| Author |
Message |
Jenn
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:11 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dl13uh0uo2@news1.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average. You didn't respond to my example, and I would
be curious to know your response: Who is more qualified to detect the
sound of live music.... the person who hears it everyday, or the person
who has NEVER heard it?
Let me answer your question with a question: How would you demonstrate
that one person was better than another person at determining which of
two audio reproduction systems was closer to the sound of live acoustic
music? It is one thing for you to declare something "logical" and
"obvious," but it remains unproven. So how would you prove it? How
would you even define what "the sound of live acoustic music" is in
such a way that it could be used as a standard of comparison?
Until you can answer my question, your question is meaningless.
bob
|
Your question doesn't address the LOGIC of my question at all. From a
simply logical point of view, who is more qualified to detect the sound
of live music...the person who hears it everyday, or the person who has
NEVER heard it? This should be simple to answer. That you don't seem
to wish to speaks volumes, in my opinion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible. If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone).
Where do you get the idea that adding "color" can make something sound
more like live music?
|
Certainly adding color (i.e. various forms of distortions, linear and
non-linear) can alter the sound in such a way that some people may
perceive it to be better. Sounding "better" may equate to "sounding more
like live music" to someone, especially those who think they are looking
for a sound that is closest to their memory live music. Of course,
adding color does not always work for all kinds of music or for
everyone. Here is Siegfried Linkwitz's description:
"The alteration or distortion of an original can be additive and/or
subtractive in its effects. Some low level non-linear distortions give
the impression of enhanced sonic detail, like enhanced contrast in a
photographic image. Other types tend to round off and smooth the edges
and make the original sound less aggressive. Silent spaces between the
notes become filled in. Or, the timbre balance may be warped,
emphasizing particular regions of the sound spectrum."
Each of these effects may be pleasant to someone, and therefore
appearing as closer to live music, if that someone is set on setting
his/her sight on getting closest to live music. Ever wonder why people
call it "euphonic distortion"?
| Quote: |
IOW, some of us are looking for the most accurate equipment, which let
us enjoy exactly what is recorded, whether it's live acoustic music, or
highly synthesized music from a recording studio.
Jenn's looking for accuracy also. She's looking for the recording
engineer to capture the patterns in the sound which are most meaningful
and represent those patterns accurately. She's looking for playback
equipment which reproduces those patterns accurately.
|
So is she looking for the most accurate playback equipment?
| Quote: |
Once more, I would bring your attention to what Siegfried Linkwitz, a
well-known speaker designer and a top EE, states on his website:
"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification."
Fine. Just don't think that makes sound reproduction any less
subjective.
|
No, one can objectively measure the accuracy of audio reproduction
equipment. What one cannot measure is accuracy to someone's memory of
what live music should sound like.
| Quote: |
For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can
hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a
familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original."
A lot of recording engineers claim to be reproducing the original
sound, while in fact they are butchering the most meaningful patterns
in that sound from, say my perspective, or say Jenn's perspective.
|
That's neither here nor there if we are talking about accuracy of the
playback equipment. Judging the quality of a recording is a totally
different task than judging the quality of playback equipment. The
former is largely subjective, I would agree. Although if you said that
someone is "butchering the most meaningful patterns in that sound from
your perspective", we would suspect that your recording is broken.
| Quote: | This
is not to say either musicians or recording engineers are more elevated
than the other-- each may produce a recording that preserves the
relationships most meaningful to themselves--but it does put the lie to
this talk about "true to the original."
|
You are totally clueless on what Linkwitz meant by "true to the
original". Why don't you read the web page I linked to?
| Quote: | In another thread, Bob is
trying to convince us there is no meaningful "original"--- and now
here, you quote an engineer who gives this as his philosphy. Maybe
Linkwitz and Bob should get together and discuss this.
|
Perhaps you should try to understand what Linkwitz and Bob meant first?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:16 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible. If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone). Of course, if the recording does sound like live acoustic
music, we want the equipment to faithfully reproduce that, too.
And a 'well trained musician' who rarely listens to live music from
the *audience* perspective,
|
Oxymoron. (There is no such thing as a well-trained musician who has
not spent oodles of time listening to other musicians perform.)
Not to mention that most of the patterns that musicians are listening
for are abstracted patterns, which can be clear from many perspectives.
You guys seem to think a change in tonal balance is a fundamental
change in the musical expression.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
chung wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible.
|
That would be a recording device of some sort. I suppose if duping is
your thing that would make sense but if listening is your thing then
you are stuck without a reeference given the fact that no recording has
a sound in and of itself. You *have* to use playback equipment to hear
it. So you really have no true sonic reference if you try to make the
content of a CD or LP your point of reference.
| Quote: | If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone). Of course, if the recording does sound like live acoustic
music, we want the equipment to faithfully reproduce that, too.
|
That is the point of using recordings of live acoustic music as a
better means of evaluating equipment. You then have live music as an
actual reference.
| Quote: |
IOW, some of us are looking for the most accurate equipment, which let
us enjoy exactly what is recorded, whether it's live acoustic music, or
highly synthesized music from a recording studio.
|
Well you are out of luck. the only way to judge is by comparing
recordings of live music to live music. what the heck is the original
*sound* of highly synthesized music? there simply is no reference. it
makes the whole concept of fidelity meaningless.
| Quote: | Or even dialog, or
sound effects, or rap music. I suggest that this is a much more worthy
goal to pursuit.
|
I suggest it is impossible given there is no reference by which to
compare the sound of playback.
| Quote: |
Once more, I would bring your attention to what Siegfried Linkwitz, a
well-known speaker designer and a top EE, states on his website:
"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification.
|
*He* said the "original." He didn't say the "master recording." There
is no sound of the "original" if there was no live acoustic original
event. And that is a reasonable reference and one in which the concept
of fidelity actually has meaning. of course we are rarely if aver there
for the original event and can onlu judge by or experience with live
acoustic music.
| Quote: | For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can
hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a
familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original."
|
Seems to be Jenn's and mine and a few others that you consistantly
disagree with.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | In article <dl13uh0uo2@news1.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average. You didn't respond to my example, and I would
be curious to know your response: Who is more qualified to detect the
sound of live music.... the person who hears it everyday, or the person
who has NEVER heard it?
Let me answer your question with a question: How would you demonstrate
that one person was better than another person at determining which of
two audio reproduction systems was closer to the sound of live acoustic
music? It is one thing for you to declare something "logical" and
"obvious," but it remains unproven. So how would you prove it? How
would you even define what "the sound of live acoustic music" is in
such a way that it could be used as a standard of comparison?
Until you can answer my question, your question is meaningless.
bob
Your question doesn't address the LOGIC of my question at all.
|
There *is* no logic to your question. That's the problem. See below for
an explanation.
| Quote: | From a
simply logical point of view, who is more qualified to detect the sound
of live music...the person who hears it everyday, or the person who has
NEVER heard it? This should be simple to answer. That you don't seem
to wish to speaks volumes, in my opinion.
|
I don't answer it because it cannot be answered. You are trying to make
an empirical statement: "Trained musicians are better than
non-musicians at doing X." But the most basic requirement of an
empirical statement is that it be testable. Your statement isn't
testable, because you cannot define in any independent way what X is.
So when you turn your statement into a question--"Who do you think
would be better at doing X?"--the only answer I can give is, Who the
hell knows? You can't even tell me what X is.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible.
That would be a recording device of some sort. I suppose if duping is
your thing that would make sense but if listening is your thing then
you are stuck without a reeference given the fact that no recording has
a sound in and of itself.
|
You are clearly misinformed. Of course, the CD itself, for instance,
cannot make any sound. But the CD contains all the information necessary
to reproduce the sound. There is an exact, one-to-one relationship
between the bits stored on the CD and the voltage waveforms to be
delivered to the speaker/headphone terminals. The CD contains the exact
recipe for reproducing the sound.
Rest is snipped, since your postulations were based on this
misunderstanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible.
That would be a recording device of some sort. I suppose if duping is
your thing that would make sense but if listening is your thing then
you are stuck without a reeference given the fact that no recording has
a sound in and of itself. You *have* to use playback equipment to hear
it. So you really have no true sonic reference if you try to make the
content of a CD or LP your point of reference.
If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone). Of course, if the recording does sound like live acoustic
music, we want the equipment to faithfully reproduce that, too.
That is the point of using recordings of live acoustic music as a
better means of evaluating equipment. You then have live music as an
actual reference.
IOW, some of us are looking for the most accurate equipment, which let
us enjoy exactly what is recorded, whether it's live acoustic music, or
highly synthesized music from a recording studio.
Well you are out of luck. the only way to judge is by comparing
recordings of live music to live music. what the heck is the original
*sound* of highly synthesized music? there simply is no reference. it
makes the whole concept of fidelity meaningless.
Or even dialog, or
sound effects, or rap music. I suggest that this is a much more worthy
goal to pursuit.
I suggest it is impossible given there is no reference by which to
compare the sound of playback.
Once more, I would bring your attention to what Siegfried Linkwitz, a
well-known speaker designer and a top EE, states on his website:
"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification.
*He* said the "original." He didn't say the "master recording." There
is no sound of the "original" if there was no live acoustic original
event. And that is a reasonable reference and one in which the concept
of fidelity actually has meaning. of course we are rarely if aver there
for the original event and can onlu judge by or experience with live
acoustic music.
For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can
hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a
familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original."
Seems to be Jenn's and mine and a few others that you consistantly
disagree with.
Scott
|
It's clear that you, or Michael Mossey, simply do not understand what
Linkwitz was saying, or choose to misinterpret it to for your agenda.
Please read the web page I link to. In particular, read and understand this:
"As consumers we must take what has been encoded in the storage medium
to be the intended original. In most cases this is far from what you
would have heard at the live event."
I posted this link probably a half-dozen times in the last year. It's
not really surprising, I guess, that you simply would not bother to read it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | In article <dl3hbc0863@news3.newsguy.com>, chung <chunglau@covad.net
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible. If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone). Of course, if the recording does sound like live acoustic
music, we want the equipment to faithfully reproduce that, too.
snip
And I've been very clear from the start here that my goal is exactly as
I have stated it. I enjoy listening to music in my home more when the
equipment and recordings allow me to get as close as I can get to my
ideal, especially in the area of instrumental and vocal timbres. I
really do understand your quest for faithfulness. I simply can't enjoy
listening in my home if the sound is faithful, but not authentic.
|
Then I would suggest that you get better recordings.
| Quote: | For
example, I have a recording of Tchaikovsky 5 with Mravinsky/Lenningrad
Phil on DGG that is a DYNAMITE performance in every way, but there is a
trumpet soli that sounds so UNLIKE any kind of trumpet that I've ever
heard that listening to it simply ruins it for me.
|
I hope you don't think that was due to your playback equipment. Hey, not
every recording is done to your personal tasts and standard.
| Quote: | So, unless I'm
studying Tchaikovsky 5, I never listen to this recording. Now, is that
recording faithful to the master tape? Maybe so, but it matters not.
|
It matters in the sense that there is inaccuracy/infidelity due to the
way the recording was made, and then there is inaccuracy/infidelity due
to the medium and playback equipment. The former you can't really do
much about, except not purchase those that you don't like. The latter is
under your control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible. If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone).
Where do you get the idea that adding "color" can make something sound
more like live music?
Certainly adding color (i.e. various forms of distortions, linear and
non-linear) can alter the sound in such a way that some people may
perceive it to be better. Sounding "better" may equate to "sounding more
like live music" to someone, especially those who think they are looking
for a sound that is closest to their memory live music.
|
or it may not equate. Don't you think if you wish to assert this, you
should at the very least ask the "people" what they are doing or
listening for? Don't you think your inability to repeat back how
musicians describe what they are doing reveals that you aren't really
interested in knowing what they're listening for, but simply making
this equivocation between "pleasing" and "sounding more live"?
| Quote: | Of course,
adding color does not always work for all kinds of music or for
everyone. Here is Siegfried Linkwitz's description:
|
when the objectivists try to describe how this distortion could "make
sound more live", that is when it is most clear they are waffling and
aren't interested in investigating what people actually experience.
| Quote: | "The alteration or distortion of an original can be additive and/or
subtractive in its effects. Some low level non-linear distortions give
the impression of enhanced sonic detail, like enhanced contrast in a
photographic image.
|
musicians put exactly as much detail into their playing as the musical
situation calls for. For example a composer balances the accompanying
voices against the main melody. A cello player balances all of the
smaller modulations and the larger sound itself in order to serve the
needs of the musical expression. Can you explain why "enhancing" the
detail would convey these sonic patterns more accurately?
| Quote: | Other types tend to round off and smooth the edges
and make the original sound less aggressive.
|
a musician makes his/her tone exactly as "aggressive" as the situation
calls for. How would changing this convey these sonic patterns more
accurately?
| Quote: | Silent spaces between the
notes become filled in.
|
a musician puts exactly as much silent space between the notes as the
situation calls for. "Filling in the space" would change the nature of
the articulation.
| Quote: | Or, the timbre balance may be warped,
emphasizing particular regions of the sound spectrum."
|
a musician emphasizes exactly the "regions of the sound spectrum" that
are necessary for the musical situation at hand.
| Quote: |
Each of these effects may be pleasant to someone, and therefore
appearing as closer to live music, if that someone is set on setting
his/her sight on getting closest to live music. Ever wonder why people
call it "euphonic distortion"?
IOW, some of us are looking for the most accurate equipment, which let
us enjoy exactly what is recorded, whether it's live acoustic music, or
highly synthesized music from a recording studio.
Jenn's looking for accuracy also. She's looking for the recording
engineer to capture the patterns in the sound which are most meaningful
and represent those patterns accurately. She's looking for playback
equipment which reproduces those patterns accurately.
So is she looking for the most accurate playback equipment?
Once more, I would bring your attention to what Siegfried Linkwitz, a
well-known speaker designer and a top EE, states on his website:
"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification."
Fine. Just don't think that makes sound reproduction any less
subjective.
No, one can objectively measure the accuracy of audio reproduction
equipment. What one cannot measure is accuracy to someone's memory of
what live music should sound like.
|
What you also can't measure are the relationships that constitute
musical expression. Since the goal is to reproduce musical expression
(the goal of myself, and apparently Jenn), you can't measure accuracy,
relative to what we listen for. The meaning of "accuracy" is also much
less clear with respect to microphones and speakers ---and you might
have noticed you can't have audio playback without those.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:13 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: | Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible.
That would be a recording device of some sort. I suppose if duping is
your thing that would make sense but if listening is your thing then
you are stuck without a reeference given the fact that no recording has
a sound in and of itself. You *have* to use playback equipment to hear
it. So you really have no true sonic reference if you try to make the
content of a CD or LP your point of reference.
If the original recording
does not sound like live acoustic music, then we may not want the
equipment to add color in such a way as to sound like live music (to
someone). Of course, if the recording does sound like live acoustic
music, we want the equipment to faithfully reproduce that, too.
That is the point of using recordings of live acoustic music as a
better means of evaluating equipment. You then have live music as an
actual reference.
IOW, some of us are looking for the most accurate equipment, which let
us enjoy exactly what is recorded, whether it's live acoustic music, or
highly synthesized music from a recording studio.
Well you are out of luck. the only way to judge is by comparing
recordings of live music to live music. what the heck is the original
*sound* of highly synthesized music? there simply is no reference. it
makes the whole concept of fidelity meaningless.
Or even dialog, or
sound effects, or rap music. I suggest that this is a much more worthy
goal to pursuit.
I suggest it is impossible given there is no reference by which to
compare the sound of playback.
Once more, I would bring your attention to what Siegfried Linkwitz, a
well-known speaker designer and a top EE, states on his website:
"Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound
reproduction since anything else is a falsification.
*He* said the "original." He didn't say the "master recording." There
is no sound of the "original" if there was no live acoustic original
event. And that is a reasonable reference and one in which the concept
of fidelity actually has meaning. of course we are rarely if aver there
for the original event and can onlu judge by or experience with live
acoustic music.
For many pieces of
recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so
highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference.
Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the
characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the
reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can
hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a
familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male
voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original."
Seems to be Jenn's and mine and a few others that you consistantly
disagree with.
Scott
It's clear that you, or Michael Mossey, simply do not understand what
Linkwitz was saying, or choose to misinterpret it to for your agenda.
Please read the web page I link to. In particular, read and understand this:
"As consumers we must take what has been encoded in the storage medium
to be the intended original. In most cases this is far from what you
would have heard at the live event."
I posted this link probably a half-dozen times in the last year. It's
not really surprising, I guess, that you simply would not bother to read it.
|
Or maybe i read it and blew it off as being ridiculous rather than
memoizing it. he is entitled to his opinion but I would challenge him
or you or anyone else who thinks that a "recording" has a sound that
can be used as a reference in and of itself. Let me explain it to you
in simple technical terms. *All* you can get directly from a recording
is a bit stream or an electircal analog signal (unless we are talking
about something like an LP) and it has no sound of it's own, period. so
to use it as a reference is impossible and the idea of fidelity to it
is meaningless. Unless you are duping it.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:14 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: | Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average.
That may be your goal when you shop for hi-fi. For others, the goal is
to have equipment that reproduces what's recorded on the CD's (and vinyl
and tape, etc.) as faithfully as possible.
That would be a recording device of some sort. I suppose if duping is
your thing that would make sense but if listening is your thing then
you are stuck without a reeference given the fact that no recording has
a sound in and of itself.
You are clearly misinformed. Of course, the CD itself, for instance,
cannot make any sound. But the CD contains all the information necessary
to reproduce the sound.
|
If you believe this then you are the one who is misinformed and quite
grossly at that. There is no way any CD has all of the aocustical
information of a live acoustical event encoded in it's bits. simply not
possible.
| Quote: | There is an exact, one-to-one relationship
between the bits stored on the CD and the voltage waveforms to be
delivered to the speaker/headphone terminals. The CD contains the exact
recipe for reproducing the sound.
|
Not even close. Even if it were perfect as you claim and I quite
disagree with that opinion it is not a perfect representation of an
original event. so again you have something with no sound as your sound
reference. Makes no sense.
| Quote: |
Rest is snipped, since your postulations were based on this
misunderstanding.
|
Too bad you were so blatently wrong. but if you can come up with an
actual reference *sound* from a source such as a CD that you can use as
a reference for judging playback systems please tell us all about it.
Unfortunately it is impossible. It will always involve a playback
system. now if you want to set up a playback system as your reference
for judging other playback systems you are free to do so but I prefer
live music as a reference since i prefer that sound to begin with.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:14 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dl61g902m2k@news2.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
In article <dl13uh0uo2@news1.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average. You didn't respond to my example, and I would
be curious to know your response: Who is more qualified to detect the
sound of live music.... the person who hears it everyday, or the person
who has NEVER heard it?
Let me answer your question with a question: How would you demonstrate
that one person was better than another person at determining which of
two audio reproduction systems was closer to the sound of live acoustic
music? It is one thing for you to declare something "logical" and
"obvious," but it remains unproven. So how would you prove it? How
would you even define what "the sound of live acoustic music" is in
such a way that it could be used as a standard of comparison?
Until you can answer my question, your question is meaningless.
bob
Your question doesn't address the LOGIC of my question at all.
There *is* no logic to your question. That's the problem. See below for
an explanation.
From a
simply logical point of view, who is more qualified to detect the sound
of live music...the person who hears it everyday, or the person who has
NEVER heard it? This should be simple to answer. That you don't seem
to wish to speaks volumes, in my opinion.
I don't answer it because it cannot be answered. You are trying to make
an empirical statement: "Trained musicians are better than
non-musicians at doing X." But the most basic requirement of an
empirical statement is that it be testable. Your statement isn't
testable, because you cannot define in any independent way what X is.
So when you turn your statement into a question--"Who do you think
would be better at doing X?"--the only answer I can give is, Who the
hell knows? You can't even tell me what X is.
bob
|
Good gosh, bob; the contortions you are going through to avoid answering
a simple question! Do you really think that it's not "testable" that a
person who hears live music every day would be better at identifying
live music than someone who has NEVER heard live music? OF COURSE what
"X" is is defined as "music, performed live." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl5b940b30@news1.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | In article <dl13uh0uo2@news1.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the
goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average. You didn't respond to my example, and I would
be curious to know your response: Who is more qualified to detect the
sound of live music.... the person who hears it everyday, or the person
who has NEVER heard it?
Let me answer your question with a question: How would you demonstrate
that one person was better than another person at determining which of
two audio reproduction systems was closer to the sound of live acoustic
music? It is one thing for you to declare something "logical" and
"obvious," but it remains unproven. So how would you prove it? How
would you even define what "the sound of live acoustic music" is in
such a way that it could be used as a standard of comparison?
Until you can answer my question, your question is meaningless.
bob
Your question doesn't address the LOGIC of my question at all. From a
simply logical point of view, who is more qualified to detect the sound
of live music...the person who hears it everyday, or the person who has
NEVER heard it? This should be simple to answer. That you don't seem
to wish to speaks volumes, in my opinion.
|
That they hear music every day does not--logically--mean that musicians are
better at evaluating it from the point of view of the listener than is a
person hearing it out front for the first time. A person who performs music
every day may NEVER hear it as the audience does.
Your statement may be true, but logic doesn't compel it.
Norm Strong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:22 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
bob wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
In article <dl13uh0uo2@news1.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Thanks for your input. My logical point, however, remains. IF the goal
is to reproduce, to the extent possible, the sound of live acoustic
music, the well-trained musician is obviously the most qualified to
judge that, on average. You didn't respond to my example, and I would
be curious to know your response: Who is more qualified to detect the
sound of live music.... the person who hears it everyday, or the person
who has NEVER heard it?
Let me answer your question with a question: How would you demonstrate
that one person was better than another person at determining which of
two audio reproduction systems was closer to the sound of live acoustic
music? It is one thing for you to declare something "logical" and
"obvious," but it remains unproven. So how would you prove it? How
would you even define what "the sound of live acoustic music" is in
such a way that it could be used as a standard of comparison?
Until you can answer my question, your question is meaningless.
bob
Your question doesn't address the LOGIC of my question at all.
There *is* no logic to your question. That's the problem. See below for
an explanation.
From a
simply logical point of view, who is more qualified to detect the sound
of live music...the person who hears it everyday, or the person who has
NEVER heard it? This should be simple to answer. That you don't seem
to wish to speaks volumes, in my opinion.
I don't answer it because it cannot be answered. You are trying to make
an empirical statement: "Trained musicians are better than
non-musicians at doing X."
|
No, she's not. She is trying to get you to answer a simple question.
You know that if you give the obvious answer, the rest of your argument
will start to crumble, so you must avoid giving the obvious answer at
all costs.
| Quote: | But the most basic requirement of an
empirical statement is that it be testable. Your statement isn't
testable, because you cannot define in any independent way what X is.
So when you turn your statement into a question--"Who do you think
would be better at doing X?"--the only answer I can give is, Who the
hell knows? You can't even tell me what X is.
|
We certainly can't tell *you* what X is, just as we can't explain the
experience of colors to a blind person.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:52 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | Good gosh, bob; the contortions you are going through to avoid answering
a simple question!
|
It is not a simple question, as any good logician could explain to you.
| Quote: | Do you really think that it's not "testable" that a
person who hears live music every day would be better at identifying
live music than someone who has NEVER heard live music? OF COURSE what
"X" is is defined as "music, performed live."
|
Yes, I do not think it is testable. I asked you how you would test it,
and you still haven't answered that question. That's all the evidence I
need.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in