[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 5, 10:07=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Dec 5, 8:22=A0am, Scott wrote:

Once again personal aesthetic values are seen as "confusion."

No, they are not, at least by me. =A0I merely want to convey those
values from one place to another without confusion, so that everyone
who shares those values can have equal enjoyment. =A0As this is
definitely possible, up to a point, then to wish not to make what we
enjoy also reliably available to others seems rather selfish to me.

we are circling back to the original topic. I find nothing confusing
about aesthetic beauty.


Nor do I. =A0But recording is about sharing that beauty in a reliable
way. =A0And the only reliable way is to record the event accurately and
convey it via an accurate medium.

That is plainly not true. and painfully over simplistic. Let me make
a classic example of how it is painfully oversimplistic. Lets take two
recordings of the same exact event, a solo instrument in a reverberent
space. Which would be more "accurate" a closed mic mono recording? A
closed miced stereo recording with extra mics for ambient retrieval? a
Blumlein pair from several feet away? as for your comments on an
accurate medium. That is a small issue and each medium has it's own
set of issues which are better addressed by expeirenced recording and
mastering engineers than an overly simplistic axiom about accuracy and
it's actual effect on recording and playback. If your claims were true
the amazing illusions of realism one can get from the many recordings
that were made in analog and pressed onto vinyl simply would not
exist. i would challenge you to find better illusions of realism than
can be found on the various offerings from Waterlilly,Opus 3,
Reference Recordings, or the true gems of classical music that can be
found on RCA, Decca, EMI or Mercury or the gems of Jazz that can be
found on Blue Note, Riverside, Verve, Impulse etc etc. I can go on and
on about the many many amazing recordings recorded in analog and
pressed on vinyl that trounce all but a handful of digital recordings
found on CD. So all these great recordings were happy accidents?


It just isn't as easy to quantify as accuracy
in terms of a component's output v. it's input. You may like the
certitude of measured accuracy.

But it is accuracy which allows us to reliably share beauty with
others.

Again that is simply not true as proven by some of the recordings and
playback systems that do the best job of getting us closer to that
standard of beauty that excellent live music gives us.


I prefer the persuit of perceptual
aesthetic beauty regardless of how difficult it is to quantify or
formulate. but I am happy we are both free to persue audio in our own
ways as we choose.

But your goal cannot reliably be achieved by the magical methods you
seem to prefer.

Not only can it be but it is on a regular basis as anyone who has
heard my system will testify. There is no magic involved or implied.
There is really no point in using such prejudicial terms to try to
belittle my position. The fact is my goals are about as well met as is
reasonably possible by a substantial number of real world LPs. I know
this because I have and enjoy so many of them.

Actually, if that really is you goal, you can
probably achieve it best by going to a lot of live concerts, since
that is where the magic actually happens.

I'm not sure how one can read my posts on this thread, understand them
and make such a suggestion. My attendence at live concerts has been
pretty well addressed already.

Since you wish to ignore or remove the one tool we have for recording
the magic and making it available to others, your approach to
recording seems to me to be a futility with no prospect of any real
success, except by rare random chance.

I don't know how one can believe that is my wish and actually
understand how recording and mastering engineers and designers of
audio components work. Do you really think the excellent recording
engineers, mastering engineer and designers of audio equipment have
all simply been getting lucky when they do their job so well so often?
Do you really think the bad ones will somehow start doing great work
if you had it your way? Clearly in the case of the "accurate medium,"
digital, that has not been so. There is an extraordinary body of
garbage on digital to support me on this one.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 6, 10:03=A0am, Scott wrote:


Nor do I. =A0But recording is about sharing that beauty in a reliable
way. =A0And the only reliable way is to record the event accurately and
convey it via an accurate medium.

=A0That is plainly not true. and painfully over simplistic. Let me make
a classic example of how it is painfully oversimplistic. Lets take two
recordings of the same exact event, a solo instrument in a reverberent
space. Which would be more "accurate" a closed mic mono recording? A
closed miced stereo recording with extra mics for ambient retrieval? a
Blumlein pair from several feet away?

If we are wanting to record both the notes and the sound of the room
together I'd say the latter would likely be better, but the second
could work as well. The first would not, in my opinion, be suitable.

If your claims were true
the amazing illusions of realism one can get from the many recordings
that were made in analog and pressed onto vinyl simply would not
exist.

Nothing about my claims means that at all. If you think they do then
you've missed the whole point of what I'm saying.

It just isn't as easy to quantify as accuracy
in terms of a component's output v. it's input. You may like the
certitude of measured accuracy.

It can't be quantified at all, really, which is the reason it doesn't
work reliably.

But it is accuracy which allows us to reliably share beauty with
others.

=A0Again that is simply not true as proven by some of the recordings and
playback systems that do the best job of getting us closer to that
standard of beauty that excellent live music gives us.

Got any actual evidence that such playback systems exist? In any
event even if they did it doesn't follow that my claim isn't true.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 6, 7:55=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Dec 6, 10:03=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

Nor do I. =3DA0But recording is about sharing that beauty in a reliab=
le
way. =3DA0And the only reliable way is to record the event accurately=
and
convey it via an accurate medium.
=3DA0That is plainly not true. and painfully over simplistic. Let me ma=
ke
a classic example of how it is painfully oversimplistic. Lets take two
recordings of the same exact event, a solo instrument in a reverberent
space. Which would be more "accurate" a closed mic mono recording? A
closed miced stereo recording with extra mics for ambient retrieval? a
Blumlein pair from several feet away?

If we are wanting to record both the notes and the sound of the room
together I'd say the latter would likely be better, but the second
could work as well. =A0The first would not, in my opinion, be suitable.

The question wasn't which was better. thew question was which would be
more accurate? Give that a try. Oh by the way I offered three
different approaches. Tell which is the most accurate and the least
accurate to the original acoustic event and why.


If your claims were true
the amazing illusions of realism one can get from the many recordings
that were made in analog and pressed onto vinyl simply would not
exist.

Nothing about my claims means that at all. =A0 If you think they do then
you've missed the whole point of what I'm saying.

Here are your words in this thread. Post #121

"But recording is about sharing that beauty in a reliable
way. And the only reliable way is to record the event accurately and
convey it via an accurate medium. "

"But it is accuracy which allows us to reliably share beauty with
others."

"But your goal cannot reliably be achieved by the magical methods you
seem to prefer."

so it stands to reason that an inaccurate medium would be incapable of
an amazing illusion of realism based on your words. Now here is what
you said about the accuracy of vinyl in this thread.

Post # 62

"Ah well, but if we're talking vinyl, we're not talking "accurate" or
"realistic" anymore, are we?"

Seems pretty clear to me that my interpretation of your words is
pretty dead on.



It just isn't as easy to quantify as accuracy
in terms of a component's output v. it's input. You may like the
certitude of measured accuracy.

It can't be quantified at all, really, which is the reason it doesn't
work reliably.

The output v. the input of a component is not measurable?



But it is accuracy which allows us to reliably share beauty with
others.
=3DA0Again that is simply not true as proven by some of the recordings =
and
=A0playback systems that do the best job of getting us closer to that
=A0standard of beauty that excellent live music gives us.

Got any actual evidence that such playback systems exist?

Yeah I got one, it's very nice....

=A0In any
event even if they did it doesn't follow that my claim isn't true.

Um, It seems to me if you are claiming that accuracy is key to success
then success without said accuracy would pretty much refute your
claim. Especially when it is so plentiful.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

Um, It seems to me if you are claiming that accuracy is key to success then success without said accuracy would pretty
much refute your claim. Especially when it is so plentiful.

You are twisting my words. Accuracy is necessary (IMO) for reliable
success. Note the word "reliable", which you seem to ignore.

Your claims about "success" with your methods are just that, claims.
I am waiting for some reliable evidence to back them up.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 7, 3:00=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Um, It seems to me if you are claiming that accuracy is key to succes=
s then success without said accuracy would pretty
much refute your claim. Especially when it is so plentiful.

You are twisting my words. =A0Accuracy is necessary (IMO) for reliable
success. =A0Note the word "reliable", which you seem to ignore.


Quite to the contrary. I have addressed it with a long list of labels
that have "reliably" produced recordings on analog tape and pressed on
vinyl that excel above allothers in their ability to create an
illusion of realism. I even asked you if you thought they have been
getting lucky all these years since according to you what they have
done can't be done "reliably."



Your claims about "success" with your methods are just that, claims.


As are all claims of subjective excellence.


I am waiting for some reliable evidence to back them up.


If you want to set up some blind listening tests maybe we can arrange
something. But if you are seriously trying to convince me that my
perceptions are wrong.... good luck. May as well argue with me about
my favorite flavor of ice cream.

[Harry Lavo]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
Um, It seems to me if you are claiming that accuracy is key to success
then success without said accuracy would pretty
much refute your claim. Especially when it is so plentiful.

You are twisting my words. Accuracy is necessary (IMO) for reliable
success. Note the word "reliable", which you seem to ignore.

Your claims about "success" with your methods are just that, claims.
I am waiting for some reliable evidence to back them up.

And your claim that "accuracy" is the only way to assure successful
reproduction is not just a claim?

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 7, 8:54=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Your claims about "success" with your methods are just that, claims.
I am waiting for some reliable evidence to back them up.

And your claim that "accuracy" is the only way to assure successful
reproduction is not just a claim?

Well it is rather frustrating that right after I correct Scott, Harry
merely ignores that correction and challenges, not my claim, but
Scott's misinterpretation of that claim. Consequently I don't feel
much like responding since it appears that however I do my words will
again merely be twisted. Rather hard to have a productive
conversation that way.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 9, 5:37=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Dec 7, 8:54=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Your claims about "success" with your methods are just that, claims.
I am waiting for some reliable evidence to back them up.

And your claim that "accuracy" is the only way to assure successful
reproduction is not just a claim?

Well it is rather frustrating that right after I correct Scott, Harry
merely ignores that correction and challenges, not my claim, but
Scott's misinterpretation of that claim. =A0Consequently I don't feel
much like responding since it appears that however I do my words will
again merely be twisted. =A0Rather hard to have a productive
conversation that way.


[ The post numbers that Scott is referring to are internal to
his newsreader, and do not correspond to anything anyone
else sees. The only consistent message identification
between systems is the Message-ID: header. -- dsr ]


Here are your words in this thread. Post #121. No twisting, No missing
context.


"But recording is about sharing that beauty in a reliable
way. And the only reliable way is to record the event accurately and
convey it via an accurate medium. "


"But it is accuracy which allows us to reliably share beauty with
others."


"But your goal cannot reliably be achieved by the magical methods you
seem to prefer."

Post # 62


"Ah well, but if we're talking vinyl, we're not talking "accurate" or
"realistic" anymore, are we?"



I have cited several companies that through analog recordings pressed
on vinyl have "reliably" shared the beauty of live acoustic music with
others and have reliably achieved my goals through those methods. So
how do you reconcile your position with the existance of those labels
and the consistant sound quality of their catalogs?
Would you say that Waterlilly, Reference Recordings, Wilson Audio,
Sheffield Labs, Decca in the 60s, Mercury in the 50s, RCA in the 50s
and EMI in the 70s did not actually produce analog recorded LPs that
offer an amazing illusion of realism? I am not twisting your words one
bit here Ed. I have only cited them with direct quotes.
If you don't wish to discuss it because you can't resolve the conflict
between your assertions as seen through your exact words and the
reality of those catalogs of great sounding music i can understand.
But please don't insist that you are ending the discussion because I
have twisted your words when in fact I have quoted your words and
argued against those quotes by citing actual real world evidence that
refutes your assertions.