Use your ears, they say...

[James Price[_5_]]

I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

[JackA]

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:32:34 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
> I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

As I stated, people hear music but don't actually listen to it. So, yes, while some count numbers, I use my ears to tell me what is more exciting. Not that I have a big head, but I was listening to some material I audio enhanced, and it sounds impressive. Why people don't like me - like I'm a showoff.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/24/2016 10:16 AM, James Price wrote:
> I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and
> wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are
> useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no
> one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring
> an AE?

Because to the paying customers, what they hear and how they treat it
might sound better than what you hear and how you treat it. We have a
regular poster here who likes to "remix" commercial songs to his liking
and post links to them here. Most of us think they sound worse than the
originals, but if to his ears, they sound better, well, that's his choice.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
James Price > wrote:
>I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong =
>way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a de=
>gree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any d=
>egree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?

Because using your ears isn't necessarily an easy task at all. In fact it
is likely one of the most difficult things in the world.

You want to hire an engineer with good, well-trained ears, and you want
to hire him for that reason. And if you want to become an engineer, the
first thing you should think about, before anything else, is Dave Moulton's
ear training course. (Actually if you want to become a producer that is
probably not a bad thing either.) Spend an hour a day, every day, working
on it.

I listen to stuff I worked on when I was a kid and I wonder how I missed
squeaks and echoes and comb filtering. Over the years I got better at
hearing some of that, and it took some time and some effort. It's time
and effort well-spent though. And it's not some secret talent, it's
mostly just skills learned through practice and effort.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:32:34 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
> I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?
____

Yep. That seems to be the motto here and on other
groups I've frequented: Load all your tracks,
enable all needed plug-ins, and - TURN YOUR MONITOR
OFF and USE YOUR EARS.

Might as well take a sledge hammer to that group
of gauges behind your steering wheel in your car
while yer at it! ;)

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 7:44:38 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <a35bbdec-b3c1-439b-ae62-4roups.com>,
> James Price <malet> wrote:
> >I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong =
> >way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a de=
> >gree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any d=
> >egree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?
>
> Because using your ears isn't necessarily an easy task at all. In fact it
> is likely one of the most difficult things in the world.


> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
_________________

Yet YOU were one of those who repeated it to ME
on several occasions when I reported my findings
at the waveform and envelope level on a DAW.

"Use your ears-Use your ears-Use your ea- "SKRAAATCH!!!

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 7:37:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 7:44:38 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article <a35bbdec-b3c1-439b-ae62-4roups.com>,
> > James Price <malet> wrote:
> > >I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right and wrong =
> > >way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements are useful to a de=
> > >gree, but if everyone can simply use their ears and no one's bound to any d=
> > >egree of convention, then why spend money hiring an AE?
> >
> > Because using your ears isn't necessarily an easy task at all. In fact it
> > is likely one of the most difficult things in the world.
>
>
> > --scott
> >
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

tastes great less filling.

A spectrum analyzer is great for seeing 15kHz tones in the audio from monitors, (I can't hear that) or problems in the bass down at 20 Hz, (my monitors don't go down that low..

but you can't mix using a spectrum analyzer, you need to use your ears for that...


so as with everything, use the right tool for the right job.

M

[None]

< Theckmah @ retards . edu> wrote in message
...
> On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:32:34 PM UTC-4, James Price wrote:
>> I've heard some people say "use your ears" and "there's no right
>> and wrong way" to engineer audio. Granted, I think both statements
>> are useful to a degree, but if everyone can simply use their ears
>> and no one's bound to any degree of convention, then why spend
>> money hiring an AE?
> ____
>
> Yep. That seems to be the motto here and on other
> groups I've frequented: Load all your tracks,
> enable all needed plug-ins, and - TURN YOUR MONITOR
> OFF and USE YOUR EARS.

Actually, nobody here has advocated turning the video monitor off.
Only a dumb**** could get that from reading this group. The last time
"turning your monitor off" in cretin-caps-lock was raised, it was last
year when you yourself, Theckma the Village Idiot, used it for a straw
man (or, more accurately, a straw hobby horse). As I recall, your
retarded gibbering was promptly spanked down by Dorsey.

The suggestion that you use your ears does not mean to turn the
monitor off, you ****ing brain-damaged idiot. You don't seem to use
your ears at all. You never talk about how something sounds; only how
it looks on your computer screen. "Use Your Ears" might well be a
motto here, but "TURN YOUR MONITOR OFF" is a stinking pile of rotting
horse flesh of your own invention. Dumb ****.



>
> Might as well take a sledge hammer to that group
> of gauges behind your steering wheel in your car
> while yer at it! ;)

[None]

< Theckmahhhhh @ retardedhobbyhorser . shortbus. edu > whined like a
little baby in message news:ac92b939-6411-463f-8634-> Yet YOU were one
of those who repeated it to ME
> on several occasions when I reported my findings
> at the waveform and envelope level on a DAW.
>
> "Use your ears-Use your ears-Use your ea- "SKRAAATCH!!!

And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider than
just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end up
proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
some combination.

Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen. That's
a good task for the Village Idiot.

[jason]

On 25 Jun 2016 07:44:35 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
> And if you want to become an engineer, the
> first thing you should think about, before anything else, is Dave Moulton's
> ear training course.
>

I began using his course some years ago and was so intimidated
at first that I almost gave up. I persisted, and bit by bit, began
to be able to hear things that had never risen to conscious attention.
It was long and slow but very useful. My wife is a professional musician
for found it valuable too.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason > wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2016 07:44:35 -0400 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
>article >
>> And if you want to become an engineer, the
>> first thing you should think about, before anything else, is Dave Moulton's
>> ear training course.
>
>I began using his course some years ago and was so intimidated
>at first that I almost gave up. I persisted, and bit by bit, began
>to be able to hear things that had never risen to conscious attention.
>It was long and slow but very useful. My wife is a professional musician
>for found it valuable too.

Yeah, it's like that. And the sad part is that it's just the beginning of
a long journey. The key is to think of it as a journey and not as just
a huge monolithic stumbling block.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:37:52 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
> < Theck
>
> And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
> moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
> you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider than
> just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end up
> proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
> obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
> you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
> some combination.
>
> Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
> ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen. That's
> a good task for the Village Idiot.

_________________

Sheesh. No WONDER Edith wants to leave you.

You're a regular Archie Bunker!

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 12:02:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:37:52 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
> > < Theck
> >
> > And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
> > moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
> > you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider than
> > just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end up
> > proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
> > obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
> > you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
> > some combination.
> >
> > Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR
> > ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen. That's
> > a good task for the Village Idiot.
>
> _________________
>
> Sheesh. No WONDER Edith wants to leave you.
>
> You're a regular Archie Bunker!

One of these days, Bang, Zoom ...You're Going to the Moon!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: - show quoted text -
"One of these days, Bang, Zoom ...You're Going to the Moon!

Jack "

Wrong show, McFly.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 7:36:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: - show quoted text -
> "One of these days, Bang, Zoom ...You're Going to the Moon!
>
> Jack "
>
> Wrong show, McFly.

Well, you know, via Google, you can create your own "Old CDs Sound Superior" or a "Brickwalled Sound Is A Plague" newsgroup. Even Moderate it, so None gains access.

Jack :)

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/27/2016 7:43 AM, wrote:
> tastes great less filling.
>
> A spectrum analyzer is great for seeing 15kHz tones in the audio from monitors,
> (I can't hear that) or problems in the bass down at 20 Hz, (my monitors
don't go down that low..
>
> but you can't mix using a spectrum analyzer, you need to use your ears for that...
>
> so as with everything, use the right tool for the right job.
>
> M

Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
tone and the other one, not so much.
I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

GW

[Trevor]

On 29/06/2016 5:56 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 7:43 AM, wrote:
>
>> so as with everything, use the right tool for the right job.
>
> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
> tone and the other one, not so much.
> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

Isn't that what was just said. Spectrum Analyzer is hardly "the right
tool for the job" in that case.

Trevor.

[None]

< thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:37:52 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
>> < Theckhhhmaaah the Retard>
>>
>> And you still refuse to use your ears, because you are a retarded
>> moron. As usual, you come here with idiocy and try to make out like
>> you're smarter than the audio pros here (in fact, you're stupider
>> than
>> just about everyone). You pretend you can school the pros. You end
>> up
>> proving that you're nothing but a dumb **** on the short bus. And
>> obviously, you haven't learned how to use your ears, either because
>> you're just too stupid, or you're too much of a ****ing asshole, or
>> some combination.
>>
>> Now stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T
>> HEAR
>> ANYTHING" and whine about how audio files look on your screen.
>> That's
>> a good task for the Village Idiot.
>
> _________________
>
> Sheesh. No WONDER Edith wants to leave you.
>
> You're a regular Archie Bunker!

That doesn't change the fact that nobody told you to turn off your
monitor, despite your whining lies. You can't use your ears because
they're attached to that chunk of petrified bone that surrounds your
pumpkin-seed-sized brain.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, gray_wolf > wrote:
>
>Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
>I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
>between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
>tone and the other one, not so much.

They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the work
done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.

>I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
>a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.

I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone itself.
That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet some
of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone might
prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.

It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the numbers
actually mean.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gray_Wolf]

On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, gray_wolf > wrote:
>>
>> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
>> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
>> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
>> tone and the other one, not so much.
>
> They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the work
> done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.
>
>> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
>> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.
>
> I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
> ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone itself.
> That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet some
> of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
> but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone might
> prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.
>
> It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the numbers
> actually mean.
> --scott
>

Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine for the
past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any breakthroughs. I recall
reading a paper from a university's research team where the author thought that
the human ear's sensitivity and perception were way more advanced than today's
instrumentation and may always be out of reach.

[Trevor]

On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, gray_wolf
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
>>> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
>>> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
>>> tone and the other one, not so much.
>>
>> They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
>> work
>> done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.
>>
>>> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
>>> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.
>>
>> I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
>> ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
>> itself.
>> That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
>> some
>> of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
>> but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
>> might
>> prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.
>>
>> It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
>> numbers
>> actually mean.
>> --scott
>>
>
> Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
> for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
> breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
> team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
> perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
> always be out of reach.


Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> > On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> In article >, gray_wolf
> >> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
> >>> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
> >>> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
> >>> tone and the other one, not so much.
> >>
> >> They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
> >> work
> >> done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.
> >>
> >>> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
> >>> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.
> >>
> >> I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
> >> ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
> >> itself.
> >> That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
> >> some
> >> of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
> >> but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
> >> might
> >> prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.
> >>
> >> It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
> >> numbers
> >> actually mean.
> >> --scott
> >>
> >
> > Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
> > for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
> > breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
> > team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
> > perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
> > always be out of reach.
>
>
> Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
> other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
> capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.
>
> Trevor.

well again I say it depends

there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one

but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.

so, use the right tool for the right job.

Mark

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:29:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> > On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> > > On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > >> In article >, gray_wolf
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
> > >>> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
> > >>> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
> > >>> tone and the other one, not so much.
> > >>
> > >> They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
> > >> work
> > >> done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.
> > >>
> > >>> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
> > >>> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.
> > >>
> > >> I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
> > >> ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
> > >> itself.
> > >> That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
> > >> some
> > >> of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
> > >> but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
> > >> might
> > >> prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.
> > >>
> > >> It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
> > >> numbers
> > >> actually mean.
> > >> --scott
> > >>
> > >
> > > Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
> > > for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
> > > breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
> > > team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
> > > perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
> > > always be out of reach.
> >
> >
> > Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
> > other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
> > capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.
> >
> > Trevor.
>
> well again I say it depends
>
> there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one
>
> but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.
>
> so, use the right tool for the right job.
>
> Mark

Yeah, Mark, and like many know, most guitar amplifiers are loaded with THD, so what "sounds" good is discretionary.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 30/06/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
>> On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> In article >, gray_wolf
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
>>>>> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
>>>>> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
>>>>> tone and the other one, not so much.
>>>>
>>>> They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
>>>> work
>>>> done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.
>>>>
>>>>> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
>>>>> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.
>>>>
>>>> I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
>>>> ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
>>>> itself.
>>>> That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
>>>> some
>>>> of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
>>>> but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
>>>> might
>>>> prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.
>>>>
>>>> It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
>>>> numbers
>>>> actually mean.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
>>> for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
>>> breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
>>> team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
>>> perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
>>> always be out of reach.
>>
>>
>> Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
>> other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
>> capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.
>>
>
> well again I say it depends

And again you are wrong.


> there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one

As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
capabilities. Which also makes it subjective of course, whereas
instrumentation simply provides objective measurements. There is *NO*
measurement parameter called "good violin" or "bad violin".


> but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.

Exactly, and frequencies no one can hear etc. Name *ONE* sound parameter
where a human is superior to the best modern instrumentation?
I'll say it one more time for those who still don't get it, the
difference is the human brain, and it's *subjective* interpretation!

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 6:31:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 30/06/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 8:19:18 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> >> On 30/06/2016 8:43 PM, gray_wolf wrote:
> >>> On 6/29/2016 7:51 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>>> In article >, gray_wolf
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spectrum analyzers can tell you a lot, up to a point.
> >>>>> I've never seen a spectrum analyzer show me the difference
> >>>>> between two somewhat similar guitars where one has a beautiful
> >>>>> tone and the other one, not so much.
> >>>>
> >>>> They're working on it! At least with fiddles. Check out some of the
> >>>> work
> >>>> done by the Catgut Acoustical Society crew.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I not speaking of gross differences. Say the difference between
> >>>>> a fine $16,000 classical and a $500 starter.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think some of that, at least in the case of fiddles, has to do with the
> >>>> ease of getting a good tone out of it, rather than the actual tone
> >>>> itself.
> >>>> That $16,000 guitar is likely easier to play than the $500. And I bet
> >>>> some
> >>>> of it has do do with wolf tones and non-harmonic junk which is measurable
> >>>> but still very subjective. There might be some instance where someone
> >>>> might
> >>>> prefer the $500 instrument for a particular piece.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's easy to quantify things, it's a lot harder to figure out what the
> >>>> numbers
> >>>> actually mean.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Scott, Thanks for your comments. This has been a keen interest of mine
> >>> for the past 45 years. I wondered if there may have been any
> >>> breakthroughs. I recall reading a paper from a university's research
> >>> team where the author thought that the human ear's sensitivity and
> >>> perception were way more advanced than today's instrumentation and may
> >>> always be out of reach.
> >>
> >>
> >> Was that paper 45 years ago though! The human hearing sensitivity and
> >> other performance parameters are well short of today's instrumentation
> >> capability. It's simply the human brain that makes the difference.
> >>
> >
> > well again I say it depends
>
> And again you are wrong.
>
>
> > there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from a bad one
>
> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
> capabilities. Which also makes it subjective of course, whereas
> instrumentation simply provides objective measurements. There is *NO*
> measurement parameter called "good violin" or "bad violin".
>
>
> > but instrumentation can easily detect signals at -100 dB that no one can hear.
>
> Exactly, and frequencies no one can hear etc. Name *ONE* sound parameter
> where a human is superior to the best modern instrumentation?

3 kHz!!

Never, ever, brought up here or hear, until I, that is, I, brought it up.
THEY make fun of me and tease, since THEY never noticed it!
Yeah, Pro Audio people. Humbug!!

Jack :)

> I'll say it one more time for those who still don't get it, the
> difference is the human brain, and it's *subjective* interpretation!
>
> Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 11:31, Trevor wrote:
> On 30/06/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
>> there is no instrumentation that can differentiate a good violin from
>> a bad one
>
> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
> capabilities. Which also makes it subjective of course, whereas
> instrumentation simply provides objective measurements. There is *NO*
> measurement parameter called "good violin" or "bad violin".
>
Not forgetting that a good violin now does not necessarily sound the
same as a good violin did a couple of Centuries ago... Even a
Stradivarius now sounds different to the way that instrument sounded
when it was new. It's almost impossible to reproduce the way the strings
were made, for instance, and the string material has a massive effect on
the tone of any string instrument.

In the Middle Ages, a Viol sounded great, but now sounds odd.

However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
instrumentation can be designed to measure it.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

> >
> > As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
> > capabilities.

The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>> capabilities.
>
> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>
>
I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

>
> However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
> instrumentation can be designed to measure it.
>
>

do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 14:01, wrote:
>
>>
>> However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
>> instrumentation can be designed to measure it.
>>
>>
>
> do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.
>
If there's a difference, it can be measured. The trick is working out
what you need to measure. It might be something as subtle as a constancy
of phase differences between the 3rd and 5th harmonics on different
notes when measured at 5 metres distance, or a difference in the
variation in harmonics when notes are played at different volumes, for
example. The human ear/ brain combination can spot much subtler patterns
than that, as can instrumentation, but the brain is self programming,
can learn form experience and by conferring with others about what
sounds best, while the instrumentation has to be told what to listen for.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:
>>
>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>> capabilities.
>>
>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>
>I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.

Wait, wait, I thought the brain was a heatsink used for cooling the blood?
Have there been new developments in the field?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
>> instrumentation can be designed to measure it.
>
>do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.

You bet. Give me a spectrum of two notes played on different fiddles at
the same position, and they'll be different.

The question is what parts of those differences make for changes in sound
and which are irrelevant. The other question is which changes are good
and which are bad. The last question is what good and bad means in the
context of fiddle sounds.

It's easy to detect differences, it's really hard to interpret them.

My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 01/07/2016 14:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>> On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>> capabilities.
>>>
>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>
>> I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.
>
> Wait, wait, I thought the brain was a heatsink used for cooling the blood?
> Have there been new developments in the field?
> --scott
>
Tisk! Do keep up with the research, please. It's well documented, as
long as you're on the correct mailing lists. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:45:18 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
> >> instrumentation can be designed to measure it.
> >
> >do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY difference between violins? I would like to see an example.
>
> You bet. Give me a spectrum of two notes played on different fiddles at
> the same position, and they'll be different.
>
> The question is what parts of those differences make for changes in sound
> and which are irrelevant. The other question is which changes are good
> and which are bad. The last question is what good and bad means in the
> context of fiddle sounds.
>
> It's easy to detect differences, it's really hard to interpret them.
>
> My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
> a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like


Very true. If you see a lot of (limiting) peaks, don't expect to hear robust sound!!! But, I'm talking waveform, not this new fad, spectral stuff.

Jack


, at least to
> the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
> a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gray_Wolf]

On 7/1/2016 8:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>> On 01/07/2016 13:50, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>> capabilities.
>>>
>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>
>> I didn't say that, you've fouled up the attributions again.


> Wait, wait, I thought the brain was a heatsink used for cooling the blood?
> Have there been new developments in the field?
> --scott

Snorting Freon won't help? ;-)

[[email protected]]

>
> My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
> a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
> the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
> a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
>


there was a guy that could ID a phonograph record by looking at the grooves.

[[email protected]]

>
> My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
> a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
> the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
> a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I would guess that if you had say 5 spectrum plots of 2 violins, (10 total) and you could listen to the 10 samples as well, you would be hard pressed to assign the 10 plots to the 2 instruments.

If it was just some tones with various harmonic amplitudes, yes, it would be easy.

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>> capabilities.
>
> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...

The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
cannot be separated in order to still work.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2016 11:22 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/07/2016 14:01, wrote:
>>> However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
>>> instrumentation can be designed to measure it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY
>> difference between violins? I would like to see an example.
>>
> If there's a difference, it can be measured. The trick is working out
> what you need to measure. It might be something as subtle as a constancy
> of phase differences between the 3rd and 5th harmonics on different
> notes when measured at 5 metres distance, or a difference in the
> variation in harmonics when notes are played at different volumes, for
> example. The human ear/ brain combination can spot much subtler patterns
> than that, as can instrumentation, but the brain is self programming,
> can learn form experience and by conferring with others about what
> sounds best, while the instrumentation has to be told what to listen for.

So does the human brain, we call that learning, which starts when we are
babies. If you want a computer to do the same you program it with the
appropriate decision tree and AI structure. The problem is we do not
know yet what differences to look for to arrive at an appropriate
algorithm. BUT whatever differences are considered necessary, they CAN
be measured with current instrumentation if we did.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 2/07/2016 1:01 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>> However, once you decide exactly what needs to be measured, then
>> instrumentation can be designed to measure it.
>>
>>
>
> do you think today's instrumentation can "see" or measure ANY
> difference between violins? I would like to see an example.
>

Get a horrible screechy violin and boost the f**k out of it at 3kHz and
it will then sound better. Apparently.

See that spike on a SA and you'll just KNOW that it must sound amaaaazing.

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>> capabilities.
>>
>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>
>The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>cannot be separated in order to still work.
>
>Trevor.

The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
as a response to those stimuli.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor]

On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>> capabilities.
>>>
>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>
>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>
>
> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
> as a response to those stimuli.

Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:15:45 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>
>>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>>
>>
>> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
>> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
>> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
>> as a response to those stimuli.
>
>Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?
>
Nope, I was sitting here a bit bored and just thought I'd throw it in
there.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>
>>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>>
>>
>> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
>> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
>> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
>> as a response to those stimuli.
>
>Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?

The thing is, the ear isn't just a simple transducer... it's not possible
to draw a sharp line anywhere.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: ".. it's not possible
to draw a sharp line anywhere. "


Unless one has a 4B or higher pencil. :D

[Gray_Wolf]

On 7/2/2016 11:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>>>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>>
>>>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>>>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>>>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
>>> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
>>> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
>>> as a response to those stimuli.
>>
>> Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?
>
> The thing is, the ear isn't just a simple transducer... it's not possible
> to draw a sharp line anywhere.
> --scott

I wonder, at this point, are we nearing the quantum realm with its uncertainties

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:17:29 -0500, gray_wolf >
wrote:

>On 7/2/2016 11:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>>>>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>>>
>>>>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>>>>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>>>>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
>>>> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
>>>> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
>>>> as a response to those stimuli.
>>>
>>> Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?
>>
>> The thing is, the ear isn't just a simple transducer... it's not possible
>> to draw a sharp line anywhere.
>> --scott
>
>I wonder, at this point, are we nearing the quantum realm with its uncertainties

Not even close. Sound is very much in the macro world.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor]

On 3/07/2016 2:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>>>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from hearing...
>>>>
>>>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>>>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>>>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
>>> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
>>> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
>>> as a response to those stimuli.
>>
>> Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?
>
> The thing is, the ear isn't just a simple transducer... it's not possible
> to draw a sharp line anywhere.


But the great thing for us is that the brain compensates for gross non
linearities in the auditory system, and even for external ones. A
particular favorite of mine has always been HiFi reviewers saying
speakers sound so much better after a "break in" period, not realising
that is mainly their own brain simply adjusting. :-)

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

gray_wolf wrote:
> On 7/2/2016 11:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article >, Trevor >
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/07/2016 5:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:27:46 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>>>>> On 1/07/2016 10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>>>> As I just said, THAT is a function of the BRAIN, *not* hearing
>>>>>>>> capabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "brain" and "hearing" are so closely related, I don't
>>>>>> understand why you are trying to differentiate the brain from
>>>>>> hearing...
>>>>>
>>>>> The brain INTERPRETS the sensory input, and is very subjective in the
>>>>> process. The two are quite distinct in their functions, even if they
>>>>> cannot be separated in order to still work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The brain literally creates sound. Sound does not exist anywhere but
>>>> in the brain. Outside there are certainly vibrations and movements,
>>>> but that thing we "hear" as a voice or a note is created by the brain
>>>> as a response to those stimuli.
>>>
>>> Sure, but how does that contradict anything I said though?
>>
>> The thing is, the ear isn't just a simple transducer... it's not possible
>> to draw a sharp line anywhere.
>> --scott
>
> I wonder, at this point, are we nearing the quantum realm with its
> uncertainties
>

Roger Penrose tried that as an explanation for consciousness.

It didn't work out.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 3/07/2016 5:14 PM, Trevor wrote:

>
> But the great thing for us is that the brain compensates for gross non
> linearities in the auditory system, and even for external ones. A
> particular favorite of mine has always been HiFi reviewers saying
> speakers sound so much better after a "break in" period, not realising
> that is mainly their own brain simply adjusting. :-)

Surely that would be assuming that they are listening exclusively to the
speakers under review, and nothing else in the the world during the
period in question.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 04/07/2016 01:14, geoff wrote:
> On 3/07/2016 5:14 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>>
>> But the great thing for us is that the brain compensates for gross non
>> linearities in the auditory system, and even for external ones. A
>> particular favorite of mine has always been HiFi reviewers saying
>> speakers sound so much better after a "break in" period, not realising
>> that is mainly their own brain simply adjusting. :-)
>
> Surely that would be assuming that they are listening exclusively to the
> speakers under review, and nothing else in the the world during the
> period in question.
>
Not at all, the brain is quite capable of holding in memory and using
more than one audio profile at a time.

It can even hold in memory a few profiles, and while it can tell which
set of speakers is in use, it could have difficulty in picking out which
is more accurate to the original sound, especially if the original
source hasn't been heard for a while. This also applies when the
speakers are moved into a different room, as it automatically
compensates to some extent for the room acoustic within a few seconds of
entering the room.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 4/07/2016 4:05 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 01:14, geoff wrote:
>> On 3/07/2016 5:14 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> But the great thing for us is that the brain compensates for gross non
>>> linearities in the auditory system, and even for external ones. A
>>> particular favorite of mine has always been HiFi reviewers saying
>>> speakers sound so much better after a "break in" period, not realising
>>> that is mainly their own brain simply adjusting. :-)
>>
>> Surely that would be assuming that they are listening exclusively to the
>> speakers under review, and nothing else in the the world during the
>> period in question.
>>
> Not at all, the brain is quite capable of holding in memory and using
> more than one audio profile at a time.

Exactly, I'm always amazed how different speakers sometimes sound
strange until I get used to them, but can come back months later without
that original feeling returning. Still easy to pick differences in an
A-B comparison of course. The brain is much better at picking rapid
changes than slow ones.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>> My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
>> a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
>> the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
>> a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
>
>I would guess that if you had say 5 spectrum plots of 2 violins, (10 total) and you could listen to the 10 samples as well, you would be hard pressed to assign the 10 plots to the 2 instruments.

I would be, certainly. But someone who had carefully trained by looking at
lots of spectrograms and listening to the corresponding instruments probably
would be able to. It wouldn't be a trivial thing to learn to do, but I think
one could learn.

>If it was just some tones with various harmonic amplitudes, yes, it would be easy.

That's what all sounds are when you look closely enough.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, gray_wolf > wrote:
>On 7/2/2016 11:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> The thing is, the ear isn't just a simple transducer... it's not possible
>> to draw a sharp line anywhere.
>
>I wonder, at this point, are we nearing the quantum realm with its uncertainties

It's all pretty deterministic until you start thinking abut noise.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
>> a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
>> the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
>> a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
>
>there was a guy that could ID a phonograph record by looking at the grooves.

I remember that. I always wondered if he was actually looking at the matrix
number....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 5/07/2016 1:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>>> My guess is that with time and practice, a person should be able to look at
>>> a spectrogram and guess about what the instrument sounds like, at least to
>>> the point of general description of tone color. My next guess is that such
>>> a skill would be pretty much useless to have.
>>
>> there was a guy that could ID a phonograph record by looking at the grooves.
>
> I remember that. I always wondered if he was actually looking at the matrix
> number....
> --scott
>


I can spot my old Telarc 1812 from a line-up ________/\_______

geoff

[Trevor]

On 5/07/2016 6:29 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 5/07/2016 1:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> there was a guy that could ID a phonograph record by looking at the
>>> grooves.
>>
>> I remember that. I always wondered if he was actually looking at the
>> matrix
>> number....
>
> I can spot my old Telarc 1812 from a line-up ________/\_______

:-)
That one should be pretty easy!
Bet there are a few of my test records I could pick fairly easily too.

Trevor.