| Author |
Message |
Jenn
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:53 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dl804v060a@news1.newsguy.com>, <normanstrong@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dl5b940b30@news1.newsguy.com...
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.
|
I'm sorry, but I don't follow this reasoning at all. Are you truly
saying that a person experiencing something for the FIRST TIME may be
better at evaluating a thing? Is a person eating a strawberry for the
FIRST TIME as capable of identifying the taste of a strawberry as one
who eats them everyday?
| Quote: | A person who performs music
every day may NEVER hear it as the audience does.
|
I've never encountered such a musician.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:55 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | In article <dl61g902m2k@news2.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
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."
|
Now, Jenn, you're not being logical at all. Bob asked you what X is in
the question "Who do you think is better at doing X?". If "X" is defined
as "music, performed live", your question then becomes "Who do you think
would be better at doing music, performed live?". I think Bob will agree
that the answer is musicians, but that has nothing to do with listening
ability with respect to audio equipment, which is what we are talking about.
Bob's point, which both you and Mark Mossey missed, is that in order to
be able to say that person A is better than person B in "detecting the
sound of live music in audio reproduction gear", you have to first
explain how you can measure that ability.
And why would you think that the expert listener (who may not be a
musician), one who has vast experience listening to various recordings
through audio gear, is not better than musicians in detecting the sonic
differences among gear? Using your logic, the person who has more
experience doing it would be better at doing it, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:59 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Chung wrote:
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.
|
Have you ever admitted being wrong? Here is what you said: "*HE* said
the original. He did not say the master recording." And you said that
his motto seems to be the same as Jenn's and yours.
| Quote: | 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.
|
If you don't understand that, then there is simply no point in
discussing audio reproduction with you, since you do not believe there
is any way to measure accuracy to the original.
Let me explain it to you
| Quote: | 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 why is LP different?
| Quote: | and it has no sound of it's own, period.
|
So what do you think the bits mean? Or what the pits in the LP mean?
| Quote: | so
to use it as a reference is impossible and the idea of fidelity to it
is meaningless. Unless you are duping it.
|
In that case fidelity in audio reproduction is meaningless to you. Which
I suspect is your position is all along. Ever wonder when the EE's
design audio equipment, what specs are they designing to? Why do they
worry about frequency response, distortion, or bit error rates? Since
the recording has no sound of its own, there is no way to deviate from
the recording, right? Why would you even buy a recording, if it has no
sound of its own?
Once again, you are incredible.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dl892m0e6g@news1.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
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.
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
|
It's not practical to test every opinion in life, Bob. If I were forced
to test the obvious, then I would put some musicians and some speakers
behind a screen and see which ones the testees could identify correctly.
Now let's return to the practical world, shall we? A person has NEVER
heard live music. Would you hire him/her to detect the sound of live
music for you? I'm trying to make answering this question as easy as I
can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: | Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
Chung wrote:
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.
Have you ever admitted being wrong?
|
of course. have you?
| Quote: | Here is what you said: "*HE* said
the original. He did not say the master recording." And you said that
his motto seems to be the same as Jenn's and yours.
|
And as you can see directly below I went on to challenge his position.
shouldn't it be obvious that I disagree with it? Do I have to spell it
out to you that if I am now challenging his position that I am no
longer claiming that I share it?
| Quote: |
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.
If you don't understand that,
|
That being what? His opinion or my opinion of his opinion?
| Quote: | then there is simply no point in
discussing audio reproduction with you, since you do not believe there
is any way to measure accuracy to the original.
|
Prove me wrong. Do show an example of "the original" that being the
signal on the master tape having an independent sound by which you can
judge the sound of any and all playback?
| Quote: |
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 why is LP different?
|
Because it has a mechanical interface. One can actually get a sound out
of an LP by playing it. It's not a sound *I* would use as a reference
but it is at least a sound. I confess, I expected you to nitpick when I
claimed that no "originals" that being what is "encoded in the storage
medium" (see above for your original quote) had no sound of their own
by claiming that LPs, 45s, 78s and Edison discs do in fact make a sound
of their own when played.
| Quote: |
and it has no sound of it's own, period.
So what do you think the bits mean? Or what the pits in the LP mean?
|
Nothing until put it through a playback system. What do you think they
*sound like* without a playback system? Don't you see the obvious
problem with *your* idea of a reference? It either has no sound or the
sound of a playback system entangled in it. Like I said, if you want to
use a playback system as a reference for judging other playback systems
that is your choice but I prefer the sound of live acoustic music as my
reference point since i like that sound better.
| Quote: |
so
to use it as a reference is impossible and the idea of fidelity to it
is meaningless. Unless you are duping it.
In that case fidelity in audio reproduction is meaningless to you.
|
No,to me it means truth to the original as *I* see the original, live
acoustic music. But yes, your concept of fidelity is meaningless to me
because it does not involve fidelity to a sound. that is the point of
audio is it not? The sound? Or maybe you are more interested in the
measured electrical distortions of given components. I am only
interested in such things in so far as they affect the inal sound I
hear. I'm more of a forrest kind of guy. Maybe you are more of a tree
kind of guy. Maybe you are more concerned about the measured
distortion from component to component than what the final sound is.
Where as I am more concerned about the final sound than the measured
performance of each individual component. Let's face it, you start your
measuring in the middle of the chain, what's "encoded in the torage
medium" (see above for quote) which happens to be an inaudible signal.
Yeah, I think fidelity to an inaudible signal that is in the middle of
the recording/playback chain is pretty meaningless when we are talking
about fidelity in *audio.* You know, what we use to listen to
recordings of music.
| Quote: | Which
I suspect is your position is all along. Ever wonder when the EE's
design audio equipment, what specs are they designing to?
|
Which EEs? The one's that designed the equipment I listen to? No, I
don't wonder. I actually asked Bill Johnson about his design criteria.
If you want to read up on it here is a link.
http://www.audioresearch.com/about.html
| Quote: | Why do they
worry about frequency response, distortion, or bit error rates?
|
For whom do you speak? Here is the answer to your question as to why
the designer of my equipment does what he does.
"Audio Research was instrumental in refocusing the audio industry on
designing products for musical performance, and not merely for the sake
of new technology or mass-market pricing."
"Today, Audio Research remains a performance-oriented company by
philosophy and design."
"The faithful reproduction of music, through playback equipment
intelligently designed and manufactured to the highest standards, was
our original first priority, and remains so today. "
http://www.audioresearch.com/
Since
| Quote: | the recording has no sound of its own, there is no way to deviate from
the recording, right? Why would you even buy a recording, if it has no
sound of its own?
|
Of course there is. I never asid the *signal* cannot be altered did I?
Please try to keep up with what i am saying. What i am saying is you
cannot use that *signal* as a reference when judging *sound* of
playback since it hs no intrinsic *sound* of it's own. Our difference
really lies in our opinions on what does and does not alter that signal
and whether or not it is OK to do so for the sake of more life like
sound using one's experience with live acoustic music as a reference.
IMO whatever gets you closer to that is more important and it appears
that whatever does less *IYO* not mine, to alter an electrical signal
wihin the system is more important. to each his own.
| Quote: |
Once again, you are incredible.
|
Once agin you fail to see outside that tunnel infront of your provebial
eyes.
Scott
P.S, Please get back to me when you have an example of something
encoded on a storage medium that has an intrinsic sound that can be
used as a reference for judging playback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: | And why would you think that the expert listener (who may not be a
musician), one who has vast experience listening to various recordings
through audio gear, is not better than musicians in detecting the sonic
differences among gear? Using your logic, the person who has more
experience doing it would be better at doing it, right?
|
Oh my.... A person has NEVER heard live music. Would you hire him/her
to detect the sound of live music? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: | 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 why is LP different?
and it has no sound of it's own, period.
So what do you think the bits mean? Or what the pits in the LP mean?
|
Sorry, I meant to say "grooves" in the LP, instead of pits (which may be
present also). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Chung wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob's point, which both you and Mark Mossey missed, is that in order to
be able to say that person A is better than person B in "detecting the
sound of live music in audio reproduction gear", you have to first
explain how you can measure that ability.
|
I've avoided the word "measure" in this discussion, because I don't
mean (and I don't think Chung means) that you need to be able to hook
up a few alligator clips and watch the needles. But you do need some
objectively defined standard.
Consider: Jenn and Chung listen to a recording on two different
systems. Jenn says System #1 sounds more like live acoustic music.
Chung says System #2 sounds more like live acoustic music. How do we
decide who's right?
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in