Chung wrote in :

Jenn:

...
You were trying to use a long laundry list in the hope that you would
capture the effects of distortion, yet you still miss the important
symptoms. And you included symptoms that have nothing to do with
harmonic distortion. That is the difference between musicians and
between those who are very familiar with audio reproduction.

there's probably some truth to what you're saying (though you've injected
a bit of a false dichotomy -- there ARE people who are musicians AND
familiar with audio reproduction) but I'd hazard to say that mainly the
place that the non-audio geek musicians are going to fall short is in
using the terminology in the same way that you do. it's not about the
ears; it's about the words.

I'm one of these musicians with a home studio and a recording engineer
certificate, so I DO understand both sides of the fence. In my case,
playing music live has taught me far more about sound equipment than any
screwing around in the living room or stereo shops. We push equipment
all the way to the edge night after night and from this we learn all the
weaknesses of the equipment.

Question:

Detection of which of these things are not part of what trained,
working professional musicians deal with every day and must be able
to detect at very subtle levels in order to do their jobs well?

Question answered many times. You just don't like the answers, and
that's why you keep asking.

you two appear to be chasing each other in circles.

jenn is arguing that musicians are trained to hear these things, and
you're arging about what "these things" are. in fact, jenn's right, but
some musicians might not know what to call it.

I listen to the gear using a known recording and compare the sound I
am hearing with the actual sound of instruments being played; a sound
with which I'm very, very familiar.

Are you speaking for all the musicians, or just for yourself? What if
you were interested in getting gear (speakers and amps) for the center
channel or the surround effects channels, where the emphasis is to
provide a smooth soundstage and reproduce dialog (and special effects)
well? How would you *compare* the sound of instruments being played
then?

And I can't help but remember that you did not even take the caution
of matching levels when comparing CD players, and did not seem to know
that the apparent quality of the sound can be affected by small output
level differences.

in fact, mantching levels is only one thing in the old bag of tricks. if
i'm comparing two different pieces of gear, i'm going to try them both at
quite a few different levels.

also if there's a disparity in the output levels of two different CD
players in particular, that's going to be cause for concern for me. i
prefer my gear to be calibrated.

it was a bit of a shock to me when I added an SACD player to my rig and
discovered that generally their output levels are about 6 dB higher than
the better CD players out there. then i realized that pretty much they
need to be. now i'll need a new preamp :-P

--
stealthaxe

Jenn wrote in
:

:
OF COURSE there is distortion in live acoustic music, including in the
frequency realm. Rehearsals are designed to cure that, among other
things.

ok, i'm not sure I follow you here.

you're using "distortion" in a way that is inconsistant with audio
technology. audio techs use the term to qualify (and quantify, at times)
the departure of the equipment from the original signal; in this case,
the live music.

so i don't understand in this case how live acoustic music (yes let's
forget the electrical instruments for the moment, where distortion
clearly exists but is part of the instrument's sound) has "distortion".

But then, I don't believe there's any such thing as "THE sound
of a piano."

Correct, of course. One speaks in generalities. It is obvious that
if several recordings of piano music all sound unlike a piano through
a certain pair of speakers, that pair of speakers don't allow for the
proper sound of a piano. Who is more familiar with the sound of a
piano?

ok i'm going to throw in my 2 cents here. syntax aside, an accomplished
pianist is going to be able to tell you whether something sounds like a
piano or not (assuming it's not a deaf accomplished pianist :-) probably
more than anyone. an audio 'gearhead' is probably going to be able to
describe in more technically accurate detail how a sound system is
departing from the ideal, but it's not necessarily true that this person
is going to "hear" better or be able to detect more quickly whether it's
live or memorex[tm].


--
stealthaxe

Jenn wrote in :

In article ,
stealthaxe wrote:

snip
i can hear a discrepancy of about 2 semitones. snip

Hi, I'm not sure if you said what you meant to say here, but you can
hear much smaller discrepancies than 2 semitones. To borrow the words
of others here, two semitones is a whole step, which is a VERY GROSS
difference (two piano keys apart, or two guitar frets, etc.) :-)


of course, you're right. i meant 2 cents.

terminology will be the end of us all.

--
stealthaxe

stealthaxe wrote:

Chung wrote in :

Jenn:

...
You were trying to use a long laundry list in the hope that you would
capture the effects of distortion, yet you still miss the important
symptoms. And you included symptoms that have nothing to do with
harmonic distortion. That is the difference between musicians and
between those who are very familiar with audio reproduction.

there's probably some truth to what you're saying (though you've injected
a bit of a false dichotomy -- there ARE people who are musicians AND
familiar with audio reproduction)

Did my statement exclude the possibility of some musicians being very
familiar with audio reproduction?

but I'd hazard to say that mainly the
place that the non-audio geek musicians are going to fall short is in
using the terminology in the same way that you do. it's not about the
ears; it's about the words.

I'm one of these musicians with a home studio and a recording engineer
certificate, so I DO understand both sides of the fence. In my case,
playing music live has taught me far more about sound equipment than any
screwing around in the living room or stereo shops. We push equipment
all the way to the edge night after night and from this we learn all the
weaknesses of the equipment.

Do all musicians do that? I don't think so.


Question:

Detection of which of these things are not part of what trained,
working professional musicians deal with every day and must be able
to detect at very subtle levels in order to do their jobs well?

Question answered many times. You just don't like the answers, and
that's why you keep asking.

you two appear to be chasing each other in circles.

jenn is arguing that musicians are trained to hear these things, and
you're arging about what "these things" are. in fact, jenn's right, but
some musicians might not know what to call it.

No. Jenn is not right. What musicians are trained to hear are gross
compared to the differences between audio equipment, except between
speakers or vinyl equipment (in which case, it is really largely
preference).


I listen to the gear using a known recording and compare the sound I
am hearing with the actual sound of instruments being played; a sound
with which I'm very, very familiar.

Are you speaking for all the musicians, or just for yourself? What if
you were interested in getting gear (speakers and amps) for the center
channel or the surround effects channels, where the emphasis is to
provide a smooth soundstage and reproduce dialog (and special effects)
well? How would you *compare* the sound of instruments being played
then?

And I can't help but remember that you did not even take the caution
of matching levels when comparing CD players, and did not seem to know
that the apparent quality of the sound can be affected by small output
level differences.

in fact, mantching levels is only one thing in the old bag of tricks.

If a musician did not match levels when comparing CD players and claimed
easily noticeable differences, what does that tell you about his/her
ability as a critical listener of audio equipment, regardless of how
well trained he/she claimed to be in detecting subtle differences?

if
i'm comparing two different pieces of gear, i'm going to try them both at
quite a few different levels.

also if there's a disparity in the output levels of two different CD
players in particular, that's going to be cause for concern for me. i
prefer my gear to be calibrated.

You have to take the precaution to match them. There is no calibrated
standard level in consumer audio.


it was a bit of a shock to me when I added an SACD player to my rig and
discovered that generally their output levels are about 6 dB higher than
the better CD players out there. then i realized that pretty much they
need to be.

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?
If you can't answer that, perhaps all that you have learned from playing
live music is really not that useful when it comes to understanding audio.

now i'll need a new preamp :-P


No you don't.

[ Moderator's note: OK, you all have beat this to death. This thread
is ended. -- deb ]

Chung wrote:
wrote:

Chung wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 01:00:50 GMT, wrote:

The logic has been presented. it is simple.

But, so far as I can see, not logical at all.

People with experience in one specific endevour are likely to
have greater skill in another endevour that is closely related in skill
sets.

This is not an argument, it is a claim. So far, no logic.

It is not only a logical position

If so, why not give the "logic"?

it is often supported by evidence.

"Often supported by evidence" is not good enough. For a claim to be
generally accepted it has to be supported by *all* the evidence.

A single counter-example, on the other hand, is enough to refute the
claim.

Boxers and wrestlers are usually better street fighters than
the average person. This fact has been proven unfortunately in many a
street fight. Basketball players usally can jump higher than average
people.

Well, obviously people who excel at a particular skill are likely to
excell at sub-sets of that skill! High jumpers can jump higher than
average people too, by golly! Amazing!!

These examples are not evidence at all, so far as I can see.

Math experts often make better poker players.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever of this and you provide none.

this can be seen by the number of poker players with advanced
degrees in math now making a liing at the poker tables. I could go on
and on.

In fact, mathematical skill is probably a handicap at poker. A good
memory and the ability to remember odds is helpful, but other skills are
*much* more important.

I think the logical mistakes that posters like porkygeorge make is
similar to this: if all else are equal, then on average, people who are
good in math may be better than others in poker, because of a better
understanding of probabality. Now that is a reasonable claim. But then
they extend it to a claim that "mathematicians are often better poker
players". Which is a highly illogical, overly simplistic, and factually
untrue claim.


actually it is highley logical and factually true. The large percentage
of top poker players who are highly adept at math is a fact. I have
cited one such expert if you need I can name many more. But if you have
some facts to support your claim that it isn't true please present
them. Better yet, show me one top poker player that doesn't have a much
better understanding of the odds in poker than the average Joe.

Your logic is, uh, simply, amazing.


Perhaps if you were able to follow it...




If someone has a better understanding of the odds in poker than the
average Joe, does that make that person a "math expert"?


Did i say that? no. Like I said, you might be amazed at my loigc if you
were able to follow it. OTOH at the risk of being redundant, if someone
is a math expert it is extremely likely that they already hae a better
understanding of the odds in poker than the average Joe and that will
give the math expert an inherent advantage in poker over the average
Joe. It will be interesting to see if this time you can follow that
logic and not misrepreesent it in your interpretation.


Maybe he is to
you, but certainly not to the rest of us.


If you were able to follow my arguments you would understand that no
such position has been presented. Aperson who merely understands the
odds of poker in full is at least an expert in the relevant math to
poker but not neccessarily a mathe expert in genereral. here I will
explain why. A working knowledge of the odds in poker would be a subset
of inherent skills for a geniune math expert so it would be expected
that someone with this sunset of skills would have an advantage over
the average Joe. OTOH having *just* that subset of skills does not make
one a math expert in broder terms because those broader skills do not
have that kind of substantial overlap with other math skills. It may
actually improve the basic math skills of Joe to learn the odds of
poker at the level of a top player but it has no other significant
overlaps that one would find in the skill sets of a geniune math
expert.



Anyone can buy a book or go online to read up on the probability needed
to play poker. Does everyone who does that qualifies as a math expert?


Of course not. Had you understood my line of reasoning you wouldn't
feel the ned to ask such absurd questions.



Well, maybe to you,


No not to me.



I know many mathematicians, i.e., real math experts with advanced
degrees in math, who are notoriusly poor poker players, because they
cannot read opponents, or they show everyone what card they have by the
way they bet, or they do not have guts to follow their developed
instincts.

This would have some relevance if I had said that all math experts by
rule are excellent poker players. But i never said or implied any such
thing.



knowing the
odds is probably one of the easiest one to acquire, and, no, it does not
take a math expert to do so.



I never said it did. please pay attention to the arguments before
trying to rebut them.



This i
will tell you from being related to a top notch poker player, when the
pros turn over the cards before they draw you never see a disagreement
as to who has the advantage. they always know. You never see both
players look happy with their hands.

How does that have anything to do with your claim that the math experts
are better poker players?


Again I suggest you read my claims more carefully. I never said "math
experts *are* better poker players." I said "math experts *often* make
better poker players" and explained why because knowing the odds of
poker, something that comes easy to math experts but does not allways
come easy to others is a valuable tool to a skilled poker player.







Because all else is not equal.


actully on average it is. perhaps you don't know about the mathematical
principle of returning to the mean.

Wow, everyone, we have the "mathematical principle of returning to the
mean" by porkygeorge! You read it here first!


Maybe you did. i'm sure others didn't.




Of course here are exceptions and
momentary abehrations but in the long run the numbers alays return to
the mean. IOW *in the long run* all else is equal.


It is very easy for a non-mathematician
to have a different skill that is even more advantageous in poker,


Actually no. You are dead money without this knowledge.

A non-mathematician can easily pick up the probaility skills needed to
play poker. Well, maybe it is difficult for some of us.


If you pick up the knowledge you are no longer without the knowledge.
Jeez.




Again i
challenge you to find one_single_ top poker player that doesn' have a
very adept understanding of the odds in poker.

Does understanding the odds in poker make one a math expert?



Did I say that it does?


by definition, I'm a math expert!


maybe you defenition. not by anything i have said though.





OTOH one can strole down
any casino and find most of the amatuers blowing their money at the
poker tables don't really know the odds well at all.

And there will be a lot of real math experts blowing their money at the
poker tables because they don't know how to play poker.


Really? A lot? Let's see you support this claim.




or
for someone to learn the statistics that is important in poker, so that
he can outperform a mathematician untrained in poker.


Well gee, if someone learns the relevant math to poker then they have
the same advantage as the math experts. That's one of the most lame
points i have ever seen and i have seen some really lame points.

Well, gee, anyone who learns the odds needed to play poker has become a
math expert.


You might believe that but f you were able to follow my arguments you
would see i have never made any such claim.


That's one of the most lame points we've seen here.


I agree, unfortunately you are the only one saying it. Maybe you should
stick with flying elephants.






You do not need a
degree in math to have a good working knowledge of the probability that
is necessary for good poker playing.


You don't need a degree in math it simply gives you the knowledge
needed, well at least a start. You do need a working knowledge of the
odds in poker to play at the top levels. You *need* it.

But do you have to be a math expert?

No, and I never said you did.

How about the many other things you
need to play at the top level? Do the math experts have it because they
are math experts?


No not because they are math experts. Again, at the risk of being
redundant I suggest you reread what I have said an try to get it this
time. You are arguing against claims that were never made.










So the statement "math experts often make poker players" is simply an
illogical extension.



I am shocked at your failure to see the logic here.

Because, frankly, your logic is shocking.



How do you know if you keep getting it so wrong in you interpretations?
I really don't think you followed it. I said a math expert *often*
makes a better poker player. i never said all better poker players are
math experts. Is that clear? If not take the following analogy, people
who J walk are more likely to be hit and killed by cars than those who
don't BUT not all ead people were hit and killed by cars. do you see
now? If A then B does NOT mean if B then A.



But you seem to be
in denial of the value of mathematical knowledge to a poker player.



As are the several preceding claims that
porkygeorge made.

Nope they were just as valid.




In a similar way, if all else are equal, then someone who is a musician
can be better than others in comparing performances of audio equipment,
if the goal is to compare how the equipment is used to reproduce the
kind of music he/she is used to hearing.


Yep that is the point.




But all else is not equal,

It is in the long run or do you not understand the statistical
principles behind this claim?

Do you understand that all else is not equal,


OK you didn't understand the claim. To bad.


and someone who is
familiar with audio will be a better judge in matters related to audio
than musicains?

Oh really? Now that is ripe. Funny thing is someone can be familir with
audio and be stone deaf can't they? Would they be better judges of what
we were talking about? The sound of playback compared to the sound of
live music? Peronally, I think most musicians will have them beat. Even
the rock musicians and the rappers.







and it is easy for a good listener, or an
audiophile, to develop the necessary discriminating skills to do a
better job than the musician who is untrained, in detecting differences
in audio reproduction performance.


No one is claiming that there are no exceptions to the basic rule that
musicians have this inherent advantage.

But you seem to claiming that expert listeners, or audiophiles, somehow
do not have this inherent advantage.


They don't. They have to aquire it.







I would trust the expert listener in
his ability to discriminate audio equipment much more than I would trust
a musician.


In most cases a musician is an expert listener.

Not in audio reproduction.


Please prove that musicians skills do not transfer to the ability to
dscriminate between live sound and play back. I think this is utter
nonsense. the inheent familiarity that comes with hearing so much live
music for th sort of musicians we are talking about and the critical
nature of that listening would make for an undeniable body of
experience with the reference in question. If you cannot see the
obvious advantage in that ast expereince then we really don't have much
to discuss and you may as well use unfamiliar recordings of oboes to
evaluate playback instead of familiar recordings of pianos. sAfter all
your exereince with live piano naturally would not help you. Right?






For instance, a lot of musicians are not even aware of the
fact that to make a meaningful comparison when differences are subtle,
levels much be matched.


Irrelevant. The claim is of greater sensitivity and analysis do to
experience not of greater abilities to set up comparisons.

It's relevant because it means some musicians have trouble making a
valid comparison, and their conclusions are often faulty.


No, the discussion ws not about the set up it was about the sensitivity
and analysis skills.

Scott

In article ,
stealthaxe wrote:

Jenn wrote in :

In article ,
stealthaxe wrote:

snip
i can hear a discrepancy of about 2 semitones. snip

Hi, I'm not sure if you said what you meant to say here, but you can
hear much smaller discrepancies than 2 semitones. To borrow the words
of others here, two semitones is a whole step, which is a VERY GROSS
difference (two piano keys apart, or two guitar frets, etc.) :-)


of course, you're right. i meant 2 cents.

Ah! That makes more sense. That's good discernment, even for trained
people. An interval of that size, performed melodically, will probably
not be heard by untrained folks. Heard harmonically however, many
untrained people could hear it.


terminology will be the end of us all.

LOL

In article ,
"Iain M Churches" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain M Churches" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stealthaxe wrote:

snip
i can hear a discrepancy of about 2 semitones. snip

Wow that's a whole tone. Well done:-)))

Hi, I'm not sure if you said what you meant to say here, but you can
hear much smaller discrepancies than 2 semitones. To borrow the words
of others here, two semitones is a whole step, which is a VERY GROSS
difference (two piano keys apart, or two guitar frets, etc.) :-)

Indeed. Most musicians cringe at a pitch increment of 4% - about half
a semi-tone. I have been involved in perception tests and observed their
reaction first hand.

Iain

Half of a semi-tone would make ANYONE who doesn't have serious hearing
damage cringe.

In a pitch shifting experiment, we observed that few people, with the
exception
of the musicians on the panel, reacted to a half-semitone change,
implemented
in small steps over 32 bars. You would be surprised at the low level of
audio
perception even among audiophiles Jenn.

Iain

Implemented in small steps over 32 bars, I would agree.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 02:32:13 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Oct 2005 00:02:18 GMT, wrote:

It's that simple. A musician could never evolve their performance
toward something wonderful if they weren't sensitive to all the small
changes along the way.

Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that a legally-blind person
could learn to produce a finely detailed painting. The motor skills are
there, remember.. there's no reason a legally blind person couldn't
learn to move their hands in the way that produces the result.. except
this teeny little point that *they can't see what they are doing.*

Ah well, so much for Beethoven....................

Wow, really lame argument.

I bow to your superior experience in such matters.

Beethoven, of course, developed a very finely tuned mental model of
sound and conscious response to sound during the time he could hear.

Did he? Do you have evidence of this, or is it just more of your
baseless presumption? Some consider that he produced his finest work
*after* he became deaf, which is somewhat contrary to your assertion.

if you think that is contrary to my assertion, you are revealing your
ignorance of how composers work. Like many composers, Beethoven had a
"mental model" of sound.he could read a score and imagine how it
sounded --- and he must have been able to do this accurately in order
to produce great music after he went deaf. He got better at writing
scores through his whole life --- but it is unlikely his mental model
of sound got more accurate after he went deaf. In fact, some
commentators have pointed to specifi awkward
moments which Beethoven may have wanted to revise if he could have
heard them.

Mike

Chung wrote:
wrote:
chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:



So point (1), I would like to see you provide one single reference to a
scientific experiment that shows sensitivity to sound is
compartmentalized. Or admit that your *opinion* is about this matter is
merely an opinion.


Show me a single reference to a scientific experiement that shows what
you said is true.


*You're* the objectivist.

I think of myself as a non-subjectivist.

As far as I can tell, perceptual phenomena
aren't real to you unless they are supported by reliable, repeatable
evidence. So let's have the evidence that sensitivity to sound is
comparmentalized.

I am very familiar with piano sounds, and can easily tell the
differences between different pianos. I am clueless when it comes to
telling one oboe from another.

Then please answer this question. If you were asked to evaluate the
fidelity of a sound system would you be able to do as good a job of
evaluating it using an unfamiliar recording of an oboe as you would
with a familiar recording of a piano? Why or why not?




Totally irrelvant issue.


Actually it is entirely relevant and the answer you would likely give
would completely undermind your indefensable position. i believe that
is why you refused to answer the question.

I gave you the reason why I did not answer that in the next paragraph,
so you don't have to guess...



I didn't buy it though and explained why.




The question asked was whether listening
ability was compartmentalized. I showed evidence that it is,


No you showed evidence that familiarity with live sounds is in fact
advantageous when evaluating playback equipment for it's fidelity to
live sounds.

Then you simply fail to comprehend.


No I comprehend. IMO you don't like someone telling you that they my
know what live music sounds like better than the average Joe and are
better equiped to assess deviations of that when listening to playback
than the average Joe. Well, IMO you really don't like it when that
person has beliefs about audio and preferences that don't jive with
yours. Your arguments actually support the point though when you
pointed out that familiarity is key. that is why someone like you would
do better evaluating playback equipment using familiar recordings of
piano rather than unfamiliar recordings of an oboe. You live with piano
sound and you know it well. that clearly is the point you are trying to
argue against. Someon like Jenn lives with live music of many textures
and knows the sound of it well. Why is this so dificult to accept? Is
it because she finds LPs more life like than CDs by and large?



I showed that certain musicians may
be extremely familiar with some kind of sonic difference, but worse than
audiophiles in detecting other differences.


"Other differences" What differences are we discussing other than the
difference between live music and playback?






the arguement that you showed it is compartmentalized
simply does not hold water in this discussion because we are talking
about one compartement, the sound of live music compared to playback.

There are many, many different kinds of live music, so being a musician
does not mean that one is familiar with all kinds of live music.


No kidding? Perhaps you thought Jenn was arguing that musicians are
better at detecting differences betwen live music and playback with
unfamiliar instruments or with rap music based on their familiarity
with the live acoustic muic that they commonly create and listen to? I
don't see anyone arguing that position do you? If so I uggest you
review the thread. Did you really not understand that the argument that
musicians are more familiar with live music meant that said musicians
would be comparing sounds they are familiar with in live music to play
back of sounds they are familiar with in live music? I find that
alarming.


A rap
musician may not extremely limited in his experience with live classical
music, and much worse than the typical classical music lover in his
appreciation of that genre of music.



Obvously when we are talking about the inherent advantage a musian has
by virtue of their familiarity of live music we are talking about said
musicians using music they are familiar with in the playback as well.
Are you seriously now saying that Jenn is wrong about her claim to have
an inherent advantage in assessing the fidelity of playback equipment
because she might only be allowed to listen to rap music for her
comparison? Do you not see just how ridiculous your position has
become?




And the concept of "live music" being important in detecting subtle
differences between audio components is questionable.


It is very important if one uses their high end audio systems for that
purpose. No one is suggesting that rappers do it. we are talking high
end audio are we not? You have brought up the term "fidelity" have you
not? "Fidelity" to what? I thought it was live acoustic music we were
discussing. You want to talk about rap and talk about "fidelity?"


The differences
imparted on the "live music" by the performance venue, the recording and
mastering engineers' manipulations, etc., are much more than any
differences caused by nominally competent electronics (vinyl systems
excepted).


IYO. Apparently not in the opinion of some people with vast experience
in listening to live music and playback of live music. You are entitled
to *your* opinion but you are not entitled to agreement from everyone
elese with ears and an interest in the supject. I am truly sorry that
it troubles you so that someone with such experience disagrees with you
on the significance and merits of certain equipment. But that's life.






Obviously musicians are more familiar with the sound of live music
because they are around it all the time and are paying vey cloase
attention to it.



since one
can have very acute listening ability for some type of sounds, but poor
ability in others.



You mean like musicians having greater listening ability for the sound
of live music but perhaps not the sound of trains, explosions or Foley
effects? I would agree with that and would not expect musicians to have
any greater ability to assess the sound of movies for home theater.


Let's give another example:

No lets not. This is about high end audio. Even amoung objectivists and
subjectivivsts it is agreed that a discussion of fidelity must involve
live acoustic instruments as a reference or at the very least live
acoustic sounds of some sort. I have heard that someone likes to use
Lunes crowing in the morning or something like that. There is no
relevance to discussing anything else especially when the claims made
are so obviously specific to the sound of live acoustic music and a
musician's inherent advantage in recognizing the fidelity or lack there
of in the playback of live acoustic music.



do you expect a rap musician to appreciate
the subtle differences between different acoustic instruments like
oboes, as well as classical music lovers?


Do you seriously think that is the position being presented when it
comes to a musician's inherent advantage in assessing the fidelity of
playback when compared to live music? If so the whole discussion went
right over your head. If not then you must know this is purely a
burning straw man. you pick.




Or do you expect the classical musicians to be better than the rock
music lover in differentiating different electric guitar sounds?

No. Clearly I don't. How did you fail to see that?




But
their expereinces tend to be quite relevant to one of the most common
uses of high end audio. The play back of recordings of live music.

failure to respond to my snipped points noted.

What you failed to notice is that you are simply regurgitating the
points made by Mike Mossey and Jenn, and it is pointless to start
another round of endless discussions with you, as far as I am concerned.
No matter how much you want me to do so.


But you arleady are. You are free to not respond. Responding to points
made by snipping them and claiming they were irelevant is pretty weak
IMO.




Scott

Chung wrote in :


No. Jenn is not right. What musicians are trained to hear are gross
compared to the differences between audio equipment, except between
speakers or vinyl equipment (in which case, it is really largely
preference).

ok so i'm going to agree to disagree with you. clearly, without the
viewpoint of both sides, you can't see my POV. there endeth my argument.

You have to take the precaution to match them. There is no calibrated
standard level in consumer audio.

this is apparent. coming from pro audio, i find this to be a nuisance.

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output
levels? If you can't answer that, perhaps all that you have learned
from playing live music is really not that useful when it comes to
understanding audio.

don't get me wrong, 6 dB is no magic figure. but i can understand why
the output is hotter.

there's so much more dynamic range with SACD. if you don't represent
some of that resolution as a hotter signal, you're going to lose
information in the noise floor. especially on a less than incredible
player (referring to the internal audio circuitry here).

120 dB of dynamic range. how many preamps out there have a -120 dB noise
floor? so, it looks like manufacturers have chosen to eat a little
headroom as a compromise to losing detail.

now i'll need a new preamp :-P

No you don't.

uh, interesting assertion. without even knowing what I'm using, you know
that it has 6 dB more headroom to give?

fact is, my SACD player is putting out more than 2.5 V RMS on louder
parts, and that is reading with a relatively slow-reacting meter. I'm
sure a 'scope would reveal 5 V peaks or more. The preamp I have is more
or less -10 dBm equipment, and this signal is too hot. my old player
measures up around 1.2 V with the same music playing. This is already
about +4 dBm, which is hot for consumer gear. in both cases this is
measured virtually unloaded, but the preamp's inputs are high-z.


--
stealthaxe

"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in
:

In article ,
stealthaxe wrote:


measure repeatably. in other words, you couldn't match my tone just
by using instrumentation. never in a million years. i can do it in
5 minutes with my ears.

You clearly do not know just how sophisticated instrumentation is. If
there is any real difference between the tone you prefer and another
tone, it is trivial to measure it.

sure I do.

first, I said match tone, not measure difference. it's not only about
recognizing a difference but also what to CHANGE to nullify that
difference (for example increase idle current by 30%). this part is
quite a bit more difficult and something your instrumentation will not
tell you.

there is a company called Line 6 that makes digital models of tube amps.
they spent YEARS in order to approximate the sound of certain tube
amplifiers. the result is quite nice but still not on the mark.

You don't seem to grasp that the human ear is actually a rather
imprecise device.

isn't that kind of working against the argument that ANYONE can hear
differences in equipment?

anyway, I'd say that the ear is not imprecise, but inaccurate.

Why do you think it would be hard to measure in the 40 Hz region? Why
do you think it would be easier at 1 KHz? You really should question
these assumptions.

at least the equipment I have access to has limits in the digits of
resolution past the decimal point. 0.01 Hz is a larger part of an
octave at lower frequencies. this is not an assumption, but something
i've observed.

For electronics like CD players, amplifiers, and speakers, or
instrumentation such as a frequency counter, the difference between
5000 and 5001 Hz is huge.

and how does this imply that someone can hear this better than a
musician?

--
stealthaxe

stealthaxe wrote:
Chung wrote in :



No. Jenn is not right. What musicians are trained to hear are gross
compared to the differences between audio equipment, except between
speakers or vinyl equipment (in which case, it is really largely
preference).


ok so i'm going to agree to disagree with you. clearly, without the
viewpoint of both sides, you can't see my POV. there endeth my argument.


You have to take the precaution to match them. There is no calibrated
standard level in consumer audio.


this is apparent. coming from pro audio, i find this to be a nuisance.


So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output
levels? If you can't answer that, perhaps all that you have learned
from playing live music is really not that useful when it comes to
understanding audio.


don't get me wrong, 6 dB is no magic figure. but i can understand why
the output is hotter.

Then you understand wrong.

there's so much more dynamic range with SACD. if you don't represent
some of that resolution as a hotter signal, you're going to lose
information in the noise floor. especially on a less than incredible
player (referring to the internal audio circuitry here).

120 dB of dynamic range. how many preamps out there have a -120 dB noise
floor? so, it looks like manufacturers have chosen to eat a little
headroom as a compromise to losing detail.


now i'll need a new preamp :-P


No you don't.


uh, interesting assertion. without even knowing what I'm using, you know
that it has 6 dB more headroom to give?

It does not need 6 dB more headroom to play SACDs, because SACD players
do not give a 6 dB higher output level.

fact is, my SACD player is putting out more than 2.5 V RMS on louder
parts, and that is reading with a relatively slow-reacting meter. I'm
sure a 'scope would reveal 5 V peaks or more. The preamp I have is more
or less -10 dBm equipment, and this signal is too hot. my old player
measures up around 1.2 V with the same music playing. This is already
about +4 dBm, which is hot for consumer gear. in both cases this is
measured virtually unloaded, but the preamp's inputs are high-z.



You made a wrong assumption that SACD players have "hotter" outputs. DO
yourself a favor and check measurements, like he

http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/...ny/index4.html

Another point for you to ponder is where can you find a SACD recording
with a dynamic range of 120 dB. Or what the noise floor of your
listening room is.

Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

This claim came from stealthaxe. The claim is wrong.

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal.

Clearly on the Sony SACD players, the output level is the same as
regular CD players" around 2V.

What level did the universal player's outputs clip at? I suspect that
the universal player's levels are adjustable (e.g. for channel matching
in surround sound applications), and the gains can be set too high to
the point of clipping. In which case, nothing in the preamp can help,
regardless of how good is the preamp's headroom.

To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.

Which players are these, and what discs show the problem? I have a
Pioneer player, and the levels seem the same as other CD players.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.


I've actually since realized that it's more an issue of voltage mismatch
between my soundcard's input and player's output...it's a limitation
of the soundcard (M-Audio 2496).




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when
digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.

If you change "SACD" to "HDCD" the entire argument above makes sense.

Norm Strong

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:

Indeed; it IS basic. Question: What are the audible symptoms of
harmonic distortion? Answer (and please correct me if I'm wrong): Poor
tone quality, faulty attack and release, noise (i.e. sounds that aren't
part of the music), faulty room resonance, distorted imaging.

I think you're wrong, in the sense that we don't really know much about
*how* particular distortions are perceived by listeners--or, for that
matter, whether most listeners perceive it the same way. But this isn't
something we really need to know.

Strange. You are not interested in investigating how people experience
distortion in musical terms, and yet you are absolutely sure that some
distortion in analog is what is responsible for triggering live music
pattern-recognition neural machinery. This in spite of the fact that
every proposed distortion mechanism would *change* the patterns that
musicians have carefully established in the music.




I listen to the gear using a known recording and compare the sound I am
hearing with the actual sound of instruments being played; a sound with
which I'm very, very familiar.

Yes, you've said. And you think you're very good at making this
judgment. But all the evidence I've seen suggests that, to the extent
that this is a testable skill rather than mere circular reasoning, you
aren't every good at it at all.


How do you propose to test the skill?

Mike

chung wrote in :
ut is hotter.

Then you understand wrong.

it's clear that you don't understand at all.

are you here just to argue with people, or what? you're not even
offering any positive observations here. "you're wrong. this is
incorrect."

geez, put some meat on those bones.

No you don't.

uh, interesting assertion. without even knowing what I'm using, you
know that it has 6 dB more headroom to give?

It does not need 6 dB more headroom to play SACDs, because SACD
players do not give a 6 dB higher output level.

ok, pal. sure. whatever you say.

doesn't matter that i've actually MEASURED it.

You made a wrong assumption that SACD players have "hotter" outputs.
DO yourself a favor and check measurements, like he

players? one SONY model? I'm actually not surprised that SONY wouldn't
"depart from the CD standard". interesting wording wasn't it? the "CD
standard". Not the "SACD standard".

do yourself a favor and read that i MEASURED MY PLAYER.

2 microvolts indeed.

Another point for you to ponder is where can you find a SACD recording
with a dynamic range of 120 dB. Or what the noise floor of your
listening room is.

oh i'm quite aware that I don't have the dynamic space in my listening
room. another thing that's crystal clear is that my preamp is
overloading. 5 V RMS is more than it can handle. Right now I'm using a
resistor bridge.


--
stealthaxe

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.


I've actually since realized that it's more an issue of voltage mismatch
between my soundcard's input and player's output...it's a limitation
of the soundcard (M-Audio 2496).




I took a look at the Audiophile 2496's manual, and it says that maximum
input level is 2 dBV. That is 1.26V, less than the customary 2V that
most CD/SACD players deliver. You may be better off going through a
preamp first and use the preamp's volume control to attenuate the level
that goes into the 2496.

wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when
digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.

If you change "SACD" to "HDCD" the entire argument above makes sense.

Norm Strong

Norman, are you referring to some HDCD players sometimes outputting a
slightly higher level in HDCD mode so that the sound is "better"?

stealthaxe wrote:
chung wrote in :
ut is hotter.

Then you understand wrong.

it's clear that you don't understand at all.

are you here just to argue with people, or what? you're not even
offering any positive observations here. "you're wrong. this is
incorrect."

geez, put some meat on those bones.

No you don't.

uh, interesting assertion. without even knowing what I'm using, you
know that it has 6 dB more headroom to give?

It does not need 6 dB more headroom to play SACDs, because SACD
players do not give a 6 dB higher output level.

ok, pal. sure. whatever you say.

doesn't matter that i've actually MEASURED it.

On the Pioneer DV-45a universal player, the user
has the option of using 'fixed' or 'variable'
channel levels. The 'variable' slider has
a -/+ 6dB range. The 'fixed' level is equivalent
to setting the 'variable' level to its maximum
(+6dB).

Output of typical music tracks
using the 'fixed' setting
usually overloaded the input of
my soundcard (M-audio 2496 , which has a
nonadjustable peak
analog input signal level of +2 dBV) when the
player analog out was connected
directly to the soundcard. 'Variable'
in its middle setting (0 dB trim or boost)
did not.

This behavior was not specific to SACDs;
it applied to all sources.

My current player, the Yamaha S2500,
has a separate set of adjustable channel level
for SACD sources. The default ("0") setting
clips the 2496 (as does the 'SACD Direct' setting,
which bypasses the channel level adjustments).
Adjusting the SACD output level downward in the
player keeps it from clipping at the soundcard.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

stealthaxe wrote:
chung wrote in :
ut is hotter.

Then you understand wrong.

it's clear that you don't understand at all.

are you here just to argue with people, or what? you're not even
offering any positive observations here. "you're wrong. this is
incorrect."

geez, put some meat on those bones.

If you had been a tiny bit more patient, you would have noticed that I
explained why you understood wrong.

No you don't.

uh, interesting assertion. without even knowing what I'm using, you
know that it has 6 dB more headroom to give?

It does not need 6 dB more headroom to play SACDs, because SACD
players do not give a 6 dB higher output level.

ok, pal. sure. whatever you say.

Don't believe me, but look at the bench measurements and specs.


doesn't matter that i've actually MEASURED it.

Which SACD player did you measure? OTOH, there are CD players with 6V
outputs, too.


You made a wrong assumption that SACD players have "hotter" outputs.
DO yourself a favor and check measurements, like he

players? one SONY model? I'm actually not surprised that SONY wouldn't
"depart from the CD standard". interesting wording wasn't it? the "CD
standard". Not the "SACD standard".

Do yourself a favor. Sony developed the SACD standard. They made the
first commercial SACD player. They are the strongest proponent of SACD.

do yourself a favor and read that i MEASURED MY PLAYER.

2 microvolts indeed.

You understand the difference between 2V's and 2 microvolts?

Another point for you to ponder is where can you find a SACD recording
with a dynamic range of 120 dB. Or what the noise floor of your
listening room is.

oh i'm quite aware that I don't have the dynamic space in my listening
room. another thing that's crystal clear is that my preamp is
overloading. 5 V RMS is more than it can handle.

It's more than enough for CD players and SACD players. Unless you buy
the CD player that outputs 6.3V.

Right now I'm using a
resistor bridge.

Chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.


I've actually since realized that it's more an issue of voltage mismatch
between my soundcard's input and player's output...it's a limitation
of the soundcard (M-Audio 2496).




I took a look at the Audiophile 2496's manual, and it says that maximum
input level is 2 dBV. That is 1.26V, less than the customary 2V that
most CD/SACD players deliver. You may be better off going through a
preamp first and use the preamp's volume control to attenuate the level
that goes into the 2496.


Is that better than using the DVD player's internal level controls?



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.


I've actually since realized that it's more an issue of voltage mismatch
between my soundcard's input and player's output...it's a limitation
of the soundcard (M-Audio 2496).





I took a look at the Audiophile 2496's manual, and it says that maximum
input level is 2 dBV. That is 1.26V, less than the customary 2V that
most CD/SACD players deliver. You may be better off going through a
preamp first and use the preamp's volume control to attenuate the level
that goes into the 2496.



Is that better than using the DVD player's internal level controls?




The answer is: it depends.

The advantage of using your preamp as the volume control is that you
don't lose any bits of resolution (assuming it's an analog volume
control). The disadvantage is that there might be small L/R tracking errors.

The advantage of using the DVD's internal level controls is that there
is no L/R tracking errors, since the DAC's are very well matched. Also,
the level control is very repeatable. The disadvantage is that depending
on how the level control is implemented, there might be some minor loss
of resolution, although in this case, the attenuation is small and
probably a non-issue.

chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Chung wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.


I've actually since realized that it's more an issue of voltage mismatch
between my soundcard's input and player's output...it's a limitation
of the soundcard (M-Audio 2496).





I took a look at the Audiophile 2496's manual, and it says that maximum
input level is 2 dBV. That is 1.26V, less than the customary 2V that
most CD/SACD players deliver. You may be better off going through a
preamp first and use the preamp's volume control to attenuate the level
that goes into the 2496.



Is that better than using the DVD player's internal level controls?




The answer is: it depends.

The advantage of using your preamp as the volume control is that you
don't lose any bits of resolution (assuming it's an analog volume
control). The disadvantage is that there might be small L/R tracking errors.

The advantage of using the DVD's internal level controls is that there
is no L/R tracking errors, since the DAC's are very well matched. Also,
the level control is very repeatable. The disadvantage is that depending
on how the level control is implemented, there might be some minor loss
of resolution, although in this case, the attenuation is small and
probably a non-issue.

I have a preamp handy, but if I use the
DVD's controls, I could still make the
effort to find the loudest signal on the disc beforehand,
and trim player output just enough so that it doesn't clip
the input yet still uses up most of the headroom in
the resulting capture (e.g., the unclipped peak is at, say,
-1 dB). Wouldn't this keep any resolution loss
to a minimum?



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
chung wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Chung wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:


Chung wrote:

So why do you think SACD players have to have 6 dB higher output levels?


Where does this claim come from?

I ask because I have observed on two universal players now, when digitizing
the two-channel analog output, that the
'default' channel level outputs a clipped signal. To fix it I have
to lower the player's output levels in the channel level menu.
However, I'm not sure this is confined to SACD; I'm still investigating.
Would love to hear more about it.


I've actually since realized that it's more an issue of voltage mismatch
between my soundcard's input and player's output...it's a limitation
of the soundcard (M-Audio 2496).





I took a look at the Audiophile 2496's manual, and it says that maximum
input level is 2 dBV. That is 1.26V, less than the customary 2V that
most CD/SACD players deliver. You may be better off going through a
preamp first and use the preamp's volume control to attenuate the level
that goes into the 2496.



Is that better than using the DVD player's internal level controls?





The answer is: it depends.


The advantage of using your preamp as the volume control is that you
don't lose any bits of resolution (assuming it's an analog volume
control). The disadvantage is that there might be small L/R tracking errors.


The advantage of using the DVD's internal level controls is that there
is no L/R tracking errors, since the DAC's are very well matched. Also,
the level control is very repeatable. The disadvantage is that depending
on how the level control is implemented, there might be some minor loss
of resolution, although in this case, the attenuation is small and
probably a non-issue.


I have a preamp handy, but if I use the
DVD's controls, I could still make the
effort to find the loudest signal on the disc beforehand,
and trim player output just enough so that it doesn't clip
the input yet still uses up most of the headroom in
the resulting capture (e.g., the unclipped peak is at, say,
-1 dB). Wouldn't this keep any resolution loss
to a minimum?




Yes. In your case, it's 2V vs. a little over a volt, so worst case you
lose 1 bit, and you probably start out with 24 bits, so the resolution
loss is pretty insignificant.