[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:48:36 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 29, 7:38=A0am, dtunetrader wrote:
On May 19, 2:56=3DA0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Nothing wrong with bringing the sound of live music into the
discussion in a forum such as this, so far as I can see. =3DA0Just,
please, don't call it a "reference". =3DA0It isn't and it can't be.

it isn't 'a' reference, like a favorite component that some reviewer
keeps coming back to in reviewing.... =A0 it's 'The' reference that
most audiophiles i have known in my 40+ years of analogue
listening , lp collecting, component trading, and tube rolling,
refer to in virtually every instance of critical analysis or

IE, it is a "reference" in some special meaning that what you
"audiophiles" seem to have made up, but which has no clear meaning.

comparison:
like what difference did i hear after recapping my tube amp with the
new paper in oil caps? =A0 =A0

Got any evidence that you did hear such a difference?

my favorite 'live' recordings sounded more
like 'live' music... =A0 or: =A0why would i spend two house payments for
a certain moving coil cartridge? =A0

I can think of several reasons other than sound. Well, it's your
money, spend it as you please of course, no questions asked by me.
But until you can tell people what this "sounding more like live
music" actually consists of then they can have no idea what you mean.
I would say that, observationally, there is no such thing as "the
sound of live music" to compare your new sound to.

That's because it's different for each listener. All of us should have a
clear idea of what real music means to us. We also know when a system is
approaching OUR IDEA of what real music should sound like. There are so many
aspects to the recreation of that real event that no system, no matter how
elaborate or sophisticated, can ever hope to approach. So, each person seizes
upon those portions of that real event that they consider important to them.
With some, it might be imaging and soundstage, others might fixate on getting
the midrange "right", still others might obsess over getting the bass to
sound real by moving as much air in their listening room as possible, some
might require high frequencies that are neither dry or overly bright, but
sound clean and extended and as much like their memory of the highs in their
favorite concert hall as is possible. Others might find that the recreation
of the space where the performance occurred is of paramount importance.
Realizing that no single playback system can give them the literal recreation
of the event in their listening environment, each works on getting those
aspects of the playback right that say "live music" TO THEM.

snip

[Stephen McElroy]

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Well, give me one example of an instance in which a composer has
specified that a particular brand of, say, flute, is the only
instrument that should be used.

There's Density 21.5 by Varese, composed for the debut of a platinum
flute, but other flutes are allowed to be used.

Stephen

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 29, 6:57=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

That's because it's different for each listener. All of us should have a
clear idea of what real music means to us.

I don't even have a clear idea of "what real music means to us"
means. It seems to me to be a phrase that is simply lacking in
content, and thus meaningless.

We also know when a system is
approaching OUR IDEA of what real music should sound like. There are so m=
any
aspects to the recreation of that real event that no system, no matter ho=
w
elaborate or sophisticated, can ever hope to approach. So, each person se=
izes
upon those portions of that real event that they consider important to th=
em.
With some, it might be imaging and soundstage, others might fixate on get=
ting
the midrange "right", still others might obsess over getting the bass to
sound real by moving as much air in their listening room as possible, som=
e
might require high frequencies that are neither dry or overly bright, but
sound clean and extended and as much like their memory of the highs in =
=A0their
favorite concert hall as is possible.

I think "obsess" is the operative word here. I personally am not
"obsessed" with any of these things. I would prefer as much accuracy
as I am able to afford considering all the other things beside music
that also enrich my life, and need money to obtain. If I happened to
win a lottery I would probably look for better. But fortunately a
lot of accuracy is available for not all that much money.

Realizing that no single playback system can give them the literal recrea=
tion
of the event in their listening environment, each =A0works on getting tho=
se
aspects of the playback right that say "live music" TO THEM.

That is their business and more power to them, although I think any
kind of obsession is best avoided if we would like to stay healthy.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 07:46:57 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 29, 6:57=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

That's because it's different for each listener. All of us should have a
clear idea of what real music means to us.

I don't even have a clear idea of "what real music means to us"
means. It seems to me to be a phrase that is simply lacking in
content, and thus meaningless.

Well, of course, I can't help that. If you don't have any feeling for the
sound of real music, and can't recognize the difference between real and
reproduced, then I'd have to say that you are at a distinct disadvantage wrt
to being an audio enthusiast. OTOH, I CAN make that differentiation, and I
can tell when a stereo system sounds close to real music and when one
doesn't. Not only that, but I've the confidence in my judgement to believe
that those judgements are generally spot-on. It is not my "job" to convince
anyone else, but I do know what real music sounds like, I do know what a good
stereo system sounds like and I am able to discern and often quantify the
differences between the two.

We also know when a system is
approaching OUR IDEA of what real music should sound like. There are so m=
any
aspects to the recreation of that real event that no system, no matter ho=
w
elaborate or sophisticated, can ever hope to approach. So, each person se=
izes
upon those portions of that real event that they consider important to th=
em.
With some, it might be imaging and soundstage, others might fixate on get=
ting
the midrange "right", still others might obsess over getting the bass to
sound real by moving as much air in their listening room as possible, som=
e
might require high frequencies that are neither dry or overly bright, but
sound clean and extended and as much like their memory of the highs in =
=A0their
favorite concert hall as is possible.

I think "obsess" is the operative word here. I personally am not
"obsessed" with any of these things. I would prefer as much accuracy
as I am able to afford considering all the other things beside music
that also enrich my life, and need money to obtain.

By what criteria do you gauge "accuracy?" How do YOU know that a system is
"accurate" or not? And accurate to what? To me it's accuracy to the sound of
live, acoustic (unamplified) music played in a real space.

If I happened to
win a lottery I would probably look for better. But fortunately a
lot of accuracy is available for not all that much money.

I certainly do not disagree with that.

Realizing that no single playback system can give them the literal recrea=
tion
of the event in their listening environment, each =A0works on getting tho=
se
aspects of the playback right that say "live music" TO THEM.

That is their business and more power to them, although I think any
kind of obsession is best avoided if we would like to stay healthy.

It's not an obsession (at least not to me) I buy based on the sound of real
music and then I don't think about it very much. For instance, I just got a
new phono cartridge from Soundsmith. It's a development of the old B&O
"Stereodyne" line of cartridges. It's moving iron (variable reluctance) using
a push-pull generating technique and it's the most realistic sounding
cartridge that I think I've ever heard. Due to its design it has far less
distortion than other designs and it makes a real, audible improvement to the
sound of records. When I first got it, I pulled record after record out of my
collection and listened to the wee hours, but now it's just my phono
cartridge. I appreciate the advance in sound quality that I get from it, but
I certainly don't dote on it any more than I do the rest of my system. It's
just part of the synergy of a well thought-out and executed system honed to
sound the most real when playing back my own master recordings - often played
back just hours after they were recorded - you can't get much "fresher" of a
comparison than that!. My system approaches real music to the degree that
when I listen, I hear no glaring omissions nor do I hear any anomalies that
make me say to myself "Hey, this didn't sound like that when I recorded it."
In fact, my reaction is just the opposite. I'm constantly gratified by just
how much my recordings and my system's playback of them sound like the live
performance sounded when I was recording it!

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 29, 2:49=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 5/29/2010 7:54 AM, dtunetrader wrote:





On May 19, 2:49 pm, Ed =A0wrote:
On May 19, 11:18 am, =A0wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those tw=
o
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

yeah, one such acoustical circumstance that may make those two guitars
sound similar might just be playback on ed's system: =A0see below

In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other? =A0 I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist. =A0Why th=
en
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

what gives you the idea that playback so distorted as to obscure
the sonic signatures of these instruments, which very sound is the
reason
they can cost small fortunes.... =A0what gives you the idea that such
distorted
playback is good enough to convey the intention of the composer or the
performer?

Perhaps if you're going to quote Ed, you should actually read the text
you're quoting. =A0Which part of "...given that it is good enough to
convey the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?" is
unclear to you?

The whole notion of "good enough" and the "composer's intention" are
very unclear to *me* in Ed's assertions. The choice of instrument is
really a bit beyond the composer's "intentions" if we are talking
Mozart and Steinways. Choice of instrument speaks to the performer's
intentions. I think there is enough of a history of musicians going to
great lengths when it comes to their selection of instruments to
understand that this is an inseperable part of the musician's
intention and art.

=A0He is not talking about "distortion" at all, he is
saying that the particular instruments used are irrelevant *given that*
they are sufficient to allow the performers to create a presentation
that is representative of what (we believe) the composer's intention was/=
is.

And IMO he is flatly wrong since the particular instruments chosen by
a musician is a ciritical part of the artists' presentation of his or
her art.


For example, is it your contention that unless you can clearly identify
the manufacturer of each and every instrument in a reproduced symphony,
then that playback is "distorted"? Good luck with that.

Has nothing to do with identifying brand names. but it does have
everything to do with the aesthetic content of the sound. That is
affected by the chosen instrument and this is why so many artists go
to such great lengths in making that choice.


Similarly, you must think that even if a recording and playback chain is
sufficient to reliably distinguish between the same performer on a
Bosendorfer versus a Steinway while playing Mozart, that the Steinway
performance must somehow be "distorted" since clearly it was never
Mozart's *intention* to have his music performed on a Steinway, no?

No. OTOH if the system is so distorted that one can't tell the
difference it is a clear indicator that much of what was present in
the original performance is gone.


Bosendorfer or Steinway, a Mozart performance proficiently executed on
either will convey the aesthetic that Mozart intended.

Not likely.

=A0It is not
*necessary* to either care about, or to have the ability to, distinguish
between the two instruments in order to fully appreciate the aesthetic
that Mozart intended to convey.

So the musicians who go to such great lengths in getting those
instruments do so because.......they don't care if the listeners can
take in and appreciate that aesthetic choice? Given that the choice
and distinct sonic signature that comes with that choice is a key
element in what we the listener hears I can't go there with you on
this one. If you can't hear the differences between instruments in a
recording and playback system then the system is failing on a pretty
fundamental level in it's creation of the aural illusion of the
original event.

=A0That you may *prefer* one or the other
is irrelevant in this context (well, unless it's your contention that
Mozart on a Steinway is some unlistenable travesty - good luck with that
one as well).

I think that the travisty is Mozart on a Steinway recorded and played
back on such a bad system that one can't hear the sound well enough to
distinguish the piano as a Steinway.

=A0That's what Ed was saying above. =A0The instruments are a
*means* to the desired end (i.e. the aural presentation), and that the
instruments are *sufficient* to effect that end was a clearly stipulated
prerequisite for his position that the specific instruments used are
irrelevant.

I had no idea that music was some sort of legal agreement.
:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"dtunetrader" wrote in message


it isn't 'a' reference, like a favorite component that
some reviewer keeps coming back to in reviewing....
it's 'The' reference that most audiophiles i have known
in my 40+ years of analogue
listening , lp collecting, component trading, and tube
rolling, refer to in virtually every instance of critical
analysis or comparison:

reading with bated breath, expecting some kind of spectacular revelation


like what difference did i hear after recapping my tube
amp with the new paper in oil caps?

Unless you had been habitually listening to a broken amp, potentially no
change at all that would show up in a bias-controlled listening test.

my favorite 'live'
recordings sounded more like 'live' music... or: why
would i spend two house payments for a
certain moving coil cartridge? because it made my
favorite 'live' recordings sound more like 'live' music.

A difference that could be dublicated by adding a couple of $100 parametric
equalizers to the signal path.

if you really prefer an mp3 type musical experience

Which on a good day can be identical to listening to a CD.

why would you want to hang out with a bunch of delusional
high-enders, anyway???

Interesting that most posts characterizing high enders as being delusional
seem to be written by high enders...

[KH]

On 5/30/2010 11:02 AM, Scott wrote:
On May 29, 2:49 pm, wrote:
On 5/29/2010 7:54 AM, dtunetrader wrote:
snip

Perhaps if you're going to quote Ed, you should actually read the text
you're quoting. Which part of "...given that it is good enough to
convey the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?" is
unclear to you?

The whole notion of "good enough" and the "composer's intention" are
very unclear to *me* in Ed's assertions.

If you can't understand the concept of "good enough" relative to a
performance delivering a wholly satisfactory musical experience, then
you must feel that every performance is insufficient in some way.

The choice of instrument is
really a bit beyond the composer's "intentions" if we are talking
Mozart and Steinways.

Exactly. Although you seem to dispute that position below.

Choice of instrument speaks to the performer's
intentions. I think there is enough of a history of musicians going to
great lengths when it comes to their selection of instruments to
understand that this is an inseperable part of the musician's
intention and art.

Yes, but you conflate "musician's art" with the *music* created by the
composer. This is tantamount to saying that there is some intrinsically
correct combination of specific instrument, specific performance, and
specific interpretation that are all required to convey the "correct"
aesthetic.


He is not talking about "distortion" at all, he is
saying that the particular instruments used are irrelevant *given that*
they are sufficient to allow the performers to create a presentation
that is representative of what (we believe) the composer's intention was/is.

And IMO he is flatly wrong since the particular instruments chosen by
a musician is a ciritical part of the artists' presentation of his or
her art.

Well, again, for this to be true in the context we're discussing, then
there must be *one* such collection of parameters that are *required*
for the aesthetic to be conveyed. IMO, that's dead wrong.



For example, is it your contention that unless you can clearly identify
the manufacturer of each and every instrument in a reproduced symphony,
then that playback is "distorted"? Good luck with that.

Has nothing to do with identifying brand names.

Of course it does, if you want to insist that the specific instruments
used are critical to conveying the *music* to listener. Can't have it
both ways. Please recall that the discussion was predicated on the
instruments being of "sufficient" caliber that the aesthetic of the
music is conveyed.

but it does have
everything to do with the aesthetic content of the sound.

If that aesthetic content of the sound cannot be unambiguously
associated with a specific brand name instrument, then perforce, the
specific brand of instrument used, while "sufficient", cannot be
considered "necessary" for the delivery of that content.

That is
affected by the chosen instrument and this is why so many artists go
to such great lengths in making that choice.

Absolutely. And that choice is important to that artist, and his/her
individual performance, but that does not mean it's of importance to the
musical appreciation of any given listener. IF that listener is focused
on a solo performance, this may indeed be the case, or as easily not.
Depends on whether one is listening simply to the composition as a whole
(i.e. "music"), or whether one is more, or similarly, interested in the
specific "performance art". That is a dichotomy that exists, whether
you want to admit it or not.



Similarly, you must think that even if a recording and playback chain is
sufficient to reliably distinguish between the same performer on a
Bosendorfer versus a Steinway while playing Mozart, that the Steinway
performance must somehow be "distorted" since clearly it was never
Mozart's *intention* to have his music performed on a Steinway, no?

No.

OK, then the rest of the argument is moot. That *is* the whole premise
of the argument.

OTOH if the system is so distorted that one can't tell the
difference it is a clear indicator that much of what was present in
the original performance is gone.

Which is merely a strawman recently interjected into the discussion. No
one has suggested the use of any such system.


Bosendorfer or Steinway, a Mozart performance proficiently executed on
either will convey the aesthetic that Mozart intended.

Not likely.

OK. Then which of the following are true:

1. Mozart played on a Bosendorfer cannot convey the aesthetic that
Mozart intended;
2. Mozart played on a Steinway cannot convey the aesthetic that Mozart
intended;
3. Mozart cannot be played on a Bosendorfer or Steinway and convey the
aesthetic that Mozart intended.

There are no other options. Feel free to describe in detail how either,
or neither, instrument is/are sufficient or insufficient to convey the
specific aesthetic attributes the composer intended.


It is not
*necessary* to either care about, or to have the ability to, distinguish
between the two instruments in order to fully appreciate the aesthetic
that Mozart intended to convey.

So the musicians who go to such great lengths in getting those
instruments do so because.......they don't care if the listeners can
take in and appreciate that aesthetic choice?

As a listener, am I *required* to care what the musicians care about in
order to enjoy the performance? Once again, please point to a symphony
performance wherein you are intimately knowledgeable about every
instrument choice, and the intentions and desires of every performer.
You are suggesting that such depth of knowledge is an absolute
requirement in appreciating the music.

Given that the choice
and distinct sonic signature that comes with that choice is a key
element in what we the listener hears I can't go there with you on
this one.

Of course the instruments affect what we hear. Why do you insist on
ignoring the fact that this is not under discussion? When what we
*hear* is aesthetically fulfilling, then knowledge of the specific means
to that fulfillment are rendered moot. If *you* cannot separate the
instruments used to create the sound from the appreciation of the
musical piece, then *you* may not find the experience fulfilling. That
is not a universal position however.

If you can't hear the differences between instruments in a
recording and playback system then the system is failing on a pretty
fundamental level in it's creation of the aural illusion of the
original event.

Once again, irrelevant, as this has never been part of the discussion
(recent strawment excepted).

snip

I had no idea that music was some sort of legal agreement.

Hmmm...slept through the whole peer-to-peer music sharing my lawyer is
bigger than your lawyer debacle, eh?

:-)

Keith Hughes

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 30, 10:52=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Well, of course, I can't help that. If you don't have any feeling for the
sound of real music, and can't recognize the difference between real and
reproduced

I can't help it if you don't seem to be able to understand what seem
to be perfectly clear english words which were easily understood
perfectly correctly by, for example, Keith Hughes. I will not discuss
the rest of your post since you do not appear to be arguing with what
I said, but what you seem to think I said. The quoted bit above is
only one example of that, but I will for the record say that I never
said nor implied anything of the sort. That is merely your, to my
mind entirely twisted out of shape, interpretation of what I actually
said.

[dtunetrader]

On May 29, 2:48=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 29, 7:54=3DA0am, dtunetrader wrote:

yeah, one such acoustical circumstance that may make those two guitars
sound similar might just be playback on ed's system: =3DA0see below

What do you know about my system,

only what you told us on 17 may. quoted in full in my post above.

and if it satisfies me what does it
matter to you?

quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all...

And, by the way, you are once again putting words into my mouth that I
never said, since I was plainly talking about circumstances on the
recording end of the chain, and you are responding with insinuations
about the quality of my home system as if that has anything to do with
the matter.

not true. the insinuations about your system were made by you.
here is what you said on 19 may 2010, at 2:49:

"why then would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey the
intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?"

and it certainly is NOT a "given that it is good enough to convey the
intention
of the composer...."

[dtunetrader]

On May 20, 6:33=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message



To take this from a different angle, the "reference" is
not "the sound of live music." The "reference" is our
mental construct of what live music sounds like (or what
we think it sounds like) based on our experiences of live
music, be they many or few.

Eyewitness testimony is well-known to be incredibly flawed. There's no
reason to think that "earwitness" testimony is any better.

And if the "reference" is subjective and internal, then
the problem isn't only that the "sound of live music"
constantly changes. It's that we, too, constantly change.

Anybody who thinks that their perceptions are accurate and unchanging jus=
t
doesn't know themselves.

Human beings are not calibrated test instruments. To
believe that what we think live music sounds like today
will be the same tomorrow is to deny everything we know
about human psychology and subjective experience.

The common thread is that many of the people who posture long and often
about their use of the sound of live performances as a reference are ofte=
n
the same people who deny the dominant effect of percpetual bias on listen=
ing
tests.

In short, our perception of "the sound of live music" is
hedonic, not sensory. Saying 'this system sounds like
live music" is equivalent to saying, "I like the sound of
this system."

I think so.

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds of
concerts and I know what live music sounds like and I'm
capable of judging accurately whether an audio system
approaches that sound"--May make you feel good, but it's
entirely unrealistic.

I think that all of these unsupportable claims about reproducing the soun=
d
of a live performance needs to be identified for what they are, posturing
and wishfull thinking.

it's not posturing or wishful thinking. this is, as it has always
been, a futile
exercise: a few who can't see a certain color, insisting that those
who do
see the color are imagining it. i thought i'd check-in on the group
and see if
the situation had improved in the intervening years, but it clearly
has not.

[dtunetrader]

On May 29, 2:49=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 5/29/2010 7:54 AM, dtunetrader wrote:





On May 19, 2:49 pm, Ed =A0wrote:
On May 19, 11:18 am, =A0wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those tw=
o
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

yeah, one such acoustical circumstance that may make those two guitars
sound similar might just be playback on ed's system: =A0see below

In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other? =A0 I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist. =A0Why th=
en
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

what gives you the idea that playback so distorted as to obscure
the sonic signatures of these instruments, which very sound is the
reason
they can cost small fortunes.... =A0what gives you the idea that such
distorted
playback is good enough to convey the intention of the composer or the
performer?

Perhaps if you're going to quote Ed, you should actually read the text
you're quoting. =A0Which part of "...given that it is good enough to
convey the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?" is
unclear to you?

none of it it was unclear to me, keith.

ed asked, "Why then would it be important that my sound system convey
the difference between two brands of guitar, given that it is good
enough to
convey the intention of the composer...."

my point is that if the system is so distorted as to mask the
differences between
instruments, it is certainly NOT A GIVEN that it is good enough to
convey the
intention of of the composer. and if, hypothetically, a listener
offers that his
system is inferior to his mp3 player, i don't think it's unreasonable
to suggest
that his system almost certainly does NOT convey anything even close
to the
intention of the composer...

geez, you guys.... you tell us how lousy your systems are and then
get
all defensive if we agree... you denigrate the "golden-eared high-
enders"
but you insist on preaching the mid-fi gospel to them on a high-end
forum.
isn't there a rec.audio.it-all-sounds-the-same. i will not go there,
and try to
convince you you can't hear.... it's america, for Christ sake, and i
will allow
you to worship at any alter you choose... in peace. you might
consider
allowing others the same courtesy.... see, those that can't hear the
difference
will always think those that can, have their heads up their ass; and
those that
hear the subtleties will take those that say they can't at their
word.
we believe you! we don't ask you to prove it. and you couldn't.
..

i subscribed, after many year away, to see if the same level of sand
box
dialectics was still fouling the air, and i'm so sorry that it is.

"you can't really hear that!!!" " yeah, i can. and did."
"oh no you didn't!!! prove it!!! see, you can't prove it.
nah, nah, nanana, you didn't hear those harmonics,
you just imagine those gorgeous overtones!!! if i can't
hear it, you can't hear it!!!"

i'll check in again, in a few years, good listening to you all!

[Arny Krueger]

"dtunetrader" wrote in message

On May 20, 6:33 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message



To take this from a different angle, the "reference" is
not "the sound of live music." The "reference" is our
mental construct of what live music sounds like (or what
we think it sounds like) based on our experiences of
live music, be they many or few.

Eyewitness testimony is well-known to be incredibly
flawed. There's no reason to think that "earwitness"
testimony is any better.

And if the "reference" is subjective and internal, then
the problem isn't only that the "sound of live music"
constantly changes. It's that we, too, constantly
change.

Anybody who thinks that their perceptions are accurate
and unchanging just doesn't know themselves.

Human beings are not calibrated test instruments. To
believe that what we think live music sounds like today
will be the same tomorrow is to deny everything we know
about human psychology and subjective experience.

The common thread is that many of the people who posture
long and often about their use of the sound of live
performances as a reference are often the same people
who deny the dominant effect of percpetual bias on
listening tests.

In short, our perception of "the sound of live music" is
hedonic, not sensory. Saying 'this system sounds like
live music" is equivalent to saying, "I like the sound
of this system."

I think so.

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds
of concerts and I know what live music sounds like and
I'm capable of judging accurately whether an audio
system approaches that sound"--May make you feel good,
but it's entirely unrealistic.

I think that all of these unsupportable claims about
reproducing the sound of a live performance needs to be
identified for what they are, posturing and wishfull
thinking.

it's not posturing or wishful thinking.

Denial doesn't change the relevant facts.

this is, as it
has always been, a futile
exercise: a few who can't see a certain color,
insisting that those who do see the color are imagining it.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that color blindness afflicts only a
minority of the population, and is a readily-diagnosable condition.

The same applies to hearing.

i thought i'd check-in on the group and see if
the situation had improved in the intervening years, but
it clearly has not.

You can't roll back the rule of science with just wishful thinking.

[KH]

On 5/31/2010 12:17 PM, dtunetrader wrote:
On May 29, 2:49=A0pm, wrote:
On 5/29/2010 7:54 AM, dtunetrader wrote:

snip
what gives you the idea that playback so distorted as to obscure
the sonic signatures of these instruments, which very sound is the
reason
they can cost small fortunes.... =A0what gives you the idea that such
distorted
playback is good enough to convey the intention of the composer or the
performer?

Perhaps if you're going to quote Ed, you should actually read the text
you're quoting. =A0Which part of "...given that it is good enough to
convey the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?" is
unclear to you?

none of it it was unclear to me, keith.

One cannot find objective evidence of that given what you say next...

ed asked, "Why then would it be important that my sound system convey
the difference between two brands of guitar, given that it is good
enough to
convey the intention of the composer...."

my point is that if the system is so distorted as to mask the
differences between
instruments, it is certainly NOT A GIVEN that it is good enough to
convey the
intention of of the composer.

One need only look at simple grammatical construction to see the fallacy
in your argument. Ed states that "...it is good enough to
convey the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer." He
also provides the quote you cited above which contains, as you quoted;
"...given that it is good enough to convey the intention of the
composer...".

You simply cannot ignore this qualification as though it does not exist
in order to manufacture, from whole cloth, that "...it is certainly NOT
A GIVEN that it is good enough to convey the intention of of the
composer". Of course it is a given; *that* is the predicate for the
argument - as you yourself quoted it. Nor is anyone, but you, referring
to or envisioning any horribly distorting system being remotely
"adequate" or acceptable.

The argument, quite simply, is *IF* NOTE QUALIFIER the system is
adequate to convey the musical aesthetic - to whatever level an
individual listener may aspire - *THEN* what matter whether any specific
brand of instrument is identifiable? If *your* concept of musical
aesthetic requires individual instrument brand discrimination, then
clearly a system that did not provide that detail would *not* fit Ed's
conditions, and as such would be excluded *for that listener* from the
discussion. Got it?

However, before you jump onto the "yep that's me" bandwagon, it's fair
to point out that you would at the same time be saying that you also
cannot enjoy any musical piece containing, for e.g., massed strings,
since clearly NO system (or recording) will allow you to distinguish the
sonic signatures - with sufficient precision or granularity - of each
individual instrument *brand* being played such that you can
unambiguously identify each one. Ergo, by your logic, massed strings,
either live or reproduced, must perforce be horribly distorted (as in
"...so distorted as to mask the differences between instruments...").

and if, hypothetically, a listener
offers that his
system is inferior to his mp3 player, i don't think it's unreasonable
to suggest
that his system almost certainly does NOT convey anything even close
to the
intention of the composer...

And this hypothetical would be relevant how?

geez, you guys.... you tell us how lousy your systems are and then
get
all defensive if we agree...

Uhmm...no, more accurately stated that you are either misunderstanding
and/or misconstruing the arguments being propounded as "us" saying "our"
systems are lousy. My system is absolutely *not* lousy (at ~ $30K it
certainly shouldn't be - though, in the high end, it certainly *could*
be), yet it is of zero importance whether *I* can distinguish between
two brands of guitars playing a piece. It is not related to resolution
or precision, it is related to interest and focus. If both "sing" to me
adequately I don't care which brand is which. Doesn't mean that in an
A/B test I couldn't distinguish them, it means that both do what I need
them to do for my satisfaction, and thus the differences are irrelevant
to *my* appreciation of the music.

you denigrate the "golden-eared high-
enders"

No, we question whether there is objective data to support their
positions. We question whether they conflate preference (however
derived) with differences that can be objectively verified/falsified.

but you insist on preaching the mid-fi gospel to them on a high-end
forum.
isn't there a rec.audio.it-all-sounds-the-same.

Perhaps a rec.audio.objective-evidence-is-evil would please?

i will not go there,
and try to
convince you you can't hear.... it's america, for Christ sake, and i
will allow
you to worship at any alter you choose... in peace.

Sorry, I don't do "worship", your generous offer of dispensation
notwithstanding. How about we have reasonable rational discourse instead?

you might consider
allowing others the same courtesy.... see, those that can't hear the
difference
will always think those that can, have their heads up their ass; and
those that
hear the subtleties will take those that say they can't at their
word.
we believe you! we don't ask you to prove it. and you couldn't.

Yes, it is America. Quick question for you, anonymous; which of us
posted the screed above seeking to silence opposing views? If you make
claims subject to empirical or logical examination and refutation, then
expect such. That is the nature of usenet. If you want to discuss your
preferences, have at it, I certainly won't gainsay you. How about
providing the same courtesy to those who have differing preferences
relative to the focus of their musical appreciation (the focus of
discussion at this point)?


Keith Hughes