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 ?
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>> However, there are as many different flavors of live
>> music as there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
> is the one absolute reference in audio
Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>> However, there are as many different flavors of live
>> music as there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
> is the one absolute reference in audio
Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> > Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
> > those seats. That's why live music played in real space
> > is the one absolute reference in audio
>
> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
absolute.
It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).
bob
On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> > Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
> > those seats. That's why live music played in real space
> > is the one absolute reference in audio
>
> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
absolute.
It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).
bob
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:46:08 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftqp0g02r07@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>
>>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
>>> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
>>> is the one absolute reference in audio
>>
>> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
>> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
> absolute.
Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions. A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
played in real space the absolute reference. Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).
> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
> music!).
The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:46:08 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftqp0g02r07@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>
>>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
>>> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
>>> is the one absolute reference in audio
>>
>> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
>> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
> absolute.
Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions. A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
played in real space the absolute reference. Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).
> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
> music!).
The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
> any venue, under any conditions.
If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
I agree.
> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
> played in real space the absolute reference.
I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
> Audio will be perfect when a
> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
anechoic recording of same.
But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
no standard for what that ought to sound like.
> > It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
> > experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
> > influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
> > music!).
>
> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
> listening biases.
That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
bob
On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
> any venue, under any conditions.
If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
I agree.
> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
> played in real space the absolute reference.
I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
> Audio will be perfect when a
> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
anechoic recording of same.
But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
no standard for what that ought to sound like.
> > It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
> > experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
> > influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
> > music!).
>
> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
> listening biases.
That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
bob
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftrq120pd2@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
>> any venue, under any conditions.
>
> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
> I agree.
No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>
>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>
> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>
>> Audio will be perfect when a
>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>
> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
> anechoic recording of same.
>
> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the air
in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the best
description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a recording
and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard, and
I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>
>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>> music!).
>>
>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>> listening biases.
>
> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live music
as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in real
space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent acoustics.
Recordings made there can be first rate).
>
> bob
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article <ftrq120pd2@news4.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
>> any venue, under any conditions.
>
> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
> I agree.
No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>
>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>
> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>
>> Audio will be perfect when a
>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>
> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
> anechoic recording of same.
>
> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the air
in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the best
description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a recording
and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard, and
I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>
>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>> music!).
>>
>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>> listening biases.
>
> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live music
as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in real
space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent acoustics.
Recordings made there can be first rate).
>
> bob
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com ...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article <ftrq120pd2@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
>>> sounds
>>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
>>> trumpet -in
>>> any venue, under any conditions.
>>
>> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
>> I agree.
>
> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
> a
> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>>
>>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
>>> real
>>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
>>> where
>>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
>>> finest
>>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
>>> music
>>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>>
>> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
>> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
>> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
>> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
>> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
>> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
>
> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
> different
> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>>
>>> Audio will be perfect when a
>>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
>>> recorded
>>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
>>> definition,
>>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
>>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>>
>> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
>> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
>> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
>> anechoic recording of same.
>>
>> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
>> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
>> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
>> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
>> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
>> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
>
> There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the
> air
> in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
> best
> description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
> recording
> and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
> and
> I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>>
>>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>>> music!).
>>>
>>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
>>> human
>>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>>> listening biases.
>>
>> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
>> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
>> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
>> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
>
> That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
> music
> as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
> therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
> real
> space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
> acoustics.
> Recordings made there can be first rate).
FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber music,
but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
reproducing "live".
More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a standard
(or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it) are
more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
"boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com ...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article <ftrq120pd2@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
>>> sounds
>>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
>>> trumpet -in
>>> any venue, under any conditions.
>>
>> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
>> I agree.
>
> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
> a
> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>>
>>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
>>> real
>>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
>>> where
>>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
>>> finest
>>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
>>> music
>>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>>
>> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
>> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
>> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
>> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
>> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
>> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
>
> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
> different
> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>>
>>> Audio will be perfect when a
>>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
>>> recorded
>>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
>>> definition,
>>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
>>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>>
>> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
>> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
>> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
>> anechoic recording of same.
>>
>> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
>> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
>> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
>> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
>> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
>> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
>
> There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the
> air
> in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
> best
> description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
> recording
> and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
> and
> I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>>
>>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>>> music!).
>>>
>>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
>>> human
>>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>>> listening biases.
>>
>> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
>> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
>> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
>> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
>
> That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
> music
> as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
> therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
> real
> space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
> acoustics.
> Recordings made there can be first rate).
FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber music,
but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
reproducing "live".
More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a standard
(or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it) are
more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
"boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:10:47 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article <ftuef70qmk@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com ...
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
>> (in article <ftrq120pd2@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
>>>> sounds
>>>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
>>>> trumpet -in
>>>> any venue, under any conditions.
>>>
>>> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
>>> I agree.
>>
>> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
>> a
>> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
>> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
>> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>>>
>>>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>>>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
>>>> real
>>>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
>>>> where
>>>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
>>>> finest
>>>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
>>>> music
>>>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>>>
>>> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
>>> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
>>> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
>>> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
>>> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
>>> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
>>
>> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
>> different
>> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>>>
>>>> Audio will be perfect when a
>>>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
>>>> recorded
>>>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
>>>> definition,
>>>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
>>>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>>>
>>> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
>>> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
>>> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
>>> anechoic recording of same.
>>>
>>> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
>>> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
>>> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
>>> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
>>> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
>>> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
>>
>> There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the
>> air
>> in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
>> best
>> description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
>> recording
>> and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
>> and
>> I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>>>
>>>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>>>> music!).
>>>>
>>>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
>>>> human
>>>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>>>> listening biases.
>>>
>>> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
>>> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
>>> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
>>> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
>>
>> That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
>> music
>> as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
>> therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
>> real
>> space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
>> acoustics.
>> Recordings made there can be first rate).
>
> FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber music,
> but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
> made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
> reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
> fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
> testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
> reproducing "live".
I agree, absolutely.
>
> More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a standard
> (or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it) are
> more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
> "boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
> that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....
It's really a lot like piloting a ship blindfolded. One has no idea where one
is going. If one follows one's instincts and prejudices about direction or
"accurate" sound, one will end up sailing in circles. Without a reference it
becomes a matter of "if it feels good, do it". and that leads nowhere either
in listening to or manufacturing of audio equipment. There must be a
reference and the only one that I know is the sound of real, live acoustic
music played in real space.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:10:47 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article <ftuef70qmk@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com ...
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
>> (in article <ftrq120pd2@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
>>>> sounds
>>>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
>>>> trumpet -in
>>>> any venue, under any conditions.
>>>
>>> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
>>> I agree.
>>
>> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
>> a
>> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
>> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
>> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>>>
>>>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>>>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
>>>> real
>>>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
>>>> where
>>>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
>>>> finest
>>>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
>>>> music
>>>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>>>
>>> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
>>> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
>>> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
>>> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
>>> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
>>> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
>>
>> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
>> different
>> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>>>
>>>> Audio will be perfect when a
>>>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
>>>> recorded
>>>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
>>>> definition,
>>>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
>>>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>>>
>>> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
>>> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
>>> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
>>> anechoic recording of same.
>>>
>>> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
>>> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
>>> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
>>> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
>>> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
>>> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
>>
>> There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the
>> air
>> in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
>> best
>> description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
>> recording
>> and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
>> and
>> I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>>>
>>>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>>>> music!).
>>>>
>>>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
>>>> human
>>>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>>>> listening biases.
>>>
>>> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
>>> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
>>> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
>>> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
>>
>> That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
>> music
>> as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
>> therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
>> real
>> space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
>> acoustics.
>> Recordings made there can be first rate).
>
> FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber music,
> but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
> made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
> reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
> fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
> testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
> reproducing "live".
I agree, absolutely.
>
> More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a standard
> (or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it) are
> more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
> "boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
> that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....
It's really a lot like piloting a ship blindfolded. One has no idea where one
is going. If one follows one's instincts and prejudices about direction or
"accurate" sound, one will end up sailing in circles. Without a reference it
becomes a matter of "if it feels good, do it". and that leads nowhere either
in listening to or manufacturing of audio equipment. There must be a
reference and the only one that I know is the sound of real, live acoustic
music played in real space.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
In article <ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com >,
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or a
> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
and...
> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
Exactly right, IMO. There is no mistaking the sound of acoustic
instruments played (or sung) live.
It seems to me that what we're saying is that the reference isn't THE
trumpet played in THE acoustic space, as heard from THE certain seat.
Rather, it's A POSSIBLE trumpet, played in A POSSIBLE space, as heard
from SOME seat. That is different from ANY audio system. To the extent
that a system in your home can, with given software, remind you of that
(those) sound(s), you have a winner.
You mention Stanford: nice Wind Ensemble there. I have heard the other
ensembles there, but the WE has come a long ways in recent years.
In article <ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com >,
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or a
> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
and...
> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
Exactly right, IMO. There is no mistaking the sound of acoustic
instruments played (or sung) live.
It seems to me that what we're saying is that the reference isn't THE
trumpet played in THE acoustic space, as heard from THE certain seat.
Rather, it's A POSSIBLE trumpet, played in A POSSIBLE space, as heard
from SOME seat. That is different from ANY audio system. To the extent
that a system in your home can, with given software, remind you of that
(those) sound(s), you have a winner.
You mention Stanford: nice Wind Ensemble there. I have heard the other
ensembles there, but the WE has come a long ways in recent years.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:11:21 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <ftueg90qog@news4.newsguy,com >):
> In article <ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com >,
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
>> a
>> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
>> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
>> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
> and...
>> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
>> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>
> Exactly right, IMO. There is no mistaking the sound of acoustic
> instruments played (or sung) live.
>
> It seems to me that what we're saying is that the reference isn't THE
> trumpet played in THE acoustic space, as heard from THE certain seat.
> Rather, it's A POSSIBLE trumpet, played in A POSSIBLE space, as heard
> from SOME seat. That is different from ANY audio system. To the extent
> that a system in your home can, with given software, remind you of that
> (those) sound(s), you have a winner.
Yep.
>
> You mention Stanford: nice Wind Ensemble there. I have heard the other
> ensembles there, but the WE has come a long ways in recent years.
Yes, I have some fantastic recordings I've made there.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:11:21 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <ftueg90qog@news4.newsguy,com >):
> In article <ftt3pv01a7d@news2.newsguy,com >,
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
>> a
>> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
>> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
>> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
> and...
>> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
>> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>
> Exactly right, IMO. There is no mistaking the sound of acoustic
> instruments played (or sung) live.
>
> It seems to me that what we're saying is that the reference isn't THE
> trumpet played in THE acoustic space, as heard from THE certain seat.
> Rather, it's A POSSIBLE trumpet, played in A POSSIBLE space, as heard
> from SOME seat. That is different from ANY audio system. To the extent
> that a system in your home can, with given software, remind you of that
> (those) sound(s), you have a winner.
Yep.
>
> You mention Stanford: nice Wind Ensemble there. I have heard the other
> ensembles there, but the WE has come a long ways in recent years.
Yes, I have some fantastic recordings I've made there.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:ftqp0g02r07@news4.newsguy,com
> On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> wrote:
>> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>
>>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
>>> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
>>> is the one absolute reference in audio
>> Except that that live music played in real space is not
>> just one thing. It is as many different things there are
>> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is
> nonsensical. It isn't absolute.
Agreed.
I would expect that an absolute standard would be just one thing. An
absolute length standard would be a certain length, not a large number of
different lengths that were equally valid.
> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on
> objective experiences.
Please explain what an objective experience is.
> And being subjective, it is
> subject to a whole lot of influences (including,
> ironically, our experiences of recorded music!).
One thing that facilitates a degree of objectivity is comparison to a fixed
standard. For example, by picking a reference location, I can form opinions
about how the sound at other locations varies from it.
"bob" <nabob33@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:ftqp0g02r07@news4.newsguy,com
> On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com >
> wrote:
>> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>
>>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
>>> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
>>> is the one absolute reference in audio
>> Except that that live music played in real space is not
>> just one thing. It is as many different things there are
>> seats in the auditorium and on stage.
> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is
> nonsensical. It isn't absolute.
Agreed.
I would expect that an absolute standard would be just one thing. An
absolute length standard would be a certain length, not a large number of
different lengths that were equally valid.
> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on
> objective experiences.
Please explain what an objective experience is.
> And being subjective, it is
> subject to a whole lot of influences (including,
> ironically, our experiences of recorded music!).
One thing that facilitates a degree of objectivity is comparison to a fixed
standard. For example, by picking a reference location, I can form opinions
about how the sound at other locations varies from it.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 12, 9:46 am, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> > Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
> > is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
> absolute.
>
> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
> music!).
And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
On Apr 12, 9:46 am, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> > Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
> > is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
> absolute.
>
> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
> music!).
And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fu11ot016lt@news1.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 12, 9:46 am, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
>>> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>>
>> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
>> absolute.
>>
>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>> music!).
>
> And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
> it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
> thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
> memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>
> To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>
No it isn't. The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
doesn't. If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
as possible.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fu11ot016lt@news1.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 12, 9:46 am, bob <nabo...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>>> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
>>> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>>
>> That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
>> absolute.
>>
>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>> music!).
>
> And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
> it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
> thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
> memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>
> To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>
No it isn't. The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
doesn't. If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
as possible.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Apr 15, 3:40 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote
> > And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
> > it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
> > thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
> > memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>
> > To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>
> No it isn't.
But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
see.
>The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
> doesn't.
That, i am sorry, is nonsense. Most reproduced sound is actually
quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded. It has notes,
pitches, and timing. You can sing along to the tune played on the
junkiest boom box. You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
tom or a snare. Usually.
Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
from the live event. But it is certainly "like" the live event in
many ways. It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
is it.
> If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
> memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
> to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
> as possible.
"High Fidelity" is at least measurable. "Absolute Sound" isn't.
Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
never get to hear it through loudspeakers. But they can usually tell
which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
hear it.
On Apr 15, 3:40 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote
> > And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
> > it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
> > thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
> > memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>
> > To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>
> No it isn't.
But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
see.
>The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
> doesn't.
That, i am sorry, is nonsense. Most reproduced sound is actually
quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded. It has notes,
pitches, and timing. You can sing along to the tune played on the
junkiest boom box. You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
tom or a snare. Usually.
Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
from the live event. But it is certainly "like" the live event in
many ways. It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
is it.
> If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
> memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
> to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
> as possible.
"High Fidelity" is at least measurable. "Absolute Sound" isn't.
Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
never get to hear it through loudspeakers. But they can usually tell
which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
hear it.
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:23:15 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fu6caj02j1n@news2.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 15, 3:40 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote
>>> And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
>>> it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
>>> thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
>>> memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>>
>>> To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
> see.
>
>> The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
>> doesn't.
>
> That, i am sorry, is nonsense. Most reproduced sound is actually
> quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded. It has notes,
> pitches, and timing. You can sing along to the tune played on the
> junkiest boom box. You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
> tom or a snare. Usually.
>
> Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
> from the live event. But it is certainly "like" the live event in
> many ways. It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
> is it.
That's what I've been saying all along.
>
>> If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
>> memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
>> to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
>> as possible.
>
> "High Fidelity" is at least measurable. "Absolute Sound" isn't.
Some aspects of High-Fidelity are measurable and others while measurable,
don't correlate to how they sound. Speakers are a perfect example of this.
> Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
> never get to hear it through loudspeakers.
That's why it's often referred to as "the holy grail" of audio. Unattainable,
but as with Sir Percival, worth pursuing.
> But they can usually tell
> which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
> hear it.
Not necessarily. Often, personal biases take over and people revert to them.
Like picking the louder of two systems and perceiving louder as "better".
That's why its so important to constantly re-calibrate one's ears - unless,
of course, accuracy to real music is not important to one, then its a matter
of "if it sounds good to me, etc......"
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:23:15 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <fu6caj02j1n@news2.newsguy,com >):
> On Apr 15, 3:40 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, eseedho...@gmail,com wrote
>>> And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
>>> it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
>>> thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
>>> memory or perhaps a collection of memories.
>>
>>> To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
> see.
>
>> The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
>> doesn't.
>
> That, i am sorry, is nonsense. Most reproduced sound is actually
> quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded. It has notes,
> pitches, and timing. You can sing along to the tune played on the
> junkiest boom box. You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
> tom or a snare. Usually.
>
> Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
> from the live event. But it is certainly "like" the live event in
> many ways. It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
> is it.
That's what I've been saying all along.
>
>> If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
>> memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
>> to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
>> as possible.
>
> "High Fidelity" is at least measurable. "Absolute Sound" isn't.
Some aspects of High-Fidelity are measurable and others while measurable,
don't correlate to how they sound. Speakers are a perfect example of this.
> Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
> never get to hear it through loudspeakers.
That's why it's often referred to as "the holy grail" of audio. Unattainable,
but as with Sir Percival, worth pursuing.
> But they can usually tell
> which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
> hear it.
Not necessarily. Often, personal biases take over and people revert to them.
Like picking the louder of two systems and perceiving louder as "better".
That's why its so important to constantly re-calibrate one's ears - unless,
of course, accuracy to real music is not important to one, then its a matter
of "if it sounds good to me, etc......"
Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <ftqg1l02hlc@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>>> However, there are as many different flavors of live
>>> music as there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
>> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
>> is the one absolute reference in audio
>
> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
It doesn't matter. In any of those different circumstances and situations, it
still sounds like real, live music and anybody can tell that it is.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:13:09 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <ftqg1l02hlc@news4.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:ftmlsd015oq@news5.newsguy,com
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:39:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <ftmbvt01n6t@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>>> However, there are as many different flavors of live
>>> music as there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
>> Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
>> those seats. That's why live music played in real space
>> is the one absolute reference in audio
>
> Except that that live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
> is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.
>
It doesn't matter. In any of those different circumstances and situations, it
still sounds like real, live music and anybody can tell that it is.
