[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?

Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
evidence.

You just stated above that your "evidence" consists of visiting audiophile
homes and audio shows. Why is your antidotal experience anymore "reliable
evidence" than that of those who content that vinyl playback has improved.

For example, I have in my possession technical tests using recently cut LP
test recordings and recent LP playback equipment, some very expensive.
They
show the usual relatively degraded performance that we've come to expect
over the years. This should be no surprise to anybody who understands how
LP
technology works at a reasonably detailed level. Its technical limitations
are due to its geometry and materials, and they have not changed.


Very much moving the goalposts. When I suggest that you may be open to your
own anti-LP bias, you then blithly change the "evidence" to some vague,
unspecified tests based on "recent LP playback equipment, some very
expensive". Nothing specified, and no test outlined. So no independent
assessment can be made. You seem to be saying that since playback geometry
has not changed, ipso facto vinyl playback cannot have improved. Such an
assertion is just that....hardly a fact....and hardly one that most
audiophiles would agree with. No allowance for improved vinyl quality and
thickness, no stylus improvement, no headamp improvement, no advances in
design of turntables, no advances in arm materials, no advances in
computerized cutting and the sophistication of the lathes, no improvement to
attention to detail in the electronics of the cutting devices, etc etc etc.

How about trying again?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
I think most folks would give Steve Hoffman a bit more
credibility than "just another enthusiast".

The following link:

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

provides one data point in Mr. Hoffman's credibility curve.


I'm sure I don't have to tell you, Dick, that one point doesn't form a
straight line, much less a trend. Who knows, perhaps he is a friend of
the
inventor; perhaps he got paid to endorse it. It doesn't help his
credibility, but the mastering he has done has established much more
credibility than this one "data point" can diminish.

It's not just that one data point. Hoffman's shall we say *exceptional*
comments on his online conference are well-known. Mr. Pierce is simply
using a more reliable, easier-to-quote source of very many that are out
there. Basically, once someone buys into the myth that there's something
magic in the analog domain that can't be effectively captured in the digital
domain, its a slippery slope.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov, 11:07, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then.

I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
observations are the standard by which we determine reality.

To follow your metaphor, I haven't seen Russia either, but there is ample
reliable evidence to ascertain many useful things about it.

All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.

But all you offered was an anecdote.

It's a challenge, Scott. I've done my homework and come up empty. If you can
do better, please enlighten us at your earliest convenience.


I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
anecdotes,

It's an anecdote to you Scott, but that does not change the fact that it is
real hands-on experiences for me.

Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my
years
of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.

Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
preference.

Interesting that you're so willing to admit that accuracy is a lesser
concern of yours, Scott. What happened toaccurately recreating live musical
events? Isn't that what High Fidelity started out being?

Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote

Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
state of the art equipment.

Compared to digital, analog tape is a less-accurate medium. There's only one
justification to use it when accurate recreation is the goal - the only
justification is that the analog tape is all there is.

His anecdote had some very specific
information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
matched and time synced.

Your anecdote OTOH had none of that.

Of course there have been time-synched and level-matched double blind
evaluations. Just because I didn't go on and on doesn't it didn't happen.

No way to verify your story.

I see no way to verify Hoffman's.

IOW his anecdote really is better than your anecdote.

Yes, but I haven't made the mistake that he has of going public with the
self-damning claims that Mr. Pierce has brought to our discussion.

I'm also familiar with some of Hoffman's other equally-problematical antics.
Would I buy a used car from him? No, not at least not without a Carfax
report! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?

Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
evidence.

You just stated above that your "evidence" consists of visiting audiophile
homes and audio shows.

Seems like a failure to communicate.

I said first:

" I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback performance has improved signficantly since then."

Why is your antidotal experience anymore "reliable
evidence" than that of those who content that vinyl playback has improved.

Deal with the first point that I raised, please.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot
of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high
end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?

Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
evidence.

You just stated above that your "evidence" consists of visiting
audiophile
homes and audio shows.

Seems like a failure to communicate.

I said first:

" I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback performance has improved signficantly since then."

Why is your antidotal experience anymore "reliable
evidence" than that of those who content that vinyl playback has
improved.

Deal with the first point that I raised, please.

Absolutely not. You are attempting to change the subject away from the fact
that YOUR antidotal "investigation" is offered as refutation of the claims
of others....and that is equally antidotal. Can you not simply admit that?

[ScottW]

On Nov 30, 6:21=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote

My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps, to
those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recordin=
g.

Being a consumer of recordings and desiring a higher quality product
than most of the studios produce, let me suggest that it is those who
defend the process today
as not in need of improvement, as you have strongly done, have lost
touch with the needs of many consumers.


I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. =A0If that
was the case, the standard would fail.

Believe me, they would be unaffected by the adoption of such a "standard"=
as
I explained above.

Too bad. Fortunately the cost of a quality studio setup continues
to rapidly decline such that the so-called experts who are stuck in
their obsolete ways will be swept aside by more diversified methods of
recording, production, and music distribution.

ScottW

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:00:43 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then. All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes. I've personally investigated
these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high end
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!

And you believe you do not have biases that might lead you to this
conclusion, no?

Any personal biases I might have would be instantly overcome by reliable
evidence.

You just stated above that your "evidence" consists of visiting audiophile
homes and audio shows.

Seems like a failure to communicate.

I said first:

" I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback performance has improved signficantly since then."

Why is your antidotal experience anymore "reliable
evidence" than that of those who content that vinyl playback has improved.

Deal with the first point that I raised, please.



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has improved. Just compare
today's best phono cartridges with those of a few years ago. The new ones are
much better. Materials technology alone accounts for some of the improvement.
Modern cartridges track better, have less distortion, and modern cartridges
(moving coils, especially benefit) have less mass for any given output and
therefore have flatter frequency response across the audio spectrum. I
remember a time, not too long ago, when MC cartridges were ear-bleedingly
bright. This is no longer the case. Even relatively inexpensive MCs (Blue
Point #2, Benz Silver -S, Ortofon X5) are very flat and track very well.
Since most pre-amps, integrated amps and receivers don't have phono stages
these days, the phono preamp is now a stand-alone, external item. The best of
them are very accurate, RIAA-wise. Much more so than the phono stages of a
generation ago, Again, this accuracy has trickled down to the under $500
models and some of them are excellent and extremely quiet. Turntables haven't
changed much, that's true. Acrylic platters might insure that when tightly
clamped together, the record and the turntable are closely married and that
they have a very well damped resonances compared to the cast, machined
"bells" that tables used to have as platters, but this is probably a tertiary
effect. But arms, again, have benefitted from materials technology such as
carbon fiber and improved bearing manufacturing methods and are better than
they once were. Still, in all, someone who has one of those gorgeous old
Audio Empire 598 or 698 "Troubadour" turntable and arm combos, still has a
very viable setup and with the careful selection of cartridge and perhaps a
sorbothane mat, will still perform well, but probably not as well as more
modern setup which can elicit a lot more information from the groove than
could yesterday's phono rigs.

Of course, I have never understood why Shure decided to drop the V-15 while
keeping their lesser cartridges in the lineup. The V-15 was a superb
cartridge in almost every way. The only place where I felt that other types
of cartridges bettered it was in imaging and soundstage. But tracking, flat
frequency response, and low distortion were it's metier, and in these
regards, there were none better (IMHO, of course).

[Scott[_6_]]

On 1 Dec, 06:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On 30 Nov, 11:07, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I see zero scientific evidence to support the contention that vinyl
playback
performance has improved signficantly since then.

I haven't seen Russia. Fortunately neither of our personal
observations are the standard by which we determine reality.

To follow your metaphor, I haven't seen Russia either, but there is ample
reliable evidence to ascertain many useful things about it.

It wasn't a metaphor Arny it is a fact. That is besides the point.
The point being that neither you nor I can use our personal
experiences as an objective standard to measure reality. As you point
out there are things beyond either of our personal experiences that
suggest Russia is quite real. The same is true about the realities of
vinyl manufacturing and playback. The realities of that technology
extend beyond your personal experience.



All I see is a lot of
vendor hype and enthusiast's anecdotes.
But all you offered was an anecdote.

It's a challenge, Scott. I've done my homework and come up empty. If you =
can
do better, please enlighten us at your earliest convenience.


I don't think I can do any better in varifying your anecdotes. Thus
they remain, to the best of our collective knowledge, beyond
varification. So your use of such anecdotes as evidence of anything
whilst criticizing other peoples' arguments as anecdotal strikes me as
a classic case of employment of a double standard.




I've personally investigated these
claims over the years by visiting enthusiast's homes and listened to
their
vinyl playback systems and also by visiting vendor displays at high en=
d
audio shows and had private demonstrations. No joy!
That is just an anecdote! Kinda ironic after making an issue about
anecdotes,

It's an anecdote to you Scott, but that does not change the fact that it =
is
real hands-on experiences for me.


No Arny, it is an anecdote period since there is no way to varify any
of it. Are you suggesting that your story about visiting recording
engineers at their place of work back in the day is somehow
"scientific evidence?"


Interesting given that I've had numerous LP enthusiasts denigrate my
years
of personal experience with a number of Shure V15s in SME arms.
Not my favorite cartridge either but we were talking accuracy not
preference.

Interesting that you're so willing to admit that accuracy is a lesser
concern of yours, Scott. What happened toaccurately =A0recreating live mu=
sical
events? =A0Isn't that what High Fidelity started out being?


Not since the invention of stereo. I have already covered that in a
previous post. If you didn't follow the assertion and explanation let
me know and I'll review it. But in brief, "high fidelity" has been
about creating that which sounds best to the listener. In the case of
recorded live acoustic music, the experience of actual live music
played well on excellent instruments in an excellent acoustic space
from an excellent seat in the house sets the standard of aesthetic
beauty over and above any recording and playback of it. So the goal is
to get the perceptual experience of recording and playback as close to
that general excellent live perceptual experience as possible. But
stereo recording and playback do not work as a literal reconstruction
of the original 3 dimensional soundspace. It works as a means of
creating an aural illusion of that space from one particular
perspective. (that is if eveyone is doing a good job) Given that
understanding it should not be so surprising that literal accuracy in
each stage of the chain would not be a primary concern, The primary
concern is the final illusion. Accuracy is only valuable in so far as
it serves that illusion. IME one can get a much better illusion with
less than perfectly accurate TT rigs than one can get with the most
accurate rigs. If one understands these things it should not be all
that interesting at all that I or anyone else would admit to something
so obvious,


Seems like just another enthusiast's anecdote
Kind of like your anecdote only Steve Hoffman is an actual top notch
mastering engineer who used an actual master tape as his reference on
state of the art equipment.

Compared to digital, analog tape is a less-accurate medium. There's only =
one
justification to use it when accurate recreation is the goal - the only
justification is that the analog tape is all there is.


Clearly in the case of any Bill Evans recording that is what we are
talking about. perhaps you didn't know who Bill Evans was and didn't
realize that all of his recordings were analog. ironically I would
challenge you to find any digital recordings of Jazz trios that create
as good an illusion of live musicians in a real sound space as do
those antiquated Riverside analog recordings of The Bill Evans trio.
You might find a few from Chesky that are pretty competetive. but
mostly you will find miserable failures in that endevour despite the
media involved. That ought to tell you something about the relative
merits of analog tape.


His anecdote had some very specific
information which makes his tests repeatable. His tests were level
matched and time synced.
Your anecdote OTOH had none of that.

Of course there have been time-synched and level-matched double blind
evaluations. =A0Just because I didn't go on and on doesn't it didn't happ=
en.


I know there have been. Steve Hoffman did at least two. we know the
specifics of his tests and the results. So far that is all we have
that is actually varifiable. It also supports my original assertion
that if one is actually interested in such literal accuracy it can be
had with vinyl.



No way to verify your story.

I see no way to verify Hoffman's.


The fact is the facility is still there with all the same equipment
so repeating the test would be quite simple whether you see that or
not.


IOW his anecdote really is better than your =A0anecdote.

Yes, but I haven't made the mistake that he has of going public with the
self-damning claims that Mr. Pierce has brought to our discussion.


If one believes that any anecdotal account of hearing a difference
under sighted condtions is self damning then one simply doesn't
understand the nature of such experiences. The fact is Steve Hoffman
is a very skilled and knowledgable mastering engineer and his tests
were done blind and are well enough documented to be varified if
someone wanted to do so. What is truly self damning is attacking blind
tests by making inferences that the testors and testees were somehow
either incompetent or dishonest based on some sighted listening
experience that was completely unrelated.


I'm also familiar with some of Hoffman's other equally-problematical anti=
cs.
Would I buy a used car from him? No, not at least not without a Carfax
report! ;-)


More silly ad hominem with zero substance. The isn't selling cars, he
is selling his skills as a top flight mastering engineer and the
audiophile public is buying it at premium prices. If you doubt his
skills maybe we can set up some blind comparisons for you between his
work and the work of others to see what your unbiased opinion would
be. Although I suspect your biases are so severe on this subject the
only test that would yield meaningful results would be one where you
didn't know what was being tested.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:46 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 30, 6:21=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote

My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps, to
those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recordin=
g.

Being a consumer of recordings and desiring a higher quality product
than most of the studios produce, let me suggest that it is those who
defend the process today
as not in need of improvement, as you have strongly done, have lost
touch with the needs of many consumers.

I am not defending anything. I'm just saying that a "THX-like" minimum spec
for studio monitors and home listening environments would not make the
recordings any better nor would it make what you hear at home sound any more
like what the engineers and producers put on disc. This is because, as I
have restated until blue in the face, the monitoring equipment is PERIPHERAL
to the recording chain, not a part of it.


I would absolutely not expect current mastering practices to remain
unaffected by the adoption of a standard as discussed here. =A0If that
was the case, the standard would fail.

Believe me, they would be unaffected by the adoption of such a "standard"=
as
I explained above.

Too bad. Fortunately the cost of a quality studio setup continues
to rapidly decline such that the so-called experts who are stuck in
their obsolete ways will be swept aside by more diversified methods of
recording, production, and music distribution.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant to the subject at hand, Scott.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges with
those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased comparisons between
various cartridges. There need to be both technical measurements and
subjective listening tests with results that agree. The standard of
performance must be sonic accuracy.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 6:22=A0pm, Malcolm Lee wrote:

=A0 It is utterly irrelevant "what the engineer heard". Sonnava put it we=
ll
in his post of 28th Nov - so I'll merely repeat what he said he

"My idea of what the music sounds like in my living room is just as valid=
as
that which the engineer heard in the studio. So why should I subjugate my
judgement and personal tastes to his? The recording is what it is. I eith=
er
like it's sound or I don't. On my end, it's up to me to play-back the
recording in a manner which pleases me. If I don't like what the
engineer/producer has wrought, I don't listen to that recording at all an=
d
I'm sure that hearing it through the engineers monitoring equipment won't
change that opinion one iota."

However well he put it (about which I suspect our opinions will
differ), it amounts to nothing more than simply throwing out the baby
with the bathwater. It is, in my opinion, simply giving up on the
problem by asserting it doesn't exist. But, however often you may say
it doesn't exist, there it is.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:49:41 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On 1 Dec, 06:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Compared to digital, analog tape is a less-accurate medium. There's only one
justification to use it when accurate recreation is the goal - the only
justification is that the analog tape is all there is.


Clearly in the case of any Bill Evans recording that is what we are
talking about. perhaps you didn't know who Bill Evans was and didn't
realize that all of his recordings were analog. ironically I would
challenge you to find any digital recordings of Jazz trios that create
as good an illusion of live musicians in a real sound space as do
those antiquated Riverside analog recordings of The Bill Evans trio.

Absolutely! I agree 100% They are palpably real (especially "Bill Evans Trio
at Shelly's Manne-Hole in Hollywood" which was recorded by Wally Heider
(before he opened his own studios) and with me always pass, what J. Gordon
Holt used to refer to as "the goosebump test."

You might find a few from Chesky that are pretty competetive. but
mostly you will find miserable failures in that endevour despite the
media involved. That ought to tell you something about the relative
merits of analog tape.

It's also the relative merits of a very simple recording setup. Most of the
best sounding recordings are always simply recorded with a minimum of gear.
Rudy Van Gelder's stuff, for instance, as well as Bob Fine's Mercury classics
from the Fifties and early Sixties as well as the RCA Red seals done by Louis
Leyton and his associates all used a simple mixer, a minimum of microphones
and two or three tracks of analog tape. I've said this before. Some of these
40 and 50 year-old analog recordings make me think that there has been very
little progress in the art and science of recording in the last 50 years, and
if there has been, it's often not very noticeable (now that computerized
autocorrelators can remove tape hiss without affecting the music, many of
these old recordings sound a damn-sight better than most new ones!

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 8:03=A0am, Scott wrote:

Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
is not what we are doing with home audio.

Well, what you do with your home audio is your business.

But the original idea behind the idea of "High fidelity", way back
before the fifties, was pretty much just that. Fidelity means
"faithfulness" and in this context it means faithfulness to the
original event. It still basically means that as far as I am
concerned and it has the advantage of at least creating a target. Of
course it is essentially an unattainable target but it is one that can
be aimed at (that's what targets are for you know) and approximated
reasonably closely. Closely enough to make sound in the home that can
approximate the event I experience in a concert hall.

Once one truly understands this basic fact
about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
audio.

But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
meaningless. Better than what? The target disappears and the whole
project becomes pointless. Thank goodness the people who invented the
concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 2, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges with
those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased comparisons between
various cartridges. =A0There need to be both technical measurements and
subjective listening tests with results that agree. The standard of
performance must be sonic accuracy.

But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has improved, it is
still not as good as CD.

As I grew up in the days of vinyl I will agree that, even back then,
with the proper equipment, a vinyl record could achieve (barely) a
standard worthy of the name "high fidelity". But the CD, while not
of course "perfect" is far better.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:39 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges with
those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased comparisons between
various cartridges. =A0There need to be both technical measurements and
subjective listening tests with results that agree. The standard of
performance must be sonic accuracy.

But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has improved, it is
still not as good as CD.

But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as CD. In this he
would be right. But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen to
music, and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs. Most of us want to listen
to recordings that sound like music, not recordings that are "accurate". And
make no mistake, while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly aren't. If
accuracy = musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect, much better than any
old analog recording from the "golden age" of stereo, but they don't, and
most of them don't sound anywhere nearly as good. So "accurate" and
"musically and or sonically satisfying" are not the same thing.

As I grew up in the days of vinyl I will agree that, even back then,
with the proper equipment, a vinyl record could achieve (barely) a
standard worthy of the name "high fidelity".

I have 50-year-old vinyl records that would challenge that belief of yours.
And if you are honest, it would challenge that belief to the point of
actually changing your mind.

But the CD, while not
of course "perfect" is far better.

It can be. But it can also be MUCH worse.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:13 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 30, 8:03=A0am, Scott wrote:

Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
is not what we are doing with home audio.

Well, what you do with your home audio is your business.

But the original idea behind the idea of "High fidelity", way back
before the fifties, was pretty much just that. Fidelity means
"faithfulness" and in this context it means faithfulness to the
original event. It still basically means that as far as I am
concerned and it has the advantage of at least creating a target. Of
course it is essentially an unattainable target but it is one that can
be aimed at (that's what targets are for you know) and approximated
reasonably closely. Closely enough to make sound in the home that can
approximate the event I experience in a concert hall.

Once one truly understands this basic fact
about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
audio.

But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
meaningless.

You are learning. Of course it's meaningless. Everybody has their own idea of
how music ought to sound. This is based upon a number of factors, not the
least of which is taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is
important to the listener. Since getting everything "right" is not possible,
audiophiles tend to fixate on certain aspect of a performance. This fixation
not only defines what kinds of recordings they like, but also on the
equipment which does those thing the best. For instance, I tend to favor
recordings that present a palpable soundstage, one in which I can pinpoint
the instruments with my eyes closed just as can be done in the concert hall.
Therefore I also like speakers that image well. Multi-track and multi-miked
recordings I find less than satisfying. The next guy might not care about
that at all, and might like big bass or bright highs, still another might
focus on the midrange, with a certain amount of "presence" in that range
being de riguer. Unless one can find equipment that does everything "right"
these fixations will continue to dominate recording and the design and
manufacture of playback equipment such as speakers.

Better than what? The target disappears and the whole
project becomes pointless.

And so it will remain until the recording and playback process becomes
perfect. Even so, I'll guarantee you that somebody still won't like it.

Thank goodness the people who invented the
concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!

Actually they did and do.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 2, 4:24=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:03=A0am, Scott wrote:

Your entire position is based on a false premise that stereo recording
and playback is an attempt to literally reproduce the original
soundfield of the live music. "Sound, of course, is purely physical.
And it is what we try to reproduce with audio equipment," That simply
is not what we are doing with home audio.

Well, what you do with your home audio is your business.

But the original idea behind the idea of "High fidelity", way back
before the fifties, was pretty much just that. =A0Fidelity means
"faithfulness" and in this context it means faithfulness to the
original event. =A0It still basically means that as far as I am
concerned and it has the advantage of at least creating a target.

OK so if you are going to listen to an orchestral recording using that
approach what would that involve? If we are talking about a faithful
reproduction as you are talking about of the original event that would
involve heavy construction to rebuild your room to match the concert
hall, a unique 100+ channel reording of each instrument in the
orchestra recorded in an anechoic chamber and a unique speaker for
each instrument that mimics the radiation pattern of each unique
instrument. This might get you into the ball park. Seems to me any
discussion of CD v LP or standardization of studio monitors is pretty
insignificant conpared to the obvious problems you would have in this
literal approach. I say this only to illustrate the absurdity of the
idea that audio is about faithfulness to the original event. nothing
like that is happening at all in audio recording and playback with the
exception of binaural systems.

=A0Of
course it is essentially an unattainable target but it is one that can
be aimed at (that's what targets are for you know) and approximated
reasonably closely. =A0Closely enough to make sound in the home that can
approximate the event I experience in a concert hall.

Yeah I don't think so. Concert hall soundspace and your room are
worlds apart not to mention the source points and radiation patterns
of 100+ instruments v. 2, 5 or 7 speakers. But, as you said, what you
do with your home audio is your business. Best of luck with the
faithful "recreation of the original event" approach as opposed to the
aural illusion approach. Kind sucks for you that all the recordings
since the invention of stereo are designed for aural illusion
approach. (with the exception of binaural recordings)


Once one truly understands this basic fact
about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest for absolute
accuracy. Then one is free to persue better sound through high end
audio.

But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
meaningless.

Yeah of course. "Better" is intrinsically a subjective quality.

=A0Better than what?

if you want a great example you can review the one I gave with the
Blue Note recordings.

=A0The target disappears and the whole
project becomes pointless.

No the target does not disappear at all. One does not need literal
accuracy as a goal to maintain a target of aesthetic beauty.=A0the point
is whatever you make it. Personally I see accuracy for accuracy's sake
as rather pointless.

Thank goodness the people who invented the
concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!

But they did. You might want to review the history of stereo recording
and playback.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 3, 3:51=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
meaningless.

You are learning. Of course it's meaningless. Everybody has their own ide=
a of
how music ought to sound.

But the purpose of high fidelity recording is not to produce music
according to someone's idea of how it ought to sound, but the re-
produce it as it *did* in fact sound.


=A0Thank goodness the people who invented the
concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!

Actually they did and do.

Well, no, they didn't. I have read the words many of them wrote, and
they do not say that. I notice you provide no evidence for your
claim.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 3, 3:51=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as CD. In this he
would be right. But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen =
to
music, and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs.

Well, I think this is where you go off the rails, myself, and abandon
"high fidelity" in favour of subjective things like "musicality".

Most of us want to listen
to recordings that sound like music, not recordings that are "accurate".

But without the latter, the former will not be reliably attainable.
It will all just be luck. I want recordings that reliably sound like
music, and your approach, IMO, will make that impossible.

And
make no mistake, while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly aren't.

Well I am sorry, but they can't. LP is just unable to attain the
standard of CD and that will remain true.

Of course a well recorded LP can indeed sound better than a poorly
recorded CD. But that's beside the point, in my opinion.

If accuracy =3D musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect,

Stuff and nonsense. If the recording is lousy the CD will sound
lousy, and should.

much better than any
old analog recording from the "golden age" of stereo, but they don't, and
most of them don't sound anywhere nearly as good.

Even if that were true, which in my experience it isn't, it would
still be beside the point.

So "accurate" and
"musically and or sonically satisfying" are not the same thing.

Nobody that I know of ever said they were. But accuracy is the
foundation upon which all the rest must be built, and if the
foundation is rotten the house will eventually fall. To have records
that are reliably sonically satisfying one must start with an accurate
recording.

As I grew up in the days of vinyl I will agree that, even back then,
with the proper equipment, a vinyl record could achieve (barely) a
standard worthy =A0of the name "high fidelity".

I have 50-year-old vinyl records that would challenge that belief of your=
s.

I have 30 year old records that would confirm it.

And if you are honest,

I thought ad hominums such as questioning my honesty, as you appear to
me to be doing here, were supposed
to be off limits in this forum. I suppose the moderators can't catch
everything.

it would challenge that belief to the point of
actually changing your mind.

Not unless it was a double blind test it wouldn't. I require evidence
to change my mind (or like to think I do), and without blinding it
can't be evidence. And questioning my

It can be. But it can also be MUCH worse.

True, but irrelevant.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:39 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges
with those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased
comparisons between various cartridges. =A0There need
to be both technical measurements and subjective
listening tests with results that agree. The standard
of performance must be sonic accuracy.

But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has
improved, it is still not as good as CD.

But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as
CD. In this he would be right.

Sue me for liking to have my tone controls in an explicit form.

But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen to music,

That's actually one of the big lies of audiophilia. Audiophiles don't listen
to music, they listen to equipment.

and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs.

There is no error in having a system where the tone controls are clearly
marked and highly adjustable by the end-user.

Most of us want to listen to recordings that sound like music,

What is your standard for the sound of music?

My standard is based on listening to and producing recordings and
performances of live music.

not recordings that are "accurate".

Thanks for admitting that vinylphiles as a group want to avoid sonic
accuracy.

And make no mistake, while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly
aren't.

If your preconceived notions of what music sounds like includes the audible
noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format, then so be it. But
don't make the mistake of faulting equipment that isn't hard-wired to add
your favorite colorations.

One of the vinyl myths is the idea that a medium that adds an arbitrary set
of colorations based on geometry and materials properties can somehow
magically be part of a quest for sonic realism.

The fact of the matter is that people who generally have limited access to
live music long ago trained themselves to believe that music without the
arbitrary audible colorations of vinyl is missing something they need to
hear.

If accuracy = musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect,

That is fallacious logic because an accurate medium does not necessarily
ensure accurate reproduction. However, the converse is true, and an
inaccurate medium necessarily eliminates the possibility of accurate
reproduction.

Statements like this suggest a lack of understanding of the fact that
producing recordings is a multi-step process, and accuracy at one point in
the process is not an absolute guarantee that the whole process will be
accurate.

The fallacious argument above would have us believe that using the finest
beef absolutely guarantees a good steak, regardless of how it is cooked.
Those of us who have tried to master the art of the barbecue regrettably
know better! I admit it, I've spoiled more than a few steaks with careless
cooking, and despite the sonic accuracy of digital recording done right,
I've made more than a few regrettably recordings. At least I'm man enough to
say: "My bad!". ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:13 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 30, 8:03=A0am, Scott wrote:

Once one truly understands this basic fact
about audio they understand the absurdity of the quest
for absolute accuracy.

Absolute accuracy is well known to an absurd goal. Why even bring it up?

All reproduction is inaccurate, the relevant question relates to quantifying
and reducing the inaccuracy.

Then one is free to persue
better sound through high end audio.

It does appear that there is a segment of the high end audio scene that has
little or no interest in sonic accuracy.

But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense
becomes meaningless.

??????????????????????

You are learning.

Insecure people tend to talk down.

Of course it's meaningless.


If better is meaningless then why try to improve the degree to which your
system satisfied you?

Everybody has their own idea of how music ought to sound.


In the end everybody has their own ideas about everything. Reproducing other
people's ideas is just another one of those things that can't be done
perfectly.


This is based upon a number of factors, not the least of which is
taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is
important to the listener.

Ignores the fact that live musical instruments sound as they do, regardless
of the taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is
important to the listener.

Furthermore, we don't make a special recording for each listener, but expect
one recording to satisfy all. That means that the recording needs to satisfy
the varying taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is important
to the listener for a large group of *different* people.

Logic and experience shows that the best and most reliable way to produce a
satisfying sound for as many people as possible is to produce the most
accurate sound reasonably possible.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 4, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message







On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:39 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges
with those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased
comparisons between various cartridges. =3DA0There need
to be both technical measurements and subjective
listening tests with results that agree. The standard
of performance must be sonic accuracy.
But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has
improved, it is still not as good as =A0CD.
But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as
CD. In this he would be right.
But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen to music,

That's actually one of the big lies of audiophilia. Audiophiles don't lis=
ten
to music, they listen to equipment.

Music: "noun

1.the art and science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds or
tones in varying melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre, esp. so as to
form structurally complete and emotionally expressive compositions
2.the sounds or tones so arranged, or the arrangement of these
3.any rhythmic sequence of pleasing sounds, as of birds, water, etc."

Maybe it's a lie for you. But I listen to music.




and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs.

There is no error in having a system where the tone controls are clearly
marked and highly adjustable by the end-user.

There is a huge error in assuming that this is all that is needed to
compensate for the multitude of substandard CDs in this world when a
vinyl alternative would offer a real improvement.



Most of us want to listen to recordings that sound like music,

What is your standard for the sound of music?

Live music played by excellent musicians using excellent instruments
played in an excellent hall from an excellent seat in that hall.



My standard is based on listening to and producing recordings and
performances of live music.

Your standard may very well lack excellence which is crucial. Music
played on an out of tune piano by a hack musician in some highschool
auditorium is not something that sets a decent standard of aesthetic
beauty despite the fact that it is live music. If the source you use
as a reference lacks excellence in any parameter it is a standard that
is quite simply compromised. So what is it you are listening to Arny?I
am listening to live music at Disney Hall from really good seats a
couple times a month. at home I listen to world class recordings on
SOTA mastered LPs and CDs over an excellent high end system in a
dedicated listening room.



not =A0recordings that are "accurate".

Thanks for admitting that vinylphiles as a group want to avoid sonic
accuracy.

That isn't what he admitted.



And make no mistake, =A0while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly
aren't.

If your preconceived notions of what music sounds like includes the audib=
le
noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format, then so be it. Bu=
t
don't make the mistake of faulting equipment that isn't hard-wired to add
your favorite colorations.

Actually I do fault it when those colorations consistantly aid in the
illusion of live music that is aestetically pleasing.


One of the vinyl myths is the idea that a medium that adds an arbitrary s=
et
of colorations based on geometry and materials properties can somehow
magically be part of a quest for sonic realism.

It is not a myth it is actually something that has been supported by
real scientific research. don't believe me? Ask JJ,he did the actual
scientific research.



The fact of the matter is that people who generally have limited access t=
o
live music long ago trained themselves to believe that music without the
arbitrary audible colorations of vinyl is missing something they need to
hear.

really? That is a fact? Prove it please.



If accuracy =3D musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect,

That is fallacious logic because an accurate medium does not necessarily
ensure accurate reproduction. However, the converse is true, and an
inaccurate medium necessarily eliminates the possibility of accurate
reproduction.

Depends on what one is trying to be accurate to.


Statements like this suggest a lack of understanding of the fact that
producing recordings is a multi-step process, and accuracy at one point i=
n
the process is not an absolute guarantee that the whole process will be
accurate.


Indeed so one should understand that the target needs to be an end
result that best serves the original source not some sort of goal to
be literally accurate from one arbritary point in th emiddle of the
chain to another arbtrary point in the chain.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Dec 4, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message







On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:39 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges
with those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased
comparisons between various cartridges. =3DA0There
need to be both technical measurements and subjective
listening tests with results that agree. The standard
of performance must be sonic accuracy.
But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has
improved, it is still not as good as =A0CD.
But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE
as
CD. In this he would be right.
But most of us don't listen to specifications, we
listen to music,

That's actually one of the big lies of audiophilia.
Audiophiles don't lis= ten to music, they listen to
equipment.

snip definition of the word music because it is a well known fact.

Maybe it's a lie for you. But I listen to music.

Well, that's what you claim. People who are capable of introspection are
able to question their actions. It would appear that you have never
questioned your listening.

and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs.

There is no error in having a system where the tone
controls are clearly marked and highly adjustable by the
end-user.

There is a huge error in assuming that this is all that
is needed to compensate for the multitude of substandard
CDs in this world

No such claim was ever made. What was claimed was that tone controls are
sometimes capable of improving sound quality.

when a vinyl alternative would offer a real improvement.

That is obviously a statement of faith, not fact. The idea that the
colorations that are inherent in vinyl are actually capable of improving
sound quality is pretty far fetched. The colorations inherent in vinyl are
the consequence of things like geometry and the properties of materials. The
geometries and materials used were not chosen to compensate for colorations
that may have crept in during other steps of the production process, but
rather reflect failed attempts to reduce the audible noise and distoriton
that is inherent in vinyl to below audibilty. The idea that a vinyl
alternative is capable of improving the sound of anything is about as
improbable as claiming that one can reliably go to New York from anywhere in
the world by travelling towards San Francisco.

Most of us want to listen to recordings that sound like
music,

What is your standard for the sound of music?

Live music played by excellent musicians using excellent
instruments played in an excellent hall from an excellent
seat in that hall.

A proper standard is just one thing. There is only one length that is the
standard inch. Unfortunately the above is not just one thing. It is in fact
an unlimited number of different things. Different musicans, different
instruements, different halls, and different seats. The above is like
saying that the standard for measuring length is an unlimited number of
different things.

My standard is based on listening to and producing
recordings and performances of live music.

Your standard may very well lack excellence which is
crucial.

There is no need for me to waste time answering speculative comments about
what may be.

Music played on an out of tune piano by a hack
musician in some highschool auditorium is not something
that sets a decent standard of aesthetic beauty despite
the fact that it is live music.

That's not my standard. Claiming that it is insults my intelligence.

There's no need for me to go on in the face of this kind of thing.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:56:09 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 5:56=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:46 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 30, 6:21=3DA0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote

My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps, =
to
those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz recor=
din=3D
g.

=A0Being a consumer of recordings and desiring a higher quality product
than most of the studios produce, let me suggest that it is those who
defend the process today
as not in need of improvement, as you have strongly done, have lost
touch with the needs of many consumers.

I am not defending anything. I'm just saying that a "THX-like" minimum sp=
ec
for studio monitors and home listening environments would not make the
recordings any better nor would it make what you hear at home sound any m=
ore
like what the engineers and producers put on disc. =A0This is because, as=
I
have restated until blue in the face, the monitoring equipment is PERIPHE=
RAL
to the recording chain, not a part of it. =A0

I can't agree with that. When a mixing/mastering engineer makes
adjustments, aren't they often doing so based upon what they hear from
those monitors?

Not really, no. Most use headphones for the critical stuff. But still, even
the headphones are peripheral to the recording process. Most adjustments are
made intuitively by the engineer KNOWING his equipment. I.E, he hears one
thing but he intuitively knows that this or that adjustment will yield a
certain result and what he hears might tell him that the desired result has
been achieved without him actually being able to hear the result as it really
is. This is difficult to explain, but when I was working as a recording
engineer, I could tell by what I heard what the result would really sound
like even though what the result really sounded like was not exactly what I
heard.

Seems to me at least establishing a correlation to if not outright
replication of a standard response would make it a lot easier to make
those adjustments optimal.

Sometime people who are so ingrained with the way it's been done are
the least receptive to change.

A lot of mastering engineers use nearfield monitors for mastering. Which is
the reason that many modern pop recording have lots of mid-bass and almost no
real bass. I certainly wouldn't want to replicate THAT in my listening room!

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:09:18 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 3, 3:51=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

But the very concept of "better" in any objective sense becomes
meaningless.

You are learning. Of course it's meaningless. Everybody has their own ide=
a of
how music ought to sound.

But the purpose of high fidelity recording is not to produce music
according to someone's idea of how it ought to sound, but the re-
produce it as it *did* in fact sound.


Er, no, not at all. As others have pointed out, how can music sound as it
really did sound when your listening room and the original venue have NOTHING
in common? How can it sound like real music when some idiot producer sticks a
microphone in each and ever instrument, goes to great lengths to isolate one
instrument from the next, and the records each to a separate track?
High-Fidelity, like so many things in life, is a misnomer to say the least.
The term was coined in the Early Thirties by RCA Labs and first applied to
the RCA "Photophone" sound-on-film process for making "talkies" . Since then,
the term has been hijacked for everything from cheap 5-tube AM radios to
shampoo. To be accurate to the term as applied to audio equipment, it mostly
referred to equipment designed to introduce as little compromise as possible
into playback equipment. The goals of flat, 20-20,000 Hz frequency response
and low levels of distortion are really all the industry ever "promised". The
illusory goal of bringing the performance into one's listening room (or
transporting one to the concert hall) is up to the individual listener. And
make no mistake, it is an illusion. We can no more make it real than we
travel to another galaxy, and really, most audiophiles aren't trying to. What
we are doing is building systems that that give us occasional glimpses of the
illusion of real music playing in a real space. If that illusion is best
served by less than accurate or less than perfect equipment, then so be it.
There are many different paths to the illusion we all say we want, and the
illusion is probably slightly different for everybody.

=A0Thank goodness the people who invented the
concept of fidelity in recorded sound never thought that way!

Actually they did and do.

Well, no, they didn't. I have read the words many of them wrote, and
they do not say that. I notice you provide no evidence for your
claim.

The evidence is all around you. If what you are saying were true, all
recordings would be made the same way and would all sound the same. They
don't. That's all the evidence needed to support the assertion that everyone
has a different opinion of how music ought to sound, including those who make
it, produce it, record it, package it, and market it, right through to each
of us who buy it and listen to it.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message


snip

Ignores the fact that live musical instruments sound as they do,
regardless
of the taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is
important to the listener.

Furthermore, we don't make a special recording for each listener, but
expect
one recording to satisfy all. That means that the recording needs to
satisfy
the varying taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is important
to the listener for a large group of *different* people.

Logic and experience shows that the best and most reliable way to produce
a
satisfying sound for as many people as possible is to produce the most
accurate sound reasonably possible.


Here is the nub of the issue. In reality, even the sound of the instruments
is not the same....as recorded. That is a function of the room, the mics,
the analog and digital electronics, and the propensity of the engineer to
add (or not) electronic enhancments.

So the modern system has evolved as follows: engineers, producers, and/or
musicians produce recorded music that satisfies THEM. Listeners buy music
from composers, artists, and often engineers and producers (who have
achieved a following) that satisfy THEM. And they listen on systems they
have assembled that satisfy THEM in their listening space.

If their goal is the sound of live instruments in live space, then all this
assembly is designed to deliver what to them best meets their remembrances
of live sound.

If their goal is the sound of electronically reproduced instruments, then
all this assembly is designed to deliver what to them is most satisfying
from the electronically-produced concerts they have heard, as
remembered....whether powerful bass, rasping guitars, or shouted voices.

THAT is the hobby of quality audio reproduction of music. By any name:
high-fielity audio, high-end audio, an "interest" in audio, etc. etc. Their
is no NEED for a standard to make this "uniform".

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:01:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:39 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges
with those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased
comparisons between various cartridges. =A0There need
to be both technical measurements and subjective
listening tests with results that agree. The standard
of performance must be sonic accuracy.

But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has
improved, it is still not as good as CD.

But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as
CD. In this he would be right.

Sue me for liking to have my tone controls in an explicit form.

But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen to music,

That's actually one of the big lies of audiophilia. Audiophiles don't listen
to music, they listen to equipment.

Yes, some do. Not all though, and certainly not all the time.

and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs.

There is no error in having a system where the tone controls are clearly
marked and highly adjustable by the end-user.

Frankly I don't use tone controls at all. First of all, I've never seen any
of the simple Baxandall type that ever did anything that I wanted a tone
control to do. Secondly, while so-called "graphic equalizers" and parametric
equalizers can do what is needed, I've never seen one that was "transparent"
enough to warrant it's insertion into the playback path.

Most of us want to listen to recordings that sound like music,

What is your standard for the sound of music?

Exactly! My standard is that which sounds the most like music to MY EARS. And
doubtless you standard is the same for you.

My standard is based on listening to and producing recordings and
performances of live music.

Like I haven't been doing that for the last 40 years?

not recordings that are "accurate".

Thanks for admitting that vinylphiles as a group want to avoid sonic
accuracy.

Why would you thank anyone for that? Since obviously there is a such thing as
musical recordings that aren't accurate and accurate recordings that aren't
musical.

And make no mistake, while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly
aren't.

If your preconceived notions of what music sounds like includes the audible
noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format, then so be it. But
don't make the mistake of faulting equipment that isn't hard-wired to add
your favorite colorations.

Nobody is doing that.

One of the vinyl myths is the idea that a medium that adds an arbitrary set
of colorations based on geometry and materials properties can somehow
magically be part of a quest for sonic realism.

Have I ever voiced that myth? No. And I don't believe it to be true either.

The fact of the matter is that people who generally have limited access to
live music long ago trained themselves to believe that music without the
arbitrary audible colorations of vinyl is missing something they need to
hear.

True enough. But since I hear live music of all kinds, at least once and
often twice a week, I'm not one of those.

If accuracy = musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect,

That is fallacious logic because an accurate medium does not necessarily
ensure accurate reproduction. However, the converse is true, and an
inaccurate medium necessarily eliminates the possibility of accurate
reproduction.

It's not fallacious logic, What you say above is my POINT and I agree fully!

Statements like this suggest a lack of understanding of the fact that
producing recordings is a multi-step process, and accuracy at one point in
the process is not an absolute guarantee that the whole process will be
accurate.

Again, that's my point. Accuracy does NOT necessarily equal musicality. If it
did all CDs would sound equally good and be equally musical. That accuracy =
musicality seems to be Mr. Seedhouse's assertion, not mine. I used the
statement to show him how wrong such an idea is.

The fallacious argument above would have us believe that using the finest
beef absolutely guarantees a good steak, regardless of how it is cooked.

Yes, have not we all?

Those of us who have tried to master the art of the barbecue regrettably
know better! I admit it, I've spoiled more than a few steaks with careless
cooking, and despite the sonic accuracy of digital recording done right,
I've made more than a few regrettably recordings. At least I'm man enough to
say: "My bad!". ;-)

Then as far as I can see, except for your adamant bias against LP, which I
still find to be a viable source of music, we are more-or-less in complete
agreement on the accuracy = musicality assertion.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:30:59 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 4, 6:01=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message







On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:39 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 2, 6:01=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



There's plenty of evidence that vinyl playback has
improved. Just compare today's best phono cartridges
with those of a few years ago.

Please provide evidence based on reliable, unbiased
comparisons between various cartridges. =3DA0There need
to be both technical measurements and subjective
listening tests with results that agree. The standard
of performance must be sonic accuracy.
But of course, even if Arny is wrong and vinyl has
improved, it is still not as good as =A0CD.
But I think Arny's point is that LP is not as ACCURATE as
CD. In this he would be right.
But most of us don't listen to specifications, we listen to music,

That's actually one of the big lies of audiophilia. Audiophiles don't lis=
ten
to music, they listen to equipment.

Music: "noun

1.the art and science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds or
tones in varying melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre, esp. so as to
form structurally complete and emotionally expressive compositions
2.the sounds or tones so arranged, or the arrangement of these
3.any rhythmic sequence of pleasing sounds, as of birds, water, etc."

Maybe it's a lie for you. But I listen to music.

I think what Arny means is that too many audiophiles, while proclaiming that
"it's about the music" are often really fixated on the equipment and forget
that the equipment is the means to the end (listening to music) not the end
in an of itself. In this he is correct. I know many like this. There is also
that group who are dogmatic about one media or methodology over another and
actually dismiss any recording or reproduction method that falls outside of
their cannon of acceptability. This is the same broad in a different skirt,
as far as I'm concerned.

and this where the "CD rules!" crowd errs.

There is no error in having a system where the tone controls are clearly
marked and highly adjustable by the end-user.

There is a huge error in assuming that this is all that is needed to
compensate for the multitude of substandard CDs in this world when a
vinyl alternative would offer a real improvement.

Agreed. As I have said many times here. I have LPs and CDs of the same
performance where, for some unknown reason, the LP sounds more like a real
musical performance than the CD does. And just as often, I have CDs that make
the LP seem like a cardboard cutout of the real event by comparison. There
are no hard and fast rules like many here would have it. Heck, I even have
copies of two different CD masterings of a single performance where one is so
much better than the other that it's difficult to reconcile their sound with
the knowledge that they both originated from the same master tape!



Most of us want to listen to recordings that sound like music,

What is your standard for the sound of music?

Live music played by excellent musicians using excellent instruments
played in an excellent hall from an excellent seat in that hall.



My standard is based on listening to and producing recordings and
performances of live music.

Your standard may very well lack excellence which is crucial. Music
played on an out of tune piano by a hack musician in some highschool
auditorium is not something that sets a decent standard of aesthetic
beauty despite the fact that it is live music. If the source you use
as a reference lacks excellence in any parameter it is a standard that
is quite simply compromised. So what is it you are listening to Arny?

You might have stumbled on to something, Scott. I wonder if the type of music
that people such as Mr. Seedhouse (and perhaps Arny) listen to influences
their opinions about recording quality. Classical music and pop music, are,
after all, recorded in a completely different manner, with completely
different goals. Pop is about recording the instruments and classical is
about recording the space that the instruments occupy.

I am listening to live music at Disney Hall from really good seats a
couple times a month. at home I listen to world class recordings on
SOTA mastered LPs and CDs over an excellent high end system in a
dedicated listening room.

This is, perhaps, off-topic, here but does the new Disney Hall sound as good
as they say it does?


not =A0recordings that are "accurate".

Thanks for admitting that vinylphiles as a group want to avoid sonic
accuracy.

That isn't what he admitted.

Arny knows that. He's just playing the Usenet "debating game".

And make no mistake, =A0while they CAN be the same thing, they mostly
aren't.

If your preconceived notions of what music sounds like includes the audib=
le
noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format, then so be it. Bu=
t
don't make the mistake of faulting equipment that isn't hard-wired to add
your favorite colorations.

Actually I do fault it when those colorations consistantly aid in the
illusion of live music that is aestetically pleasing.


One of the vinyl myths is the idea that a medium that adds an arbitrary s=
et
of colorations based on geometry and materials properties can somehow
magically be part of a quest for sonic realism.

It is not a myth it is actually something that has been supported by
real scientific research. don't believe me? Ask JJ,he did the actual
scientific research.



The fact of the matter is that people who generally have limited access t=
o
live music long ago trained themselves to believe that music without the
arbitrary audible colorations of vinyl is missing something they need to
hear.

really? That is a fact? Prove it please.



If accuracy =3D musicality, then all CDs would sound perfect,

That is fallacious logic because an accurate medium does not necessarily
ensure accurate reproduction. However, the converse is true, and an
inaccurate medium necessarily eliminates the possibility of accurate
reproduction.

Depends on what one is trying to be accurate to.


Statements like this suggest a lack of understanding of the fact that
producing recordings is a multi-step process, and accuracy at one point i=
n
the process is not an absolute guarantee that the whole process will be
accurate.


Indeed so one should understand that the target needs to be an end
result that best serves the original source not some sort of goal to
be literally accurate from one arbritary point in th emiddle of the
chain to another arbtrary point in the chain.

Well said. Bravo!

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:02:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Ignores the fact that live musical instruments sound as they do, regardless
of the taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is
important to the listener.

Ah, but we lack the technology to present, in the home, live musical
instruments that sound "as they do". We can come close sometimes, but no one
audio system does everything equally well and my point is that audiophiles
tend to construct their systems to do those things well that they have found
in live performances to "ring their bells" as it were; sometimes at the
expense of other things.

Furthermore, we don't make a special recording for each listener, but expect
one recording to satisfy all. That means that the recording needs to satisfy
the varying taste, expectations, and a personal focus on what is important
to the listener for a large group of *different* people.

Agreed.

Logic and experience shows that the best and most reliable way to produce a
satisfying sound for as many people as possible is to produce the most
accurate sound reasonably possible.

Now we have to define accurate as well as define the methods and tools used
by the recording team to ascertain the level accuracy being captured. This
brings this discussion almost full circle.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 4, 4:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

You might have stumbled on to something, Scott. I wonder if the type of m=
usic
that people such as Mr. Seedhouse (and perhaps Arny) listen to influences
their opinions about recording quality. Classical music and pop music, ar=
e,
after all, recorded in a completely different manner, with completely
different goals. Pop is about recording the instruments and classical is
about recording the space that the instruments occupy.

In fact I listen to all of these kinds of music with about equal
frequency. Perhaps that is why I prefer a system that will reproduce
them all with about equal effect. In other words an accurate system.
A system that is biased toward or against any particular type of music
is, in my opinion, simply a broken system.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Dec 4, 4:24=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Now we have to define accurate as well as define the methods and tools us=
ed
by the recording team to ascertain the level =A0accuracy being captured. =
This
brings this discussion almost full circle.

The definition of "accuracy" has been given many times here, and is
straightforward, unlike other words such as "musical", which is a
morass of confusion.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 4, 4:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:


This is, perhaps, off-topic, here but does the new Disney Hall sound as g=
ood
as they say it does?


I don't want to overstate it's virtues but IMO it sets the new
standard for excellence. I have never experienced that combination of
extraordinary articulation and richness, warmth and reverberance. I
recently went to an amazing concert in Costa Mesa with Yuja Wang (my
new favorite pianist) and the Shanghai orchestra playing
Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. Amazing performance but the sound
was muddy almost to the point of distraction. The Reneee and Henry
Segerstrom concert hall isn't exactly a highschool auditorium. I think
Disney Hall has ruined me.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 4, 6:31=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Dec 4, 4:24=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Now we have to define accurate as well as define the methods and tools =
used
by the recording team to ascertain the level =A0accuracy being captured=
.. This
brings this discussion almost full circle.

The definition of "accuracy" has been given many times here, and is
straightforward, unlike other words such as "musical", which is a
morass of confusion.

Once again personal aesthetic values are seen as "confusion." at least
we are circling back to the original topic. I find nothing confusing
about aesthetic beauty. 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. 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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:


This is, perhaps, off-topic, here but does the new Disney Hall sound as good
as they say it does?

All that I've experienced there is symphony orchestra, but in that
context: from the audience, it's the best hall I've heard, from the
stage (in terms of hearing everything) it's the second best after
Carnegie.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:32:01 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 4, 4:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:


This is, perhaps, off-topic, here but does the new Disney Hall sound as g=
ood
as they say it does?


I don't want to overstate it's virtues but IMO it sets the new
standard for excellence. I have never experienced that combination of
extraordinary articulation and richness, warmth and reverberance. I
recently went to an amazing concert in Costa Mesa with Yuja Wang (my
new favorite pianist) and the Shanghai orchestra playing
Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. Amazing performance but the sound
was muddy almost to the point of distraction. The Reneee and Henry
Segerstrom concert hall isn't exactly a highschool auditorium. I think
Disney Hall has ruined me.


That's what I have read as well, Thanks for confirming it. Rachmaninoff's 2nd
eh? One of my favorite pieces of music. I envy you hearing a first class
performance of it. The last time I heard it played live was with Phillipe
Entremont in the late '70's.

Isn't is ironic, that we Westerners (people of European heritage) care so
little for our cultural heritage these days, that we have to rely on
non-Westerners such as the Japanese and Chinese to preserve it for us? While
they turn out Yo-Yo-Ma's and Yuja Wang's, we turn out Snoop Dogs and Ice
Cubes. 99% of Americans under 50 have never even heard of Rachmaninoff, or
Beethoven or Ravel, and wouldn't know what they were listening to if they
heard any of their works. U.S. kids haven't been exposed to classical music
or really, fine art of any kind for decades. We're letting it slip away,
folks, and this society is the poorer for it.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

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. I merely want to convey those
values from one place to another without confusion, so that everyone
who shares those values can have equal enjoyment. As 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

[ScottW]

On Dec 4, 4:14=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:56:09 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):





On Dec 2, 5:56=3DA0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:30:46 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 30, 6:21=3D3DA0pm, Sonnova wrote=
:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800, ScottW wrote

My point is that none is needed no is any desirable. except, perhaps=
, =3D
to
those who don't really understand the process of studio pop/jazz rec=
or=3D
din=3D3D
g.

=3DA0Being a consumer of recordings and desiring a higher quality pro=
duct
than most of the studios produce, let me suggest that it is those who
defend the process today
as not in need of improvement, as you have strongly done, have lost
touch with the needs of many consumers.

I am not defending anything. I'm just saying that a "THX-like" minimum=
sp=3D
ec
for studio monitors and home listening environments would not make the
recordings any better nor would it make what you hear at home sound an=
y m=3D
ore
like what the engineers and producers put on disc. =3DA0This is becaus=
e, as=3D
=A0I
have restated until blue in the face, the monitoring equipment is PERI=
PHE=3D
RAL
to the recording chain, not a part of it. =3DA0

=A0I can't agree with that. =A0When a mixing/mastering engineer makes
adjustments, aren't they often doing so based upon what they hear from
those monitors?

Not really, no. Most use headphones for the critical stuff. But still, ev=
en
the headphones are peripheral to the recording process. Most adjustments =
are
made intuitively by the engineer KNOWING his equipment. I.E, he hears one
thing but he intuitively knows that this or that adjustment will yield a
certain result and what he hears might tell him that the desired result h=
as
been achieved without him actually being able to hear the result as it re=
ally
is. This is difficult to explain, but when I was working as a recording
engineer, I could tell by what I heard what the result would really sound
like even though what the result really sounded like was not exactly what=
I
heard.

I understand what you're saying. It's knowledge of correlation gained
by experience
which unfortunately, not enough have.


Seems to me at least establishing a correlation to if not outright
replication of a standard response would make it a lot easier to make
those adjustments optimal.

Sometime people who are so ingrained with the way it's been done are
the least receptive to change.

A lot of mastering engineers use nearfield monitors for mastering. Which =
is
the reason that many modern pop recording have lots of mid-bass and almos=
t no
real bass. I certainly wouldn't want to replicate THAT in my listening ro=
om!

Nor do I. But that is exactly the problem that a standard could
overcome.
Mix/master on the nearfield monitors, headphones or whatever you
choose, but give the final result a listen on a standard compliant
system. Hopefully that will provide a realization of the problem you
mention above and send them back into the mastering room for further
work.

ScottW

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 5, 10:05=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:32:01 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Dec 4, 4:22=3DA0pm, Sonnova wrote:

This is, perhaps, off-topic, here but does the new Disney Hall sound a=
s g=3D
ood
as they say it does?

I don't want to overstate it's virtues but IMO it sets the new
standard for excellence. I have never experienced that combination of
extraordinary articulation and richness, warmth and reverberance. I
recently went to an amazing concert in Costa Mesa with Yuja Wang (my
new favorite pianist) and the Shanghai orchestra playing
Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. Amazing performance but the sound
was muddy almost to the point of distraction. The Reneee and Henry
Segerstrom concert hall isn't exactly a highschool auditorium. I think
Disney Hall has ruined me.

That's what I have read as well, Thanks for confirming it. Rachmaninoff's=
2nd
eh? One of my favorite pieces of music. I envy you hearing a first class
performance of it. The last time I heard it played live was with Phillipe
Entremont in the late '70's.

It was amazing.


Isn't is ironic, that we Westerners (people of European heritage) care so
little for our cultural heritage these days, that we have to rely on
non-Westerners such as the Japanese and Chinese to preserve it for us? Wh=
ile
they turn out Yo-Yo-Ma's and Yuja Wang's, we turn out Snoop Dogs and Ice
Cubes. 99% of Americans under 50 have never even heard of Rachmaninoff, o=
r
Beethoven or Ravel, and wouldn't know what they were listening to if they
heard any of their works. U.S. kids haven't been exposed to classical mus=
ic
or really, fine art of any kind for decades. We're letting it slip away,
folks, and this society is the poorer for it


Yuja Wang may be Chinese born but she was trained in Canada as well as
China. To hear her talk you would think she is a typical American
teenager except for her knowledge of music which way beyond her age.
She is a freak of nature though. I would not be surpirsed if she were,
on a purely technical level, simply the best pianist we have ever
seen. Check her out on Youtube performing flight of the bumblebee and
note that it is a real time performance. Her artistry like all
artistry is a matter of taste. I think she is extraordinary in that
regard as well. She is almost too good. She sails so effortlessly
through complex material that one can easily forget how difficult that
music is. To see her is to understand her talent. But I digress.
I think here in L.A. we may have someone who will change that which
you lament. Gustavo! Gustavo! The man has become a rock star. Going to
Dinsey hall to see him conduct is as cool as going to a Lakers game.
And the man has the goods. His passion for music is unmistakable and
contageous. He has a grand vision for youth programs in L.A. much like
the ones he came up through in Venezuala. There is hope for the future
of classical music and as an Angelino this is an amazing time to be a
concert goer.
To go from watching Alfred Brendel phone in the Beethoven piano
sonatas in that morg of a concert hall, Dorathy Chandler Pavilion to
seeing Yuja Wang and Gustavo Dudamel in Disney Hall....I feel like we
have emerged from the dark ages.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

99% of Americans under 50 have never even heard of Rachmaninoff, or
Beethoven or Ravel, and wouldn't know what they were listening to if they
heard any of their works. U.S. kids haven't been exposed to classical music
or really, fine art of any kind for decades. We're letting it slip away,
folks, and this society is the poorer for it.

Trying to do something about this is the thrust of my work. While I
think that you overstate the point a bit (many U.S. kids have been
exposed), I certainly agree that far too few young people learn about
the classical arts, and I believe more importantly, the way that people
like me have been presenting classical concerts has been found to be
lacking. The "graying" of our audiences is all the evidence one needs
to see that the vast majority of young people are not tuning in to what
we're expressing. I believe that there is still a place for performers
in black tuxes and dresses, with all of the (tired?) traditions of
symphonic performance, playing and singing for audiences dressed up and
quietly sitting in concert hall seats. But a lot of my colleagues and I
believe in and are experimenting with new ways for new generations, with
encouraging results. Spurred on by the opportunistic buzz of our new
venue, we're experimenting with such things as encouraging audiences to
blog during concerts. Bring your laptop or smartphone; the hall is
wi-fi equipped. We're including visual presentations with some musical
works. We're throwing some things out there seeing what sticks; what
generates excitement without losing the integrity of the artistic
experience.

What percentage of the next 100 people you meet on the street could
complete the name, "Wolfgang Amadeus __________"? I think that in my
(pretty artistically hip) town, the answer would be depressing. AND, I
think that the answer would be a lower percentage than those in L.A. who
could identify a photo of Dudamel. He has been so well marketed in L.A.
AND his performance style produces excitement, which is key. We've had
our feet stuck in the mud for fat too long.

So yes, the level of exposure in the schools is tragic, in my view. But
just as important is HOW we have been presenting what little bit of
exposure we do.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:19:26 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 5, 10:05=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:32:01 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):





On Dec 4, 4:22=3DA0pm, Sonnova wrote:

This is, perhaps, off-topic, here but does the new Disney Hall sound a=
s g=3D
ood
as they say it does?

I don't want to overstate it's virtues but IMO it sets the new
standard for excellence. I have never experienced that combination of
extraordinary articulation and richness, warmth and reverberance. I
recently went to an amazing concert in Costa Mesa with Yuja Wang (my
new favorite pianist) and the Shanghai orchestra playing
Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. Amazing performance but the sound
was muddy almost to the point of distraction. The Reneee and Henry
Segerstrom concert hall isn't exactly a highschool auditorium. I think
Disney Hall has ruined me.

That's what I have read as well, Thanks for confirming it. Rachmaninoff's=
2nd
eh? One of my favorite pieces of music. I envy you hearing a first class
performance of it. The last time I heard it played live was with Phillipe
Entremont in the late '70's.

It was amazing.


Isn't is ironic, that we Westerners (people of European heritage) care so
little for our cultural heritage these days, that we have to rely on
non-Westerners such as the Japanese and Chinese to preserve it for us? Wh=
ile
they turn out Yo-Yo-Ma's and Yuja Wang's, we turn out Snoop Dogs and Ice
Cubes. 99% of Americans under 50 have never even heard of Rachmaninoff, o=
r
Beethoven or Ravel, and wouldn't know what they were listening to if they
heard any of their works. U.S. kids haven't been exposed to classical mus=
ic
or really, fine art of any kind for decades. We're letting it slip away,
folks, and this society is the poorer for it


Yuja Wang may be Chinese born but she was trained in Canada as well as
China. To hear her talk you would think she is a typical American
teenager except for her knowledge of music which way beyond her age.
She is a freak of nature though. I would not be surpirsed if she were,
on a purely technical level, simply the best pianist we have ever
seen. Check her out on Youtube performing flight of the bumblebee and
note that it is a real time performance. Her artistry like all
artistry is a matter of taste. I think she is extraordinary in that
regard as well. She is almost too good. She sails so effortlessly
through complex material that one can easily forget how difficult that
music is. To see her is to understand her talent. But I digress.
I think here in L.A. we may have someone who will change that which
you lament. Gustavo! Gustavo! The man has become a rock star.

I watched the opening concert where he did the the very derivative "City
Scape" by John Adams and Mahler's 1st (the "Titan"). While I wasn't impressed
by the Adams piece (reminded me of Ginestara's "Panambi" Ballet from the late
1930's mixed-in with some mid -'50's Bernard Herrmann). But I thought Dudamel
did a great job on the piece and I really liked his "Titan" and compared it
favorably with Bruno Walter's late 50's recording - which in my opinion is
the definitive "Titan".

Going to
Dinsey hall to see him conduct is as cool as going to a Lakers game.
And the man has the goods. His passion for music is unmistakable and
contageous. He has a grand vision for youth programs in L.A. much like
the ones he came up through in Venezuala. There is hope for the future
of classical music and as an Angelino this is an amazing time to be a
concert goer.
To go from watching Alfred Brendel phone in the Beethoven piano
sonatas in that morg of a concert hall, Dorathy Chandler Pavilion to
seeing Yuja Wang and Gustavo Dudamel in Disney Hall....I feel like we
have emerged from the dark ages.

I can imagine.