Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:31:17 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <ftjg3l022vt@news4.newsguy,com >):
> bob <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 6:15 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>> Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
>>>
>>> that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there
>>> is
>>> a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is
>>> to
>>> say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
>>> people, I'm sure.
>
>> Agreed, absolutely.
>
> But you aren't listening 'through and around' them. What you are liking
> is THEIR effects on the recording.
No. That's not true. Who LIKES ticks and pops? Not me. I keep my records
scrupulously clean and try to avoid them. Tape-hiss, OTOH, is an artifact
that most people simply ignore. If it has an affect on the recording, then
the introduction of Dolby-A should have diminished the perceived "quality" of
vinyl reproduction. It didn't, it just made the records quieter. If
noticeable wow and flutter is present on a recording I either take it back
(hard to do these days) of I don't listen to the recording.
>>> If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
>>> "right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.
>
>> My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
>> like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
>> your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.
>
>>> The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
>>> compression.
>
>> Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
>> generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
>> I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.
>
> I'd say he hasn't done any blind comparisons of good lossy encodings,
> to their lossless counterparts.
And you'd say wrong. High bit-rate MP3 is OK, but the stuff Apple (for
instance, sells on the Apple Music Store is all 128 kbps, and if you can't
hear the musical mush THAT makes out of a recording, then you have no right
to call yourself an audiophile. It sounds AWFUL! BTW, "good lossy encodings"
is an oxymoron when your talking music download services. Ripping one's own
is another story, but I find that by the time I rip something at 320 kbps or
higher, I might as well use Apple Lossless - so I do.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:31:17 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <ftjg3l022vt@news4.newsguy,com >):
> bob <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 6:15 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>> Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
>>>
>>> that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there
>>> is
>>> a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is
>>> to
>>> say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
>>> people, I'm sure.
>
>> Agreed, absolutely.
>
> But you aren't listening 'through and around' them. What you are liking
> is THEIR effects on the recording.
No. That's not true. Who LIKES ticks and pops? Not me. I keep my records
scrupulously clean and try to avoid them. Tape-hiss, OTOH, is an artifact
that most people simply ignore. If it has an affect on the recording, then
the introduction of Dolby-A should have diminished the perceived "quality" of
vinyl reproduction. It didn't, it just made the records quieter. If
noticeable wow and flutter is present on a recording I either take it back
(hard to do these days) of I don't listen to the recording.
>>> If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
>>> "right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.
>
>> My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
>> like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
>> your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.
>
>>> The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
>>> compression.
>
>> Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
>> generations of analog tape? (I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
>> I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.
>
> I'd say he hasn't done any blind comparisons of good lossy encodings,
> to their lossless counterparts.
And you'd say wrong. High bit-rate MP3 is OK, but the stuff Apple (for
instance, sells on the Apple Music Store is all 128 kbps, and if you can't
hear the musical mush THAT makes out of a recording, then you have no right
to call yourself an audiophile. It sounds AWFUL! BTW, "good lossy encodings"
is an oxymoron when your talking music download services. Ripping one's own
is another story, but I find that by the time I rip something at 320 kbps or
higher, I might as well use Apple Lossless - so I do.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:33:16 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <fth9tc025a9@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 8, 6:15 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
>> that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
>> a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
>> say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
>> people, I'm sure.
>
> Agreed, absolutely.
>
>> If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
>> "right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.
>
> My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
> like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
> your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.
Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU. That it
might sound different to me doesn't matter because it also always sounds the
same way to ME too.
>
>> The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
>> compression.
>
> Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
> generations of analog tape?
It depends upon how many generations. I certainly prefer tape hiss to
compression artifacts.
Case in point about lossy compression. I've never been much of an iTunes
music store downloader, but recently, I downloaded two "albums" from them.
One was the soundtrack to "The Mummy 2" and secondly, was a large album of
the Music of Miklos Rozsa. Both were standard downloads, done at 128 kbps,
and both were UNLISTENABLE. Veiled, homogenized, lacking in real dynamics,
musical mush is my best description. I've never heard any muti-generaltion
analog audio tape that bad. I've also heard (heard, hell, I own them) some
pretty nasty sounding LPs in my time as well, but again, nothing this bad. A
friend loaned me his CD copy of "The Mummy 2" soundtrack and I ripped it
using Apple Lossless Compression. The difference is so great that its
ludicrous. It's hard to believe that the two versions were both from the same
source material. I ordered the Rozsa from Amazon, and it sounds very good too
(although much of that compilation is from analog source material recorded in
the 1970's and 1980's). I ripped it using ALC as well. I connect my Apple TV
box to my stereo via a long TOSLINK cable to my outboard D/A converter, and
now when I play these two albums they sound at least as good as the CD.
(I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
> I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.
Then, I'd say that you don't have a lot of experience with analog. The kinds
of distortion that build up mult-generational with analog tape aren't that
audible until one gets at least 4 generations away from the master. Also,
most records were cut with master tapes no more than two generations down
from the master. Since pro recording was always done at at least 15 ips, and
more likely 30 ips, the hiss isn't that bad in the first place.
But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you learn to listen
around those obstacles because the music is STILL there. With MP3 and other
lossy schemes, I find that the music sounds like its been put in a blender
and reduced to mush. Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other
words I find that I cannot listen around MP3 nastiness because the music
ISN'T still there. While I realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320 kbps, MP3 doesn't
sound all that bad, Apple is the largest online music store in the world and
they only give one the option of 128 kbps. I always thought that Sony's
Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better than MP3 and the downloads
available on Sony's on-line music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more
listenable than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line music
sources.
And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned music sins, whether
they be analog or digital has to do with my notion of "real music". Live
music has none of the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:33:16 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <fth9tc025a9@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 8, 6:15 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> Actually, I doubt that the OP meant ANY of the negative analog "artifacts"
>> that you mentioned. When one listens THROUGH or AROUND those things there is
>> a certain "alive" character to analog that many people prefer. And who is to
>> say that their preferences are wrong? Wrong for you, maybe . Wrong for many
>> people, I'm sure.
>
> Agreed, absolutely.
>
>> If one gets down to absolutes, there is only one absolute
>> "right" and that is the sound of real acoustic music played in real space.
>
> My sense of what "real acoustic music played in real space" sounds
> like is based on my experiences of it, which are very different from
> your experiences of it. So this is hardly an absolute at all.
Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU. That it
might sound different to me doesn't matter because it also always sounds the
same way to ME too.
>
>> The only thing that I find destructive to the sound of real music is lossy
>> compression.
>
> Seriously, you find that more destructive than, say, multiple
> generations of analog tape?
It depends upon how many generations. I certainly prefer tape hiss to
compression artifacts.
Case in point about lossy compression. I've never been much of an iTunes
music store downloader, but recently, I downloaded two "albums" from them.
One was the soundtrack to "The Mummy 2" and secondly, was a large album of
the Music of Miklos Rozsa. Both were standard downloads, done at 128 kbps,
and both were UNLISTENABLE. Veiled, homogenized, lacking in real dynamics,
musical mush is my best description. I've never heard any muti-generaltion
analog audio tape that bad. I've also heard (heard, hell, I own them) some
pretty nasty sounding LPs in my time as well, but again, nothing this bad. A
friend loaned me his CD copy of "The Mummy 2" soundtrack and I ripped it
using Apple Lossless Compression. The difference is so great that its
ludicrous. It's hard to believe that the two versions were both from the same
source material. I ordered the Rozsa from Amazon, and it sounds very good too
(although much of that compilation is from analog source material recorded in
the 1970's and 1980's). I ripped it using ALC as well. I connect my Apple TV
box to my stereo via a long TOSLINK cable to my outboard D/A converter, and
now when I play these two albums they sound at least as good as the CD.
(I'll leave vinyl out of this discussion.)
> I'd say you have a very odd notion of "the sound of real music," then.
Then, I'd say that you don't have a lot of experience with analog. The kinds
of distortion that build up mult-generational with analog tape aren't that
audible until one gets at least 4 generations away from the master. Also,
most records were cut with master tapes no more than two generations down
from the master. Since pro recording was always done at at least 15 ips, and
more likely 30 ips, the hiss isn't that bad in the first place.
But if you grew-up listening to tape and LP as I did, you learn to listen
around those obstacles because the music is STILL there. With MP3 and other
lossy schemes, I find that the music sounds like its been put in a blender
and reduced to mush. Mush that has nasty artifacts riding on it. In other
words I find that I cannot listen around MP3 nastiness because the music
ISN'T still there. While I realize that it's possible for one to use a higher
bit-rate when one is ripping their own CDs, and at 320 kbps, MP3 doesn't
sound all that bad, Apple is the largest online music store in the world and
they only give one the option of 128 kbps. I always thought that Sony's
Mini-Disc compression scheme sounded much better than MP3 and the downloads
available on Sony's on-line music store (now defunct) Sounded MUCH more
listenable than did the MP3s available from Apple and other on-line music
sources.
And, finally, I don't see what my tolerance for canned music sins, whether
they be analog or digital has to do with my notion of "real music". Live
music has none of the drawbacks of recording and storage schemes past or
present.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
> music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
> sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
bob
On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
> music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
> sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
bob
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
> wrote:
>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>> music played in real space will always sound the same
>> way to YOU.
>
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
> the same musician in five different halls. It never
> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
> is just more refined than most. :)
This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the same
groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some cases
even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
different, and all highly non-flat.
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
> wrote:
>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>> music played in real space will always sound the same
>> way to YOU.
>
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
> the same musician in five different halls. It never
> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
> is just more refined than most. :)
This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the same
groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some cases
even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
different, and all highly non-flat.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:ftmc1701n96@news4.newsguy,com ...
> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
>> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
>> wrote:
>>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
>>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
>>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
>>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>>> music played in real space will always sound the same
>>> way to YOU.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
>> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
>> the same musician in five different halls. It never
>> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
>> is just more refined than most. :)
>
> This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
> same
> groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
> cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
> cases
> even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
>
> I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
> space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
> different, and all highly non-flat.
Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music. Which
suggests why comparing components to our "gestalt recollection" of what
makes music sound "live" is a better standard than comparing two pieces of
"sound".
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:ftmc1701n96@news4.newsguy,com ...
> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
>> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
>> wrote:
>>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
>>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
>>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
>>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>>> music played in real space will always sound the same
>>> way to YOU.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
>> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
>> the same musician in five different halls. It never
>> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
>> is just more refined than most. :)
>
> This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
> same
> groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
> cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
> cases
> even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
>
> I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
> space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
> different, and all highly non-flat.
Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music. Which
suggests why comparing components to our "gestalt recollection" of what
makes music sound "live" is a better standard than comparing two pieces of
"sound".
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
Harry Lavo <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:ftmc1701n96@news4.newsguy,com ...
> > "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> > news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
> >> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
> >>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
> >>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
> >>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> >>> music played in real space will always sound the same
> >>> way to YOU.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
> >> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
> >> the same musician in five different halls. It never
> >> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
> >> is just more refined than most. :)
> >
> > This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
> > same
> > groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
> > cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
> > cases
> > even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
> >
> > I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
> > space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
> > different, and all highly non-flat.
> Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
> rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.
Aside from the obvious bias-inducing factor -- oen already KNOWs that the music is not live --
there's the fact that (2-channel) reproduced music does not accurately reproduce the spatial
information of the live event... a long-known deficit of the medium.
However, it's also interesting that many recordings and systems considered 'excellent' by
audiophiles, actually render live music in much more minute detail and with more finely etched
'imaging' , than one would be able to hear in a concert hall.
Which raises the question of how 'real' people really want music to sound at home.
___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
Harry Lavo <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:ftmc1701n96@news4.newsguy,com ...
> > "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
> > news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
> >> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
> >>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
> >>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
> >>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> >>> music played in real space will always sound the same
> >>> way to YOU.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
> >> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
> >> the same musician in five different halls. It never
> >> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
> >> is just more refined than most. :)
> >
> > This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
> > same
> > groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
> > cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
> > cases
> > even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
> >
> > I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
> > space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
> > different, and all highly non-flat.
> Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
> rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.
Aside from the obvious bias-inducing factor -- oen already KNOWs that the music is not live --
there's the fact that (2-channel) reproduced music does not accurately reproduce the spatial
information of the live event... a long-known deficit of the medium.
However, it's also interesting that many recordings and systems considered 'excellent' by
audiophiles, actually render live music in much more minute detail and with more finely etched
'imaging' , than one would be able to hear in a concert hall.
Which raises the question of how 'real' people really want music to sound at home.
___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:47:16 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <ftom9406qn@news3.newsguy,com >):
> Harry Lavo <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftmc1701n96@news4.newsguy,com ...
>>> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>>> news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
>>>> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
>>>>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
>>>>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
>>>>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>>>>> music played in real space will always sound the same
>>>>> way to YOU.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
>>>> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
>>>> the same musician in five different halls. It never
>>>> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
>>>> is just more refined than most. :)
>>>
>>> This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
>>> same
>>> groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
>>> cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
>>> cases
>>> even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
>>>
>>> I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
>>> space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
>>> different, and all highly non-flat.
>
>> Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
>> rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.
>
> Aside from the obvious bias-inducing factor -- oen already KNOWs that the
> music is not live --
> there's the fact that (2-channel) reproduced music does not accurately
> reproduce the spatial
> information of the live event... a long-known deficit of the medium.
>
> However, it's also interesting that many recordings and systems considered
> 'excellent' by
> audiophiles, actually render live music in much more minute detail and with
> more finely etched
> 'imaging' , than one would be able to hear in a concert hall.
Good point but kind of irrelevant. Whatever technical wizardly allows a
recording to have that marvelous soundstage or those minute details still
can't make a recorded trumpet sound like a real one. That's the basic flaw in
audio technology. That barrier between recorded and real has never been
breeched. I remember the Acoustic Research live vs recorded demonstrations
that they used to hold in their showroom on Broadway in NYC. I used to go
every time I was in New York (which was often in those days). I was rarely
fooled. Even though they used a small string ensemble (either a quartet or a
trio) and put a heavy scrim between the listeners and the players (and of
course the speakers). I think that they believed that the scrim would be the
great equalizer, but my 16 year-old ears could tell every time the group was
actually playing, though many who were there couldn't tell.
>
> Which raises the question of how 'real' people really want music to sound at
> home.
That's the supposed goal of High-Fidelity.
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:47:16 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <ftom9406qn@news3.newsguy,com >):
> Harry Lavo <hlavo@comcast,net > wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftmc1701n96@news4.newsguy,com ...
>>> "bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
>>> news:ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com
>>>> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Except that it has never been proven that people with
>>>>> normal hearing hear music all that differently. Anyway,
>>>>> it doesn't really matter whether it sounds different to
>>>>> each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>>>>> music played in real space will always sound the same
>>>>> way to YOU.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every
>>>> time I hear it. I've heard the same instrument played by
>>>> the same musician in five different halls. It never
>>>> sounds quite the same. But perhaps my hearing perception
>>>> is just more refined than most. :)
>>>
>>> This is so true. I get to hear the same groups singing and playing the
>>> same
>>> groups in different rooms, and its a vastly different experience. In many
>>> cases I get to move around while the groups are rehearsing and in some
>>> cases
>>> even while they are performing. There are plenty of differences.
>>>
>>> I've also measured the transfer function from the center of a performance
>>> space to various locations in that space, and of course they are all
>>> different, and all highly non-flat.
>
>> Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
>> rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.
>
> Aside from the obvious bias-inducing factor -- oen already KNOWs that the
> music is not live --
> there's the fact that (2-channel) reproduced music does not accurately
> reproduce the spatial
> information of the live event... a long-known deficit of the medium.
>
> However, it's also interesting that many recordings and systems considered
> 'excellent' by
> audiophiles, actually render live music in much more minute detail and with
> more finely etched
> 'imaging' , than one would be able to hear in a concert hall.
Good point but kind of irrelevant. Whatever technical wizardly allows a
recording to have that marvelous soundstage or those minute details still
can't make a recorded trumpet sound like a real one. That's the basic flaw in
audio technology. That barrier between recorded and real has never been
breeched. I remember the Acoustic Research live vs recorded demonstrations
that they used to hold in their showroom on Broadway in NYC. I used to go
every time I was in New York (which was often in those days). I was rarely
fooled. Even though they used a small string ensemble (either a quartet or a
trio) and put a heavy scrim between the listeners and the players (and of
course the speakers). I think that they believed that the scrim would be the
great equalizer, but my 16 year-old ears could tell every time the group was
actually playing, though many who were there couldn't tell.
>
> Which raises the question of how 'real' people really want music to sound at
> home.
That's the supposed goal of High-Fidelity.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
> rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.
The key word here is "rarely", which allows for the observable fact
that, occasionally we are indeed fooled. If we can be fooled at all
it is only then a matter of figuring out how to fool ourselves
reliably. A technical problem that is certainly solvable.
In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
We just don't know how to do it in a domestic environment with
domestically practical equipment yet.
> Which
> suggests why comparing components to our "gestalt recollection" of what
> makes music sound "live" is a better standard than comparing two pieces of
> "sound".
It doesn't even suggest "that", let alone suggesting "why".
On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast,net > wrote:
> Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
> rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.
The key word here is "rarely", which allows for the observable fact
that, occasionally we are indeed fooled. If we can be fooled at all
it is only then a matter of figuring out how to fool ourselves
reliably. A technical problem that is certainly solvable.
In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
We just don't know how to do it in a domestic environment with
domestically practical equipment yet.
> Which
> suggests why comparing components to our "gestalt recollection" of what
> makes music sound "live" is a better standard than comparing two pieces of
> "sound".
It doesn't even suggest "that", let alone suggesting "why".
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote:
> In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
> it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
Truly, I was waiting for this!
OK, AR did do this. On more than a very few occasions. Typically they
used a string quartet playing music typical of the species.
*Relatively* limited and of similar timbre, but not of frequency.
And a few more things:
a) They practiced the transitions very carefully to make them as
perceptibly seamless as possible.
b) They carefully chose the transitional passages to favor the
midrange of the speakers so that subsequent highs and lows would be of-
a-piece vs. in-the-middle-of.
c) They kept it to fairly small venues of very conventional design
with a very small central and surrounded stage. This favored the
directional nature of cone speakers.
And, with all that in mind, they most certainly did fool their
audiences to well within the margin of error for randomness. Further,
they did it with their standard available-for-sale-just-like-this
speaker line, and very late in the game even used their own AR
amplifier for the test. By todays standards a pretty crude beast -
although I like them very much and keep several of them (and their
receivers).
But, in a typical residential situation, even in a dedicated listening
room, the sort of artificial environment created by AR for their tests
simply does not happen. And it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that if AR had
chosen even a very small chamber orchestra with say... a harpsichord
or kettle drums or similar that they would have brought it off as
well.
Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote:
> In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
> it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
Truly, I was waiting for this!
OK, AR did do this. On more than a very few occasions. Typically they
used a string quartet playing music typical of the species.
*Relatively* limited and of similar timbre, but not of frequency.
And a few more things:
a) They practiced the transitions very carefully to make them as
perceptibly seamless as possible.
b) They carefully chose the transitional passages to favor the
midrange of the speakers so that subsequent highs and lows would be of-
a-piece vs. in-the-middle-of.
c) They kept it to fairly small venues of very conventional design
with a very small central and surrounded stage. This favored the
directional nature of cone speakers.
And, with all that in mind, they most certainly did fool their
audiences to well within the margin of error for randomness. Further,
they did it with their standard available-for-sale-just-like-this
speaker line, and very late in the game even used their own AR
amplifier for the test. By todays standards a pretty crude beast -
although I like them very much and keep several of them (and their
receivers).
But, in a typical residential situation, even in a dedicated listening
room, the sort of artificial environment created by AR for their tests
simply does not happen. And it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that if AR had
chosen even a very small chamber orchestra with say... a harpsichord
or kettle drums or similar that they would have brought it off as
well.
Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:55:50 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article <fu3bpm02um8@news5.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote:
>
>> In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
>> it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
>
> Truly, I was waiting for this!
>
> OK, AR did do this. On more than a very few occasions. Typically they
> used a string quartet playing music typical of the species.
> *Relatively* limited and of similar timbre, but not of frequency.
>
> And a few more things:
>
> a) They practiced the transitions very carefully to make them as
> perceptibly seamless as possible.
> b) They carefully chose the transitional passages to favor the
> midrange of the speakers so that subsequent highs and lows would be of-
> a-piece vs. in-the-middle-of.
> c) They kept it to fairly small venues of very conventional design
> with a very small central and surrounded stage. This favored the
> directional nature of cone speakers.
>
> And, with all that in mind, they most certainly did fool their
> audiences to well within the margin of error for randomness. Further,
> they did it with their standard available-for-sale-just-like-this
> speaker line, and very late in the game even used their own AR
> amplifier for the test. By todays standards a pretty crude beast -
> although I like them very much and keep several of them (and their
> receivers).
>
> But, in a typical residential situation, even in a dedicated listening
> room, the sort of artificial environment created by AR for their tests
> simply does not happen. And it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that if AR had
> chosen even a very small chamber orchestra with say... a harpsichord
> or kettle drums or similar that they would have brought it off as
> well.
>
> Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
> many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
> something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
> phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
> closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
I used to go to their showroom on Broadway often when I was in NY. They
rarely fooled me. I could almost always tell when they changed and which I
was listening to.. Of course I was 17 years old then and listened to a lot of
live music (I still do the latter, but alas, I'm no longer 17).
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:55:50 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article <fu3bpm02um8@news5.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote:
>
>> In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
>> it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
>
> Truly, I was waiting for this!
>
> OK, AR did do this. On more than a very few occasions. Typically they
> used a string quartet playing music typical of the species.
> *Relatively* limited and of similar timbre, but not of frequency.
>
> And a few more things:
>
> a) They practiced the transitions very carefully to make them as
> perceptibly seamless as possible.
> b) They carefully chose the transitional passages to favor the
> midrange of the speakers so that subsequent highs and lows would be of-
> a-piece vs. in-the-middle-of.
> c) They kept it to fairly small venues of very conventional design
> with a very small central and surrounded stage. This favored the
> directional nature of cone speakers.
>
> And, with all that in mind, they most certainly did fool their
> audiences to well within the margin of error for randomness. Further,
> they did it with their standard available-for-sale-just-like-this
> speaker line, and very late in the game even used their own AR
> amplifier for the test. By todays standards a pretty crude beast -
> although I like them very much and keep several of them (and their
> receivers).
>
> But, in a typical residential situation, even in a dedicated listening
> room, the sort of artificial environment created by AR for their tests
> simply does not happen. And it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that if AR had
> chosen even a very small chamber orchestra with say... a harpsichord
> or kettle drums or similar that they would have brought it off as
> well.
>
> Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
> many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
> something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
> phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
> closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Melrose Park, PA
I used to go to their showroom on Broadway often when I was in NY. They
rarely fooled me. I could almost always tell when they changed and which I
was listening to.. Of course I was 17 years old then and listened to a lot of
live music (I still do the latter, but alas, I'm no longer 17).
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 15, 3:55 pm, Peter Wieck <p...@aol,com > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote:
> > In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
> > it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
>
> Truly, I was waiting for this!
> OK, AR did do this.
So you admit it can be done, that it can be done repeatedly, and that
we pretty much know how to do it.
Yes, as you go on to say, it's impractical for the home, difficult to
do (or at last was in the 1960's), expensive and so on.
None of which changes the fact that it was done for some live music.
The original claim allowed for no such exception, so I believe that
the exception disproves it.
> Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
> many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
> something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
> phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
> closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.
And my much cheaper speakes do it fairly frequently on similar
sounds. Actually it's almost impossible to distinguish between live
and recorded electronic phone rings. None of that means we've solved
the problem of reproducing live sound accurately in domestic
circumstances. But it does disprove the rather absurd claims of all
live sound being easily recognized as not recorded and vice versa.
Audio is difficult, but it is not mystical.
On Apr 15, 3:55 pm, Peter Wieck <p...@aol,com > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:49 pm, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote:
> > In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
> > it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!
>
> Truly, I was waiting for this!
> OK, AR did do this.
So you admit it can be done, that it can be done repeatedly, and that
we pretty much know how to do it.
Yes, as you go on to say, it's impractical for the home, difficult to
do (or at last was in the 1960's), expensive and so on.
None of which changes the fact that it was done for some live music.
The original claim allowed for no such exception, so I believe that
the exception disproves it.
> Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
> many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
> something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
> phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
> closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.
And my much cheaper speakes do it fairly frequently on similar
sounds. Actually it's almost impossible to distinguish between live
and recorded electronic phone rings. None of that means we've solved
the problem of reproducing live sound accurately in domestic
circumstances. But it does disprove the rather absurd claims of all
live sound being easily recognized as not recorded and vice versa.
Audio is difficult, but it is not mystical.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 9, 11:36 pm, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
> > Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
> > music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
> > sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> > music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
>
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
> different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
> hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
>
> bob
I am not sure you got the point - Not that one event will not sound
differently than another event, but that the way you hear things does
not change relative to Analog, Live, Digital, Recorded. And with the
normal variations of hearing due to health/diet/time-of-day/
temperature/mood aside, your hearing process does not change one day
to the next - and so may aptly be compared to others as a similar
relatively invariable process.
Your ears are hard-wired devices. What they hear is not. I think that
is the point - Steven?
Again, what with the recent discussions on the transition to Digital
OTA television and the attendant problems, that would serve as an
excellent analogy to the discussion here. Digital signal does fine
until it does not - it drops right off the cliff. Analog signal
degrades in a more-or-less linear fashion. Depending on one's
individual tolerance for additional artifacts, ghosting, snow,
shadows, color distortion and so forth it is more-or-less acceptable
but the basic information does get through.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
On Apr 9, 11:36 pm, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
> > Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
> > music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
> > sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> > music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
>
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
> different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
> hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
>
> bob
I am not sure you got the point - Not that one event will not sound
differently than another event, but that the way you hear things does
not change relative to Analog, Live, Digital, Recorded. And with the
normal variations of hearing due to health/diet/time-of-day/
temperature/mood aside, your hearing process does not change one day
to the next - and so may aptly be compared to others as a similar
relatively invariable process.
Your ears are hard-wired devices. What they hear is not. I think that
is the point - Steven?
Again, what with the recent discussions on the transition to Digital
OTA television and the attendant problems, that would serve as an
excellent analogy to the discussion here. Digital signal does fine
until it does not - it drops right off the cliff. Analog signal
degrades in a more-or-less linear fashion. Depending on one's
individual tolerance for additional artifacts, ghosting, snow,
shadows, color distortion and so forth it is more-or-less acceptable
but the basic information does get through.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
bob <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> > Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
> > music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
> > sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> > music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
> different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
> hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
Live music has also sounds very different depending on where I've heard it.
And even in the same venue, where you sit makes a big difference
--
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
bob <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> > Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
> > music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
> > sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
> > music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> it. I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
> different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
> hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
Live music has also sounds very different depending on where I've heard it.
And even in the same venue, where you sit makes a big difference
--
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business as fans is to rock
with them.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
>> music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
>> sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>> music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
>
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> it.
I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
> I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
> different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
> hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
That's irrelevant. The instrument still sounds like the instrument its
supposed to be. The fact that the player might change inflection, breathing,
or phrasing or that the venue enters into the equation has no bearing on
whether or not the instrument or instruments sound like what they are
supposed to be rather than sounding like something else.
Ever been to New Orleans? Walk down Basin Street in the French Quarter on a
nice, warm evening. Out of almost every door, music is blaring. One can pass
each door and without looking in, say to oneself: "Canned music here, live
music here, live music with a sound reinforcement system here, more live
music, canned music in this place......" etc. It's that apparent. The sound
of live music is an absolute because it always SOUNDS like live music, and no
audio system on earth can recreate that certain palpability that live music
imparts. Whether that live music sounds different every time, or whether each
of us hears it differently, it matters not. As long as each of us can
recognize live music when we hear it and remember enough to realize the
difference between what comes out of a loudspeaker and what comes out of the
mouth of a sax, or the body of a violin, or the open-top of a grand piano,
live music will remain the absolute judge of whether or not a system is
accurate, and that difference is also the measure of the delta between the
two.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftk1vo02j85@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> Except that it has never been proven that people with normal hearing hear
>> music all that differently. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether it
>> sounds different to each of us. The point is that the sound of real, live
>> music played in real space will always sound the same way to YOU.
>
> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> it.
I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
> I've heard the same instrument played by the same musician in five
> different halls. It never sounds quite the same. But perhaps my
> hearing perception is just more refined than most. :)
That's irrelevant. The instrument still sounds like the instrument its
supposed to be. The fact that the player might change inflection, breathing,
or phrasing or that the venue enters into the equation has no bearing on
whether or not the instrument or instruments sound like what they are
supposed to be rather than sounding like something else.
Ever been to New Orleans? Walk down Basin Street in the French Quarter on a
nice, warm evening. Out of almost every door, music is blaring. One can pass
each door and without looking in, say to oneself: "Canned music here, live
music here, live music with a sound reinforcement system here, more live
music, canned music in this place......" etc. It's that apparent. The sound
of live music is an absolute because it always SOUNDS like live music, and no
audio system on earth can recreate that certain palpability that live music
imparts. Whether that live music sounds different every time, or whether each
of us hears it differently, it matters not. As long as each of us can
recognize live music when we hear it and remember enough to realize the
difference between what comes out of a loudspeaker and what comes out of the
mouth of a sax, or the body of a violin, or the open-top of a grand piano,
live music will remain the absolute judge of whether or not a system is
accurate, and that difference is also the measure of the delta between the
two.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
> > No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> > it.
>
> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or the
> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a saxophone
> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds like
> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
At least, you can't if you want to anchor your perception to some
objective reality. Which is why I think you don't really anchor your
perception to some objective reality at all. You develop a mental
construct of what a live performance (of the particular type you're
listening to) *ought* to sound like. And it's not at all clear that
this construct is fixed. You could have a different idea of what live
music sounds like each day. It's hard, then, to call that a
"standard."
bob
On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
> > No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> > it.
>
> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or the
> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you not
> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a saxophone
> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds like
> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
At least, you can't if you want to anchor your perception to some
objective reality. Which is why I think you don't really anchor your
perception to some objective reality at all. You develop a mental
construct of what a live performance (of the particular type you're
listening to) *ought* to sound like. And it's not at all clear that
this construct is fixed. You could have a different idea of what live
music sounds like each day. It's hard, then, to call that a
"standard."
bob
