Re: Now for a little science..

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are scaled relative to the
> mean scores of the trained listener in order to facilitate comparisons
> between trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners clearly
> performed better than any of the untrained groups, by quite a large
> margin. The relative performance of the untrained groups, from best to
> worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers (20%), the
> audio marketing-sales group (10%), and the college students (4%). "
>
> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers scored 20% and audio
> sales people scored 10%.

**This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after Stereo
Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago. Pulling
people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should be involved
in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who have carefully
trained hearing abilities.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>>
>> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are scaled relative to
>> the mean scores of the trained listener in order to facilitate
>> comparisons between trained and untrained listeners. The trained
>> listeners clearly performed better than any of the untrained groups, by
>> quite a large margin. The relative performance of the untrained groups,
>> from best to worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers
>> (20%), the audio marketing-sales group (10%), and the college students
>> (4%). "
>>
>> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers scored 20% and audio
>> sales people scored 10%.
>
> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after Stereo
> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should be
> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who have
> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>
>
Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.

Anyone who has been involved in perception tests will know
that the group which scores the highest points depends entirely
on the kind of test being carried out.

What is the definition of a trained listener?

Some perception tests that involve musical skills, pitch or
rhythm have the musicians squirming while others notice
nothing untoward. In contrast, if you put some quick edits
together, a musician is not always the best person to evaluate
them, as he/she becomes immersed in the music either side
of the edit, and pays little attention to the edit itself.

In my experience audio retailers are far less perceptive
than audio reviewers (except of course when the sound is
that of the cash register:-) Sadly, the retailer always has
an un ulterior motive. The reviewer should have both
listening experiece, and a musical background, and so
makes IMO a useful and reliable member of a panel.

Also IMO, a panel which includes musicians
(who know what they are listening to, and can
differentiate between a real French horn section and
a sample cluster played from keyboard) together with
studio people and keen/experienced audiophiles,
makes the best possible evaluation team.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi
> "Trevor Wilson" >
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are
>>> scaled relative to the mean scores of the trained
>>> listener in order to facilitate comparisons between
>>> trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners
>>> clearly performed better than any of the untrained
>>> groups, by quite a large margin. The relative
>>> performance of the untrained groups, from best to
>>> worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio
>>> reviewers (20%), the audio marketing-sales group (10%),
>>> and the college students (4%). " IOW, compared to trained listeners @
>>> 100%, reviewers
>>> scored 20% and audio sales people scored 10%.
>>
>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for
>> years, after Stereo Review published those nonsensical
>> comparisons all those years ago. Pulling people off the
>> street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should be
>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise)
>> are those who have carefully trained hearing abilities.

> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest
> sector of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.

Depends whether or not you think they are well served by providing the best
possible products.

> Anyone who has been involved in perception tests will know
> that the group which scores the highest points depends
> entirely on the kind of test being carried out.

Sean also showed that while poor listeners can't make reliable decisions,
such decisions as they make are predicted by the decisions of reliable,
trained listeners.

Do you want to get the job done, or do you want to throw a big party?

> What is the definition of a trained listener?

When you're talking to someone like Sean Olive, there is a formal definition
of trained listener and it is in the scientific literature.


> In my experience audio retailers are far less perceptive
> than audio reviewers (except of course when the sound is
> that of the cash register:-) Sadly, the retailer always has an un
> ulterior motive. The reviewer should have both
> listening experience, and a musical background, and so
> makes IMO a useful and reliable member of a panel.

Your problem Iain is that your perceptions are not based on any known
reference standard.

> Also IMO, a panel which includes musicians
> (who know what they are listening to, and can
> differentiate between a real French horn section and
> a sample cluster played from keyboard) together with
> studio people and keen/experienced audiophiles,
> makes the best possible evaluation team.

Iain, your opinions aren't worth squat because you are so thoroughly driven
by folklore and prejudice. There's a reason why you've never been allowed to
actually do hands-on audio production, and it is due to your lack of
competence.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> Iain, your opinions aren't worth squat because you are so thoroughly
> driven by folklore and prejudice. There's a reason why you've never been
> allowed to actually do hands-on audio production, and it is due to your
> lack of competence.
>

Let's compare royalty cheques:-)

[Boon]

On Feb 3, 9:11�am, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > Iain, your opinions aren't worth squat because you are so thoroughly
> > driven by folklore and prejudice. There's a reason why you've never been
> > allowed to actually do hands-on audio production, and it is due to your
> > lack of competence.
>
> Let's compare royalty cheques:-)

Don't forget your rubber gloves and safety googles. You'll need
bleach as well.

Boon

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 19:11:11 +0200, "Iain Churches"
> wrote:

>
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
>> Iain, your opinions aren't worth squat because you are so thoroughly
>> driven by folklore and prejudice. There's a reason why you've never been
>> allowed to actually do hands-on audio production, and it is due to your
>> lack of competence.
>>
>
>Let's compare royalty cheques:-)
>
>
>
>
Iain, first of all Arnie will interpret "Royalty Cheques" as The Crown
sending M5 to investigate him.

You need to simplify, Simplify, SIMplify.

Arnie still thinks a queue is when you say your lines.


Herbert

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:22:19 -0800 (PST), Boon >
wrote:

>On Feb 3, 9:11?am, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > Iain, your opinions aren't worth squat because you are so thoroughly
>> > driven by folklore and prejudice. There's a reason why you've never been
>> > allowed to actually do hands-on audio production, and it is due to your
>> > lack of competence.
>>
>> Let's compare royalty cheques:-)
>
>Don't forget your rubber gloves and safety googles. You'll need
>bleach as well.
>
>Boon


"Googles?" LOL!!! If you meant it that way, that's one of the best
lines ever! If you didn't, I'm putting it down as a great Freudian
slip......

Even when you miss, you don't.


Herbert

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are scaled relative to
>>> the mean scores of the trained listener in order to facilitate
>>> comparisons between trained and untrained listeners. The trained
>>> listeners clearly performed better than any of the untrained groups, by
>>> quite a large margin. The relative performance of the untrained groups,
>>> from best to worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers
>>> (20%), the audio marketing-sales group (10%), and the college students
>>> (4%). "
>>>
>>> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers scored 20% and
>>> audio
>>> sales people scored 10%.
>>
>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after Stereo
>> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
>> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should be
>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who have
>> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>>
>>
> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
> of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.

**Churlish or not, "people in the street" think that Bose AcoustimessT
products provide accurate sound quality. That should automatically
disqualify them. Which is not to say that SOME may possess excellent
listening acuity. In the main, however, they do not. It usually takes years
of listening to hone one's ears.

>
> Anyone who has been involved in perception tests will know
> that the group which scores the highest points depends entirely
> on the kind of test being carried out.
>
> What is the definition of a trained listener?

**Someone who claims has listened to a large amount of different music, both
live and amplified and can recognise the difference between a (say) Baldwin
and a Steinway.

>
> Some perception tests that involve musical skills, pitch or
> rhythm have the musicians squirming while others notice
> nothing untoward.

**Musicians are, IME, the WORST listeners. By a long margin.

[Anecdote] I was requested to work on the system of Australia's foremost
musician several years ago. The conductor and musical director of
Australia's premier orchestra. A young(ish) man of around 40 years of age. I
wanted the system moved. I asked if there were any specific problems with
his system. I switched it on for a quick listen and INSTANTLY noted that the
speakers were wired out-of-phase.

[Shakes head]

Don't talk to me about musicians. Musicians often (but not always) have an
ability to pick poor pitch (some that is no longer an issue), but that is
about it.

In contrast, if you put some quick edits
> together, a musician is not always the best person to evaluate
> them, as he/she becomes immersed in the music either side
> of the edit, and pays little attention to the edit itself.

**Musicians are, usually, the worst people to judge a system. As are
so-called 'recording engineers'. Dedicated audiophiles are the people to do
the tests.

>
> In my experience audio retailers are far less perceptive
> than audio reviewers (except of course when the sound is
> that of the cash register:-)

**********. Audiophiles turned salepeople are often very critical listeners.
They often have the time to listen to a lot of different systems.

Sadly, the retailer always has
> an un ulterior motive.

**That much is correct.

The reviewer should have both
> listening experiece, and a musical background, and so
> makes IMO a useful and reliable member of a panel.
>
> Also IMO, a panel which includes musicians
> (who know what they are listening to, and can
> differentiate between a real French horn section and
> a sample cluster played from keyboard) together with
> studio people and keen/experienced audiophiles,
> makes the best possible evaluation team.

**Musicians need to be specifically excluded UNLESS they show audiophile
abilities. Musicians are horrible listeners, in general.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...

>>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after
>>> Stereo
>>> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
>>> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should
>>> be
>>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who
>>> have
>>> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
>> of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.
>
> **Churlish or not, "people in the street" think that Bose AcoustimessT
> products provide accurate sound quality. That should automatically
> disqualify them.

Sorry, Trevor, I disagree. That is the top of a very steep and
slippery slope. Next you will want to disqualify people who
listen to ESLs, Lowthers, certain types of tube amps, vinyl or
analogue tape. There is a lot more in this question than
simply accuracy, we are interested in people's tastes and
preferences. How can you define your term "accuracy"
when three speakers from the top of the range by Tannoy
Kef, B+W and JBL all sound wonderful but very different?


> Which is not to say that SOME may possess excellent listening acuity. In
> the main, however, they do not.

You are absolutely right there. Since my student days, I
have been very interested in the subject of aural perception
and know very well from numerous tests how much info
the majority of people miss, and how easy it is to mislead
them.

No disrespect to you, as a retailer, Trevor, but sellers
do it all the time. A power amplifier playing 2dB
louder in a comparison test, is usually perceived as the
better of the two.

> It usually takes years of listening to hone one's ears.

It is really something that needs to be taught. Most
music teaching facilities, and broadcast companies have
seminars in perception. I have taken part in dozens of
these, and provided course material.

>
>>
>> Anyone who has been involved in perception tests will know
>> that the group which scores the highest points depends entirely
>> on the kind of test being carried out.
>>
>> What is the definition of a trained listener?
>
> **Someone who claims has listened to a large amount of different music,
> both live and amplified and can recognise the difference between a (say)
> Baldwin and a Steinway.

Oh, I think it needs to be *far* better than that:-)
Put Steinway and Bechstein side by side, and then it
gets interesting. The next step, as I have mentioned often
is the comparison of two good acoustic guitars. Guild and
Martin are often chosen. Then see how many people can
differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe (can you
Trevor?) or an alto and tenor saxophone playing in the same
register (can you Trevor?)

Then, after listening, count the instruments in an ensemble.
etc etc etc.

>
>>
>> Some perception tests that involve musical skills, pitch or
>> rhythm have the musicians squirming while others notice
>> nothing untoward.
>
> **Musicians are, IME, the WORST listeners. By a long margin.

Hmm. In work with professional musicians on a daily basis.
I am often very impressed by their perceptiveness and
attention to detail.

> [Anecdote] I was requested to work on the system of Australia's foremost
> musician several years ago. The conductor and musical director of
> Australia's premier orchestra. A young(ish) man of around 40 years of age.
> I wanted the system moved. I asked if there were any specific problems
> with his system. I switched it on for a quick listen and INSTANTLY noted
> that the speakers were wired out-of-phase.
>
> [Shakes head]

We all have stories like that:-) I can tell you one about a dealer
who installed a turnkey Eastlake style control room, and wired
the speakers anti-phase. Worst of all, he stated that the people
who questioned his work has "cloth ears" and were "just musicians" :-)
He aso blamed the symmetry of the control room, a design which
had been implemeted, with great success, the world over.

He refused to do anything for a very long time. and so failed to
meet the terms of the contract whichs stated that "the installation
should be completed and working to the satisfaction of all parties"
by a specificed date. His arrogance cost him a great deal of money.

> Don't talk to me about musicians. Musicians often (but not always) have an
> ability to pick poor pitch (some that is no longer an issue), but that is
> about it.

Oh I think it goes far far deeper than that. They excell in
comparison tests. Timbre is one of their areas of expertise,
and the nucleus of aural perception.

>
> In contrast, if you put some quick edits
>> together, a musician is not always the best person to evaluate
>> them, as he/she becomes immersed in the music either side
>> of the edit, and pays little attention to the edit itself.
>
> **Musicians are, usually, the worst people to judge a system. As are
> so-called 'recording engineers'. Dedicated audiophiles are the people to
> do the tests.
>
>>
>> In my experience audio retailers are far less perceptive
>> than audio reviewers (except of course when the sound is
>> that of the cash register:-)
>
> **********. Audiophiles turned salepeople are often very critical
> listeners. They often have the time to listen to a lot of different
> systems.

Indeed they do. But their judgement is always clouded
by an ulterior motive. It is rare to meet a salesman who
can take off the salesman's hat:-) I have become good friends
with a high end dealer who was very keen indeed to acquire
my Radford STA100 (for his personal use. It's a very rare and
very fine amplifier) He used to bring me different amps to try
on a weekly basis, and I could have probably taken my pick.
In the end, in a moment of total frankness, he agreed that he
could not find an amplifier that worked better than the Radford
with my speakers in my room. At that point he took off his
salesman's hat (figuratively speaking) and we became good
friends.

> **Musicians need to be specifically excluded UNLESS they show audiophile
> abilities. Musicians are horrible listeners, in general.

Having taken part in, and also organised a large number of
listening panels over the years, I have reached a different
conclusion to yourself.

Just the same, it was interesting to exchange opinions
with you.

Regards
Iain

[Boon]

On Feb 4, 12:55�am, "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>
> >> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after
> >>> Stereo
> >>> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
> >>> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should
> >>> be
> >>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who
> >>> have
> >>> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>
> >> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
> >> of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.
>
> > **Churlish or not, "people in the street" think that Bose AcoustimessT
> > products provide accurate sound quality. That should automatically
> > disqualify them.
>
> Sorry, Trevor, I disagree. �That is the top of a very steep and
> slippery slope. �Next you will want to disqualify people who
> listen to ESLs, Lowthers, certain types of tube amps, vinyl or
> analogue tape. �There is a lot more in this question than
> simply accuracy, we are interested in people's tastes and
> preferences. �How can you define your term "accuracy"
> when three speakers from the top of the range by Tannoy
> Kef, B+W and JBL all sound wonderful but very different?
>
> > Which is not to say that SOME may possess excellent listening acuity. In
> > the main, however, they do not.
>
> You are absolutely right there. �Since my student days, I
> have been very interested in the subject of aural perception
> and know very well from numerous tests how much info
> the majority of people miss, and how easy it is to mislead
> them.
>
> No disrespect to you, as a retailer, Trevor, but sellers
> do it all the time. �A power amplifier playing 2dB
> louder in a comparison test, is usually perceived as the
> better of the two.
>
> > It usually takes years of listening to hone one's ears.
>
> It is really something that needs to be taught. Most
> music teaching facilities, and broadcast companies have
> seminars in perception. I have taken �part in dozens of
> these, and provided course material.
>
>
>
> >> Anyone who has been involved in perception tests will know
> >> that the group which scores the highest points depends entirely
> >> on the kind of test being carried out.
>
> >> What is the definition of a trained listener?
>
> > **Someone who claims has listened to a large amount of different music,
> > both live and amplified and can recognise the difference between a (say)
> > Baldwin and a Steinway.
>
> Oh, �I think it needs to be *far* better than that:-)
> Put Steinway and Bechstein side by side, and then it
> gets interesting. �The next step, as I have mentioned often
> is the comparison of two good acoustic guitars. Guild and
> Martin are often chosen. �Then see how many people can
> differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe (can you
> Trevor?) or an alto and tenor saxophone playing in the same
> register (can you Trevor?)
>
> Then, after listening, �count the instruments in an ensemble.
> etc etc etc.
>
>
>
> >> Some perception tests �that involve musical skills, pitch or
> >> rhythm have the musicians squirming while others notice
> >> nothing untoward.
>
> > **Musicians are, IME, the WORST listeners. By a long margin.
>
> Hmm. In work with professional musicians on a daily basis.
> I am often very impressed by their perceptiveness and
> attention to detail.
>
> > [Anecdote] I was requested to work on the system of Australia's foremost
> > musician several years ago. The conductor and musical director of
> > Australia's premier orchestra. A young(ish) man of around 40 years of age.
> > I wanted the system moved. I asked if there were any specific problems
> > with his system. I switched it on for a quick listen and INSTANTLY noted
> > that the speakers were wired out-of-phase.
>
> > [Shakes head]
>
> We all have stories like that:-) �I can tell you one about a dealer
> who installed a turnkey Eastlake style control room, and wired
> the speakers anti-phase. Worst of all, he stated that the people
> who questioned his work has "cloth ears" and were "just musicians" �:-)
> He aso blamed the symmetry of the control room, a design which
> had been implemeted, with great success, the world over.
>
> He refused to do anything for a very long time. and so failed to
> meet the terms of the contract whichs stated that "the installation
> should be completed and working to the satisfaction of all parties"
> by a specificed date. �His arrogance cost him a great deal of money.
>
> > Don't talk to me about musicians. Musicians often (but not always) have an
> > ability to pick poor pitch (some that is no longer an issue), but that is
> > about it.
>
> Oh I think it goes far far deeper than that. �They excell in
> comparison tests. �Timbre is one of their areas of expertise,
> and the nucleus of aural perception.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > �In contrast, if you put some quick edits
> >> together, a musician is not always the best person to evaluate
> >> them, as he/she becomes immersed in the music either side
> >> of the edit, and pays little attention to the edit itself.
>
> > **Musicians are, usually, the worst people to judge a system. As are
> > so-called 'recording engineers'. Dedicated audiophiles are the people to
> > do the tests.
>
> >> In my experience audio retailers are far less perceptive
> >> than audio reviewers (except of course when the sound is
> >> that of the cash register:-)
>
> > **********. Audiophiles turned salepeople are often very critical
> > listeners. They often have the time to listen to a lot of different
> > systems.
>
> Indeed they do. But their judgement is always clouded
> by an ulterior motive. �It is rare to meet a salesman who
> can take off the salesman's hat:-) I have become good friends
> with a high end dealer who was very keen indeed to acquire
> my Radford STA100 (for his personal use. It's a very rare and
> very fine amplifier) �He used to bring me different amps to try
> on a weekly basis, and I could have probably taken my pick.
> In the end, in a moment of total frankness, he agreed that he
> could not find an amplifier that worked better than the Radford
> with my speakers in my room. �At that point he took off his
> salesman's hat (figuratively speaking) and we became good
> friends.
>
> > **Musicians need to be specifically excluded UNLESS they show audiophile
> > abilities. Musicians are horrible listeners, in general.
>
> Having taken part in, and also organised a large number of
> listening panels over the years, I have reached a different
> conclusion to yourself.
>
> Just the same, �it was interesting to exchange opinions
> with you.

Thanks, Iain and Trevor, for conducting this usually volatile
discussion in such a reasonable and informative manner. It's a breath
of fresh air. I enjoyed it.

Boon

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> i.fi...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>>>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after
>>>> Stereo
>>>> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
>>>> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should
>>>> be
>>>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who
>>>> have
>>>> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
>>> of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.
>>
>> **Churlish or not, "people in the street" think that Bose AcoustimessT
>> products provide accurate sound quality. That should automatically
>> disqualify them.
>
> Sorry, Trevor, I disagree.

**As is your right to do so.

That is the top of a very steep and
> slippery slope. Next you will want to disqualify people who
> listen to ESLs, Lowthers, certain types of tube amps, vinyl or
> analogue tape. There is a lot more in this question than
> simply accuracy, we are interested in people's tastes and
> preferences. How can you define your term "accuracy"
> when three speakers from the top of the range by Tannoy
> Kef, B+W and JBL all sound wonderful but very different?

**You miss the point. I only want to disqualify those who do not claim to be
audiophiles. Further and for the record: I would NEVER disqualify an ESL
listener. They have already demonstrated good taste. The others you mention,
not so much. Particularly, the biggest con-job speaker on the market -
Lowthers. 1940s mid-fi, dressed up as high end. Nothing more, nothing less.
Absolute shockers.

>
>
>> Which is not to say that SOME may possess excellent listening acuity. In
>> the main, however, they do not.
>
> You are absolutely right there. Since my student days, I
> have been very interested in the subject of aural perception
> and know very well from numerous tests how much info
> the majority of people miss, and how easy it is to mislead
> them.
>
> No disrespect to you, as a retailer, Trevor, but sellers
> do it all the time. A power amplifier playing 2dB
> louder in a comparison test, is usually perceived as the
> better of the two.

**Of course.

>
>> It usually takes years of listening to hone one's ears.
>
> It is really something that needs to be taught. Most
> music teaching facilities, and broadcast companies have
> seminars in perception. I have taken part in dozens of
> these, and provided course material.

**It CAN be taught, but is certanily not required. A good grounding in
listening to live music, combined with lots of experience with reproduction
systems works well for most.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone who has been involved in perception tests will know
>>> that the group which scores the highest points depends entirely
>>> on the kind of test being carried out.
>>>
>>> What is the definition of a trained listener?
>>
>> **Someone who claims has listened to a large amount of different music,
>> both live and amplified and can recognise the difference between a (say)
>> Baldwin and a Steinway.
>
> Oh, I think it needs to be *far* better than that:-)
> Put Steinway and Bechstein side by side, and then it
> gets interesting. The next step, as I have mentioned often
> is the comparison of two good acoustic guitars. Guild and
> Martin are often chosen. Then see how many people can
> differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe (can you
> Trevor?) or an alto and tenor saxophone playing in the same
> register (can you Trevor?)

**No idea. I've never tried. We're not discussing me (specifically), so
there is no need to make it personal. I am speaking objectively.

>
> Then, after listening, count the instruments in an ensemble.
> etc etc etc.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Some perception tests that involve musical skills, pitch or
>>> rhythm have the musicians squirming while others notice
>>> nothing untoward.
>>
>> **Musicians are, IME, the WORST listeners. By a long margin.
>
> Hmm. In work with professional musicians on a daily basis.
> I am often very impressed by their perceptiveness and
> attention to detail.

**Perhaps. They still (generally) have a rather poor ability to discern fine
differences in reproduction systems.

>
>> [Anecdote] I was requested to work on the system of Australia's foremost
>> musician several years ago. The conductor and musical director of
>> Australia's premier orchestra. A young(ish) man of around 40 years of
>> age.
>> I wanted the system moved. I asked if there were any specific problems
>> with his system. I switched it on for a quick listen and INSTANTLY noted
>> that the speakers were wired out-of-phase.
>>
>> [Shakes head]
>
> We all have stories like that:-) I can tell you one about a dealer
> who installed a turnkey Eastlake style control room, and wired
> the speakers anti-phase. Worst of all, he stated that the people
> who questioned his work has "cloth ears" and were "just musicians" :-)
> He aso blamed the symmetry of the control room, a design which
> had been implemeted, with great success, the world over.
>
> He refused to do anything for a very long time. and so failed to
> meet the terms of the contract whichs stated that "the installation
> should be completed and working to the satisfaction of all parties"
> by a specificed date. His arrogance cost him a great deal of money.
>
>> Don't talk to me about musicians. Musicians often (but not always) have
>> an
>> ability to pick poor pitch (some that is no longer an issue), but that is
>> about it.
>
> Oh I think it goes far far deeper than that. They excell in
> comparison tests. Timbre is one of their areas of expertise,
> and the nucleus of aural perception.

**Timbre is important, but musicians rarely excell in areas outside their
instrument of choice. People who listen to music oftn have superior
perception of the whole, rather that the part. Actually, there is one other
aspect of a reproduction system that I have found is VERY important to
musos, is that of dynamics. In that sense, musos often prefer ESLs or horns,
where thermal compression is minimised.

>
>>
>> In contrast, if you put some quick edits
>>> together, a musician is not always the best person to evaluate
>>> them, as he/she becomes immersed in the music either side
>>> of the edit, and pays little attention to the edit itself.
>>
>> **Musicians are, usually, the worst people to judge a system. As are
>> so-called 'recording engineers'. Dedicated audiophiles are the people to
>> do the tests.
>>
>>>
>>> In my experience audio retailers are far less perceptive
>>> than audio reviewers (except of course when the sound is
>>> that of the cash register:-)
>>
>> **********. Audiophiles turned salepeople are often very critical
>> listeners. They often have the time to listen to a lot of different
>> systems.
>
> Indeed they do. But their judgement is always clouded
> by an ulterior motive.

**Not necessarily. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. When I
speak to audio salespeople, it is rarely as a customer. As such, I usually
get the truth.

It is rare to meet a salesman who
> can take off the salesman's hat:-)

**********.

I have become good friends
> with a high end dealer who was very keen indeed to acquire
> my Radford STA100 (for his personal use. It's a very rare and
> very fine amplifier) He used to bring me different amps to try
> on a weekly basis, and I could have probably taken my pick.
> In the end, in a moment of total frankness, he agreed that he
> could not find an amplifier that worked better than the Radford
> with my speakers in my room. At that point he took off his
> salesman's hat (figuratively speaking) and we became good
> friends.
>
>> **Musicians need to be specifically excluded UNLESS they show audiophile
>> abilities. Musicians are horrible listeners, in general.
>
> Having taken part in, and also organised a large number of
> listening panels over the years, I have reached a different
> conclusion to yourself.
>
> Just the same, it was interesting to exchange opinions
> with you.

**Uh-huh.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...

>The trained listeners were employees who had audiometric normal
>hearing, had successfully passed a series of listener training tasks,
>and had prior experience in loudspeaker listening tests. Some of the
>trained listeners were musicians -- some were not. It doesn't really
>matter because the training is really what makes the listener perform
>better.

This was the point I was trying to make to Trevor.
In group training sessions, discussion of the experience
is useful to help us understand how others interpret in
their own individual way the same information which is
presented to all.

>Lots of studies have shown musicians not particularly good critical
>listeners of audio components unless they are trained. This has been
>my experience as well.

Mine to. I work with classical and jazz musicians (many of the
latter have a classical background and training) I live in Europe
and have worked in many of the EU countries. Generally
I find the level of perception overall to be very high indeed.
Naturally, musicians focus on their own part of the performance
and that is why, after recording it is often wise to play back
twice. The first time, each can concentrate upon his/her own
contribution, and the second time listen to the work as an
entity.


>Even musicians (Glenn Gould, the famous
>Canadian pianist) have shown that musicians are not as good as
>recording engineers in detecting edits in his piano recordings (that
>may be the example you were suggesting).

Yes. One comes across this often. Usually editing is a part
of the post production, but sometimes it is necessary to
splice two takes together to ensure that they will work
as regards tempo or level matching, before continuing.
A "quick and dirty" edit, which sometimes causes a raised
eyebrow amongst the control room personnel, rarely seems
to bother anyone else.

The trouble with edits is that, once you know where they
are, you wait for them, and they grow and grow and grow!


>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>and over 200 audio retailers.

Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
would do better. It seems not.

>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>worse with age due to presbycusis.

But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
in all of us with an audiogram.

I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
later.


>That's pure speculation since I
>didn't measure the hearing of the audio reviewers or the other
>untrained listeners.

Hmm. Individual audiograms might explain a great deal,
but certanly make the whole test far more complex.

Thanks Sean for the link to your paper. I will
read, mark and inwardly digest (as they say)
over the weekend.

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>> i.fi...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after
>>>>> Stereo
>>>>> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
>>>>> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who should
>>>>> be
>>>>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who
>>>>> have
>>>>> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
>>>> of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.
>>>
>>> **Churlish or not, "people in the street" think that Bose AcoustimessT
>>> products provide accurate sound quality. That should automatically
>>> disqualify them.
>>
>> Sorry, Trevor, I disagree.
>
> **As is your right to do so.
>
> That is the top of a very steep and
>> slippery slope. Next you will want to disqualify people who
>> listen to ESLs, Lowthers, certain types of tube amps, vinyl or
>> analogue tape. There is a lot more in this question than
>> simply accuracy, we are interested in people's tastes and
>> preferences. How can you define your term "accuracy"
>> when three speakers from the top of the range by Tannoy
>> Kef, B+W and JBL all sound wonderful but very different?
>
> **You miss the point. I only want to disqualify those who do not claim to
> be audiophiles. Further and for the record: I would NEVER disqualify an
> ESL listener. They have already demonstrated good taste. The others you
> mention, not so much. Particularly, the biggest con-job speaker on the
> market - Lowthers. 1940s mid-fi, dressed up as high end. Nothing more,
> nothing less. Absolute shockers.

My point is that I believe the panel needs to be large enough and
representative of listeners at all levels.

>>> It usually takes years of listening to hone one's ears.
>>
>> It is really something that needs to be taught. Most
>> music teaching facilities, and broadcast companies have
>> seminars in perception. I have taken part in dozens of
>> these, and provided course material.
>
> **It CAN be taught, but is certanily not required. A good grounding in
> listening to live music, combined with lots of experience with
> reproduction systems works well for most.

Most colleges and conservatories that teach music, and also most
recording facilities think it necessary to spend considerable time in
teaching perception. The interaction of a group is of especial value
as we are all presented weith the samer information at a listening
session, but we process it differently. So discussion is important.


>> Put Steinway and Bechstein side by side, and then it
>> gets interesting. The next step, as I have mentioned often
>> is the comparison of two good acoustic guitars. Guild and
>> Martin are often chosen. Then see how many people can
>> differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe (can you
>> Trevor?) or an alto and tenor saxophone playing in the same
>> register (can you Trevor?)
>
> **No idea. I've never tried.

Please do. Ask a local college of music to arrange a demo
for you. It's most interesting, even for people who have done
it many times before.


>We're not discussing me (specifically), so there is no need to make it
>personal. I am speaking objectively.

No of course we are not discussing you specifically, and I had
no intention to make a personal point, but you do represent an
important sector of people with "honed ears" (your phrase:-)

>> Hmm. In work with professional musicians on a daily basis.
>> I am often very impressed by their perceptiveness and
>> attention to detail.
>
> **Perhaps. They still (generally) have a rather poor ability to discern
> fine differences in reproduction systems.

I accept what you say as being your opinion.
But my own findings are totally different.
As I mentioned previously, one of their
areas of acute perception is timbre, and
it is this which makes two amplifiers having
a very similar measured specification sound
different.

There has been a very interesting discussion on
the tube-based group about how the same tube
by different makers, has a similar THD figure
and yet they clearly sound different. In fact
the 6CG7 made by EH is probably the best on
the bench and comes at the bottom of the list
in listening tests. This leads one to think it is
not the THD but the spectral content of that
distortion which gives each its recogniseable
sound. This applies also to iunstruments.
Both the Steinway and the Bechstein play
A= 442 Hz. But the spectral content,
which gives them their clearly discernible
sonic sigtnature is different.


>> Oh I think it goes far far deeper than that. They excell in
>> comparison tests. Timbre is one of their areas of expertise,
>> and the nucleus of aural perception.
>
> **Timbre is important, but musicians rarely excell in areas outside their
> instrument of choice.

But an important part of a musical formal education is
listening to other sections of the orchesta to enable one
to understand how the interplay between these sections
works. Every musician needs to know a concert work as
an entity, not just the notes written on the manuscript paper
he has before him.



>People who listen to music oftn have superior perception of the whole,
>rather that the part.

This may or may not be so. But I doubt if their perception
of the whole is anything like as deep as someone who
actually plays the piece in question, has rehearsed it
in depth, and knows its "construction" inside out.
That is one of the interesting things about listening to
music, it can be done at many different levels.
At one end of the scale you have the "toe tappers"
who "like a good tune" and at the other you have
those who study the miniature score in considerable
detail before a concert. Both get great pleasure
from the experience.


> Actually, there is one other aspect of a reproduction system that I have
> found is VERY important to musos, is that of dynamics. In that sense,
> musos often prefer ESLs or horns, where thermal compression is minimised.

That's interesting. I have only once been present at a listening
session where horns wee used, and these were Altec. They
were put up to replace the Tannoys normaly used in that
control room because the session was a continuation of
tracks put down in the a studio in the US using Altecs
and it was thought that the producer would feel more
at home with them.

> **Not necessarily. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. When
> I speak to audio salespeople, it is rarely as a customer. As such, I
> usually get the truth.

Understood. So they are not trying so sell you
anything but treat you as a person of equal expertise.

>
> It is rare to meet a salesman who
>> can take off the salesman's hat:-)
>
> **********.

You have stated above that you do not speak to
other sales people from a customer's viewpoint so
you probably have not come across this.

Regards
Iain

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:19 +0200, "Iain Churches"
> wrote:


<snipped to make jumping in a litle clearer>


Forgive me for jumping in, but this is a wonderful thread and I'm
jealous.....

>>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>>and over 200 audio retailers.
>
>Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
>who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
>would do better. It seems not.

There are several factors probably affecting this. Since there is a
difference, sometimes a significant one, between the auditory and
acoustic objects, questions need to be asked about what things may
affect the auditory object.

Value sets (cultural bias being one, but there are many others) easily
can affect sensory perception. So can, as Sean points out, physical
(sensory) limitations.



>>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>>worse with age due to presbycusis.

Consider that some of the most sought-out mastering engineers are in
their 50's and '60's. Leaving aside their formidable skills and
sensistivities, it's hard to react to what one can't hear


>But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
>music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
>experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
>in all of us with an audiogram.

It's an open question. The engineer's talents, which are often
formidable, may still create a better recording master than one made
by a less talented engineer.

But markets work in straight-forward ways, and choosing a mastering
(or re-mastering) engineer is a mixture of competing benefits. The
resulting sound re-shapes pop culture, but many of these men (asnd
they're all men in my experience) as hip as they are and as talented
as they are, can't hear the entire audio spectrum.

That has to affect the output in some way
>
>I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
>them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
>later.

Worth pondering. That's, I think, were the talent comes in. If
"bright" simply meant high frequencies being brough forward, why
wouldn't a recording sound more mellow or less bright heard by the
same person 30 years later?

Talent is not a characteristic that can be measured and reproduced. I
suspect tonal character is the result of many variables at the
mastering engineer's hands, only a portion of which is frequency
shaping.



Herbert

[Harry Lavo]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:19 +0200, "Iain Churches"
> > wrote:
>
>
> <snipped to make jumping in a litle clearer>
>
>
> Forgive me for jumping in, but this is a wonderful thread and I'm
> jealous.....
>
>>>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>>>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>>>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>>>and over 200 audio retailers.
>>
>>Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
>>who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
>>would do better. It seems not.
>
> There are several factors probably affecting this. Since there is a
> difference, sometimes a significant one, between the auditory and
> acoustic objects, questions need to be asked about what things may
> affect the auditory object.
>
> Value sets (cultural bias being one, but there are many others) easily
> can affect sensory perception. So can, as Sean points out, physical
> (sensory) limitations.
>
>
>
>>>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>>>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>>>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>>>worse with age due to presbycusis.
>
> Consider that some of the most sought-out mastering engineers are in
> their 50's and '60's. Leaving aside their formidable skills and
> sensistivities, it's hard to react to what one can't hear
>
>
>>But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
>>music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
>>experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
>>in all of us with an audiogram.
>
> It's an open question. The engineer's talents, which are often
> formidable, may still create a better recording master than one made
> by a less talented engineer.
>
> But markets work in straight-forward ways, and choosing a mastering
> (or re-mastering) engineer is a mixture of competing benefits. The
> resulting sound re-shapes pop culture, but many of these men (asnd
> they're all men in my experience) as hip as they are and as talented
> as they are, can't hear the entire audio spectrum.
>
> That has to affect the output in some way
>>
>>I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
>>them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
>>later.
>
> Worth pondering. That's, I think, were the talent comes in. If
> "bright" simply meant high frequencies being brough forward, why
> wouldn't a recording sound more mellow or less bright heard by the
> same person 30 years later?
>
> Talent is not a characteristic that can be measured and reproduced. I
> suspect tonal character is the result of many variables at the
> mastering engineer's hands, only a portion of which is frequency
> shaping.
>

Speaking of mixing and mastering talent, my brother-in-law and I took a
listen to Ray Hargrove's July 2008 Emarcy release "Earfood" on my system
yesterday....listened a bit in stereo and then in matrixed stereo (5
channel). This is a studio recording engineered by Al Schmitt and mastered
by Doug Sax and these two old pro's give it a sumptious yet direct
sound....the best sounding jazz recording I've heard in years. It sounds
like the best of the late '60's - mid '70's when pop and jazz recording
seemed to be at it's peak. The music is straight-ahead modern jazz:
soulful, tuneful, and moving. Very accessible.

I recall you said you liked jazz....this is a must-have....and it's sound
shows the difference real engineering talent can make.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> i.fi...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>>> i.fi...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> **This is just the sort of stuff I've been saying for years, after
>>>>>> Stereo
>>>>>> Review published those nonsensical comparisons all those years ago.
>>>>>> Pulling people off the street is just dumb. The ONLY people who
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> involved in listening comparisons (blind or otherwise) are those who
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> carefully trained hearing abilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But as "people in the street" form the largest sector
>>>>> of the market, it seems churlish not to include them.
>>>>
>>>> **Churlish or not, "people in the street" think that Bose AcoustimessT
>>>> products provide accurate sound quality. That should automatically
>>>> disqualify them.
>>>
>>> Sorry, Trevor, I disagree.
>>
>> **As is your right to do so.
>>
>> That is the top of a very steep and
>>> slippery slope. Next you will want to disqualify people who
>>> listen to ESLs, Lowthers, certain types of tube amps, vinyl or
>>> analogue tape. There is a lot more in this question than
>>> simply accuracy, we are interested in people's tastes and
>>> preferences. How can you define your term "accuracy"
>>> when three speakers from the top of the range by Tannoy
>>> Kef, B+W and JBL all sound wonderful but very different?
>>
>> **You miss the point. I only want to disqualify those who do not claim to
>> be audiophiles. Further and for the record: I would NEVER disqualify an
>> ESL listener. They have already demonstrated good taste. The others you
>> mention, not so much. Particularly, the biggest con-job speaker on the
>> market - Lowthers. 1940s mid-fi, dressed up as high end. Nothing more,
>> nothing less. Absolute shockers.
>
> My point is that I believe the panel needs to be large enough and
> representative of listeners at all levels.

**All that can possibly do, is to dilute the real results. Stereo Review
pulled the same stunt years ago. Their panel could not
(statistically-speaking) pick the difference between something (I think it
was speaker cables). However, one or two listeners were capable of picking
the differences more often than pure guessing would indicate. Adding a bunch
of disinterested people merely diluted the results from the more significant
ones.

>
>>>> It usually takes years of listening to hone one's ears.
>>>
>>> It is really something that needs to be taught. Most
>>> music teaching facilities, and broadcast companies have
>>> seminars in perception. I have taken part in dozens of
>>> these, and provided course material.
>>
>> **It CAN be taught, but is certanily not required. A good grounding in
>> listening to live music, combined with lots of experience with
>> reproduction systems works well for most.
>
> Most colleges and conservatories that teach music, and also most
> recording facilities think it necessary to spend considerable time in
> teaching perception. The interaction of a group is of especial value
> as we are all presented weith the samer information at a listening
> session, but we process it differently. So discussion is important.
>
>
>>> Put Steinway and Bechstein side by side, and then it
>>> gets interesting. The next step, as I have mentioned often
>>> is the comparison of two good acoustic guitars. Guild and
>>> Martin are often chosen. Then see how many people can
>>> differentiate between a cor Anglais and an oboe (can you
>>> Trevor?) or an alto and tenor saxophone playing in the same
>>> register (can you Trevor?)
>>
>> **No idea. I've never tried.
>
> Please do. Ask a local college of music to arrange a demo
> for you. It's most interesting, even for people who have done
> it many times before.
>
>
>>We're not discussing me (specifically), so there is no need to make it
>>personal. I am speaking objectively.
>
> No of course we are not discussing you specifically, and I had
> no intention to make a personal point, but you do represent an
> important sector of people with "honed ears" (your phrase:-)

**No, I do not. I DID, but not so much anymore.

>
>>> Hmm. In work with professional musicians on a daily basis.
>>> I am often very impressed by their perceptiveness and
>>> attention to detail.
>>
>> **Perhaps. They still (generally) have a rather poor ability to discern
>> fine differences in reproduction systems.
>
> I accept what you say as being your opinion.

**It's not my opinion. It is a deduction, based on evidence, gathered from
long experience.

> But my own findings are totally different.
> As I mentioned previously, one of their
> areas of acute perception is timbre, and
> it is this which makes two amplifiers having
> a very similar measured specification sound
> different.

**I certainly do not believe that ALL musicians are bad at judging sound
reproduction systems. SOME are very good. Most are not. The reasons are not
so difficult to understand. One of my old school friends was in the first
violins in the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. That makes him one of the finest
musicians in the nation. I visited him one day and he placed one of his
favourite CDs on his sound system. The sound was unbearable (to me). I then
noted that he was using a graphic equaliser (SHUDDER!). The response was
skewed towards the upper middle and HF registers. He was attempting to
re-create the sound he hears on a daily basis. He is surrounded by a bunch
of violins. He hears an orchestra in a completely different way to the way a
listener normally would.

Which is not to say that ALL musicians are similarly crippled. Clearly, they
are not. My point, lest you forget, is this: Just because a person is a
musician, that fact does not provide that person with the ability to
critically listen to a sound reproduction system. In fact, the reverse is
usually the case. Musicians usually have several admirable talents. They can
read music (usually). They're often creative and they can often pick fine
pitch problems. None of which is overly valuable in being able to listen to
a sound reproduction system.

>
> There has been a very interesting discussion on
> the tube-based group about how the same tube
> by different makers, has a similar THD figure
> and yet they clearly sound different. In fact
> the 6CG7 made by EH is probably the best on
> the bench and comes at the bottom of the list
> in listening tests. This leads one to think it is
> not the THD but the spectral content of that
> distortion which gives each its recogniseable
> sound.

**Tubes are basically a mechanical device, that happens to amplify. Each one
is manufactured slightly different to each other. Different brands often use
quite different construction techniques. As a consequence, the vast array of
parameters which determine a tube's performance varies considerably. When
combined with the usually very low levels of global NFB, it is hardly
surprising that differences in tube types is noticable. If you build a SS
amp without using global NFB, you will often note similar effects. Global
NFB swamps small differences in components within the feedback loop. THAT is
exactly what it is supposed to do. And yes, I know many tube amps use global
NFB. The point is, that use they far less global NFB than a typical SS amp.

Further; The differences are measureable. They may not be reflected in the
manufacturer's published specs. That does not suggest that the differences
are not measureable, just that they are not measured.

This applies also to iunstruments.
> Both the Steinway and the Bechstein play
> A= 442 Hz. But the spectral content,
> which gives them their clearly discernible
> sonic sigtnature is different.

**Of course. Both pianos are fundamentally different devices. Different
contstruction, different materials, etc.

>
>
>>> Oh I think it goes far far deeper than that. They excell in
>>> comparison tests. Timbre is one of their areas of expertise,
>>> and the nucleus of aural perception.
>>
>> **Timbre is important, but musicians rarely excell in areas outside their
>> instrument of choice.
>
> But an important part of a musical formal education is
> listening to other sections of the orchesta to enable one
> to understand how the interplay between these sections
> works. Every musician needs to know a concert work as
> an entity, not just the notes written on the manuscript paper
> he has before him.

**Nonetheless, musicians are rarely experienced in what the overall sound is
like, in their daily life.

>
>
>
>>People who listen to music oftn have superior perception of the whole,
>>rather that the part.
>
> This may or may not be so.

**IME, it is exactly so.

But I doubt if their perception
> of the whole is anything like as deep as someone who
> actually plays the piece in question, has rehearsed it
> in depth, and knows its "construction" inside out.

**That would be like suggesting a film critic cannot make intelligent
comments about a film. Only a director can do so. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

> That is one of the interesting things about listening to
> music, it can be done at many different levels.
> At one end of the scale you have the "toe tappers"
> who "like a good tune" and at the other you have
> those who study the miniature score in considerable
> detail before a concert. Both get great pleasure
> from the experience.
>
>
>> Actually, there is one other aspect of a reproduction system that I have
>> found is VERY important to musos, is that of dynamics. In that sense,
>> musos often prefer ESLs or horns, where thermal compression is minimised.
>
> That's interesting. I have only once been present at a listening
> session where horns wee used, and these were Altec. They
> were put up to replace the Tannoys normaly used in that
> control room because the session was a continuation of
> tracks put down in the a studio in the US using Altecs
> and it was thought that the producer would feel more
> at home with them.

**It is nonetheless, one of the things I have found common to a large number
of musos. They like dynamics and lack of thermal compression.

>
>> **Not necessarily. It depends on which side of the fence you are on. When
>> I speak to audio salespeople, it is rarely as a customer. As such, I
>> usually get the truth.
>
> Understood. So they are not trying so sell you
> anything but treat you as a person of equal expertise.

**Exactly. And, in that sense, I have found audio salespeople (well, those
who have audiophile pretentions) have excellent listeing acuity. You just
need to find a way to not be treated as a customer. Having said all that, I
know of several audio sales people who are actually brutally honest with
their clients. Even to the point of suggesting that the client purchase an
opposition's product. One such sales person sent his brother-in-law to me,
because he knew that I had a superior product for the money he had and his
listening preference.

>
>>
>> It is rare to meet a salesman who
>>> can take off the salesman's hat:-)
>>
>> **********.
>
> You have stated above that you do not speak to
> other sales people from a customer's viewpoint so
> you probably have not come across this.

**On the contrary. I have. I purchase products other that audio ones quite
regularly. KNOWLEDGE usually defeats fancy sales tactics, regardless of the
product.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:39:15 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
wrote:

>
>"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:19 +0200, "Iain Churches"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snipped to make jumping in a litle clearer>
>>
>>
>> Forgive me for jumping in, but this is a wonderful thread and I'm
>> jealous.....
>>
>>>>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>>>>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>>>>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>>>>and over 200 audio retailers.
>>>
>>>Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
>>>who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
>>>would do better. It seems not.
>>
>> There are several factors probably affecting this. Since there is a
>> difference, sometimes a significant one, between the auditory and
>> acoustic objects, questions need to be asked about what things may
>> affect the auditory object.
>>
>> Value sets (cultural bias being one, but there are many others) easily
>> can affect sensory perception. So can, as Sean points out, physical
>> (sensory) limitations.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>>>>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>>>>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>>>>worse with age due to presbycusis.
>>
>> Consider that some of the most sought-out mastering engineers are in
>> their 50's and '60's. Leaving aside their formidable skills and
>> sensistivities, it's hard to react to what one can't hear
>>
>>
>>>But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
>>>music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
>>>experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
>>>in all of us with an audiogram.
>>
>> It's an open question. The engineer's talents, which are often
>> formidable, may still create a better recording master than one made
>> by a less talented engineer.
>>
>> But markets work in straight-forward ways, and choosing a mastering
>> (or re-mastering) engineer is a mixture of competing benefits. The
>> resulting sound re-shapes pop culture, but many of these men (asnd
>> they're all men in my experience) as hip as they are and as talented
>> as they are, can't hear the entire audio spectrum.
>>
>> That has to affect the output in some way
>>>
>>>I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
>>>them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
>>>later.
>>
>> Worth pondering. That's, I think, were the talent comes in. If
>> "bright" simply meant high frequencies being brough forward, why
>> wouldn't a recording sound more mellow or less bright heard by the
>> same person 30 years later?
>>
>> Talent is not a characteristic that can be measured and reproduced. I
>> suspect tonal character is the result of many variables at the
>> mastering engineer's hands, only a portion of which is frequency
>> shaping.
>>
>
>Speaking of mixing and mastering talent, my brother-in-law and I took a
>listen to Ray Hargrove's July 2008 Emarcy release "Earfood" on my system
>yesterday....listened a bit in stereo and then in matrixed stereo (5
>channel). This is a studio recording engineered by Al Schmitt and mastered
>by Doug Sax and these two old pro's give it a sumptious yet direct
>sound....the best sounding jazz recording I've heard in years. It sounds
>like the best of the late '60's - mid '70's when pop and jazz recording
>seemed to be at it's peak. The music is straight-ahead modern jazz:
>soulful, tuneful, and moving. Very accessible.
>
>I recall you said you liked jazz....this is a must-have....and it's sound
>shows the difference real engineering talent can make.
>
You're absolutely right, Harry. I love it. It's a spectacularly good
mastering. I've quite a bit of Hargrove...maybe 10 or 11 recordings.
I'd rate that as one of the best.

I've always known the difference engineering can make. I've had two
studios as clients, one a significant one and learned a lot watching
them work.

I obviously can't do what they do since I'm not an engineer, but I
sure as hell can listen


FWIW, I listen to everything except rap and rock. I still love good
rock, but only when working out. I can just sit there and listen to it
any more the way I did years ago. More and more I'm listening to
standards, especially good female vocal, and I'm a big Brad Mehldau
fan.

If you want to be bored for a while, get me ranting about the Takacs
quartet, especialy their Beethoven quartets. In my view the best ever,
even better than The Emerson or the Alban Berg.

Still, for sheer mastering artistry and simpatico musicians it's hard
to beat Jennier Warnes' Famous Blue Raincoat. Still astonishing, never
fails to astonish.


Harry

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Feb 5, 4:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> If you want to be bored for a while, get me ranting about the Takacs
> quartet, especialy their Beethoven quartets. In my view the best ever,
> even better than The Emerson or the Alban Berg.

I'll have to check ithem out. I have the Emersons, which I love.

> Still, for sheer mastering artistry and simpatico musicians it's hard
> to beat Jennier Warnes' Famous Blue Raincoat. Still astonishing, never
> fails to astonish.

Yes indeed. Most audiophiles have heard this album too many
times, but it remains a pinnacle of modern rock recording.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:28:23 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 4:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> If you want to be bored for a while, get me ranting about the Takacs
>> quartet, especialy their Beethoven quartets. In my view the best ever,
>> even better than The Emerson or the Alban Berg.
>
>I'll have to check ithem out. I have the Emersons, which I love.
>
>> Still, for sheer mastering artistry and simpatico musicians it's hard
>> to beat Jennier Warnes' Famous Blue Raincoat. Still astonishing, never
>> fails to astonish.
>
>Yes indeed. Most audiophiles have heard this album too many
>times, but it remains a pinnacle of modern rock recording.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
John, you wil be astonished. The first time I heard this group it was
"er...Takashie whooosie?" It's Takacs, pronounced Takash, and they are
sublime.

They have every bit of the technical mastery of The Emerson, with just
a soupcon more emotion, not enough to become messy or categorically
Romantic, but to remind one that mastery and understanding are each
tools of the other to create something bigger than both.

I can't say enough. And when you're through with that, wait till you
hear the Dvorak Piano Quintet with them OMIGOD and then there's the
Brahms String Quintets (Andras Schiff) and String Quartets OMIGOD!!!

I'm verklempt...I can say no more. Go! Listen! Enjoy! Fress! fress!


Herbert

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Feb, 16:21, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:39:15 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>

>
> Harry-


Herbert?

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:34:11 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
> wrote:

>On 5 Feb, 16:21, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:39:15 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Harry-
>
>
>Herbert?

Yes?

(I think Harry hit send prematurely)


Herbert

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message

> **All that can possibly do, is to dilute the real
> results. Stereo Review pulled the same stunt years ago.

The cable listening panel which seems to be the focus of your post Trevor,
was a fairly prestigious audio club in New York who were generally advocates
of high end cables.

> Their panel could not (statistically-speaking) pick the
> difference between something (I think it was speaker
> cables).

There were three different Stereo Review listening panels, one for cables,
one for amplifiers, and one for CD players. They were managed in similar
ways, which had been carefully thought out and tested long before these
tests.

> However, one or two listeners were capable of
> picking the differences more often than pure guessing
> would indicate.

Not so. On two different grounds.

(1) If you have enough people guessing randomly, some will do better than
average and some will do worse. That's why its called "average". If someone
in a large group does better than average, it means nothing.

(2) The people who did appreciably better than average were given a second
try to duplicate their earlier results. They couldn't.

> Adding a bunch of disinterested people
> merely diluted the results from the more significant
> ones.

In none of the 3 cases where there any disinterested people on the listening
panels.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> in message
>
>> **All that can possibly do, is to dilute the real
>> results. Stereo Review pulled the same stunt years ago.
>
> The cable listening panel which seems to be the focus of your post Trevor,
> was a fairly prestigious audio club in New York who were generally
> advocates of high end cables.
>
>> Their panel could not (statistically-speaking) pick the
>> difference between something (I think it was speaker
>> cables).
>
> There were three different Stereo Review listening panels, one for cables,
> one for amplifiers, and one for CD players. They were managed in similar
> ways, which had been carefully thought out and tested long before these
> tests.
>
>> However, one or two listeners were capable of
>> picking the differences more often than pure guessing
>> would indicate.
>
> Not so. On two different grounds.
>
> (1) If you have enough people guessing randomly, some will do better than
> average and some will do worse. That's why its called "average". If
> someone in a large group does better than average, it means nothing.
>
> (2) The people who did appreciably better than average were given a second
> try to duplicate their earlier results. They couldn't.
>
>> Adding a bunch of disinterested people
>> merely diluted the results from the more significant
>> ones.
>
> In none of the 3 cases where there any disinterested people on the
> listening panels.

**I'll dig out the issue and cite the results. I'm pretty certain there were
one or two issues of SR that I did not send to be pulped.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Harry Lavo]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:39:15 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:19 +0200, "Iain Churches"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snipped to make jumping in a litle clearer>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive me for jumping in, but this is a wonderful thread and I'm
>>> jealous.....
>>>
>>>>>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>>>>>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>>>>>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>>>>>and over 200 audio retailers.
>>>>
>>>>Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
>>>>who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
>>>>would do better. It seems not.
>>>
>>> There are several factors probably affecting this. Since there is a
>>> difference, sometimes a significant one, between the auditory and
>>> acoustic objects, questions need to be asked about what things may
>>> affect the auditory object.
>>>
>>> Value sets (cultural bias being one, but there are many others) easily
>>> can affect sensory perception. So can, as Sean points out, physical
>>> (sensory) limitations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>>>>>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>>>>>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>>>>>worse with age due to presbycusis.
>>>
>>> Consider that some of the most sought-out mastering engineers are in
>>> their 50's and '60's. Leaving aside their formidable skills and
>>> sensistivities, it's hard to react to what one can't hear
>>>
>>>
>>>>But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
>>>>music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
>>>>experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
>>>>in all of us with an audiogram.
>>>
>>> It's an open question. The engineer's talents, which are often
>>> formidable, may still create a better recording master than one made
>>> by a less talented engineer.
>>>
>>> But markets work in straight-forward ways, and choosing a mastering
>>> (or re-mastering) engineer is a mixture of competing benefits. The
>>> resulting sound re-shapes pop culture, but many of these men (asnd
>>> they're all men in my experience) as hip as they are and as talented
>>> as they are, can't hear the entire audio spectrum.
>>>
>>> That has to affect the output in some way
>>>>
>>>>I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
>>>>them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
>>>>later.
>>>
>>> Worth pondering. That's, I think, were the talent comes in. If
>>> "bright" simply meant high frequencies being brough forward, why
>>> wouldn't a recording sound more mellow or less bright heard by the
>>> same person 30 years later?
>>>
>>> Talent is not a characteristic that can be measured and reproduced. I
>>> suspect tonal character is the result of many variables at the
>>> mastering engineer's hands, only a portion of which is frequency
>>> shaping.
>>>
>>
>>Speaking of mixing and mastering talent, my brother-in-law and I took a
>>listen to Ray Hargrove's July 2008 Emarcy release "Earfood" on my system
>>yesterday....listened a bit in stereo and then in matrixed stereo (5
>>channel). This is a studio recording engineered by Al Schmitt and
>>mastered
>>by Doug Sax and these two old pro's give it a sumptious yet direct
>>sound....the best sounding jazz recording I've heard in years. It sounds
>>like the best of the late '60's - mid '70's when pop and jazz recording
>>seemed to be at it's peak. The music is straight-ahead modern jazz:
>>soulful, tuneful, and moving. Very accessible.
>>
>>I recall you said you liked jazz....this is a must-have....and it's sound
>>shows the difference real engineering talent can make.
>>
> You're absolutely right, Harry. I love it. It's a spectacularly good
> mastering. I've quite a bit of Hargrove...maybe 10 or 11 recordings.
> I'd rate that as one of the best.
>
> I've always known the difference engineering can make. I've had two
> studios as clients, one a significant one and learned a lot watching
> them work.
>
> I obviously can't do what they do since I'm not an engineer, but I
> sure as hell can listen
>
>
> FWIW, I listen to everything except rap and rock. I still love good
> rock, but only when working out. I can just sit there and listen to it
> any more the way I did years ago. More and more I'm listening to
> standards, especially good female vocal, and I'm a big Brad Mehldau
> fan.
>
> If you want to be bored for a while, get me ranting about the Takacs
> quartet, especialy their Beethoven quartets. In my view the best ever,
> even better than The Emerson or the Alban Berg.
>
> Still, for sheer mastering artistry and simpatico musicians it's hard
> to beat Jennier Warnes' Famous Blue Raincoat. Still astonishing, never
> fails to astonish.

I heard the Takacs when living up in Burlington, VT when they were just a
fairly new group. Can't remember the material, but can remember afterward
thinking "this is a really good quartet". But I haven't bought their stuff.
Most of my classical purchases (about 500) are on LP's from the '60's,
'70's, and early '80's. I gave up on CD's until fairly recently, and I only
restarted purchasing classical when SACD and DVD-A came along.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:17:32 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
wrote:

>
>"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:39:15 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:19 +0200, "Iain Churches"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snipped to make jumping in a litle clearer>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me for jumping in, but this is a wonderful thread and I'm
>>>> jealous.....
>>>>
>>>>>>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>>>>>>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>>>>>>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>>>>>>and over 200 audio retailers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
>>>>>who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
>>>>>would do better. It seems not.
>>>>
>>>> There are several factors probably affecting this. Since there is a
>>>> difference, sometimes a significant one, between the auditory and
>>>> acoustic objects, questions need to be asked about what things may
>>>> affect the auditory object.
>>>>
>>>> Value sets (cultural bias being one, but there are many others) easily
>>>> can affect sensory perception. So can, as Sean points out, physical
>>>> (sensory) limitations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>>>>>>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>>>>>>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>>>>>>worse with age due to presbycusis.
>>>>
>>>> Consider that some of the most sought-out mastering engineers are in
>>>> their 50's and '60's. Leaving aside their formidable skills and
>>>> sensistivities, it's hard to react to what one can't hear
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
>>>>>music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
>>>>>experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
>>>>>in all of us with an audiogram.
>>>>
>>>> It's an open question. The engineer's talents, which are often
>>>> formidable, may still create a better recording master than one made
>>>> by a less talented engineer.
>>>>
>>>> But markets work in straight-forward ways, and choosing a mastering
>>>> (or re-mastering) engineer is a mixture of competing benefits. The
>>>> resulting sound re-shapes pop culture, but many of these men (asnd
>>>> they're all men in my experience) as hip as they are and as talented
>>>> as they are, can't hear the entire audio spectrum.
>>>>
>>>> That has to affect the output in some way
>>>>>
>>>>>I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
>>>>>them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
>>>>>later.
>>>>
>>>> Worth pondering. That's, I think, were the talent comes in. If
>>>> "bright" simply meant high frequencies being brough forward, why
>>>> wouldn't a recording sound more mellow or less bright heard by the
>>>> same person 30 years later?
>>>>
>>>> Talent is not a characteristic that can be measured and reproduced. I
>>>> suspect tonal character is the result of many variables at the
>>>> mastering engineer's hands, only a portion of which is frequency
>>>> shaping.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Speaking of mixing and mastering talent, my brother-in-law and I took a
>>>listen to Ray Hargrove's July 2008 Emarcy release "Earfood" on my system
>>>yesterday....listened a bit in stereo and then in matrixed stereo (5
>>>channel). This is a studio recording engineered by Al Schmitt and
>>>mastered
>>>by Doug Sax and these two old pro's give it a sumptious yet direct
>>>sound....the best sounding jazz recording I've heard in years. It sounds
>>>like the best of the late '60's - mid '70's when pop and jazz recording
>>>seemed to be at it's peak. The music is straight-ahead modern jazz:
>>>soulful, tuneful, and moving. Very accessible.
>>>
>>>I recall you said you liked jazz....this is a must-have....and it's sound
>>>shows the difference real engineering talent can make.
>>>
>> You're absolutely right, Harry. I love it. It's a spectacularly good
>> mastering. I've quite a bit of Hargrove...maybe 10 or 11 recordings.
>> I'd rate that as one of the best.
>>
>> I've always known the difference engineering can make. I've had two
>> studios as clients, one a significant one and learned a lot watching
>> them work.
>>
>> I obviously can't do what they do since I'm not an engineer, but I
>> sure as hell can listen
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I listen to everything except rap and rock. I still love good
>> rock, but only when working out. I can just sit there and listen to it
>> any more the way I did years ago. More and more I'm listening to
>> standards, especially good female vocal, and I'm a big Brad Mehldau
>> fan.
>>
>> If you want to be bored for a while, get me ranting about the Takacs
>> quartet, especialy their Beethoven quartets. In my view the best ever,
>> even better than The Emerson or the Alban Berg.
>>
>> Still, for sheer mastering artistry and simpatico musicians it's hard
>> to beat Jennier Warnes' Famous Blue Raincoat. Still astonishing, never
>> fails to astonish.
>
>I heard the Takacs when living up in Burlington, VT when they were just a
>fairly new group. Can't remember the material, but can remember afterward
>thinking "this is a really good quartet". But I haven't bought their stuff.
>Most of my classical purchases (about 500) are on LP's from the '60's,
>'70's, and early '80's. I gave up on CD's until fairly recently, and I only
>restarted purchasing classical when SACD and DVD-A came along.
>

Well....you might think about transferring all that vinyl onto your
PC. Saves a huge amount of space, and if you convert properly to a
true lossless compression scheme (FLAC, Ape, Apple Lossless) you'll
have exactly the same quality as a CD. Those formats are not like
MP3s, which are a lossy compression format based on psycho-acoustic
algorhythmns.

I don't own a record or a CD any more. Everything's on 12 hard discs
(3 TB worth). It tok me a while to get over the associated ritualsm
but I'll never go back. OTOH, I always preferred the sound of digital
to analogue, so analogue fans may not much apreciate my recommendation
here.


Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Harry Lavo]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:39:15 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:19 +0200, "Iain Churches"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snipped to make jumping in a litle clearer>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive me for jumping in, but this is a wonderful thread and I'm
>>> jealous.....
>>>
>>>>>This study showed that as a group the audio retailers performed
>>>>>better on average than audio reviewers. It is important to note that
>>>>>the sample sizes were not balanced. There were only 6 audio reviewers
>>>>>and over 200 audio retailers.
>>>>
>>>>Fascinating info. One would have thought that the audio reviewers
>>>>who probably have a both a technical and a musical background
>>>>would do better. It seems not.
>>>
>>> There are several factors probably affecting this. Since there is a
>>> difference, sometimes a significant one, between the auditory and
>>> acoustic objects, questions need to be asked about what things may
>>> affect the auditory object.
>>>
>>> Value sets (cultural bias being one, but there are many others) easily
>>> can affect sensory perception. So can, as Sean points out, physical
>>> (sensory) limitations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>As a group, the audio reviewers were
>>>>>much older than the other occupations, and this could have been a
>>>>>factor since hearing loss is a known occupational hazard that gets
>>>>>worse with age due to presbycusis.
>>>
>>> Consider that some of the most sought-out mastering engineers are in
>>> their 50's and '60's. Leaving aside their formidable skills and
>>> sensistivities, it's hard to react to what one can't hear
>>>
>>>
>>>>But even when older, people who are constantly involved in
>>>>music, recording and audio, tend to compensate, perhaps with
>>>>experience, for the gradual changes which can be clearly seen
>>>>in all of us with an audiogram.
>>>
>>> It's an open question. The engineer's talents, which are often
>>> formidable, may still create a better recording master than one made
>>> by a less talented engineer.
>>>
>>> But markets work in straight-forward ways, and choosing a mastering
>>> (or re-mastering) engineer is a mixture of competing benefits. The
>>> resulting sound re-shapes pop culture, but many of these men (asnd
>>> they're all men in my experience) as hip as they are and as talented
>>> as they are, can't hear the entire audio spectrum.
>>>
>>> That has to affect the output in some way
>>>>
>>>>I still listen to recordings I worked on in my early 20's. Some of
>>>>them, were "bright" then. They still sound bright many years
>>>>later.
>>>
>>> Worth pondering. That's, I think, were the talent comes in. If
>>> "bright" simply meant high frequencies being brough forward, why
>>> wouldn't a recording sound more mellow or less bright heard by the
>>> same person 30 years later?
>>>
>>> Talent is not a characteristic that can be measured and reproduced. I
>>> suspect tonal character is the result of many variables at the
>>> mastering engineer's hands, only a portion of which is frequency
>>> shaping.
>>>
>>
>>Speaking of mixing and mastering talent, my brother-in-law and I took a
>>listen to Ray Hargrove's July 2008 Emarcy release "Earfood" on my system
>>yesterday....listened a bit in stereo and then in matrixed stereo (5
>>channel). This is a studio recording engineered by Al Schmitt and
>>mastered
>>by Doug Sax and these two old pro's give it a sumptious yet direct
>>sound....the best sounding jazz recording I've heard in years. It sounds
>>like the best of the late '60's - mid '70's when pop and jazz recording
>>seemed to be at it's peak. The music is straight-ahead modern jazz:
>>soulful, tuneful, and moving. Very accessible.
>>
>>I recall you said you liked jazz....this is a must-have....and it's sound
>>shows the difference real engineering talent can make.
>>
> You're absolutely right, Harry. I love it. It's a spectacularly good
> mastering. I've quite a bit of Hargrove...maybe 10 or 11 recordings.
> I'd rate that as one of the best.
>
> I've always known the difference engineering can make. I've had two
> studios as clients, one a significant one and learned a lot watching
> them work.
>
> I obviously can't do what they do since I'm not an engineer, but I
> sure as hell can listen
>
>
> FWIW, I listen to everything except rap and rock. I still love good
> rock, but only when working out. I can just sit there and listen to it
> any more the way I did years ago. More and more I'm listening to
> standards, especially good female vocal, and I'm a big Brad Mehldau
> fan.
>
> If you want to be bored for a while, get me ranting about the Takacs
> quartet, especialy their Beethoven quartets. In my view the best ever,
> even better than The Emerson or the Alban Berg.
>
> Still, for sheer mastering artistry and simpatico musicians it's hard
> to beat Jennier Warnes' Famous Blue Raincoat. Still astonishing, never
> fails to astonish.

Herbert ... can I take a little bow? Remember how I said above "It sounds
like the best of the late '60's - mid "70's when pop and jazz recording
seemed to be at it's peak"? I just got my copy of EQ magazine yesterday,
and in there is an article by Al Schmitt entitled "Track Naturally"
discussing the recording of this album. It was recorded live in the room
with controlled bleeding (only the drummer was partially isolated using
gobos). Now here is the startling part: it was all analog, mixed through a
NEVE console and mixed to 1/2" two-track tape. Not a single track was
EQ'd....it was all balanced by mic selection and placement. The computer
was never used. The band had just come off a tour, and nailed almost every
single piece first take.

That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro engineer
(who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer of modern
surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his name). This
is the way recording was done back then for the most part....and it is
different (and better) enough to come singing right out of the speakers. It
all comes down to knowledge and experience....professionalism. For the most
part, it's a lost art in today's recording world.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...

> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
> engineer (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer of
> modern surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his
> name). This is the way recording was done back then for the most
> part....and it is different (and better) enough to come singing right out
> of the speakers. It all comes down to knowledge and
> experience....professionalism. For the most part, it's a lost art in
> today's recording world.

It certainly is a lost art in the musical brick-laying world
of pop music recording, but straight stereo is still common
in both classical and jazz recording.

Iain

[Harry Lavo]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
>> engineer (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer
>> of
>> modern surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his
>> name). This is the way recording was done back then for the most
>> part....and it is different (and better) enough to come singing right out
>> of the speakers. It all comes down to knowledge and
>> experience....professionalism. For the most part, it's a lost art in
>> today's recording world.
>
> It certainly is a lost art in the musical brick-laying world
> of pop music recording, but straight stereo is still common
> in both classical and jazz recording.
>

Agree, but this strictly purist analog approach, the lack of EQ, and the
"live in the room" recording without punch-ins and isolation on the
instruments is not all that common even for jazz recording.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On 2009-02-08 13:46:55 -0500, "Harry Lavo" > said:

> Herbert ... can I take a little bow? Remember how I said above "It sounds
> like the best of the late '60's - mid "70's when pop and jazz recording
> seemed to be at it's peak"? I just got my copy of EQ magazine yesterday,
> and in there is an article by Al Schmitt entitled "Track Naturally"
> discussing the recording of this album. It was recorded live in the room
> with controlled bleeding (only the drummer was partially isolated using
> gobos). Now here is the startling part: it was all analog, mixed through a
> NEVE console and mixed to 1/2" two-track tape. Not a single track was
> EQ'd....it was all balanced by mic selection and placement. The computer
> was never used. The band had just come off a tour, and nailed almost every
> single piece first take.
>
> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro engineer
> (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer of modern
> surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his name). This
> is the way recording was done back then for the most part....and it is
> different (and better) enough to come singing right out of the speakers. It
> all comes down to knowledge and experience....professionalism. For the most
> part, it's a lost art in today's recording wor

Good ears, Harry!

I'n not surprised, because I've cometo believe that, in general, as lon
g as one has mastery of the tools at hand, superb art will result.

I'm not sure I'd be prepared to say that yesterday's tools, therefore,
were better than todays. I am willing to say, though, that it's only
now that many superb engineers/mastering/recording guys have begun to
deeply understand their palette of tools in the way that the previous
generation had come to understand theirs at the end of the
'60's-beginning of the '70's.

So I'll take a tiny issue with you and say it's not a "lost" art. It's
a "different art, and hard to judge across generations. Many kudos to
you, tough, and how lovely to get valdation in print....


Herbert

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> i.fi...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
>>> engineer (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer
>>> of
>>> modern surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his
>>> name). This is the way recording was done back then for the most
>>> part....and it is different (and better) enough to come singing right
>>> out
>>> of the speakers. It all comes down to knowledge and
>>> experience....professionalism. For the most part, it's a lost art in
>>> today's recording world.
>>
>> It certainly is a lost art in the musical brick-laying world
>> of pop music recording, but straight stereo is still common
>> in both classical and jazz recording.
>>
>
> Agree, but this strictly purist analog approach, the lack of EQ,


I agree that some are too eager to reach for the EQ controls
too soon, without considering; "Am I using the right microphone
in the right place"


>and the "live in the room" recording without punch-ins and isolation on the
>instruments is not all that common even for jazz recording.

One cannot usually "punch in" in straight stereo. One can of course
do several takes plus patches and pickups, and edit them together.
Very few people can hear these, or even realise it is common practice.

Iain

[Harry Lavo]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> i.fi...
>>>
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
>>>> engineer (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer
>>>> of
>>>> modern surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his
>>>> name). This is the way recording was done back then for the most
>>>> part....and it is different (and better) enough to come singing right
>>>> out
>>>> of the speakers. It all comes down to knowledge and
>>>> experience....professionalism. For the most part, it's a lost art in
>>>> today's recording world.
>>>
>>> It certainly is a lost art in the musical brick-laying world
>>> of pop music recording, but straight stereo is still common
>>> in both classical and jazz recording.
>>>
>>
>> Agree, but this strictly purist analog approach, the lack of EQ,
>
>
> I agree that some are too eager to reach for the EQ controls
> too soon, without considering; "Am I using the right microphone
> in the right place"
>
>
>>and the "live in the room" recording without punch-ins and isolation on
>>the
>>instruments is not all that common even for jazz recording.
>
> One cannot usually "punch in" in straight stereo. One can of course
> do several takes plus patches and pickups, and edit them together.
> Very few people can hear these, or even realise it is common practice.

Sorry if my comment was misleading, Ian. Patches and splices I understand
well, having recorded that way for a decade. However, nowadays many
engineers and musicians insist on isolation and multitracking simply so they
can re-record a single singer or instrumentalist who hasn't got it
right...or so they don't even have to assemble the group in the studio.
Bleh!

[Harry Lavo]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
news:2009020916523138165-HHoover1928@gmailcom...
> On 2009-02-08 13:46:55 -0500, "Harry Lavo" > said:
>
>> Herbert ... can I take a little bow? Remember how I said above "It
>> sounds
>> like the best of the late '60's - mid "70's when pop and jazz recording
>> seemed to be at it's peak"? I just got my copy of EQ magazine yesterday,
>> and in there is an article by Al Schmitt entitled "Track Naturally"
>> discussing the recording of this album. It was recorded live in the room
>> with controlled bleeding (only the drummer was partially isolated using
>> gobos). Now here is the startling part: it was all analog, mixed
>> through a
>> NEVE console and mixed to 1/2" two-track tape. Not a single track was
>> EQ'd....it was all balanced by mic selection and placement. The computer
>> was never used. The band had just come off a tour, and nailed almost
>> every
>> single piece first take.
>>
>> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
>> engineer
>> (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer of modern
>> surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his name).
>> This
>> is the way recording was done back then for the most part....and it is
>> different (and better) enough to come singing right out of the speakers.
>> It
>> all comes down to knowledge and experience....professionalism. For the
>> most
>> part, it's a lost art in today's recording wor
>
> Good ears, Harry!
>
> I'n not surprised, because I've cometo believe that, in general, as lon g
> as one has mastery of the tools at hand, superb art will result.
>
> I'm not sure I'd be prepared to say that yesterday's tools, therefore,
> were better than todays. I am willing to say, though, that it's only now
> that many superb engineers/mastering/recording guys have begun to deeply
> understand their palette of tools in the way that the previous generation
> had come to understand theirs at the end of the '60's-beginning of the
> '70's.
>
> So I'll take a tiny issue with you and say it's not a "lost" art. It's a
> "different art, and hard to judge across generations. Many kudos to you,
> tough, and how lovely to get valdation in print....

I guess I agree with you here, Herbet....BUT...it seems to me the proportion
of engineers who are really good at their craft is much smaller today than
it used to be. Too easy to just get in and push the faders, I suspect.

Back in the late '60's - early '70's one could only apprentice in a studio
as a way of getting started, not in your bedroom. And while I suppose it is
possible to get good within one's bedroom, it is unlikely without being
surrounded by professionals who have gone before and can instruct and
critique. So when the bedroom recordist gets into a real studio, he is more
likely to view himself (and be viewed as others) as "fully trained" even if
he is only half-assed.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>> i.fi...
>>>>
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
>>>>> engineer (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known
>>>>> engineer
>>>>> of
>>>>> modern surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his
>>>>> name). This is the way recording was done back then for the most
>>>>> part....and it is different (and better) enough to come singing right
>>>>> out
>>>>> of the speakers. It all comes down to knowledge and
>>>>> experience....professionalism. For the most part, it's a lost art in
>>>>> today's recording world.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly is a lost art in the musical brick-laying world
>>>> of pop music recording, but straight stereo is still common
>>>> in both classical and jazz recording.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agree, but this strictly purist analog approach, the lack of EQ,
>>
>>
>> I agree that some are too eager to reach for the EQ controls
>> too soon, without considering; "Am I using the right microphone
>> in the right place"
>>
>>
>>>and the "live in the room" recording without punch-ins and isolation on
>>>the
>>>instruments is not all that common even for jazz recording.
>>
>> One cannot usually "punch in" in straight stereo. One can of course
>> do several takes plus patches and pickups, and edit them together.
>> Very few people can hear these, or even realise it is common practice.
>
> Sorry if my comment was misleading, Ian. Patches and splices I understand
> well, having recorded that way for a decade.

Hi Harry. It might have been misleading to someone who is
not really too familiar with the procedures.

>However, nowadays many engineers and musicians insist on isolation and
>multitracking simply so they can re-record a single singer or
>instrumentalist who hasn't got it right...or so they don't even have to
>assemble the group in the studio. Bleh!

They call it "Keeping your options open" LOL:-)
..
But you are right, multitracking gives us the dubious oportunity
of putting together tracks with singers who can't sing, and
players who can't play. Fun 'innit:-)

Regards
Iain

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On 2009-02-10 13:22:52 -0500, "Harry Lavo" > said:

>
> "Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
> news:2009020916523138165-HHoover1928@gmailcom...
>> On 2009-02-08 13:46:55 -0500, "Harry Lavo" > said:
>>
>>> Herbert ... can I take a little bow? Remember how I said above "It
>>> sounds
>>> like the best of the late '60's - mid "70's when pop and jazz recording
>>> seemed to be at it's peak"? I just got my copy of EQ magazine yesterday,
>>> and in there is an article by Al Schmitt entitled "Track Naturally"
>>> discussing the recording of this album. It was recorded live in the room
>>> with controlled bleeding (only the drummer was partially isolated using
>>> gobos). Now here is the startling part: it was all analog, mixed
>>> through a
>>> NEVE console and mixed to 1/2" two-track tape. Not a single track was
>>> EQ'd....it was all balanced by mic selection and placement. The computer
>>> was never used. The band had just come off a tour, and nailed almost
>>> every
>>> single piece first take.
>>>
>>> That is what happens when you get pro musicians together with a pro
>>> engineer
>>> (who is not exactly retro...he is also the best known engineer of modern
>>> surround recordings and has many SACD and DVD-A credits to his name).
>>> This
>>> is the way recording was done back then for the most part....and it is
>>> different (and better) enough to come singing right out of the speakers.
>>> It
>>> all comes down to knowledge and experience....professionalism. For the
>>> most
>>> part, it's a lost art in today's recording wor
>>
>> Good ears, Harry!
>>
>> I'n not surprised, because I've cometo believe that, in general, as lon g
>> as one has mastery of the tools at hand, superb art will result.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'd be prepared to say that yesterday's tools, therefore,
>> were better than todays. I am willing to say, though, that it's only now
>> that many superb engineers/mastering/recording guys have begun to deeply
>> understand their palette of tools in the way that the previous generation
>> had come to understand theirs at the end of the '60's-beginning of the
>> '70's.
>>
>> So I'll take a tiny issue with you and say it's not a "lost" art. It's a
>> "different art, and hard to judge across generations. Many kudos to you,
>> tough, and how lovely to get valdation in print....
>
> I guess I agree with you here, Herbet....BUT...it seems to me the proportion
> of engineers who are really good at their craft is much smaller today than
> it used to be. Too easy to just get in and push the faders, I suspect.
>
> Back in the late '60's - early '70's one could only apprentice in a studio
> as a way of getting started, not in your bedroom. And while I suppose it is
> possible to get good within one's bedroom, it is unlikely without being
> surrounded by professionals who have gone before and can instruct and
> critique. So when the bedroom recordist gets into a real studio, he is more
> likely to view himself (and be viewed as others) as "fully trained" even if
> he is only half-assed.

Well....by analogy, here's an anecdote I remember vividly:

When my wife and I first started dating back in '70 an ld family friend
of her family's, Yip Harburg ("Brother, Can You Spare A Dime") was
railing about how there were no good song writers anymore. He cited
Paul Simon (really!) as an example of a lousy song writer.

I can only report what I see. The engineering and re-mastering guys I
know at several studios are as good as any before them. They do,
though, approach their jobs differently, in the same way that writers
and graphic novelists used to combinng media and thinking differently,
develop art that's really not comparable to a classic novel....but it's
still art and it's still literature.

I utterly support your point about the need to be around your betters
if one is going to get better, and I think everyone's experience
supports that. There are plenty of one-shot wonders working out of
their homes, but if they're truly pro (or aspire to be) they end up
working outside the home in a studio with other pros. It's just the
same with musicians. If all you hear is your own playing, pretty son
you'll be repeating yourself.

Herbert