[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:46:08 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 12, 10:13*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
those seats. That's why live music played in real space
is the one absolute reference in audio

Except that that *live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
absolute.

Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions. A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
played in real space the absolute reference. Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Apr 12, 10:13 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

Yet we can always tell live from canned - from any of
those seats. That's why live music played in real space
is the one absolute reference in audio

Except that that live music played in real space is not
just one thing. It is as many different things there are
seats in the auditorium and on stage.

That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is
nonsensical. It isn't absolute.

Agreed.

I would expect that an absolute standard would be just one thing. An
absolute length standard would be a certain length, not a large number of
different lengths that were equally valid.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on
objective experiences.

Please explain what an objective experience is.

And being subjective, it is
subject to a whole lot of influences (including,
ironically, our experiences of recorded music!).

One thing that facilitates a degree of objectivity is comparison to a fixed
standard. For example, by picking a reference location, I can form opinions
about how the sound at other locations varies from it.

[bob]

On Apr 12, 5:42*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions.

If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
I agree.

A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
played in real space the absolute reference.

I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."

Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).

I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
anechoic recording of same.

But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
no standard for what that ought to sound like.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.

That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 12, 5:42*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions.

If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
I agree.

No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.

A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live music
played in real space the absolute reference.

I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."

I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.

Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).

I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
anechoic recording of same.

But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
no standard for what that ought to sound like.

There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the air
in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the best
description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a recording
and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard, and
I've heard some pretty fancy ones.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.

That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.

That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live music
as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in real
space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent acoustics.
Recordings made there can be first rate).

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova wrote:

Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions.

If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
I agree.

No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.

A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
music
played in real space the absolute reference.

I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."

I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.

Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).

I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
anechoic recording of same.

But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
no standard for what that ought to sound like.

There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the
air
in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
best
description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
recording
and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
and
I've heard some pretty fancy ones.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.

That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.

That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
music
as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
real
space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
acoustics.
Recordings made there can be first rate).

FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber music,
but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
reproducing "live".

More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a standard
(or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it) are
more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
"boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
and...
I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.

Exactly right, IMO. There is no mistaking the sound of acoustic
instruments played (or sung) live.

It seems to me that what we're saying is that the reference isn't THE
trumpet played in THE acoustic space, as heard from THE certain seat.
Rather, it's A POSSIBLE trumpet, played in A POSSIBLE space, as heard
from SOME seat. That is different from ANY audio system. To the extent
that a system in your home can, with given software, remind you of that
(those) sound(s), you have a winner.

You mention Stanford: nice Wind Ensemble there. I have heard the other
ensembles there, but the WE has come a long ways in recent years.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article , bob
wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course
it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument
or
the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax -
every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can
you
not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the
sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm
not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a
saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our
aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound
of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always
sounds
like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it,
not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice
versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able
to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.

Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Codifus" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Codifus wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

Terry wrote:


I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?


the 'warmth' of analog is distortion -- so you'd
have to make an LP of it first, or copy it to 1/2 inch tape or run it
through a tube amp.

___
-S maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business
as fans is to rock with them.

The 'warmth' of analog is distortion, not to mention limited dynamic
range, saturated high frequency response et al


It doesn't matter many people, myself included. Whatever makes a
recording sound the most like acoustic music is what floats my boat.
Please don't take my comment as saying that analog is un-listenable
compared to digital.

Some of my favorite digital recordings were recorded to my computer from
the turntable or cassette. If it's the best version of a recording I have,
I'll listen to it and enjoy it. Hiss, rumble and all.

I even have some double copies of recordings, a CD and vinyl version. If I
feel that the vinyl version still sounds better, I burn a CD of it and
retire the mass produced CD.

Heck, I even enjoy itunes AAC 128kbps recordings. They're not perfect, but
they're quite good.

Through all this I hope I have conveyed the message that I do believe that
digital is better than analog, but you do have to work at it, just as with
anything. It is no way near the "perfect sound forvever" simplicity that
the marketing guys used when CD was first introduced.


I believe the implication is that the sound from a CD remains intact (or
perfect!) forever in contrast to the result of that after repeated use and
playing of a LP, which unlike CD, does not remain intact (or perfect!)
forever.

CD

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 8:27*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Isn't it marvelous, therefore, that with all the variety the human brain is
rarely fooled into mistaking reproduced sound from live music.

The key word here is "rarely", which allows for the observable fact
that, occasionally we are indeed fooled. If we can be fooled at all
it is only then a matter of figuring out how to fool ourselves
reliably. A technical problem that is certainly solvable.

In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. AR did
it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!

We just don't know how to do it in a domestic environment with
domestically practical equipment yet.

Which
suggests why comparing components to our "gestalt recollection" of what
makes music sound "live" is a better standard than comparing two pieces of
"sound".

It doesn't even suggest "that", let alone suggesting "why".

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 5:46*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy compression?

no, several generations of analog tape would introduce analog compression if
any at all.

And "analogue compression" is defined as ...?

The concept of lossy compression exists only in the digital world

And your evidence that this is so is....?
In a tape recording, each generation of tape causes noise to build-
up,
distortion to build-up, and transients to become less and less distinct, but
unless the original recording was recorded *wildly "hot" *(consistently
driving the meters over "0" Vu), no actual compression is indicated.

So it reduces the dynamic range and it cannot be reconstructed to the
sound of the original. I think that fits any reasonable definition of
"lossy compression" myself. Of course LC is usually done by computers
using an algorithm, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done by other
means. If it's compression and it involves loss of signal components
as well then in my book that's "lossy compression". Whether it's done
by a comuter running an algortihm or by re-recording on several
generations of analogue tape is beside the point, so far as I can see.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 11, 2:44*pm, Jenn wrote:

I disagree. *Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. *

But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.

What we can't yet do is fool people reliable in the domestic
environment with domestically acceptable equipment.
But the fact that we can do it at all refutes your claim.

For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. *It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. *In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

But with good and reasonably cheap domestic equipment and a decent
recording it is possible for people to hear the differences quite
clearly. The fact that recordings can't always do that doesn't mean
that they can't do it at all.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 9:46*am, bob wrote:

Except that that *live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
absolute.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
memory or perhaps a collection of memories.

To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:11:21 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
and...
I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.

Exactly right, IMO. There is no mistaking the sound of acoustic
instruments played (or sung) live.

It seems to me that what we're saying is that the reference isn't THE
trumpet played in THE acoustic space, as heard from THE certain seat.
Rather, it's A POSSIBLE trumpet, played in A POSSIBLE space, as heard
from SOME seat. That is different from ANY audio system. To the extent
that a system in your home can, with given software, remind you of that
(those) sound(s), you have a winner.

Yep.

You mention Stanford: nice Wind Ensemble there. I have heard the other
ensembles there, but the WE has come a long ways in recent years.

Yes, I have some fantastic recordings I've made there.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:10:47 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova wrote:

Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
sounds
like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
trumpet -in
any venue, under any conditions.

If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
I agree.

No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin, or
a
piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one knows
what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless of
venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.

A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
real
trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
where
you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
finest
stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
music
played in real space the absolute reference.

I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."

I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
different
than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.

Audio will be perfect when a
stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
recorded
and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
definition,
that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the stereo
system is trying to recreate (in this case).

I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
anechoic recording of same.

But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
no standard for what that ought to sound like.

There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves the
air
in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
best
description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
recording
and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
and
I've heard some pretty fancy ones.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
human
aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
listening biases.

That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.

That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
music
as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
real
space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
acoustics.
Recordings made there can be first rate).

FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber music,
but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
reproducing "live".

I agree, absolutely.

More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a standard
(or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it) are
more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
"boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....

It's really a lot like piloting a ship blindfolded. One has no idea where one
is going. If one follows one's instincts and prejudices about direction or
"accurate" sound, one will end up sailing in circles. Without a reference it
becomes a matter of "if it feels good, do it". and that leads nowhere either
in listening to or manufacturing of audio equipment. There must be a
reference and the only one that I know is the sound of real, live acoustic
music played in real space.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 12, 9:46*am, bob wrote:

Except that that *live music played in real space is not just one thing. It
is as many different things there are seats in the auditorium and on stage.

That's why calling it an "absolute reference" is nonsensical. It isn't
absolute.

It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
music!).

And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
it is actually happening. After that it is in the past, and the only
thing left of it is the memory. So the "absolute" is actually only a
memory or perhaps a collection of memories.

To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.


No it isn't. The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
doesn't. If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
as possible.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article , bob
wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course
it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument
or
the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax -
every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can
you
not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the
sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm
not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a
saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our
aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound
of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always
sounds
like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it,
not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice
versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able
to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.

Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.


The microphone feed is not the live event in any sense except time. The
microphone feed will sound exactly like the recording made from that feed (or
rather vice versa) all you need to tell that is a DAT machine or HDD-based
recording system that allows read after write. Been there, done that and the
two are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:08 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 11, 2:44*pm, Jenn wrote:

I disagree. *Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. *

But you are factually wrong. We've known how to fool people reliably
since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.

Except that as a participant in those "live vs recording" demonstrations by
AR, I can tell you that they rarely fooled anyone except people with no
listening experience either in hi-fi or live music.

What we can't yet do is fool people reliable in the domestic
environment with domestically acceptable equipment.
But the fact that we can do it at all refutes your claim.

For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. *It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. *In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

But with good and reasonably cheap domestic equipment and a decent
recording it is possible for people to hear the differences quite
clearly. The fact that recordings can't always do that doesn't mean
that they can't do it at all.

True enough but only the most inexperienced of listeners would ever mistake
either for the real thing.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:51:30 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 10, 5:46*pm, Sonnova wrote:
Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy compression?

no, several generations of analog tape would introduce analog compression if
any at all.

And "analogue compression" is defined as ...?

The concept of lossy compression exists only in the digital world

And your evidence that this is so is....?
In a tape recording, each generation of tape causes noise to build-
up,
distortion to build-up, and transients to become less and less distinct, but
unless the original recording was recorded *wildly "hot" *(consistently
driving the meters over "0" Vu), no actual compression is indicated.

So it reduces the dynamic range and it cannot be reconstructed to the
sound of the original. I think that fits any reasonable definition of
"lossy compression" myself. Of course LC is usually done by computers
using an algorithm, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done by other
means. If it's compression and it involves loss of signal components
as well then in my book that's "lossy compression". Whether it's done
by a comuter running an algortihm or by re-recording on several
generations of analogue tape is beside the point, so far as I can see.

One can argue anything and I was using the accepted definition of lossy
compression whereby a digital algorithm makes predetermined decisions about
what to throw away in the program material and when. By your definition,
anything which reduces the dynamic range, even by masking, is lossy
compression by virtue of the fact that information is lost by obfuscation.

[jwvm]

On Apr 14, 9:51 pm, wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:46 pm, Sonnova wrote:

Wouldn't several generations of analog tape induce lossy compression?

no, several generations of analog tape would introduce analog compression if
any at all.

And "analogue compression" is defined as ...?

Dynamic range reduction!


The concept of lossy compression exists only in the digital world

Agreed


And your evidence that this is so is....?
In a tape recording, each generation of tape causes noise to build-
up,

distortion to build-up, and transients to become less and less distinct, but
unless the original recording was recorded wildly "hot" (consistently
driving the meters over "0" Vu), no actual compression is indicated.

So it reduces the dynamic range and it cannot be reconstructed to the
sound of the original. I think that fits any reasonable definition of
"lossy compression" myself.
Of course LC is usually done by computers
using an algorithm, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done by other
means. If it's compression and it involves loss of signal components
as well then in my book that's "lossy compression". Whether it's done
by a comuter running an algortihm or by re-recording on several
generations of analogue tape is beside the point, so far as I can see.

What you describe is certainly lossy but it is not compression. There
has been no data reduction assuming that the frequency response is not
altered. Storage requirements remain the same.

[Peter Wieck]

On Apr 14, 9:49*pm, wrote:

In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. *AR did
it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!

Truly, I was waiting for this!

OK, AR did do this. On more than a very few occasions. Typically they
used a string quartet playing music typical of the species.
*Relatively* limited and of similar timbre, but not of frequency.

And a few more things:

a) They practiced the transitions very carefully to make them as
perceptibly seamless as possible.
b) They carefully chose the transitional passages to favor the
midrange of the speakers so that subsequent highs and lows would be of-
a-piece vs. in-the-middle-of.
c) They kept it to fairly small venues of very conventional design
with a very small central and surrounded stage. This favored the
directional nature of cone speakers.

And, with all that in mind, they most certainly did fool their
audiences to well within the margin of error for randomness. Further,
they did it with their standard available-for-sale-just-like-this
speaker line, and very late in the game even used their own AR
amplifier for the test. By todays standards a pretty crude beast -
although I like them very much and keep several of them (and their
receivers).

But, in a typical residential situation, even in a dedicated listening
room, the sort of artificial environment created by AR for their tests
simply does not happen. And it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that if AR had
chosen even a very small chamber orchestra with say... a harpsichord
or kettle drums or similar that they would have brought it off as
well.

Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:55:50 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 14, 9:49*pm, wrote:

In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. *AR did
it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!

Truly, I was waiting for this!

OK, AR did do this. On more than a very few occasions. Typically they
used a string quartet playing music typical of the species.
*Relatively* limited and of similar timbre, but not of frequency.

And a few more things:

a) They practiced the transitions very carefully to make them as
perceptibly seamless as possible.
b) They carefully chose the transitional passages to favor the
midrange of the speakers so that subsequent highs and lows would be of-
a-piece vs. in-the-middle-of.
c) They kept it to fairly small venues of very conventional design
with a very small central and surrounded stage. This favored the
directional nature of cone speakers.

And, with all that in mind, they most certainly did fool their
audiences to well within the margin of error for randomness. Further,
they did it with their standard available-for-sale-just-like-this
speaker line, and very late in the game even used their own AR
amplifier for the test. By todays standards a pretty crude beast -
although I like them very much and keep several of them (and their
receivers).

But, in a typical residential situation, even in a dedicated listening
room, the sort of artificial environment created by AR for their tests
simply does not happen. And it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that if AR had
chosen even a very small chamber orchestra with say... a harpsichord
or kettle drums or similar that they would have brought it off as
well.

Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
phone, a cat meow or dog bark (we have both), even a door opening or
closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

I used to go to their showroom on Broadway often when I was in NY. They
rarely fooled me. I could almost always tell when they changed and which I
was listening to.. Of course I was 17 years old then and listened to a lot of
live music (I still do the latter, but alas, I'm no longer 17).

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:56:55 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Correct. The "live" music has been through at least TWO transducers before it
hits your ears.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 3:41*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:08 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 11, 2:44*pm, Jenn wrote:

I disagree. *Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. *

But you are factually wrong. *We've known how to fool people reliably
since the 1960's, when AR started doing it with string quartets.

Except that as a participant in those "live vs recording" demonstrations by
AR, I can tell you that they rarely fooled anyone except people with no
listening experience either in hi-fi or live music.

This seems to me to amount to agreement that the claim "Live acoustic
music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities that separate it from any
recorded sound." is factually wrong. Rarely is not "never". And
there was no qualification in the claim for regular folks with regular
ears being foolable. If anyone can be so fooled, ever, the claim is
wrong.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 3:55*pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:49*pm, wrote:

In fact we can do it intentionally and we know how to do it. *AR did
it reliably back in the 1960's for gosh sakes!

Truly, I was waiting for this!

OK, AR did do this.

So you admit it can be done, that it can be done repeatedly, and that
we pretty much know how to do it.

Yes, as you go on to say, it's impractical for the home, difficult to
do (or at last was in the 1960's), expensive and so on.

None of which changes the fact that it was done for some live music.

The original claim allowed for no such exception, so I believe that
the exception disproves it.

Now, I would posit that with my back turned and no context, based on
many sorts of signal, my Maggies might fool me into believing
something "live" was back there under some conditions. The ringing
phone, a cat meow or dog bark *(we have both), even a door opening or
closing - sounds without context. That is a good start anyway.

And my much cheaper speakes do it fairly frequently on similar
sounds. Actually it's almost impossible to distinguish between live
and recorded electronic phone rings. None of that means we've solved
the problem of reproducing live sound accurately in domestic
circumstances. But it does disprove the rather absurd claims of all
live sound being easily recognized as not recorded and vice versa.

Audio is difficult, but it is not mystical.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 15, 3:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, wrote
And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
it is actually happening. *After that it is in the past, and the only
thing left of it is the memory. *So the "absolute" is actually only a
memory or perhaps a collection of memories.

To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.

No it isn't.

But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
see.

The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
doesn't.

That, i am sorry, is nonsense. Most reproduced sound is actually
quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded. It has notes,
pitches, and timing. You can sing along to the tune played on the
junkiest boom box. You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
tom or a snare. Usually.

Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
from the live event. But it is certainly "like" the live event in
many ways. It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
is it.

If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
as possible.

"High Fidelity" is at least measurable. "Absolute Sound" isn't.

Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
never get to hear it through loudspeakers. But they can usually tell
which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
hear it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
distinctive qualities that separate it from any
recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced in Alice
Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like
live music, and recorded sound has never displayed the
those distinctive qualities. For example, it's easy to
tell the difference between an oboe and an English Horn
in any live situation I've ever experienced, even when
you don't know the score and can't see which instrument
is being played. It's often possible to even tell the
make and model of the instrument. In the case of
recordings, it's sometimes impossible to tell the
difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
live music and compared that to a good recording derived
from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be able to
distinguish live from recorded music.

That follows from the fact that a good digital recorder is sonically
transparent. Playback is not audibly different from the signal that was
recorded.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
that I mean it.

I agree with that, but...

The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a mic
or mics to the concurrent live performance.

The differences I hear can be explained by the following:

(1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat frequency
response.
(2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the
mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.
(3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.

You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.

Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as
typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF
(Head Response Transfer Function).

I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
diverse.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article , bob
wrote:

On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote

No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
it.

I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course
it
sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument
or
the
set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax -
every
time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can
you
not
ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the
sound
doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
saxophone
and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm
not
discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument)
sounds
different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a
saxophone
makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our
aural
memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound
of a
live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always
sounds
like
a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it,
not
having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice
versa).
The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are
able
to
identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.

Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.


The microphone feed is not the live event in any sense except time.

That's my point, however it exists there before any _recording_ has ever
been made. How can one expect any manufactured recording to approach, or
sound *live*, if the material from which it's derived doesn't sound live.
It's not "recording" which is a problem, it's that you are unable to catch
the live sound in the first place!

The
microphone feed will sound exactly like the recording made from that feed
(or
rather vice versa) all you need to tell that is a DAT machine or HDD-based
recording system that allows read after write. Been there, done that and
the
two are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

I'm certain you have, as you told us that it's your "business", however even
a hobbyist can anticipate it.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible
to
tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

I think we all know that. It's my meaning that _*recording*_ itself can't
approach live sound if *live* hasn't been captured in the first place. How
possibly can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live if the
information going into making any recording doesn't sound LIVE in the first
place?

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:23:15 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Apr 15, 3:40*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:52:29 -0700, wrote
And moreover this claimed "absolute" standard only exists for the time
it is actually happening. *After that it is in the past, and the only
thing left of it is the memory. *So the "absolute" is actually only a
memory or perhaps a collection of memories.

To call that "absolute" in any way is to abuse words, in my opinion.

No it isn't.

But nothing in what you say next refutes that opinion so far as I can
see.

The reproduced sound either sounds like real music or it
doesn't.

That, i am sorry, is nonsense. Most reproduced sound is actually
quite a lot like the live sound that was recorded. It has notes,
pitches, and timing. You can sing along to the tune played on the
junkiest boom box. You can usually tell if someone is playing a tom
tom or a snare. Usually.


Of course most of it is obviously colored and easily distinguishable
from the live event. But it is certainly "like" the live event in
many ways. It just isn't enough like it to fool you into thinking it
is it.

That's what I've been saying all along.

If it doesn't then the audio system is not high-fidelity. Aural
memory is fleeting that's why to stay on the staright and narrow, one needs
to continually "re-calibrate" one's ears by listening to as much live music
as possible.

"High Fidelity" is at least measurable. "Absolute Sound" isn't.

Some aspects of High-Fidelity are measurable and others while measurable,
don't correlate to how they sound. Speakers are a perfect example of this.

Even those who believe in "absolute sound" must admit that they will
never get to hear it through loudspeakers.

That's why it's often referred to as "the holy grail" of audio. Unattainable,
but as with Sir Percival, worth pursuing.

But they can usually tell
which of a pair of speakers is more faithful to the original when they
hear it.

Not necessarily. Often, personal biases take over and people revert to them.
Like picking the louder of two systems and perceiving louder as "better".
That's why its so important to constantly re-calibrate one's ears - unless,
of course, accuracy to real music is not important to one, then its a matter
of "if it sounds good to me, etc......"

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

I think we all know that. It's my meaning that _*recording*_ itself can't
approach live sound if *live* hasn't been captured in the first place. How
possibly can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live if the
information going into making any recording doesn't sound LIVE in the first
place?

True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live than others,
and none are even close to perfect.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
that I mean it.

I agree with that, but...

The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a mic
or mics to the concurrent live performance.

The differences I hear can be explained by the following:

(1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat frequency
response.

Do any?

(2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the
mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.

Of course.

(3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.

Of course.

So do you disagree with the opinion that some recordings sound more real
and live than others?


You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.

Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as
typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF
(Head Response Transfer Function).

I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
diverse.

Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

[Codifus]

On Apr 12, 5:41 pm, Sonnova wrote:

Can't agree with you there. I think they are unlistenable. Of course, I
suspect that this result would depend on the kinds of music one listens to.
Rock and pop might be acceptable downloaded from iTunes Music Store at
128kbps, but classical and film scores are awful.

You're right. I just realized that any classical music I have is
lossless. I guess this goes to show that the flaws in lossy
compression mask themselves adequetely well behind fast, percussive
music.

CD

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message


I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
sound.

I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to
say that with such certainty.

Live acoustic music produced in Alice Tully,
whether full or empty, will always sound like live music,
and recorded sound has never displayed the those
distinctive qualities.

That would be limited by your personal experiences, no?

For example, it's easy to tell
the difference between an oboe and an English Horn in any
live situation I've ever experienced, even when you don't
know the score and can't see which instrument is being
played.

I don't see how that is relevant.

It's often possible to even tell the make and
model of the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's
sometimes impossible to tell the difference.

We all know that some recordings are badly made and/or processed heavily.
Sometimes they are processed to obscure these sorts of things. What does
that say with certainty about recordings made by the best of means? I
think - it says nothing.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:44:50 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
that I mean it.

I agree with that, but...

The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a mic
or mics to the concurrent live performance.

The differences I hear can be explained by the following:

(1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat frequency
response.

Do any?

Some are reasonable. Omnidirectionals are the most flat and of those,
microphones called calibration mikes are the absolute best as far as
frequency response is concerned. Unfortunately, with calibration mikes, this
ruler-flat frequency response comes at the expense of everything else, signal
to-noise-ratio, maximum SPL, etc. so they usually aren't great for recording.

(2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the
mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.

Of course.

(3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.

Of course.

So do you disagree with the opinion that some recordings sound more real
and live than others?

Sure. the best recordings sound absolutely un-fiddled with. I.E. huge dynamic
range, no compression, no limiting, no EQ, etc. Even with classical stuff,
this type of recording is rare. Recordings made this way tend, on average, to
seem recorded at quite a low level compared to most (at least they do until
one hits a crescendo and sends the listener diving for his volume control -
which is the reason that most recordings have at least SOME compression. The
recordings I make are this way and some people appreciate the reason why the
average level is so low, and others do not. The San Francisco Symphony label
records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good
their recent Mahler cycle sounds.


You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.

Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as
typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF
(Head Response Transfer Function).

I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
diverse.

Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A
forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no matter
how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do when
they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount of
electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to mike
the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to a
late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins
playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble
throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker and
another.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message


I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
sound.

I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to
say that with such certainty.

Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need hanging on either
side of your head.

Live acoustic music produced in Alice Tully,
whether full or empty, will always sound like live music,
and recorded sound has never displayed the those
distinctive qualities.

That would be limited by your personal experiences, no?

For example, it's easy to tell
the difference between an oboe and an English Horn in any
live situation I've ever experienced, even when you don't
know the score and can't see which instrument is being
played.

I don't see how that is relevant.

It's often possible to even tell the make and
model of the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's
sometimes impossible to tell the difference.

We all know that some recordings are badly made and/or processed heavily.
Sometimes they are processed to obscure these sorts of things. What does
that say with certainty about recordings made by the best of means? I
think - it says nothing.

It says that the best of recordings are light years away from being perfect.
Better than ever, yes, but perfect no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's
recordings of Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps Rudy
Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best ever made and while I
agree that many of these sound simply amazing, the technology exists today to
simply blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a minimum of
equipment. But even as good as it's possible to get today - even on ordinary
16-bit, 24KHz CD, most recordings still don't sound very good and even the
best fall short of reality. Producers have agendas and some of those agendas
have little to do with sound quality of the recordings they make and
everything to do with selling CDs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
live music and compared that to a good recording
derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
course. I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
is "live".

I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
_*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
if the information going into making any recording
doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?

True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
than others, and none are even close to perfect.

Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
improving realism.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
live music and compared that to a good recording
derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
course. I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
is "live".

I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
_*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
if the information going into making any recording
doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?

True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
than others, and none are even close to perfect.

Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
improving realism.

That is exactly my point. All recordings are heard through speakers.
Speakers are imperfect devices. Stereo systems never sound just like
live.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

The San Francisco Symphony label
records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good
their recent Mahler cycle sounds.

Fantastic recordings, IMO. Great performances as well. I've been to
several of the concerts when they are recording the Mahlers... all
wonderful.



You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.

Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that
as
typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's
HRTF
(Head Response Transfer Function).

I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
diverse.

Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A
forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no matter
how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do when
they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount of
electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to mike
the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to a
late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins
playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble
throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker and
another.

Indeed. So sad that so many great Bernstein and von Karajan readings
were recorded that way.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:39:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote:

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
live music and compared that to a good recording
derived from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be
able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
that I mean it. You're hearing it through a speaker, of
course. I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording
is "live".

I think we all know that. It's my meaning that
_*recording*_ itself can't approach live sound if *live*
hasn't been captured in the first place. How possibly
can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live
if the information going into making any recording
doesn't sound LIVE in the first place?

True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live
than others, and none are even close to perfect.

Avoiding loudspeakers and listening rooms are two powerful steps towards
improving realism.


I have a friend with a pair of Stax SR-404s and a matching headphone
amplifier which I have listened to extensively. In a way, you are right. The
'phones eliminate the speakers and the room and because the diaphragms are so
small and low-mass they can be made absolutely linear over a much wider
range than can any pair of speakers and as a result, can sound uncanny (no
pun intended) and real to certain point. Where headphones fail, is that
unless one is listening to a binaural recording DESIGNED for headphone
listening, normal stereo recording technique gives one a rather strange
perspective which always breaks the spell for me, and speakers as well as
live music, assault the entire body, often on a really visceral level
(especially low bass) and that's always missing from headphone listening.
Then of course, I've never been to a performance where the musicians follow
me as I move my head :-). But a good pair of headphones can sound real in a
way that speakers never could.