "good" varies." You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to you. Some of them sound "bad" to me because my standard is live music. That doesn't mean that they sound "bad" to everyone; indeed, it is obvious that they don't. Most people don't have live music as a standard for their hi-fis, a statement with which you agreed. Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears, I have never said this, of course. what sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we trust your ears, or HvK's? It's not a matter of whose ears you trust, Chung. It's a matter of not knowing what HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings. You and some of your friends have claimed that the conductor/musician's judgment in what sounds good (or life-like) in audio reproduction is superior to that of the experienced audiophiles. Yet between musicans/conductors there are disagreements on what sounds good, And there is disagreement between audiophiles. as you have demonstrated. So how can we possibly accept your blanket claim? Simple logic. IF your goal is imitating the sound of live acoustic music, then those who know the sound of live acoustic music the best are better judges of how close a hi-fi comes to that sound. If your goal is to determine WHY one hi-fi fails to reach that goal compared to another hi-fi, trust a person who knows about THD, etc. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , Chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: chung wrote: Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported in this message? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b "Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago, I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all sounded unique to me." No. This happened about three weeks ago. Care to share with us which CD players were being tested? Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out for you if you wish. A point to bear in mind us that it is almost impossible to level match CD players with a sound meter. You really need a test disc and a voltmeter As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations. IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do. Given that a sound level meter does not have the accuracy necessary to insure level matching between 2 CD players, I would not be surprised that you could tell them apart blind. It is simply not a good test, if you want to know whether there really is a sonic difference. And yet using a sound level meter is much more than the average shopper will do. Of course, you are free to do the test whichever way you want. But it does not follow that you could tell those players apart if the test was done correctly. (which is much more commonly available than a sound meter anyway). I have a sound meter available to me from work. You can buy a DVM for less than $10. Of course. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: I wasn't asnwering a question at all, but just making the point that even conductors don't trust other conductors' ears, so why should we? Two M.D.s can disagree about a treatment. Still, a M.D. is probably the person to trust for medical advice. But not a medical research specialist. In the same way, if you want to know which is the more lifelike of two audio systems, you ask an audiophile who is a regular concert-goer, not a musician.......... No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , "bob"
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic music, the answer is obvious. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? Gosh Bob, why take it sooo pesonally? Anyone can miss even the simplest of logical explinations every now and then. No one is making this a logical contest. A number of us see the logic in the claim that experience and focused attention can be benificial in one's ability to make judgements. Apparently some don't see it. Scott |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
"bob" wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob Because you're outvoted. You've already heard from Porky George and Jenn, so that makes it 2:1 and I'll make it 3:1. I lived my entire adult life as an audiophile, with my two closest friends being full time professional musicians. I taught them some things; they taught me a lot. They had a good quality system. And I can attest that they *can* and *did* hear things in the audio reproduction that allowed them (and usually rightly in my opinion) to differentiate accurate from inaccurate reproduction. They also can tell good vs not-so-good recording of instruments across a variety of gear, and were less likely to be fooled by acoustics vs equipment tonality than I am. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob Because you're outvoted. You've already heard from Porky George and Jenn, so that makes it 2:1 and I'll make it 3:1. I lived my entire adult life as an audiophile, with my two closest friends being full time professional musicians. I taught them some things; they taught me a lot. They had a good quality system. And I can attest that they *can* and *did* hear things in the audio reproduction that allowed them (and usually rightly in my opinion) to differentiate accurate from inaccurate reproduction. They also can tell good vs not-so-good recording of instruments across a variety of gear, and were less likely to be fooled by acoustics vs equipment tonality than I am. You can also count Mikemsossey in. He practically worships misucians . Since when is the judgment of what is logical a popular vote? It is logical that a lower distortion will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion one. That logic obviously is defied by the very few vinylphiles here. By the way, if you believe the populat vote is important, CD has beaten vinyl, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: big snip for the sake of greater brevity And for exactly the same reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction. Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown. If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However, we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be "impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK, like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know what he was trying to accomplish. So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you know, what sounds "good" varies." You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to you. Some of them sound "bad" to me because my standard is live music. That doesn't mean that they sound "bad" to everyone; indeed, it is obvious that they don't. Most people don't have live music as a standard for their hi-fis, a statement with which you agreed. Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears, I have never said this, of course. what sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we trust your ears, or HvK's? It's not a matter of whose ears you trust, Chung. It's a matter of not knowing what HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings. I guess you have not read what I wrote. The question is independent of what HvK was trying to make his recording sound like live music, as long as you agree that he was trying to make his recordings sound good. So since he has control of his recordings, he tried to make his recordings sound good to him. You found so many of his recordings sound bad. Should we trust your judgment, or his? You and some of your friends have claimed that the conductor/musician's judgment in what sounds good (or life-like) in audio reproduction is superior to that of the experienced audiophiles. Yet between musicans/conductors there are disagreements on what sounds good, And there is disagreement between audiophiles. Yes, there is obvious disagreement between audiophiles, therefore we never say you should trust any audiophile. Yet you and your friends seem to indicate musicians have such good jugment that their ears are to be trusted. My point is that among musicians what sounds good varies, so how can we trust your ears? as you have demonstrated. So how can we possibly accept your blanket claim? Simple logic. IF your goal is imitating the sound of live acoustic music, then those who know the sound of live acoustic music the best are better judges of how close a hi-fi comes to that sound. If your goal is to determine WHY one hi-fi fails to reach that goal compared to another hi-fi, trust a person who knows about THD, etc. Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's, since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live music to us. Simple logic, eh? |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: Jenn wrote: chung wrote: Is this listening test with CD players the same as the one you reported in this message? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...00001593c0902b "Yes, I suspect that I could. When I bought my CD player 9 months ago, I listend to 6 players in my price range. With one exception, they all sounded unique to me." No. This happened about three weeks ago. Care to share with us which CD players were being tested? Rotel 1072 and a Sanyo; I don't recall the model number. I can find out for you if you wish. A point to bear in mind us that it is almost impossible to level match CD players with a sound meter. You really need a test disc and a voltmeter As I've stated many times, I try to deal with practical situations. IOW, I don't believe that most people are likely to go to such measures when shopping for equipment. I know that a sound meter is not the ideal piece of equipment for such tests, but it's probably better than ears only. Even this is more than the vast majority of shoppers would do. Given that a sound level meter does not have the accuracy necessary to insure level matching between 2 CD players, I would not be surprised that you could tell them apart blind. It is simply not a good test, if you want to know whether there really is a sonic difference. And yet using a sound level meter is much more than the average shopper will do. And of course the average shopper will not be able to reliably discriminate between CD players, which is something you seem to think you could do. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. It's simple logic that the low distortion medium should be better in reproducing music. Your intuition is the opposite. Of course, you are free to choose to follow logic, or intuition. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote:
In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 8 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: I wasn't asnwering a question at all, but just making the point that even conductors don't trust other conductors' ears, so why should we? Two M.D.s can disagree about a treatment. Still, a M.D. is probably the person to trust for medical advice. But not a medical research specialist. In the same way, if you want to know which is the more lifelike of two audio systems, you ask an audiophile who is a regular concert-goer, not a musician.......... No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician. But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Jenn wrote:
In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic music, the answer is obvious. Oh, you mean circular logic. You should have made that clear. Logic implies some capability of proof. And yet, weeks ago, when I asked you how you would prove that professional musicians were better able to judge which of two components was better able to reproduce the sound of live acoustic music, you were unable to come up with anything. So where's the logic? All I see is intuition (and not very good intuition, at that). bob |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , "bob"
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic music, the answer is obvious. Oh, you mean circular logic. You should have made that clear. Logic implies some capability of proof. And yet, weeks ago, when I asked you how you would prove that professional musicians were better able to judge which of two components was better able to reproduce the sound of live acoustic music, you were unable to come up with anything. So where's the logic? All I see is intuition (and not very good intuition, at that). bob Since I'm having trouble with expressing my thoughts on this issue, perhaps your superior reasoning skills could answer a question for me: Who is more likely to be able to judge how closely an imitation of live music gets to the sound of live music than he or she who hears live music most often? |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article , Chung
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , Chung wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , chung wrote: big snip for the sake of greater brevity And for exactly the same reason, we should not trust the ears of conductors, a priori. In fact, I'll state that when it comes to differentiating two pieces of gear, I would rather trust someone who is an experienced audiophile. Of course, when it comes to which musician has better skills, I would trust a conductor's judgment. But obviously there is a big difference between judging musicianship and quality of audio reproduction. Again, I'm not speaking of musicianship. I'm talking about SOUND. We deal in SOUND. It makes sense that those who deal in the sonic realm each day would make good evaluators of differences in SOUND. Not diagnosis of what is making the sound a certain way, not in reliability, not in repair, not in design.... but SOUND. If you don't think that my colleagues and I would be good at distinguishing differences in SOUND, you simply don't know what we do everyday. But as you said a couple of paragraphs above, what sounds good varies. What sounded good to HvK obviously did not sound good to you. So why would we trust you and your fellow musicians when it comes to what sounds best? Should I trust HvK or you? Once again: what HvK wanted his recordings to sound like is unknown. If it was clear that he wanted his recordings to sound as life-like as possible and the recordings that I am critical of vis-a-vis sound sounded as they do, THEN your argument would have some merit. However, we DON'T know his recording goals. You agreed that some people want the audio quality to be as "life-like" as possible, others want it to be "impressive" i.e. hopped up bass, unreal transient attacks, etc. HvK, like everyone else who makes recordings, tried to make recordings that would sell. We don't know anything else than that. Therefore, we can't judge his ears vs. anyone else's in this area, because we don't know what he was trying to accomplish. So Jenn, please remember what you said: "I'm sure that he (HvK) wanted his recordings to sound good, whatever that meant to him. But as you know, what sounds "good" varies." You clearly believe that HvK wanted his recordings to sound good, and yet you find so many of his recordings to sound bad. The conclusion one draws then is what sounded good to him, a world-class conductor and musician, may not sound good to you. It does not matter whether he was trying to have his recordings sound like live or not, they sound bad to you. Some of them sound "bad" to me because my standard is live music. That doesn't mean that they sound "bad" to everyone; indeed, it is obvious that they don't. Most people don't have live music as a standard for their hi-fis, a statement with which you agreed. Regardless of whether you want to say you could not trust his ears, I have never said this, of course. what sounded good to him does not always sound good to you. So should we trust your ears, or HvK's? It's not a matter of whose ears you trust, Chung. It's a matter of not knowing what HvK's goals were for the sound of his recordings. I guess you have not read what I wrote. Incorrect guess, as I have. The question is independent of what HvK was trying to make his recording sound like live music, as long as you agree that he was trying to make his recordings sound good. So since he has control of his recordings, he tried to make his recordings sound good to him. You found so many of his recordings sound bad. Should we trust your judgment, or his? Again.... His recordings don't sound "bad" to me if the standard is what most people are looking for in their hi-fi systems. His recordings sound "impressive." They have "good bass." They have good dynamic range. They "sound good" if your standard is not the best imitation of actual symphonic music possible (this refers to the DGG recordings; his older EMI LPs are actually very good by this standard.) I simply have this little personality quirk that doesn't allow me to say that his recordings "sound good" when so often the instruments are literally unrecognizable. Witness the "trumpet" sound in his last Tchaikovsky 5 recording: There ARE no trumpets that sound like that in any hall. I can't imagine ANYONE who knows what trumpets sound like disagreeing with that statement. But what the heck... they're loud and "impressive." |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
bob wrote:
Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob If your belief is that those who have the most experience with live acoustic music are not the best judges of what sounds like live acoustic music, the answer is obvious. Oh, you mean circular logic. You should have made that clear. Logic implies some capability of proof. No it doesn't. while most of the time lofical arguments are testable it is not an inherent quality of pure logic. And yet, weeks ago, when I asked you how you would prove that professional musicians were better able to judge which of two components was better able to reproduce the sound of live acoustic music, you were unable to come up with anything. Well now you have made an unreasonable leap. even if it were an inherent property of logic that it is *capable* of being proven it most certainly is not an a given that the capacity o be proven means that it *has* been proven. Your demand is simply unreasonable since the assertion has not been tested. Are you claiming that all untested assertions are inherently illogical now? Gosh show me the proof that musicians are not more likely to be beter at telling the differences between live music and playback. If you can't then by your own reasoning your assertion must be illogical as well. So where's the logic? Good question. Where is the logic in the claim that any assertion that is untested is therefor illogical? All I see is intuition (and not very good intuition, at that). I think you see what you want to see. You are just burning a strawman with this intuition nonsense. But please show the proof that musicians are not better able to discern differences between live music and playback. If you cannot can we call your assertion just case of bad intuition as well? Scott |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 03:04:18 GMT, Jenn wrote: No one hears live music more, and therefore has a model of what live music sounds like, than they typical acoustic musician. But not from the perspective of someone in the centre stalls, where the avid concertgoer (and audiophiles) like to sit. Really? Where you come from they don't let musicians listen to other musicians? Scott |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob Because you're outvoted. You've already heard from Porky George and Jenn, so that makes it 2:1 and I'll make it 3:1. I lived my entire adult life as an audiophile, with my two closest friends being full time professional musicians. I taught them some things; they taught me a lot. They had a good quality system. And I can attest that they *can* and *did* hear things in the audio reproduction that allowed them (and usually rightly in my opinion) to differentiate accurate from inaccurate reproduction. They also can tell good vs not-so-good recording of instruments across a variety of gear, and were less likely to be fooled by acoustics vs equipment tonality than I am. You can also count Mikemsossey in. He practically worships misucians . Since when is the judgment of what is logical a popular vote? It is logical that a lower distortion will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion one. That logic obviously is defied by the very few vinylphiles here. By the way, if you believe the populat vote is important, CD has beaten vinyl, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago. Logic is a human application of some set principles. When five people say the argument is logical, and one doesn't, one can normally give the benefit of the doubt to the five. Of course, the argument can be broken down using boolean algebra for a proof. As to CD's vs LP's, one can logically conclude that CD's are more popular. That is all one can conclude. Says nothing about the sound. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Chung wrote:
Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's, since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live music to us. Simple logic, eh? I have a reasonably good idea of what kinds of ear training a conductor has to undergo and what sorts of perceptual discriminations he/she is supposed to make. And I suppose it would not be too difficult to imagine ways of determining, objectively, whether conductor A is better than conductor B in this regard. But I have very little sense of what sorts of perceptual training an "experienced audiophile" engages in, or how it can be determined objectively that one audiophile is more proficient in the relevant skills than another. So could someone please enlighten me as to what they are? Obviously, being familiar with the sound of live music is, all things being equal, a benefit to being able to tell if source X sounds like live music. Whether we should think that being an "experienced audiophile" counts as a better qualification than having the conductor's skills will depend on what skills are particular to the experienced audiophile. So, what are they? Mark |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
In article ,
"Mark DeBellis" wrote: Chung wrote: Is it not simple logic then, when musicians' tastes and judgment grossly vary when it comes to audio reproduction, that their judgment is in no way superior to that of the experienced audiophile? In fact, we should trust our own ears, and not a musician's or an experienced audiphile's, since we know what sounds best for us. And what sounds closest to live music to us. Simple logic, eh? I have a reasonably good idea of what kinds of ear training a conductor has to undergo and what sorts of perceptual discriminations he/she is supposed to make. And I suppose it would not be too difficult to imagine ways of determining, objectively, whether conductor A is better than conductor B in this regard. snip People who study conducting study, practice, and test on aural discrimination issues all the time. Models for such tests are those given at the conducting workshops given by the American Symphony Orchestra League at various workshops and symposia. Many of us continue to practice and study long after we are our of undergrad or graduate school. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: In article , "bob" wrote: Jenn wrote: I agree. But it is obvious that if the comparison is concerning live acoustic instruments, those with the most experience in live acoustic music and who are highly trained listeners are well qualified to make those judgments. And it is obvious that a low-distortion medium will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion medium. See--intuition doesn't really get us very far, does it? That's why we keep probing for some evidence to back your intuition up. So far, we haven't heard any. bob Who has said anything about intuition? It's simple logic. And your determination of what is "logical" is better than mine because...? bob Because you're outvoted. You've already heard from Porky George and Jenn, so that makes it 2:1 and I'll make it 3:1. I lived my entire adult life as an audiophile, with my two closest friends being full time professional musicians. I taught them some things; they taught me a lot. They had a good quality system. And I can attest that they *can* and *did* hear things in the audio reproduction that allowed them (and usually rightly in my opinion) to differentiate accurate from inaccurate reproduction. They also can tell good vs not-so-good recording of instruments across a variety of gear, and were less likely to be fooled by acoustics vs equipment tonality than I am. You can also count Mikemsossey in. He practically worships misucians . Since when is the judgment of what is logical a popular vote? It is logical that a lower distortion will reproduce the sound of those instruments better than a high-distortion one. That logic obviously is defied by the very few vinylphiles here. By the way, if you believe the populat vote is important, CD has beaten vinyl, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago. Logic is a human application of some set principles. When five people say the argument is logical, and one doesn't, one can normally give the benefit of the doubt to the five. Of course, the argument can be broken down using boolean algebra for a proof. Can you enlighten us on how to do this? I am sure you can earn our respect if you can do it . So if you find 5 people who believe the earth is flat and one who believes the earth is round, then the earth is flat? I am sure there are more than 5 members of the flat earth society in this world. As to CD's vs LP's, one can logically conclude that CD's are more popular. That is all one can conclude. Says nothing about the sound. Given that CD's outsell vinyl over 100:1 (to be ultra-conservative), I am sure you will find a lot more people who say CD's sound better compared to those who say vinyls sound better. So CD must really sound better, according to your logic? OK with me. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense | High End Audio | |||
discrimination and perception (da capo, in the Italian sense) | High End Audio |