| Author |
Message |
Jenn
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Hi all,
The discussion of which I've been a part here HAS to be incredibly
boring to a majority of readers, so I'll be happy to put an end to it
from my "side". After being away from my computer for the weekend and
thus reading a group of further posts this morning, allow me to simply
summarize my thoughts on this topic as a way of putting a "period" on it
from me:
1. I've not tried to speak for any other musicians here, but only for
myself. MY particular standard is the sound of live acoustic music,
unamplified. I agree that my standard is not as applicable to rap,
rock, etc. I'm very familiar with some of that music as are many of you
are, but the standard obviously doesn't apply. I substitute as the
accompanist for a really well-known (legendary, really) folk music trio
in addition to my classical music profession, and I know from that
experience and others that our sound is at the mercy of PA systems in
the hall where we are performing.
2. I agree that if I wanted to know what was causing the sound of, say,
two preamps to sound different, I would need to demure to someone who is
skilled in that area, since I'm not. I value those to can make
measurements and who interpret those readings to make improvements in
the sound of a system.
3. It simply makes sense to me that the opinions of someone who is
skilled, experienced, and trained in the sound of acoustic music is an
excellent judge of how a system is replaying the sound of acoustic
music. This is logical. Consider the extreme case: Whose opinion
would you consider more highly; the person who hears acoustic music
everyday in a variety of settings, or a person who has never heard live
acoustic music at all?
4. Consideration of the above is in no way "bragging" on my part.
Hearing subtle differences in musical sounds is simply what I do and
what I am trained to discern, just as those who measure THD, understand
transistors, cook, or manufacture widgets are skilled in those areas.
5. I don't know why preamps or CD players sound different to me, even
under blind conditions, but they do, just as two trumpets that SHOULD
sound the same don't. Maybe we'll figure that out someday.
6. I don't know why so much digital gives me a headache and sounds
unlike music to me, but it does. I wish that it didn't, as it's
undoubtably the more convenient format. I know that many musicians with
good ears who I know feel the same way (Frederick Fennell, Marin Alsop,
Richard Todd, Jeffery Kahane, Peter Yarrow, many others).
Meanwhile, happy listening!
Peace,
Jenn
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | Hi all,
The discussion of which I've been a part here HAS to be incredibly
boring to a majority of readers, so I'll be happy to put an end to it
from my "side". After being away from my computer for the weekend and
thus reading a group of further posts this morning, allow me to simply
summarize my thoughts on this topic as a way of putting a "period" on it
from me:
|
Allow me to respond in the same spirit:
| Quote: | 1. I've not tried to speak for any other musicians here, but only for
myself. MY particular standard is the sound of live acoustic music,
unamplified. I agree that my standard is not as applicable to rap,
rock, etc. I'm very familiar with some of that music as are many of you
are, but the standard obviously doesn't apply. I substitute as the
accompanist for a really well-known (legendary, really) folk music trio
in addition to my classical music profession, and I know from that
experience and others that our sound is at the mercy of PA systems in
the hall where we are performing.
|
Most of us presumably want our systems to sound "live." I think "the
sound of live acoustic music" is indeterminate--the permutations of
instruments, ensembles, halls, and players are too numerous to serve as
"a standard." What I think we all really do is create in our minds an
*idealization* of the sound of live acoustic music, and that
idealization becomes our standard. Obviously, that idealization is
going to be partly a matter of preferences and taste, so it's probably
not meaningful to say that one person's ideal is better than another's.
| Quote: | 2. I agree that if I wanted to know what was causing the sound of, say,
two preamps to sound different, I would need to demure to someone who is
skilled in that area, since I'm not. I value those to can make
measurements and who interpret those readings to make improvements in
the sound of a system.
|
Measurements are not the only way to do this. One can learn to identify
certain sonic characteristics of gear, just as one can learn to
identify certain sonic characteristics of musical instruments. The two
sets of characteristics are very different, and therefore one must
learn them separately.
| Quote: | 3. It simply makes sense to me that the opinions of someone who is
skilled, experienced, and trained in the sound of acoustic music is an
excellent judge of how a system is replaying the sound of acoustic
music. This is logical. Consider the extreme case: Whose opinion
would you consider more highly; the person who hears acoustic music
everyday in a variety of settings, or a person who has never heard live
acoustic music at all?
|
As I said above, I don't think "live" works as a standard the way you
want it to work. As for who I would trust, I would definitely not trust
someone who regularly chose a highly distorting medium as more
realistic than a low-distortion medium. Nor would I trust anyone who
claimed to find differences in realism among components that she really
couldn't distinguish at all. But that's just me.
| Quote: | 4. Consideration of the above is in no way "bragging" on my part.
Hearing subtle differences in musical sounds is simply what I do and
what I am trained to discern, just as those who measure THD, understand
transistors, cook, or manufacture widgets are skilled in those areas.
|
And those who train to hear THD, or FR anomalies.
| Quote: | 5. I don't know why preamps or CD players sound different to me, even
under blind conditions, but they do, just as two trumpets that SHOULD
sound the same don't. Maybe we'll figure that out someday.
|
Trumpets are mechanical devices. It does not surprise me at all that
they would sound different enough that people skilled at discerning
those differences could hear them. Under the right circumstances, they
might even sound different enough that the unskilled could hear them.
As for CD players, I do not believe you could distinguish most of them
blind, under any conditions. If you can, you will be the first.
| Quote: | 6. I don't know why so much digital gives me a headache and sounds
unlike music to me, but it does. I wish that it didn't, as it's
undoubtably the more convenient format. I know that many musicians with
good ears who I know feel the same way (Frederick Fennell, Marin Alsop,
Richard Todd, Jeffery Kahane, Peter Yarrow, many others).
|
The rapid and widespread adoption of the CD by the music world suggests
that yours is hardly a universal view, and likely not even a majority
view, within that world. Perhaps, as I suggested above, it comes down
to a simple preference.
bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dkrpdf01e9j@news3.newsguy.com>, "bob" <nabob33@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
Hi all,
The discussion of which I've been a part here HAS to be incredibly
boring to a majority of readers, so I'll be happy to put an end to it
from my "side". After being away from my computer for the weekend and
thus reading a group of further posts this morning, allow me to simply
summarize my thoughts on this topic as a way of putting a "period" on it
from me:
Allow me to respond in the same spirit:
1. I've not tried to speak for any other musicians here, but only for
myself. MY particular standard is the sound of live acoustic music,
unamplified. I agree that my standard is not as applicable to rap,
rock, etc. I'm very familiar with some of that music as are many of you
are, but the standard obviously doesn't apply. I substitute as the
accompanist for a really well-known (legendary, really) folk music trio
in addition to my classical music profession, and I know from that
experience and others that our sound is at the mercy of PA systems in
the hall where we are performing.
Most of us presumably want our systems to sound "live." I think "the
sound of live acoustic music" is indeterminate--the permutations of
instruments, ensembles, halls, and players are too numerous to serve as
"a standard." What I think we all really do is create in our minds an
*idealization* of the sound of live acoustic music, and that
idealization becomes our standard. Obviously, that idealization is
going to be partly a matter of preferences and taste, so it's probably
not meaningful to say that one person's ideal is better than another's.
2. I agree that if I wanted to know what was causing the sound of, say,
two preamps to sound different, I would need to demure to someone who is
skilled in that area, since I'm not. I value those to can make
measurements and who interpret those readings to make improvements in
the sound of a system.
Measurements are not the only way to do this. One can learn to identify
certain sonic characteristics of gear, just as one can learn to
identify certain sonic characteristics of musical instruments. The two
sets of characteristics are very different, and therefore one must
learn them separately.
3. It simply makes sense to me that the opinions of someone who is
skilled, experienced, and trained in the sound of acoustic music is an
excellent judge of how a system is replaying the sound of acoustic
music. This is logical. Consider the extreme case: Whose opinion
would you consider more highly; the person who hears acoustic music
everyday in a variety of settings, or a person who has never heard live
acoustic music at all?
As I said above, I don't think "live" works as a standard the way you
want it to work. As for who I would trust, I would definitely not trust
someone who regularly chose a highly distorting medium as more
realistic than a low-distortion medium. Nor would I trust anyone who
claimed to find differences in realism among components that she really
couldn't distinguish at all. But that's just me.
4. Consideration of the above is in no way "bragging" on my part.
Hearing subtle differences in musical sounds is simply what I do and
what I am trained to discern, just as those who measure THD, understand
transistors, cook, or manufacture widgets are skilled in those areas.
And those who train to hear THD, or FR anomalies.
5. I don't know why preamps or CD players sound different to me, even
under blind conditions, but they do, just as two trumpets that SHOULD
sound the same don't. Maybe we'll figure that out someday.
Trumpets are mechanical devices. It does not surprise me at all that
they would sound different enough that people skilled at discerning
those differences could hear them. Under the right circumstances, they
might even sound different enough that the unskilled could hear them.
As for CD players, I do not believe you could distinguish most of them
blind, under any conditions. If you can, you will be the first.
6. I don't know why so much digital gives me a headache and sounds
unlike music to me, but it does. I wish that it didn't, as it's
undoubtably the more convenient format. I know that many musicians with
good ears who I know feel the same way (Frederick Fennell, Marin Alsop,
Richard Todd, Jeffery Kahane, Peter Yarrow, many others).
The rapid and widespread adoption of the CD by the music world suggests
that yours is hardly a universal view, and likely not even a majority
view, within that world. Perhaps, as I suggested above, it comes down
to a simple preference.
bob
|
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? I grant that the person who can hear and detect
THD or FR abnormalities has his/her place. But if the goal is the best
imitation of live acoustic music, it is obviously logical that the
person most familiar with that sound will be the better judge of that.
OF COURSE there are a variety of variables that affect the sound of live
music, and that only supports my point. The musician is the person who
hears music in all of those variable situations. Just as Sinatra sang
in a variety of live situations, different rooms, different PAs, etc.
but those who actually heard him sing in a variety of situations is FAR
more likely to detect a person imitating his voice compared to his
actual voice REGARDLESS of the acoustic situation. Being familiar with
the original is key. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
bob wrote:
| Quote: | Jenn wrote:
Hi all,
The discussion of which I've been a part here HAS to be incredibly
boring to a majority of readers, so I'll be happy to put an end to it
from my "side". After being away from my computer for the weekend and
thus reading a group of further posts this morning, allow me to simply
summarize my thoughts on this topic as a way of putting a "period" on it
from me:
Allow me to respond in the same spirit:
1. I've not tried to speak for any other musicians here, but only for
myself. MY particular standard is the sound of live acoustic music,
unamplified. I agree that my standard is not as applicable to rap,
rock, etc. I'm very familiar with some of that music as are many of you
are, but the standard obviously doesn't apply. I substitute as the
accompanist for a really well-known (legendary, really) folk music trio
in addition to my classical music profession, and I know from that
experience and others that our sound is at the mercy of PA systems in
the hall where we are performing.
Most of us presumably want our systems to sound "live." I think "the
sound of live acoustic music" is indeterminate--the permutations of
instruments, ensembles, halls, and players are too numerous to serve as
"a standard." What I think we all really do is create in our minds an
*idealization* of the sound of live acoustic music, and that
idealization becomes our standard.
|
If you are going to theorize about what people do "in our minds," you
might be interested in how a few of them describe what they are doing.
I think the concepts of "idealization" is leading you astray. Well, it
might describe what *you* do in your mind, but not what I do nor what
Jenn does as far as I can tell. (Curiously, it is this very concept,
for which I doubt you have any reliable/repeatable evidence, that
allows you to persist in believing that a musician could be "taken in"
by a monolithic distortion and fooled into thinking the sound is more
accurate.)
Rather than say I have an "idealization" of music in my mind, I say
that I have pattern-recognition machinery.
Everyone has their own set of patterns about which they care, and other
patterns that go in the background.
If you have been following the literature on psychology for the last
few decades, you may have noticed that humans are *abstract*
pattern-finding machines. The details of a pattern are not as important
as some deeper abstract concept. The same pattern can be recognized in
different situations.
When Jenn says she is familiar with the sound of live music, she means
that she is highly tuned to certain patterns and can distinguish
between them.. but they are *abstract* patterns. Some of these
patterns, such as the sound of a Bach 43 trombone, can be recognized in
different acoustic environments, at different volume levels, with
different pitches, and so on.
Amazingly enough, they can be recognized with different microphones and
speakers.
Jenn also means she is highly attuned to the patterns that comprise
musical expression.. whatever it is that defines the right tone, the
right phrasing, the right articulation for the desired effect.
Someone who is highly familiar with certain patterns, *abstracted
patterns*, can listen to an audio reproduction and ask if they are
present or not.. or how clear they are.
So, when listening to music, are we "comparing to an ideal" or
"activating abstract pattern recognizers"? It is clear that you know
how you describe your own experience (you feel perfectly free
theorizing about what's going in your own mind, while when others do
so, it is "pseudoscientific"). As far as my question, it would be
interesting to see if you've thought about how to distinguish these
possibilities, or what you consider to be reliable and repeatable
evidence apropos.
Note that a pattern recognition system doesn't need to contain a
representation of the thing it recognizes. For example, a neural net
that recognizes the visual appearance of the number five might
represent a series of relationships among parts of the number, but not
contain an actual image of "5".
Furthermore, your assertion that people like their "idealized concept"
because live music is so variable anyway, starts to fall apart when we
look at the many cases where very specific recordings were matched to
very specific live sound.
You might recall that Jenn knows Frederick Fennel and has heard a lot
of his conducting. She knows what patterns he strives to create, and
found those more accurately represented on vinyl (in a recording that
took place in a hall she knew well, if I remember right). Even more to
point, the recording engineers who find analog to be more accurate have
the live and reproduced sound directly available to them.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: |
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? I grant that the person who can hear and detect
THD or FR abnormalities has his/her place. But if the goal is the best
imitation of live acoustic music, it is obviously logical that the
person most familiar with that sound will be the better judge of that.
OF COURSE there are a variety of variables that affect the sound of live
music, and that only supports my point. The musician is the person who
hears music in all of those variable situations. Just as Sinatra sang
in a variety of live situations, different rooms, different PAs, etc.
but those who actually heard him sing in a variety of situations is FAR
more likely to detect a person imitating his voice compared to his
actual voice REGARDLESS of the acoustic situation. Being familiar with
the original is key.
|
Jenn, just curious how you would address Bob's point that there is no
"original" since live music varies (different acoustics, players,
instruments, etc.). (Of course, if you are trying to exit this
discussion gracefully, never mind.) I think it is obvious you know what
qualities various live venues have in common.
A question for Bob, also: apparently you feel CD sounds more like live
music. Can you describe your experience of CD and live music: what do
they have in common? I'm talking about the subjective experience of it.
Consider in your answer that sound on CD varies and the sound of live
music varies.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dkupke07q7@news2.newsguy.com>, michaelmossey@yahoo.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? I grant that the person who can hear and detect
THD or FR abnormalities has his/her place. But if the goal is the best
imitation of live acoustic music, it is obviously logical that the
person most familiar with that sound will be the better judge of that.
OF COURSE there are a variety of variables that affect the sound of live
music, and that only supports my point. The musician is the person who
hears music in all of those variable situations. Just as Sinatra sang
in a variety of live situations, different rooms, different PAs, etc.
but those who actually heard him sing in a variety of situations is FAR
more likely to detect a person imitating his voice compared to his
actual voice REGARDLESS of the acoustic situation. Being familiar with
the original is key.
Jenn, just curious how you would address Bob's point that there is no
"original" since live music varies (different acoustics, players,
instruments, etc.). (Of course, if you are trying to exit this
discussion gracefully, never mind.) I think it is obvious you know what
qualities various live venues have in common.
|
I think that the point is, well, pointless. Obviously there are
variables in live acoustic sound in the areas of venue, recording
techniques, performers, instruments, and on and on. But just as obvious
is the fact that there are qualities that distinguish live acoustic
sounds from other sources. For example, it is quite easy to distinguish
the sound of acoustic instruments, regardless of all of the variables,
from the sound of synthesized or sampled sounds. There isn't a synth or
a sample that can fool a person who is highly experienced with the sound
of acoustic instruments. So while the sound of live acoustic music
varies, the qualities that make it unique are easy to distinguish and
easy to screw up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dkuddn02vc8@news1.newsguy.com>, michaelmossey@yahoo.com
wrote:
| Quote: | bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Hi all,
The discussion of which I've been a part here HAS to be incredibly
boring to a majority of readers, so I'll be happy to put an end to it
from my "side". After being away from my computer for the weekend and
thus reading a group of further posts this morning, allow me to simply
summarize my thoughts on this topic as a way of putting a "period" on it
from me:
Allow me to respond in the same spirit:
1. I've not tried to speak for any other musicians here, but only for
myself. MY particular standard is the sound of live acoustic music,
unamplified. I agree that my standard is not as applicable to rap,
rock, etc. I'm very familiar with some of that music as are many of you
are, but the standard obviously doesn't apply. I substitute as the
accompanist for a really well-known (legendary, really) folk music trio
in addition to my classical music profession, and I know from that
experience and others that our sound is at the mercy of PA systems in
the hall where we are performing.
Most of us presumably want our systems to sound "live." I think "the
sound of live acoustic music" is indeterminate--the permutations of
instruments, ensembles, halls, and players are too numerous to serve as
"a standard." What I think we all really do is create in our minds an
*idealization* of the sound of live acoustic music, and that
idealization becomes our standard.
If you are going to theorize about what people do "in our minds," you
might be interested in how a few of them describe what they are doing.
I think the concepts of "idealization" is leading you astray. Well, it
might describe what *you* do in your mind, but not what I do nor what
Jenn does as far as I can tell. (Curiously, it is this very concept,
for which I doubt you have any reliable/repeatable evidence, that
allows you to persist in believing that a musician could be "taken in"
by a monolithic distortion and fooled into thinking the sound is more
accurate.)
Rather than say I have an "idealization" of music in my mind, I say
that I have pattern-recognition machinery.
Everyone has their own set of patterns about which they care, and other
patterns that go in the background.
If you have been following the literature on psychology for the last
few decades, you may have noticed that humans are *abstract*
pattern-finding machines. The details of a pattern are not as important
as some deeper abstract concept. The same pattern can be recognized in
different situations.
When Jenn says she is familiar with the sound of live music, she means
that she is highly tuned to certain patterns and can distinguish
between them.. but they are *abstract* patterns. Some of these
patterns, such as the sound of a Bach 43 trombone, can be recognized in
different acoustic environments, at different volume levels, with
different pitches, and so on.
|
True. BTW, I have an old 42 B myself. :-)
| Quote: |
Amazingly enough, they can be recognized with different microphones and
speakers.
Jenn also means she is highly attuned to the patterns that comprise
musical expression.. whatever it is that defines the right tone, the
right phrasing, the right articulation for the desired effect.
Someone who is highly familiar with certain patterns, *abstracted
patterns*, can listen to an audio reproduction and ask if they are
present or not.. or how clear they are.
So, when listening to music, are we "comparing to an ideal" or
"activating abstract pattern recognizers"? It is clear that you know
how you describe your own experience (you feel perfectly free
theorizing about what's going in your own mind, while when others do
so, it is "pseudoscientific"). As far as my question, it would be
interesting to see if you've thought about how to distinguish these
possibilities, or what you consider to be reliable and repeatable
evidence apropos.
Note that a pattern recognition system doesn't need to contain a
representation of the thing it recognizes. For example, a neural net
that recognizes the visual appearance of the number five might
represent a series of relationships among parts of the number, but not
contain an actual image of "5".
Furthermore, your assertion that people like their "idealized concept"
because live music is so variable anyway, starts to fall apart when we
look at the many cases where very specific recordings were matched to
very specific live sound.
You might recall that Jenn knows Frederick Fennel and has heard a lot
of his conducting. She knows what patterns he strives to create, and
found those more accurately represented on vinyl (in a recording that
took place in a hall she knew well, if I remember right).
|
I studied with Fred Fennell from 1980 until his death last December.
Most of his recordings (the ones for Mercury) were made in the Eastman
Theater, and I know the sound of that hall very well. The only
recording session of FF's that I was present for was his first session
for Telarc in Cleveland in 1978, while I was just getting out of
undergrad school. This was the recording session that resulted in the
first digital classical release in the U.S. I heard all of the two day
session and all of the playbacks from the Soundstream recorder.
| Quote: | Even more to
point, the recording engineers who find analog to be more accurate have
the live and reproduced sound directly available to them.
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
---MIKE---
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: | There isn't a synth or a sample that can
fool a person who is highly
experienced with the sound of acoustic
instruments. So while the sound of live
acoustic music varies, the qualities
that make it unique are easy to
distinguish and easy to screw up.
|
Many years ago (long before digital) I went to a showing of Cinerama in
Boston. The music reproduction (classical, orchestral) was SO good that
I couldn't believe there wasn't an orchestra present. It must have been
tape but it sure was good.
---MIKE---
| Quote: | In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
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. Or even dialog, or
sound effects, or rap music. I suggest that this is a much more worthy
goal to pursuit.
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. 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."
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
bob 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.
|
See below.
| Quote: | 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.
|
Your question is silly.
Okay. I don't think there are any patterns in the music's of Mozart and
Beethoven that can be used to tell them apart. Every composition by
either composer is unique. Prove to me they can be distinguished in a
meaningful way... define precisely an algorithm that can be used to
distinguish them.
Can't do it? See, your assertion that there is a difference is
meaningless.
Now let me ask this: who is in a better position to judge the
distinction between their styles: someone who has never listened to
either composer's music, or a musician/musicologist who has studies and
plays their music every day?
Suppose we find a long-lost manuscript. Who is in a better position to
judge wether it is closer to Mozart's style or closer to Beehoven's?
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 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. 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?
| 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.
| 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.
| 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. 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." 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.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
chung <chunglau@covad.net> 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. 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, will not necessarily be as good or better at
saying what 'live' music sounds like, than a dedicated concert-goer.
And even *their* memory cannot be infallible when differences are subtle.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:09 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dl3hbc0863@news3.newsguy.com>, chung <chunglau@covad.net>
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. 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. 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. 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:10 am Post subject:
Re: Fine (fee-nay), in the Italian sense |
|
|
In article <dl3n260252v@news2.newsguy.com>,
Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> 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, will not necessarily be as good or better at
saying what 'live' music sounds like, than a dedicated concert-goer.
And even *their* memory cannot be infallible when differences are subtle.
|
1. Taken in isolation, you might have a point, but the "real life" of a
professional classical musician makes your point mute. I'm sorry that I
don't have the words to express it in a better way.... let me try this:
If one is judging whether a a painting is real or a forgery, it's not
just experience in viewing the piece from several feet away as it is
intended to be viewed that is valuable; the person who views the piece
from up close day after day, hour after hour and has an intimate
connection with the painter's use of color, brush strokes, etc. has a
unique and valuable perspective. 2. As I believe I've brought up
before, musicians (at least those who live their lives anything like I
live me, which is pretty typical) listen from the audience's perspective
at least as much as the dedicated concert-goer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in