| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Musicians and small differences |
|
|
Another misconception we see here is that "musicians are sensitive to
differences between performances, which are large differences," and
audiophiles are sensitive to the kinds of "very small" differences
found in audio components.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how musicians work. The
difference between Klemperer's performance of Brahms 1, and Walter's
performance of Brahms 1, may be quite large. However, the only way they
were able to *learn* to create a musical performance (and note that
objectivists, just as much as anyone else, take it granted for musical
performances are real and meaningful, although they are unmeasurable)
was to be sensitive to small differences along the way.
So a musician is exquisitely sensitive to small differences, such as
types of reeds, small changes in dynamics and articulation, small
changes in the physical setup and positioning of the instruments, small
changes in acoustics etc.
I predict this response: "But those are *different* kinds of
differences than differences in audio components!"
So what? The question is whether the musician's ears are prepared to
detect differences from reality. Differences of the sort that musicians
routinely use in their work involve difference in spectrum, difference
in relative amplitudes of frequencies (both harmonically related and
unrelated), difference in attack, difference in relative dynamics. What
audio distortion mechanism affects some parameter of the sound outside
these?
Mike
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Musicians and small differences |
|
|
I have seen subjective types attempt to argueI have seen subjective types
attempt to argue that the claimed ability of
their enterprise is akin to being able to distinguish which artist is
playing, after which the claim is made that this proves how sensitive the
ear is and their claims fully justified. The ability to distinguish
artistic differences is one of pattern recognition and can be done using
an
am radio. The claims of the subjective enterprise are said to hear
differences based in factors below the threshold of audibility such as
might occur in the insulin type used in wire or the placement of a stone
here and about on the sound signal as it enters the ear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buster Mudd
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Musicians and small differences |
|
|
| Quote: | Another misconception we see here is that "musicians are sensitive to
differences between performances, which are large differences," and |
audiophiles are sensitive to the kinds of "very small" differences
found in audio components.<<
Huh? Who spouted that malarky? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Billy Shears
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Musicians and small differences |
|
|
In article <dk9c2v02dqm@news3.newsguy.com>,
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Another misconception we see here is that "musicians are sensitive to
differences between performances, which are large differences," and
audiophiles are sensitive to the kinds of "very small" differences
found in audio components.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how musicians work. The
difference between Klemperer's performance of Brahms 1, and Walter's
performance of Brahms 1, may be quite large. However, the only way they
were able to *learn* to create a musical performance (and note that
objectivists, just as much as anyone else, take it granted for musical
performances are real and meaningful, although they are unmeasurable)
was to be sensitive to small differences along the way.
|
Talk of "the only way" is ridiculous in this context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Huber
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:46 am Post subject:
Re: Musicians and small differences |
|
|
Musicians generally have better ears than most recording engineers do.
Recording engineers select studio playback systems for dynamics and the
ability to play reiablly at 115db The systems lack detail and transparency
compaired to High End setups for serious listening. That is why they perfer
analog recording. I have been able to get more music from cassettes recorded
25 years by using only lossless noise reduction (ProTools HD) than many
early digital recordings (all Jazz live recordings)
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dk9c2v02dqm@news3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Another misconception we see here is that "musicians are sensitive to
differences between performances, which are large differences," and
audiophiles are sensitive to the kinds of "very small" differences
found in audio components.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how musicians work. The
difference between Klemperer's performance of Brahms 1, and Walter's
performance of Brahms 1, may be quite large. However, the only way they
were able to *learn* to create a musical performance (and note that
objectivists, just as much as anyone else, take it granted for musical
performances are real and meaningful, although they are unmeasurable)
was to be sensitive to small differences along the way.
So a musician is exquisitely sensitive to small differences, such as
types of reeds, small changes in dynamics and articulation, small
changes in the physical setup and positioning of the instruments, small
changes in acoustics etc.
I predict this response: "But those are *different* kinds of
differences than differences in audio components!"
So what? The question is whether the musician's ears are prepared to
detect differences from reality. Differences of the sort that musicians
routinely use in their work involve difference in spectrum, difference
in relative amplitudes of frequencies (both harmonically related and
unrelated), difference in attack, difference in relative dynamics. What
audio distortion mechanism affects some parameter of the sound outside
these?
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BEAR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Musicians and small differences |
|
|
outsor@city-net.com wrote:
| Quote: | I have seen subjective types attempt to argueI have seen subjective types
attempt to argue that the claimed ability of
their enterprise is akin to being able to distinguish which artist is
playing, after which the claim is made that this proves how sensitive the
ear is and their claims fully justified. The ability to distinguish
artistic differences is one of pattern recognition and can be done using
an
am radio. The claims of the subjective enterprise are said to hear
differences based in factors below the threshold of audibility such as
might occur in the insulin type used in wire or the placement of a stone
here and about on the sound signal as it enters the ear.
|
I can see the problem now, "outsor" apparently smears *insulin* on his
wires! Is it the short acting insulin or the long acting insulin? I wonder.
On a related topic, bats and other mammals use ultrasonic information to
locate objects in their vicinity. Interstingly, BLIND PEOPLE seem to
somehow manage this same "trick" without apparently having ultrasonic
hearing capabilities (generally speaking).
Furthermore many audible and discernable differences are hardly below
the threshold of audibility... it has been shown and proven objectively
that the spectra of harmonic distortion between different sources or
amps can be reliably differentiated. Read Earl Geddes paper on the subject.
Phooey.
_-_-bear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:00 am Post subject:
Re: Musicians and small differences |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | So a musician is exquisitely sensitive to small differences, such as
types of reeds, small changes in dynamics and articulation, small
changes in the physical setup and positioning of the instruments, small
changes in acoustics etc.
|
As a musician (jazz bassist), I am having a hard time fitting myself
into your generalization.
Among the musicians I have known, some care about those differences,
and some don't. For instance, I am quite immune to subtle changes in my
tone quality from things like strings. Other bassists are freaks about
what kinds of strings they use. When I play, I am conscious of being
audible to myself, balanced with the rest of the band, and mainly
trying not to screw up. Musicians also have a hundred other things to
worry about, related to our equipment, such as maintaining a practice
and performance schedule without getting injured. The sound of our
instruments is convoluted with many other issues such as ergonomics.
On the other hand, musicians seem to be no more or less susceptible to
the kinds of biases that the "objectivist" suspects are at the bottom
of audiophile listening experiences. We are all human. Just like many
audiophiles, we love old-world craftsmanship for its own sake, even if
we cannot demonstrate a difference in sound.
However, I can think of a contrast between the musician's differences,
and the audiophile's differences. All of the things you listed above
are potentially measurable. Also, at least in some cases, a plausible
and falsifiable physical mechanism can be proposed for the claimed
effects, allowing objective testing to occur.
Just to give an example... many jazz bassists claim that they prefer
their sound when their amplifier is raised from the floor, for instance
by putting it on a chair. Can you think of a way to figure out whether
this is for real, or merely folklore? What would you measure? What
would you conclude if the measurement produced a null result? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in