Subjectivist/Objectivist
kel...@my-deja.com
close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
duplicate the microphone feed?
(I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
shots!)
Tim Kelley
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
>close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
>duplicate the microphone feed?
>
>(I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
>shots!)
That's fair comment AFAIAC, and AFAIK it's the best way of placing the
sound quality responsibility squarely where it belongs - on the
shoulders of the recording engineer.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
auplater
> close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> duplicate the microphone feed?
>
> (I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
> shots!)
>
well... it could be....
Then again, it also could be that the "objectivist" wish to provide
reproducible information verifiable by some form of independent valid
test method, whilst the "subjectivists'" wish to present their own
personal viewpoints and perspectives without concern for verification
and/or independent review.
food for thought....
auplater
mcn...@my-deja.com
kel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
> close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> duplicate the microphone feed?
Well, "duplicate the microphone feed" is the engineering standard. To an
engineer, to strive for anything else would be to intentionally degrade
the signal.
On the other hand, I think most objectivists would like to think their
systems provide a reasonable semblance of live music. They may be more
skeptical about engineering's ability to get there than subjectivists
are, however.
There's also the uncomfortable fact that "what live music sounds like" is
itself a subjective judgment (at least for those of us who don't test
equipment by mounting a string quartet between our speakers). Are
subjectivists really assembling a system that approaches "live," or are
they assembling a system that produces a certain kind of artificiality
that they find particularly appealing?
>
> (I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
> shots!)
Sounds like you were looking to ignite a flame war. If you want to do
that, you'll need to start with a less thoughtful question.
bob
Thomas M. Cunningham
disco.
Would you look at great art through rose colored glasses, or sip wine
through a straw?
Accurate reproduction does sound like live music, of the unamplified
kind, when recorded right and played back accurately.
I've been listening t a lot of equipment and frankly most of even the
highly rated stuff is really disappointing. When you hear a pair of
uncolored low distortion speakers (a rarity to my ears) these types
of arguments go away.
Tom
<kel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8pqs8...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
> close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> duplicate the microphone feed?
>
> (I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
> shots!)
>
> Tim Kelley
George Graves
<aupl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
> > close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> > duplicate the microphone feed?
> >
> > (I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
> > shots!)
> >
> > Tim Kelley
>
> well... it could be....
>
> Then again, it also could be that the "objectivist" wish to provide
> reproducible information verifiable by some form of independent valid
> test method, whilst the "subjectivists'" wish to present their own
> personal viewpoints and perspectives without concern for verification
> and/or independent review.
>
> food for thought....
>
> auplater
Absolutely. Objectivists seem to need to trust in something other
than their ears. I.E. they need to have their musical enjoyment
verified by the scientific method. Subjectivists look at hi-fi as a
hobby which has one goal: to emotionally involve them in the music.
The nuts and bolts simply aren't that important. If a questionable
tweak makes the music more palpable to them, they don't really care
about whether or not there is any real scientific basis for it, if it
'seems' to work, they just enjoy it. Where the subs get into trouble
is when they try explain to obs why or how some dubious tweak works.
Since they often don't know, and really don't care, they find
themselves parroting the product's marketing gibberish, which, of
course, is usually nonsense. Sure its a trap. When the HCOs scream
"Double-blind test!", the HCSs should just say. "Who cares? It works
to my satisfaction." When they don't do this, these endless,
meaningless debates occur.
--
George Graves
Richard D Pierce
Thomas M. Cunningham <tom...@ptd.net> wrote:
>We are talking high end reproduction here, not dance music at the
>disco.
>
>Would you look at great art through rose colored glasses, or sip wine
>through a straw?
>
>Accurate reproduction does sound like live music, of the unamplified
>kind, when recorded right and played back accurately.
Yes, it should.
The problem with your premise is that accurate reproduction of
live music is demonstrably impossible to do using two-channel
stereophonic reproduction, played over loudspeakers, even
perfect loudspeakers. The moment you have reduced it to two
channels with the intent of playing over speakers, you have
discarded SOP much soundfield information that that missing
information alone permantly handicaps any chance of proper
reproduction.
>I've been listening t a lot of equipment and frankly most of even the
>highly rated stuff is really disappointing. When you hear a pair of
>uncolored low distortion speakers (a rarity to my ears) these types
>of arguments go away.
The soundfield information itself in your scenario is forever
lost.
Thus, it comes down to subjective choices between equally bad,
but different, implementations.
For this, the best science and technology can do reliably and
repeatedly is to perturb what is left of the information as
little as possible. If omeone finds that subtracting FURTHER
from the information satisfies their sense of emotional
satisfaction, that's fine, but it is a different version of
innaccuracy (and maybe a lesser one at that), but it is the
unalienable right of the individual to make that choice. Science
cannot and does not choose to coopt that choice: the array of
choices is vast an limitless. It can best say, "here is the
signal I have been given, and I will change it as little as
possible withinn the technological, economic and marketing
constraints I have been handed."
Others may well choose, instead, to say "here is the signal I
have been given, and I will change it as I deem suitable to fit
my constituencies requirements." That's fine, too.
But one of them serves the accuracy of reproducing the signal,
the other serves the whims of the constituency.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Howard Ferstler
>
> Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
> close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> duplicate the microphone feed?
>
> (I know better than to say this, but can't resist. Take your best
> shots!)
As a clean-signal objectivist who also wants his system to
simulate a live-music situation, I am kind of caught between
a rock and a hard place, here.
I certainly want microphone-feed quality signals coming from
my CD player to my processor/preamp. However, given the
limitations of two-channel audio in terms of its inability
to create a realistic soundfield, I also want the option of
being able to fiddle with that clean, exacting
microphone-feed signal. This allows me to overcome some of
the limitations inherent in two-channel audio.
That is, while the two-channel basic signals should be
clean, I realize that no matter how clean they may be there
is no way that they will be able to genuinely simulate "live
music" in a home-listening environment. There are just not
enough source points for this to happen.
So, I apply assorted DSP surround emendations, in an attempt
to undo the defects that are inherent within two-channel
audio. I want the two-channel signals I am working with to
be untroubled by distortions, but at the same time I want to
try to build upon them and synthesize both a solid center
and some decent surround ambiance.
However, I see no sense at all in having equipment that
modifies genuinely clean, microphone-feed-grade, two-channel
signals while still leaving them at two channels.
I think that most of the time I do pretty well with my
signal diddling, and hopefully as intelligently made,
5-channel recordings hit the market I will have to diddle a
bit less (I have four surround channels in my system, and so
I can also synthesize effects even with 5-channel program
material) and be satisfied with clean, microphone-feed-grade
signals that also simulate a live-music listening space
better than two channels can.
Howard Ferstler
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Absolutely. Objectivists seem to need to trust in something other
>than their ears. I.E. they need to have their musical enjoyment
>verified by the scientific method.
It is really offensive to see completely nonsensical claims like
this bandied about.
Mr. Graves has had the difference between preference and scientific
determination of small audible differences explained to him repeatedly.
None the less, we still see offensive characterizations like this.
Why is this even allowed? This is simply trying to start a fight.
[ It was allowed since it is his opinion, although it does totter on
the edge of acceptablility. -- deb ]
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Richard D Pierce
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Absolutely. Objectivists seem to need to trust in something other
>than their ears. I.E. they need to have their musical enjoyment
>verified by the scientific method.
George, this is one of the most nonsensical, insulting, vacuous
and inflammatory misrepresentations to come these ways in some
time. Your claim is little more than invective poorly
masquerading as "opinion."
You either are deliberately misrepresenting the views of others
or are utterly and completely unaware of what you are talking
about. Show us a SINGLE reference by ANY one of the so-called
"objectivists" that states, as you so claim, that they must have
"their musical enjoyment verified by the scientific method."
Find us ONE quote George, just one.
>'seems' to work, they just enjoy it. Where the subs get into trouble
>is when they try explain to obs why or how some dubious tweak works.
>Since they often don't know, and really don't care,
IF THEY DON'T CARE, WHY ARE THEY TRYIONG TO JUSTIFY AND EXPLAIN
IT?
George, your claim here is simply self-contradictory hooey. If
they REALLY didn't care, they wouldn't bother with the
pseudo-scientific blather. Instead, they not only parrot the
nonsense marketing prattle, they make up a bunch on their own.
Why? To impress somebody, I guess.
they find
>themselves parroting the product's marketing gibberish, which, of
>course, is usually nonsense. Sure its a trap. When the HCOs scream
>"Double-blind test!",
Show us one verifiable quote of someone screaming "double-blind
test" in response to someone expresssing a personal preference
as just that, as opposed to someone expressing their personal
preference as a matter of universal truth.
>the HCSs should just say. "Who cares? It works
>to my satisfaction." When they don't do this, these endless,
>meaningless debates occur.
What's worse is when the GGLP (George Grave-like People) make up
strawman arguments about people who don't exist saying things
others never said.
Arny Krueger
news:8ptfa...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> Absolutely. Objectivists seem to need to trust in something other
> than their ears.
This statement, if presented naively would be a travesty. A childish
misunderstanding.
In the context of the past several weeks of discussion, it clearly
represents something far more reprehensible: This statement is surely
is a willful misrepresentation.
If it is not a willful misrepresentation then its author would be
able to substantiate his claim with quotes from recent posts by
"objectivists".
>I.E. they need to have their musical enjoyment verified by the
scientific method.
The extent of the influence of the scientific method on "objectivist"
listening is that "objectivists" chose to listen by means that are
not an total affront to the scientific method.
Harry Lavo
news:8ptdh5$mr$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
<snip>
> There's also the uncomfortable fact that "what live music sounds like" is
> itself a subjective judgment (at least for those of us who don't test
> equipment by mounting a string quartet between our speakers). Are
> subjectivists really assembling a system that approaches "live," or are
> they assembling a system that produces a certain kind of artificiality
> that they find particularly appealing?
> >
live Moscow concert and reproduced by a very good late 70's phono system,
along with a real pianist with a 12 foot Steinway, in the same room, and it
was difficult to tell which was live and which was recorded, I was attacked
by the "objectivists" as somehow deluded....the Rubenstein playing and the
recorded piano couldn't possibly sound that real...it had to have audible
wow and flutter....everybody knows the phono system is wildly imperfect!
So, who was the "objectivist" and who was the "subjectivist" in this
situation?
Rob Gold
>Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
>close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
>duplicate the microphone feed?
>
This seems to be a very useful comparison between two different listening
paradigms, one I wish that more audio folks would discuss without rancor.
But I think Tim's comparison misses the issues that most who get lumped as
either subjectivists or objectivists are concerned with. Most folks in either
camp, I would like to think, start with the question "what is real," and then
follow their own logical paradigms to different perspectives. As what I would
call a "cautious subjectivist" I would like to propose a different starting
point, one which might allow the two camps a better understanding of the
others' issues. I call this "observational." This would allow those we now
call objectivists a way to acknowledge sensory observations that can not be
backed by measureable data. This would also allow subjectivists a way to
acknowledge data-based observations such as the absense of data supporting
items like cable sound or directionality.
I hope that this is more than a "can't we all just get along" argument, or a
"everything comes down to preference" debate-ender, but a call for everyone to
open their minds and ears to other perspectives and paradigms.
It would be unfair to make a post like this without putting some of my personal
paradigms in the line (think of the "slow, lingering kisses" speech in the film
Bull Durham):
1) There *is* an "absolute sound." Acoustic instruments have a real sound in
real spaces. Using anything else as a reference seems to be well along a
relativistic slippery slope. I acknowledge that others may view this as
self-serving subjectivism <g>.
2) The best gear is now getting very good, but still fails to convince. Play
an infant a recording of its mother's voice; the infant knows it is not real.
3) The minute frequency response variations that many audiophiles seem to pay
the most attention to in judging a component's/system's accuracy do not affect
me that much. I am, however, very sensitive to spatial aberations and, to a
lesser degree, dynamic compressions.
4) Two channel sound is a limited illusion, but I don't think we are likely to
realise the potential benefits of multi channel reproduction as a consumer
reality for a long, long time. The limitations of two channel sound are not so
much the signal handling part of the chain, but microphone pickup patterns,
speaker radiation patterns and listening room interactions. We consumers can't
do much about the former, but spend way too small a part of our money and
attention addressing the other two issues. Most of us would get better sound
with a $10k system in a $50k room than with a $50k system in a $10k room.
5) The microphone feed is a signal, not music. Signals are easy, music is
hard.
Just my opinion! Pace.
Rob Gold
mcn...@my-deja.com
rgvi...@aol.com (Rob Gold) wrote:
> Tim Kelly wrote:
> >Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
> >close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> >duplicate the microphone feed?
> >
>
> This seems to be a very useful comparison between two different listening
> paradigms, one I wish that more audio folks would discuss without rancor.
>
> But I think Tim's comparison misses the issues that most who get lumped as
> either subjectivists or objectivists are concerned with. Most folks in either
> camp, I would like to think, start with the question "what is real," and then
> follow their own logical paradigms to different perspectives.
What many subjectivists seem not to realize is that objectivists, too,
want a system that sounds "real" to them. Where they differ is in the
extent to which they pay heed to what science has figured out about
sound, hearing, and electronics.
> As what I would
> call a "cautious subjectivist" I would like to propose a different starting
> point, one which might allow the two camps a better understanding of the
> others' issues. I call this "observational." This would allow those we now
> call objectivists a way to acknowledge sensory observations that can not be
> backed by measureable data.
A misconception. Objectivists acknowledge that what listeners (including
themselves, by the way) say they hear are sensory observations. The
disagreement concerns which senses are involved--hearing alone, or
hearing and seeing.
> This would also allow subjectivists a way to
> acknowledge data-based observations such as the absense of data supporting
> items like cable sound or directionality.
I cannot imagine anything that would allow a subjectivist to concede this
without upending his world-view.
>
> I hope that this is more than a "can't we all just get along" argument, or a
> "everything comes down to preference" debate-ender, but a call for everyone to
> open their minds and ears to other perspectives and paradigms.
God bless the idealists!
>
> It would be unfair to make a post like this without putting some of my personal
> paradigms in the line (think of the "slow, lingering kisses" speech in the film
> Bull Durham):
>
> 1) There *is* an "absolute sound." Acoustic instruments have a real sound in
> real spaces. Using anything else as a reference seems to be well along a
> relativistic slippery slope. I acknowledge that others may view this as
> self-serving subjectivism <g>.
Quite wrong. No one disagrees that the Holy Grail is an audio system
whose sound is indistinguishable from real music.
>
> 2) The best gear is now getting very good, but still fails to convince. Play
> an infant a recording of its mother's voice; the infant knows it is not real.
>
> 3) The minute frequency response variations that many audiophiles seem to pay
> the most attention to in judging a component's/system's accuracy do not affect
> me that much. I am, however, very sensitive to spatial aberations and, to a
> lesser degree, dynamic compressions.
You're not alone. But many audiophiles, when they talk of "sounding like
real music," focus on timbral accuracy. I think that emphasis is
misplaced, but to each his own.
>
> 4) Two channel sound is a limited illusion, but I don't think we are likely to
> realise the potential benefits of multi channel reproduction as a consumer
> reality for a long, long time. The limitations of two channel sound are not so
> much the signal handling part of the chain, but microphone pickup patterns,
> speaker radiation patterns and listening room interactions. We consumers can't
> do much about the former, but spend way too small a part of our money and
> attention addressing the other two issues. Most of us would get better sound
> with a $10k system in a $50k room than with a $50k system in a $10k room.
>
> 5) The microphone feed is a signal, not music. Signals are easy, music is
> hard.
And the idea that somehow, through careful component matching, you can
come closer to the music than the microphone feed does, strikes me as
quixotic.
GoobAudio
news:8q0vk7$efg$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
: <mcn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
I am with you on that one. It seems no matter what I say I am attacked
by the objectivists and assumed to be deluded by them too.
I recently took some work on at a place that I need to drive to in the
morning. It is only 15 minutes, but that is 14 3/4 minutes longer than
my normal commute. I took up harmonica playing in the car since we
have several lying about as my wife plays rather well. We often sit
in the listening room and play along with the stereo. Yesterday I was
putting on Alanis Morrisett's Jagged Little Pill album and not
necessarily paying attention when I heard my wife blow the harmonica.
O-oh....it was the album. Am I deluded or does my system sound like
the live thing? I prefer to believe that my system sounds like live
music - at least that coming from a harmonica, the unamplified
instrument I am most familiar with these days.
To answer your question, you are the subjectivist. In order for your
personal opinion to be objective it must be subjected to rigorous
testing which is controlled and repeatable - preferably monitored by
other certified objectivists, documented and then tried again on a
widely varied population with consistant results. Only then will you
prove what you already know from your subjective experience to the
objectivists.
--
Phil Abbate
http://philsaudio.stryke.com
" I am just searching for the true religion in this thing, not the
Nobel Prize"
:
GoobAudio
news:8q31pp$f2r$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
: A misconception. Objectivists acknowledge that what listeners
(including
: themselves, by the way) say they hear are sensory observations. The
: disagreement concerns which senses are involved--hearing alone, or
: hearing and seeing.
Very well said.
Maybe this is why I think of myself as an objective subjectivist? I
let my subjective opinion of what I hear be the arbiter of the
information I collect from my nifty scientific gadgets and what not.
In the end I could care less what the meter or the meter reader has to
say about what I am hearing.
In loudspeakers you have to make a lot of different music with the
drivers,box,room at hand. As the designer you can orchestrate these
drivers like a conductor orchestrates a musical piece. Depending on
what is in your orchestra and where they are playing how that is
done. The more skilled conductor will score the piece to take
advantage of what he has and work around what he doesn't.
The loudspeaker designer conducts his drivers using the crossover. If
you try to make your drivers "sing notes they just cant hit" it will
sound as crappy as a tenor straining to hit soprano notes he has no
business trying to hit. If you don't have it covered or have to strain
to cover it, find a work around. To many designers try to force the
drivers to give them a flat response at the expense of making them
strain to get there. This is usually done with the help of computers
and textbooks.
The crossover artist, may use these nifty tools, but if in the end he
goes with his gut even if that decision goes against science and
finds the right balance and keeps it regardless of what the meter is
telling him, I would say that is the subjective objectivist.
The objectivist may think they are satisfying both sides, getting it
flat and having the drivers cover what they can do well, but they are
slaves to the meter. If it sounds just a little to harsh and the meter
says it is flat -time coherent - or whatever they know makes them
special - it will stay that way regardless of what the ears are
telling him. That is the bias of the objectivist. They need additional
"proof" before they will believe what they hear.
And I guess the subjectivist doesn't have a meter and could be happy
with a ten dollar clock radio - or $40,000 speaker wire. So long as
they are happy they are probably the most content audiophiles.
harkshep
that I email my responses directly through you until my server problem
is fixed]
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> The problem with your premise is that accurate reproduction of
> live music is demonstrably impossible to do using two-channel
> stereophonic reproduction, played over loudspeakers, even
> perfect loudspeakers. The moment you have reduced it to two
> channels with the intent of playing over speakers, you have
> discarded SOP much soundfield information that that missing
> information alone permantly handicaps any chance of proper
> reproduction.
Mr. Pierce. I've heard this stated several times on the NG (I think JJ
has made the same point as you before). Yet, I think it needs further
qualification. You know even better than I that, in the past, there have
been many live vs. recorded demonstrations that managed to fool people
(didn't Acoustic Research used to do this in big hall or something? My
memory fails..). To skip to the present, John Dunlavy claims that in
comparisons between live instruments and recordings of the same played
through his speakers, even well-trained listeners find the recorded
sound indistinguishable from the live. If this does not fit your term
of "accurate reproduction of live music," then I'm not sure what would.
Perhaps you need to further define your notion of accuracy?
Rich H.
harkshep
> You're not alone. But many audiophiles, when they talk of "sounding like real music," focus on timbral accuracy. I think that emphasis is
misplaced, but to each his own.<
Bob (did I get your name right?) I certainly agree that timbral accuracy
is only part of the puzzle that makes up "real music." Still, it does
amaze me that, in the year 2000, a large percentage of sound
reproduction is off the mark in regards to tonality and timbre -
especially in regards to to performance of loudspeakers.
I'm curious: what sonic qualities do you place importance on, in the
correct reproduction of music?
- Rich H.
Dr. B. J. Feng
If you were nearly unable to distinguish between
the two, then for you the reproduction was nearly
perfect.
Me, I've not heard a LP setup that did not
have clearly audible wow and flutter on solo piano
works (up to a top of the line Linn Sondek and a
Oracle). I'd be interested in who else has experienced
an LP setup with no perceivable wow or flutter.
John Feng
Harry Lavo wrote:
> (snip)
mcn...@my-deja.com
"GoobAudio" <phils...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> It seems no matter what I say I am attacked
> by the objectivists and assumed to be deluded by them too.
Deluded is your word. The occasional objectivist post may have used it,
but they shouldn't have, in part because it's not what they mean. What
they mean is that your experience may be explainable by something other
than the sound.
>
> I recently took some work on at a place that I need to drive to in the
> morning. It is only 15 minutes, but that is 14 3/4 minutes longer than
> my normal commute. I took up harmonica playing in the car since we
> have several lying about as my wife plays rather well. We often sit
> in the listening room and play along with the stereo. Yesterday I was
> putting on Alanis Morrisett's Jagged Little Pill album and not
> necessarily paying attention when I heard my wife blow the harmonica.
>
> O-oh....it was the album. Am I deluded or does my system sound like
> the live thing? I prefer to believe that my system sounds like live
> music - at least that coming from a harmonica, the unamplified
> instrument I am most familiar with these days.
What you're talking about here is timbral accuracy. It's quite possible
that your system is very accurate in this regard. It's also possible that
your judgment was influenced by the knowledge that your wife was nearby
with her harmonica. That's the sort of non-aural cue that an objective
test is designed to eliminate. Your experience isn't definitive, but it
isn't meaningless either.
>
> To answer your question, you are the subjectivist. In order for your
> personal opinion to be objective it must be subjected to rigorous
> testing which is controlled and repeatable - preferably monitored by
> other certified objectivists, documented and then tried again on a
> widely varied population with consistant results. Only then will you
> prove what you already know from your subjective experience to the
> objectivists.
Well, yes, you've just defined the difference between a personal opinion
and an objective fact. And personal opinions have a very valid role to
play in assembling an audio system. But when "what you already know" runs
counter to what objective researchers have found to be true, it's time to
reconsider those personal opinions.
elmi...@my-deja.com
> The problem with your premise is that accurate reproduction of
> live music is demonstrably impossible to do using two-channel
> stereophonic reproduction, played over loudspeakers, even
> perfect loudspeakers. The moment you have reduced it to two
> channels with the intent of playing over speakers, you have
> discarded SOP much soundfield information that that missing
> information alone permantly handicaps any chance of proper
> reproduction.
And later:
>The soundfield information itself in your scenario is forever
> lost.
>
> Thus, it comes down to subjective choices between equally bad,
> but different, implementations.
Do I understand you to say that in the absence of soundfield information
one cannot prefer one pair of loudspeakers to another? And that once
this information becomes available the "accurate reproduction" will
become a reality? Does one have this already in some movie houses? Will
an infant still be able to tell his mother's "real",live voice from a
reproduction as another poster asks?
I am genuinely asking for clarification not trying to start another war.
( I have a DSP driven surround system myself and am waiting for the dig.
stream implementation)
Ludovic Mirabel
William A. Dirks
tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <8ptfa...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Absolutely. Objectivists seem to need to trust in something other
>>than their ears. I.E. they need to have their musical enjoyment
>>verified by the scientific method.
>
>It is really offensive to see completely nonsensical claims like
>this bandied about.
>
>Mr. Graves has had the difference between preference and scientific
>determination of small audible differences explained to him repeatedly.
>None the less, we still see offensive characterizations like this.
>
>Why is this even allowed? This is simply trying to start a fight.
>
>[ It was allowed since it is his opinion, although it does totter on
>the edge of acceptablility. -- deb ]
It *is* opinion, and the moderators were right to allow it as well, in
order to maintain the consistency of standards about what is allowable
here. Views have been imputed, for example, to not just one member,
but to all members of the subjectivist camp, that were not based
directly on anything ever said by them, but only on the general
objectivist view of how the subjectivist thinking processes work,
which is the same as what George Graves is doing above. For example,
long paragraphs comparing the subjectivist views to people who deny
the existence of the AIDS virus. Was this not "invective masquerading
as opinion'", as another poster has characterized Graves' post? It is
entirely proper that the moderating standards used for determining
what is acceptable on this group be applied even-handedly to any and
all content posted here.
--Bill Dirks
George Graves
(Richard D Pierce) wrote:
> In article <8ptfa...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >Absolutely. Objectivists seem to need to trust in something other
> >than their ears. I.E. they need to have their musical enjoyment
> >verified by the scientific method.
>
> George, this is one of the most nonsensical, insulting, vacuous
> and inflammatory misrepresentations to come these ways in some
> time. Your claim is little more than invective poorly
> masquerading as "opinion."
>
> You either are deliberately misrepresenting the views of others
> or are utterly and completely unaware of what you are talking
> about. Show us a SINGLE reference by ANY one of the so-called
> "objectivists" that states, as you so claim, that they must have
> "their musical enjoyment verified by the scientific method."
Well, if you WANT to take this personally, go ahead, but I wasn't
talking to, or about, anyone in particular, or even any specific or
general post here. I was just talking about audio objectivists, period.
If I had been addressing anyone in an inflamatory manner, I can assure
you that our moderators wouldn't have let this through. So, I'd have to
say that they didn't see this post in the same light that you did,
either. But If I did offend you, I'm sorry, it was not my intention to
offend anyone. Nor was it my intention to misrepresenting anything or
anybody. If some people need to have things measured and proven to them
before they can enjoy the hobby, fine. I've no problem with that. OTOH,
if the subs around here want to believe in such nonsense as "speaker
lenses", stand-offs for speaker cable, bricks on top of amplifiers,
shun-mook pucks or fung shui, for that matter, that's OK too. I was
merely pointing out that many of these arguments occur because subs TRY
to defend the indefensible, things that can't, don't, and wouldn't make
any difference in the sound of a music reproduction system anywhere in
the universe and they shouldn't. They should just say, "It works for me
and I like it."
--
George Graves
Thomas Nulla
world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
>The soundfield information itself in your scenario is forever
>lost.
>
>Thus, it comes down to subjective choices between equally bad,
>but different, implementations.
No argument that the vast majority of the soundfield information of the
original performance is irretrievably lost...but is it correct to say
that the available implementations are equally bad?
Do some 2-channel recording techniques have the potential of capturing
at least a few valid perceptual clues about the nature of the original
recording space, that our ears/brain might be able to use to
re-synthesize some idea of the original?
>For this, the best science and technology can do reliably and
>repeatedly is to perturb what is left of the information as
>little as possible. If omeone finds that subtracting FURTHER
>from the information satisfies their sense of emotional
>satisfaction, that's fine, but it is a different version of
>innaccuracy (and maybe a lesser one at that), but it is the
>unalienable right of the individual to make that choice. Science
>cannot and does not choose to coopt that choice: the array of
>choices is vast an limitless. It can best say, "here is the
>signal I have been given, and I will change it as little as
>possible withinn the technological, economic and marketing
>constraints I have been handed."
>
>Others may well choose, instead, to say "here is the signal I
>have been given, and I will change it as I deem suitable to fit
>my constituencies requirements." That's fine, too.
>
>But one of them serves the accuracy of reproducing the signal,
>the other serves the whims of the constituency.
My preference is to have choices. I want to have as accurate a signal
as possible available, but also be capable of controllably altering that
signal to suit my wishes.
Thomas <now playing: Mahavishnu, "The Lost Trident Sessions">
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
"Chaos is the swamp where creativity slithers and breeds."
J Skantse
news:ssfkurf...@corp.supernews.com...
> Me, I've not heard a LP setup that did not
> have clearly audible wow and flutter on solo piano
> works (up to a top of the line Linn Sondek and a
> Oracle). I'd be interested in who else has experienced
> an LP setup with no perceivable wow or flutter.
>
and often warped ?.
I have a few Japanese pressings with very thick vinyl and perfect center.
On one of these, a piano recording I cant hear any wow or flutter.
The player is a Denon direct drive.
Actually I can dust-off the record while playing, without any perceivable
wow or flutter ! ;-)
Wow and flutter for the player is rated at less than 0.02% wrms (JIS).
Not sure what 'JIS' means ?
Also the player can pull a 200g stylus force ! :-)
Joergen.
Richard D Pierce
harkshep <hark...@home.com> wrote:
>Richard D Pierce wrote:
>
>> The problem with your premise is that accurate reproduction of
>> live music is demonstrably impossible to do using two-channel
>> stereophonic reproduction, played over loudspeakers, even
>> perfect loudspeakers. The moment you have reduced it to two
>> channels with the intent of playing over speakers, you have
>> discarded SOP much soundfield information that that missing
>> information alone permantly handicaps any chance of proper
>> reproduction.
>
>has made the same point as you before). Yet, I think it needs further
>qualification. You know even better than I that, in the past, there have
>been many live vs. recorded demonstrations that managed to fool people
>(didn't Acoustic Research used to do this in big hall or something? My
>memory fails..). To skip to the present, John Dunlavy claims that in
>comparisons between live instruments and recordings of the same played
>through his speakers, even well-trained listeners find the recorded
>sound indistinguishable from the live. If this does not fit your term
>of "accurate reproduction of live music," then I'm not sure what would.
>Perhaps you need to further define your notion of accuracy?
It's fairly easy to contrive a demonstration that puts
significant constraints on what the reproducing system has to
do. For example, recording soloist in an anechoic chamber, then
reproducing the anechoic recording next to the soloist in a live
vs recorded scenario means that both the soloist and the
speakers have a chance to exite the acoustical soundfield in the
same basic ways. The sound system has been totally relieved of
trying to reproduce the soundfield in the recording because
THERE IS NO SOUNDFIELD in anechoic recordings.
However, the sort of information that JJ and myself describe as
being lost is imagine now that same soloist performing in a
live, suitable venue, such as a piano being played in a large
drawing room, for example. There is a HUGE amount of information
about the acoustic space in which the piano is being played.
There is the sound pressure at many points, for example, along
with the information about where the soundis coming from that
caused that sound pressure. Imagine an ideal "minimalist"
recording of such a venue: two extremely high-quality
microphones placed "ideally". The sample the sound pressure at
their respective diaphragms. But that's ALL the sample: the
signal coming down the wire has NO information WHATSOEVER about
where the sound came from. Even if the microphones are highly
directional, the signal only contains the magnitude of the sound
pressure at that point.
And reproducing this signal over two speakers basically assumes
that ALL of the soundfield originates from two points in space.
It decidely DOES NOT.
No one has tried the experiment of recording a large ensemble or
instrument in a large venue (such as BSO in Boston's Symphony
Hall or the Schnitger Organ in the Laurenskirk in Alkmaar) and
compared it to a recording, for several reasons. First, it's
utterly impractical to stuff the BSO or a pipe organ in an
anechoic chamber. Secondly, and most importantly, the soundfield
information is SO complex that the resulting comparison be an
utter failure. SO much of the sound arrives from somewhere other
than in front, with varying delays and reverberation, no
two-channel system could ever encode that information.
And 5.1 was NEVER intended to do this.
Harry Lavo
news:8q2t2n$cvo$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> Tim Kelly wrote:
> >Could it be that a subjectivist wants an audio system that sounds as
> >close as possible to live music, while an objectivist wants to
> >duplicate the microphone feed?
> >
> This seems to be a very useful comparison between two different listening
> paradigms, one I wish that more audio folks would discuss without rancor.
>
> But I think Tim's comparison misses the issues that most who get lumped as
> either subjectivists or objectivists are concerned with. Most folks in
either
> camp, I would like to think, start with the question "what is real," and
then
> follow their own logical paradigms to different perspectives. As what I
would
> call a "cautious subjectivist" I would like to propose a different
starting
> point, one which might allow the two camps a better understanding of the
> others' issues. I call this "observational." This would allow those we
now
> call objectivists a way to acknowledge sensory observations that can not
be
> backed by measurable data. This would also allow subjectivists a way to
> acknowledge data-based observations such as the absence of data supporting
> items like cable sound or directionality.
>
> I hope that this is more than a "can't we all just get along" argument, or
a
> "everything comes down to preference" debate-ender, but a call for
everyone to
> open their minds and ears to other perspectives and paradigms.
>
> It would be unfair to make a post like this without putting some of my
personal
> paradigms in the line (think of the "slow, lingering kisses" speech in the
film
> Bull Durham):
>
<snip of personal preferences>
I think observational or observationalists (as suggested by Mike Kuller on
8/29) is an excellent description. I have been searching for a word myself
and come
up only with empiricist. I think observationalist is better.
In the same spirit of explanation and enumeration that you have shown in
laying out your own thoughts, let me add my own, since many of the folks
here probably view me as a rabid "subjectivist" based on my defense of same
in these discussions.
1) I have found missing "ambiance" a key factor for years, and started with
the Dynaco Hafler Matrix system in 1970 augmenting my sound. Various
divorces and moves forced me back into two channel after several years with
a totally quad system. Recently, I am on the move again, but fortunately
with good sounding and spacious listening rooms. About three years ago I
returned to the Hafler system....this time running a completely separate
"rear" (actually side) system from the "tape out" of my SP-6Brc into an
Audionics B2 preamp, feeding dual Audionic CC-2's in monoblock mode,
feeding Thiel 2 2's to complement my ARC/VTL/Thiel 3.5 front end system.
The results on much music (especially that recorded live and smallish in
scale,
which is my preference) is spectacularly satisfying from the emotional,
"easy to suspend belief" POV. That, much more than absolute spatial
accuracy, is to me the essence of a music reproduction system.
2) From the above, you can see something else about me...I am relatively
free from tube vs. ss prejudices, as long as the ss is musical. I have just
found over the years that most tube gear is, and most ss gear isn't.
Although
that seems to be changing rapidly in the last few years.
3) My desire for ambience is correlated with my doing some live professional
location recording in the mid-70's (where after studying under John Woram at
the Institute for Audio Research, I settled on crossed figure 8's and ORTF
miking using Shoeps, and Neumans as my mainstays, supplemented by spotlight
and ambience mikes - often B&O ribbons and omni condensers respectively - as
needed). Of course, this was at the height of the multi-track craze, so you
can guess how popular I was. Some of my tapes from that era (second or
third generation copies - I no longer have the mastering gear) still sound
pretty marvelous, especially with the Dynaquad ambience setup.
4) Since I added an AA DTI Pro to my CD system (a Marantz 63SE using
sorbothane isolation feet, feeding an 18bit Proceed DPD, my listening and
collecting has shifted mostly to CD's although I still look for and buy used
vinyl. Is this because I think CD sounds better? No, but it is decidedly
more convenient and it sounds 95% as good as vinyl, which is good enough to
go beyond the point of the medium getting in the way of the music for me.
But I still find a clean record, a-b'd versus an identical track on a CD,
still usually sounds "better" (i.e. more like music) to me. And it doesn't
matter whether I'm using my Dual 601/701/ADC XLM combos or my
Linn/Syrinx/AC-2/Counterpoint SA-2 combo. The result is the same. The
objectivists here say it is phase. Perhaps it is...but it comes across as
more air and space around the voices and instruments and therefore a greater
"ease" in listening. The lack of such air, for me at least, creates a
subtle strain that works against musical enjoyment (I always enjoyed taking
my monitoring headphones off and just listening to the music for the same
reason...so I know firsthand the limitations of even the best mike pickup
patterns).
To me this raises an interesting question. If some artificial phase would
make the sound seem more real and more pleasurable, why isn't it on at least
some high end gear as an option? Are the audio police (thank you, Listener
Magazine) that banned tone controls now so pervasive that nobody dares? Did
the Quad crash make all manufacturers chicken? Or have we simply lost sight
of our musical goal?
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to hear an effective ambisonic demo, but
I suspect that such recording along with some form of ambisonic phase and
logic decoding could be reduced to a chip and included in high end gear for
mere dollars, and could be set to convey ambiance using 2,4,6 or even 8
speakers. If so, for most of us music lovers, this would make 5.1 surround
sound a non-starter, and the nature of the miking itself would force some
sense of discipline upon the recording engineers, freeing us from "sound all
around" recording.
5. As I have tried to suggest in previous posts, to me the difference is
relatively simple: are we trying ultimately to convey the most accurate
mike feed, or are we trying to convey the most realistic sense of "they are
here" musical pleasure in the home. In other words, what is the ultimate
"goal" of a high end system. IMO only when we figure out how to deliver
that (in the sense that the brain says "yep, THAT'S music" ) will we have
the proper yardstick to apply in measuring high end audio gear. And until
then, collective subjective...er, make that "observational"... audio
judgment will have to be the f i n a l arbiter.
6) Finally, I'd like to address the "war" between the objectivists and
subjectivists on the group. Frankly, it bothers me, for it seems obvious to
me that sound reproduction in the home can only advance when both the
"subjectivists" and the "objectivists" learn to listen carefully to what the
other side is saying, and to adapt some of each other's tools. It is my
contention that this is how a lot of the progress that has been made in the
high end has evolved despite the communication difficulties between the two
groups.
So, here goes.
It is very easy to disparage The Abso!ute Sound as a totally out of touch,
totally subjective magazine. And in some important ways, at its worst, it
has been. But I firmly believe that high end audio would not have evolved
as far and as rapidly as it did without that magazine. Let me suggest some
examples, from just the very first few issues, that came from "observations"
that eventually found "scientific" support.
1) Speaker Imaging. Stacked Advents. Remember those. Read the review
carefully and realize through listening alone Harry P identified the "upside
down" stacked pair as have superior imaging characteristics and far more
dynamic range than either simple stacking or side-by-side use. Can you say
"deappileto(sp) configuration"?
2) Phono Cartridge Imaging. Remember the XLM? At the time, ADC was the only
cartridge company really paying attention to emanating stylus resonance's
that blurred imaging. This was particularly a problem with Shure, with its
otherwise excellent V15III. Listening to the XLM on today's more
transparent
and better imaging systems simply confirms that it was and is one of the
most
coherent cartridges ever produced. The Abso!ute Sound's highlighting of
this "dimensional" quality in this otherwise obscure company's top cartridge
was the start of a rapid evolution of coherent stylus design - the rise of
boron, beryllium, ruby, diamond, sapphire, and all manner of exotic styli
designed to do the same thing.
3) Straight-line tracking. Even on a turntable as crude as the Rabco ST-4,
the straight line arm was found to be superior for reproduction of bass
frequencies. This from listening, and speculation, later acknowledged
scientifically. This was due to its high virtual lateral mass, without the
usual side effect of resonance since the vertical mass was of a different
order.
The above is simply to show that things can be heard by an astute listener,
even if the explanation is not known at the time. And by observing and
trying to put what is observed into words, the "observationalist" is trying
to provide feedback (to translate the experience of listening to "music",
which by its very nature is subjective and not objective, into words so that
communication can take place). It is to J. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson's
credit that they worked hard to develop a vocabulary to provide such
feedback.
Some of The Abso!ute Sounds impact was simply amplifying the results of
others. Peter Moncrieff, for example, who single handedly focused the
industry on better capacitors, but who was solidly supported by The Absolute
Sound and Stereophile as to their impact on transparency. And Audio
Research's William Zane Johnson, who brought tubes back into fashion, but
only by dint of the avid backing (based on listening) of The Abso!ute Sound.
Then their was the strident, technically erroneous, but early and persistent
clamor against the new CD technology's "unmusicality", which led over the
next decade to oversampling, better filter technology, jitter reduction and
control. and higher bit-rates. Does anybody really believe the improvements
would have come as fast if the noisiness of the underground press was not
such a factor?
All this while the "subjectivist reviewers" were getting crucified by many
engineers for "hearing things that don't exist" and for "using arcane
language...who knows what they mean". But the fact is, through the written
word, some "engineers" eventually perceived and in their own way set about
confirming and then integrating this stuff into their own work.
Would these things have emerged without the subjectivist press? Probably,
in time, but perhaps not. And even if they had, it would in all likelihood
been slower and less dramatic. As it is, not only has the high end grown
better and better products, but the design progress has trickled down into
the mid-fi products to the point that some of today's two-hundred-buck
products would have achieved kudo's as high end gear had they existed back
in the late '70's.
Think how much better the world would be if we "subjectivists" would not
insult the engineers as "unable to hear" or "lacking good systems" at
every-other-turn" and the engineers would not insult us as simply "indulging
our preferences," as if their was no higher discipline or careful perception
behind it . It would be a lot more productive if we could feed off each
other into discussions that might really move our hobby/passion ahead. I
visit the RAT newsgroup every so often just to enjoy the civility of the
discussion there - people actually building upon one another's ideas and
information.
Subjectivists, let's start by calling ourselves "observationlists" and
hoping that the "objectivists" will honor the neutrality of the moniker.
And perhaps it
would also help if we started off with "it is my observation that..." and
the "objectivists" responded with "a possible reason might be....".
Humility never hurts.
DALJHD
What is wrong with "interactively" combining a full set of objective
measurements with blind subjective listening comparisons in the pursuit of
evaluating a component's true, overall accuracy?
I don't believe that either measurements or subjective listening evaluations,
used in isolation, represent a reliable means for assessing the "true accuracy"
of any audiophile component.
Why?
Well, "meaningful" measurements must be "truly accurate" and must be sufficient
in type and kind to fully assess all of the audible attributes of the component
or device being tested. The measurements must also be taken and evaluated by
persons possessing sufficient experience and technical competency.
Subjective listening evaluations of a component must be accomplished using a
"double-blind comparison protocol" against one or more like components of known
accuracy, etc. And care must be taken to ensure that no "system interface
incompatibilities", etc., exist for either component being evaluated.
Comparing loudspeakers by subjective means is especially difficult because room
modes, reflections from boundaries, etc., usually affect each loudspeaker's
audible properties differently at the listening position. This requires
interchanging the locations of the loudspeakers during the evaluation.
Thus, it seems logical that both subjective and objective means must be used
interactively if the true performance properties of a component are to become
known.
John D..
Richard D Pierce
>You state:
> >The soundfield information itself in your scenario is forever
>> lost.
>>
>> Thus, it comes down to subjective choices between equally bad,
>> but different, implementations.
>
>one cannot prefer one pair of loudspeakers to another?
Absolutely not. My statement is that without that information,
the choice comes down to making choices between flawed
implementations.
>And that once
>this information becomes available the "accurate reproduction" will
>become a reality?
No, it becomes a possibility. Moving it from possibility to
reality requires the producers of music and reproduction systems
to stop stumbling over their incompetent implementations.
>Does one have this already in some movie houses?
No, because movie sound reproduction is not about sonic accuracy
at all, it's about special effects and (most importantly) ticket
sales.
>Will
>an infant still be able to tell his mother's "real",live voice from a
>reproduction as another poster asks?
Well, I've seen that claim made with NO supporting proof at all.
This made in contrast to the fact that even mediocre
reproductions of a mother's voice is instantly recognizable to
an infant, even over voice-grade phone lines.
>I am genuinely asking for clarification not trying to start another war.
>( I have a DSP driven surround system myself and am waiting for the dig.
>stream implementation)
It's a problem not only of reproduction, but of recording and
mastering as well. It's going to require a HUGE revolution n the
music AND hi fi industry to come to fruition. Until then, people
are just toying with different versions of the same flaws.
Richard D Pierce
Thomas Nulla <nu...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:48:30 GMT, in rec.audio.high-end
>world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net (Richard D Pierce) wrote:
>
>>lost.
>>
>>Thus, it comes down to subjective choices between equally bad,
>>but different, implementations.
>
>original performance is irretrievably lost...but is it correct to say
>that the available implementations are equally bad?
With 2 channels played back over loudspeakers, yes.
>Do some 2-channel recording techniques have the potential of capturing
>at least a few valid perceptual clues about the nature of the original
>recording space, that our ears/brain might be able to use to
>re-synthesize some idea of the original?
Ultimately, the ONLY thing 2 channel reproduction can do is
simulate the instantaneous sound pressure level at 2 points in
space, all directional information is forever and irretrievably
lost by the collapse to 2 channels.
>>But one of them serves the accuracy of reproducing the signal,
>>the other serves the whims of the constituency.
>
>My preference is to have choices. I want to have as accurate a signal
>as possible available, but also be capable of controllably altering that
>signal to suit my wishes.
That's fine, but if the equipment already alters the signal to
suit one constituency, then your choices are limited.
Nathan Hess
> Me, I've not heard a LP setup that did not
> have clearly audible wow and flutter on solo piano
> works (up to a top of the line Linn Sondek and a
> Oracle). I'd be interested in who else has experienced
> an LP setup with no perceivable wow or flutter.
I haven't played my Mosaic Monk LPs, yet, but I have heard Brubeck's
"Time Out" reproduced on an LP setup that had no perceivable wow or
flutter.
--woodstock
--
It's funny how you can go through life thinking you've seen
everything... Then you suddenly realize there are millions of things
you've never seen before. -- Linus, to Charlie Brown _~~.
(_" /
wood...@sasquatch.com '`
mcn...@my-deja.com
"GoobAudio" <phils...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The objectivist may think they are satisfying both sides, getting it
> flat and having the drivers cover what they can do well, but they are
> slaves to the meter. If it sounds just a little to harsh and the meter
> says it is flat -time coherent - or whatever they know makes them
> special - it will stay that way regardless of what the ears are
> telling him. That is the bias of the objectivist. They need additional
> "proof" before they will believe what they hear.
This might be a perceptive criticism, if it applied to any real person.
Rather, it is a distortion of an oft-expressed viewpoint. No one is
"slave to the meter," and this sort of slur is, or should be, unwelcome
on rahe. The objectivist/subjectivist debate is about the audibility of
subtle differences in sound, nothing more. When we go out and shop for
loudspeakers, we are all subjectivists, I'm afraid.
bob
George Graves
<wood...@seashell.sasquatch.com> wrote:
> "Dr. B. J. Feng" <bf...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> > Me, I've not heard a LP setup that did not
> > have clearly audible wow and flutter on solo piano
> > works (up to a top of the line Linn Sondek and a
> > Oracle). I'd be interested in who else has experienced
> > an LP setup with no perceivable wow or flutter.
>
> I haven't played my Mosaic Monk LPs, yet, but I have heard Brubeck's
> "Time Out" reproduced on an LP setup that had no perceivable wow or
> flutter.
When I compare my LP of "Time Out" with the recently re-mastered CD of
it, relative levels of wow and flutter are NOT among what strike me as
the differences between the two media.
--
George Graves
George Graves
<jo...@post5.tele.dk> wrote:
> Dr. B. J. Feng <bf...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ssfkurf...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Me, I've not heard a LP setup that did not
> > have clearly audible wow and flutter on solo piano
> > works (up to a top of the line Linn Sondek and a
> > Oracle). I'd be interested in who else has experienced
> > an LP setup with no perceivable wow or flutter.
> >
> I think the problem is more that most LP's are far from perfectly centered
> and often warped ?.
> I have a few Japanese pressings with very thick vinyl and perfect center.
> On one of these, a piano recording I cant hear any wow or flutter.
This echos my experiences as well. Perfectly flat and or centered LPs
are quite rare, and are probably responsible for MOST of the wow and
flutter that people complain about in record reproduction. The weight of
most good turntable platters sort of eliminates them as a source of
either. Its just not possible for a 5 lb belt-driven platter to flutter.
Newton's third law of motion just about rules it out.
--
George Graves
George Graves
wrote:
> Interesting story.
>
> If you were nearly unable to distinguish between
> the two, then for you the reproduction was nearly
> perfect.
>
> Me, I've not heard a LP setup that did not
> have clearly audible wow and flutter on solo piano
> works (up to a top of the line Linn Sondek and a
> Oracle). I'd be interested in who else has experienced
> an LP setup with no perceivable wow or flutter.
>
> John Feng
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > (snip)
> > And yet when I reported an incident where I heard Rubenstein recorded
> > in a
> > live Moscow concert and reproduced by a very good late 70's phono
> > system,
> > along with a real pianist with a 12 foot Steinway, in the same room,
> > and it
> > was difficult to tell which was live and which was recorded,
I've had many, and I'm pretty sensitive to it as well, and don't like
it. But I've had several Thorens tables with no apparent flutter, a
Mapleknoll air-bearing table with no apparent flutter, a Sonograph table
with no apparent flutter, a SOTA with no apparent flutter, and now I
have a Michell GyroDeck with no apparent flutter.
--
George Graves
mcn...@my-deja.com
hark...@home.com wrote:
> mcn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > You're not alone. But many audiophiles, when they talk of "sounding like real music," focus on timbral accuracy. I think that emphasis is
> misplaced, but to each his own.<
>
> Bob (did I get your name right?) I certainly agree that timbral accuracy
> is only part of the puzzle that makes up "real music." Still, it does
> amaze me that, in the year 2000, a large percentage of sound
> reproduction is off the mark in regards to tonality and timbre -
> especially in regards to to performance of loudspeakers.
I'm not convinced that this is really true. After all, a number of
posters have offered anecdotes about being fooled by the sound of their
audio system into thinking they were hearing a live instrument. On a
more solid footing, there have been demonstrations of same. A
particularly effective approach is to record a solo instrument in an
anechoic chamber, then compare that recording to a live instrument in
the same room with the speakers. By doing so, you eliminate recorded
ambience as a factor, and are really comparing the sound of the
instrument in the listening room to the sound of the recorded instrument
in the listening room. People do get fooled in this situation, which
suggests that the system is doing a pretty good job of timbral accuracy.
Now, I'm not going to claim this'll work with any old speakers from Best
Buy, and it gets trickier if the solo instrument happens to be a
contrabassoon. But to the extent that good systems fail this test, I
suspect the real problem is not inaccurate reproduction of the harmonics
(the most basic challenge of timbral accuracy) but handling of
transients. If that's the case, that tells us something about where we
should be putting our emphasis. (That and spatial accuracy, of course).
Arny Krueger
news:sskcg25...@corp.supernews.com...
> Perfectly flat and or centered LPs are quite rare,
Agreed
> and are probably responsible for MOST of the wow and flutter that
people complain about in record reproduction.
No, perfectly flat and centered LPs are required for low wow and
flutter.
> The weight of most good turntable platters sort of eliminates
them as a source of either.
True, good turntable platters eliminate the turntable platters as a
source of wow and flutter.
However, a turntable platter has to be far more complex than a simple
turntable platter in order to eliminate problems with flatness or
off-center punching.
>Its just not possible for a 5 lb belt-driven platter to flutter.
OK, lets say that is true (it isn't always). However, the needle
plays the record, not the platter.
> Newton's third law of motion just about rules it out.
As long as we forget your first claim: "Perfectly flat and or
centered LPs are quite rare..."
BEARlabs
for recording/reproduction be improved?
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Art Meets Technology" (tm)
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> <snips>
>
> And reproducing this signal over two speakers basically assumes
> that ALL of the soundfield originates from two points in space.
> It decidely DOES NOT.
>
> No one has tried the experiment of recording a large ensemble or
> instrument in a large venue (such as BSO in Boston's Symphony
> Hall or the Schnitger Organ in the Laurenskirk in Alkmaar) and
> compared it to a recording, for several reasons. First, it's
> utterly impractical to stuff the BSO or a pipe organ in an
> anechoic chamber. Secondly, and most importantly, the soundfield
> information is SO complex that the resulting comparison be an
> utter failure. SO much of the sound arrives from somewhere other
> than in front, with varying delays and reverberation, no
> two-channel system could ever encode that information.
>
> And 5.1 was NEVER intended to do this.
>
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | DPi...@world.std.com |
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Art Meets Technology" (tm)
Norm Strong
>it. But I've had several Thorens tables with no apparent flutter, a
>Mapleknoll air-bearing table with no apparent flutter, a Sonograph table
>with no apparent flutter, a SOTA with no apparent flutter, and now I
>have a Michell GyroDeck with no apparent flutter.
>--
>George Graves
I suspect most flutter is in the original.
Few recording lathes will come up to the
standards of excellent playback decks.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com)
2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
George Graves
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:sskcg25...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Perfectly flat and or centered LPs are quite rare,
>
> Agreed
>
> > and are probably responsible for MOST of the wow and flutter that
> people complain about in record reproduction.
>
> No, perfectly flat and centered LPs are required for low wow and
> flutter.
That's what I meant. The 'lack of' part should be understood. Id em,
"Perfectly flat and or centered LPs are quite rare, and (the lack of
flat or centered LPs) are probably responsible for MOST of the wow and
flutter that people complain about in record reproduction."
> > The weight of most good turntable platters sort of eliminates
> them as a source of either.
>
> True, good turntable platters eliminate the turntable platters as a
> source of wow and flutter.
>
> However, a turntable platter has to be far more complex than a simple
> turntable platter in order to eliminate problems with flatness or
> off-center punching.
There have been a few attempts. Vacuum hold-downs, reflex clamps, and it
seems to me that a few years ago some Japanese table (was it a high-end
Pioneer or maybe a Marantz?) had some cockamamamey scheme for
automatically centering a record while it was playing based on arm
oscillation while the cartridge tracked the record. The table kept
moving the spindle via a small off-center motor drive in the middle of
the platter until the back-and-forth arm oscillation was nulled out. I
only saw one once at a CES. I remember it was frightfully expensive.
Anybody else remember this puppy? Can you shed any more light on it?
>
> >Its just not possible for a 5 lb belt-driven platter to flutter.
>
> OK, lets say that is true (it isn't always). However, the needle
> plays the record, not the platter.
Yes, that's what I said. Record imperfections are the cause for most wow
and flutter complaints. And a lot of the flutter came from the master
tape or one of the decks involved. Its far more likely for a tape
transport to flutter than it is for a quality turntable to do so. Once
the accumulated flutter of every generation of tape (and its additive)
gets cut to disk, that's it. But I have some of Sheffield's d to d
recordings of Lincoln Mayorga (piano) No flutter there. At least as
stable as a CD (or certainly below my threshold of flutter detection).
> > Newton's third law of motion just about rules it out.
>
> As long as we forget your first claim: "Perfectly flat and or
> centered LPs are quite rare..."
Since that was my point, I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding
yours.
--
George Graves
George Graves
Strong) wrote:
Interesting. I'd have thought that with their mammoth and extremely
heavy platters (not to mention their many horsepower direct-drive
motors) that there would be little chance for wow or flutter. Maybe the
motors cog? That would be the only thing that I could think of.
--
George Graves
Gary Eickmeier
>
> So, what is your solution? How can the acquisition of sound information
> for recording/reproduction be improved?
It might be useful to use a visual analogy here. We are talking about a
reproduction. In photography, for example, we are never concerned that looking
at a photograph does not transport us to the original scene. Perhaps our
expectations for audio are a little too grandiose.
In photography, normally you only have the one frontal view of the subject. To
increase realism, we might shoot a panorama, even a full 360 degrees. But we
still wouldn't confuse that with the real scene, would we? In audio, we record
surround sound as an enhancement to stereo, but it still doesn't really fool us
completely.
We can enlarge a photograph until it is life size. We can increase the size of
the room and the audio presentation. Then there is dynamic range. The photo
could be brighter in the highlights and darker in the shadows, but it probably
still wouldn't match real life. We increase dynamics and loudness in audio, but
it is still really tough to match the real thing - say, a drum kit at close
range.
I think where we get into trouble in both photography and audio is trying to
reproduce both the primary subject and the entire background. We have the
greatest success in audio in the live vs recorded arena by recording
anechoically and using the playback room's acoustics as the background for both
the live and the recorded sound. This might compare to taking a close-up of a
person, blowing it up to a life size cutout, and then displaying it in whatever
room you choose. At first glance, it is very real looking. Nowhere did anyone
ever say that we could reproduce an entire scene in photography in a way that
could fool you into thinking you were there. And curiously, it is only since the
stereo era that we began to think we could reproduce the instruments and the
entire acoustical space surrounding them. This is perhaps an assumption, or a
goal, that is false and not realizable by any practical means, such as in the
home.
My main point is, in audio we seem to think that the goal is "accuracy", but no
matter how accurate the source and speakers become, no amount of signal
processing or frequency response extension or distortion reduction will get us
any closer to a false goal, just as in photography no amount of lens refinement
is going to get us any closer to a false goal of fooling ourselves into thinking
we are there.
There are steps we can take to get closer, but unless we change our goals a
little, we will never have complete realism in an audio presentation, in the way
that most of us think of it.
Gary Eickmeier
Harry Lavo
Dragon Series, I believe. Never saw it, or a review of it, anywhere.
Harry Lavo
"George Graves" <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ssp4vqa...@corp.supernews.com...
>snip<
> There have been a few attempts. Vacuum hold-downs, reflex clamps, and it
> seems to me that a few years ago some Japanese table (was it a high-end
> Pioneer or maybe a Marantz?) had some cockamamamey scheme for
> automatically centering a record while it was playing based on arm
> oscillation while the cartridge tracked the record. The table kept
> moving the spindle via a small off-center motor drive in the middle of
> the platter until the back-and-forth arm oscillation was nulled out. I
> only saw one once at a CES. I remember it was frightfully expensive.
> Anybody else remember this puppy? Can you shed any more light on it?
>snip<
George Graves
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> BEARlabs wrote:
> >
> > So, what is your solution? How can the acquisition of sound information
> > for recording/reproduction be improved?
>
> It might be useful to use a visual analogy here. We are talking
> about a reproduction. In photography, for example, we are never
> concerned that looking at a photograph does not transport us to the
> original scene. Perhaps our expectations for audio are a little too
> grandiose.
Human beings aren't perfect either; at least two major religions are
based on the concept that perfection is a goal to which one should
aspire while at the same time allowing that its not possible.
High-fidelity is similar. The avowed goal (at least the PURE
definition of the term) of high-fidelity sound is to accurately, and
perfectly, recreate the sound of live, unamplified music in the home.
Now, my generation, has unfortunately, corrupted that goal to a great
degree into a variation on the late 'sixties lifestyle motto "if it
feels good, do it." This is unfortunate because it de-focuses the
vision and way-lays those pursuing it. But none of this alters the
basic premis. An unattainable goal is the type of thing that makes
people strive harder. Its good to have a Holy Grail and its
altogether proper and right for people to pursue it. Letting oneself
or the industry off-the-hook is simply NOT the proper philosophy
here. If you do, you might as well buy yourself a "rack system" and
be done with it.
> In photography, normally you only have the one frontal view of the
> subject. To increase realism, we might shoot a panorama, even a full
> 360 degrees. But we still wouldn't confuse that with the real
> scene, would we? In audio, we record surround sound as an
> enhancement to stereo, but it still doesn't really fool us
> completely.
Photography is an art form, high-fidelity is a means of capturing
and reproducing reality, hopefully without re-defining it. In
photography, even technical photography, the skill of the
photographer and the quality of his equipment defines the image. In
Hi-Fi we are merely capturing a performance by other human beings
with the goal of making that performance and the experience
associated with it transportable. They are two different things.
Take for example, Paul Weston's famous pictures of bell peppers.
These black and white images of a common vegetable are valued
because of the play of light and shadow with which Weston imbued
them. By themselves, the peppers are of little value except perhaps
as a component for a good spaghetti sauce. IOW, Weston has
re-defined the reality of the bell peppers in terms of his own
artistic vision. A recording of Pablo Casals playing the cello, OTOH,
Is a not subject to being re-defined either as it is captured or as
it is reproduced. We only honor the intent of the artist (Casals, in
this case) by attempting to recreate, as closely as possible, every
delicate nuance of his performance.The fact that we cannot perfectly
do so, does not, in my opinion, in any way abrogate our collective
responsibility to at least TRY to do so.
> We can enlarge a photograph until it is life size. We can increase
> the size of the room and the audio presentation. Then there is
> dynamic range. The photo could be brighter in the highlights and
> darker in the shadows, but it probably still wouldn't match real
> life. We increase dynamics and loudness in audio, but it is still
> really tough to match the real thing - say, a drum kit at close
> range.
>
> I think where we get into trouble in both photography and audio is
> trying to reproduce both the primary subject and the entire
> background. We have the greatest success in audio in the live vs
> recorded arena by recording anechoically and using the playback
> room's acoustics as the background for both the live and the
> recorded sound.
Actually, a better way would be to record in a real space (say a
concert hall) using multiple channels, and play back in an anechoic
room. That way we can transplant the recording venue into our own
listening venue.
> This might compare to taking a close-up of a person, blowing it up
> to a life size cutout, and then displaying it in whatever room you
> choose. At first glance, it is very real looking. Nowhere did
> anyone ever say that we could reproduce an entire scene in
> photography in a way that could fool you into thinking you were
> there. And curiously, it is only since the stereo era that we began
> to think we could reproduce the instruments and the entire
> acoustical space surrounding them. This is perhaps an assumption,
> or a goal, that is false and not realizable by any practical means,
> such as in the home.
>
> My main point is, in audio we seem to think that the goal is
> "accuracy", but no matter how accurate the source and speakers
> become, no amount of signal processing or frequency response
> extension or distortion reduction will get us any closer to a false
> goal, just as in photography no amount of lens refinement is going
> to get us any closer to a false goal of fooling ourselves into
> thinking we are there.
Your analogy is flawed, I believe, because you assume that the goals
of these two disparate "recording technologies" are similar. I say
that they are not. No one expects a photograph to be real any more
than they expect a Van Gogh painting to be an accurate representation
of the painted scene. People are used to seeing photographs and other
two-dimensional visual representations of reality and our brains know
how to interpret what they see. People also know that photographs can
be manipulated in such a way as to fool them into seeing what isn't
really there, or into seeing one thing and being led to believe that
its something else. None these characteristics have a strict audio
analogy. People expect a recording of Bernstein and the New York
Philharmonic, or Bill Evans' trio or Eminem to be an accurate
representation (within the bounds of technological possibility) of
that performance. The DEGREE to which one's reproducing system can
recreate that performance is the measure of that reality and again,
to a certain extent, our brains know how to interpret what we are
listening too. Even over a cheap transistor radio, one will know that
one is listening to a cello when we hear a recording of Casals, even
though MOST of that instrument's frequency range has been truncated
by the reproduction equipment. But unlike a photograph, the sound of
that cello will continue to improve with improvement in playback
equipment, while a print of a photographic negative is as close to
that reality as one will ever get, and in fact, the most accurate
reproduction would be a print which was the exact same size as the
negative. Photographic enlargements are less accurate, the larger
they are printed. Again, there is no direct audio analogy here.\
> There are steps we can take to get closer, but unless we change our goals
> a little, we will never have complete realism in an audio presentation, in
> the way that most of us think of it.
There is no need to change our goals, and you are right, we *will*
never have complete realism in audio presentation, but then, as human
beings we'll never be perfect either. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't
continue to strive for either goal, however; now, does it?
--
George Graves
Gary Eickmeier
> Human beings aren't perfect either; at least two major religions are
> based on the concept that perfection is a goal to which one should
> aspire while at the same time allowing that its not possible.
> High-fidelity is similar. The avowed goal (at least the PURE
> definition of the term) of high-fidelity sound is to accurately, and
> perfectly, recreate the sound of live, unamplified music in the home.
> Now, my generation, has unfortunately, corrupted that goal to a great
> degree into a variation on the late 'sixties lifestyle motto "if it
> feels good, do it." This is unfortunate because it de-focuses the
> vision and way-lays those pursuing it. But none of this alters the
> basic premis. An unattainable goal is the type of thing that makes
> people strive harder. Its good to have a Holy Grail and its
> altogether proper and right for people to pursue it. Letting oneself
> or the industry off-the-hook is simply NOT the proper philosophy
> here. If you do, you might as well buy yourself a "rack system" and
> be done with it.
I think you either don't understand the analogy, or don't agree with it. My
point was not that the task is going to be so difficult we might as well give
up. The point is, the goal is not realizable in the way that most of us think of
it. The analogy in photography is that no matter how good lenses get, no matter
how bright the projectors or the paper, no matter how accurate the color, a
picture will never be mistaken for the real thing because it is just a two
dimensional reproduction.
There may in the future be laboratory type situations where we could have life
size, three dimensional, motion and sound holographic images that are as bright
as sunlight, but that goes beyond the analogy. We may also have a lab situation
in audio where, with enough channels and speakers, and for a single listener in
an anechoic environment, we might be able to simulate the real thing. But as I
said before, that goes beyond the analogy of comparing a stereo playback to a
photograph.
My bottom line statement is that if your goal is transporting the listener to
the concert hall that has been recorded, the so-called "accuracy" goal, then you
will never quite get there. If, on the other hand, you change the goal slightly
to "realism", it may be quite possible to transport the musical source to your
listening environment. This is similar to the live-vs-recorded demos discussed
in the last post.
> Photography is an art form, high-fidelity is a means of capturing
> and reproducing reality, hopefully without re-defining it. In
> photography, even technical photography, the skill of the
> photographer and the quality of his equipment defines the image. In
> Hi-Fi we are merely capturing a performance by other human beings
> with the goal of making that performance and the experience
> associated with it transportable. They are two different things.
> Take for example, Paul Weston's famous pictures of bell peppers.
> These black and white images of a common vegetable are valued
> because of the play of light and shadow with which Weston imbued
> them. By themselves, the peppers are of little value except perhaps
> as a component for a good spaghetti sauce. IOW, Weston has
> re-defined the reality of the bell peppers in terms of his own
> artistic vision. A recording of Pablo Casals playing the cello, OTOH,
> Is a not subject to being re-defined either as it is captured or as
> it is reproduced. We only honor the intent of the artist (Casals, in
> this case) by attempting to recreate, as closely as possible, every
> delicate nuance of his performance.The fact that we cannot perfectly
> do so, does not, in my opinion, in any way abrogate our collective
> responsibility to at least TRY to do so.
Again, not responsive to my analogy. The recording, like the photograph, becomes
a NEW art form, accountable to its creator for its degree of excellence.
> Actually, a better way would be to record in a real space (say a
> concert hall) using multiple channels, and play back in an anechoic
> room. That way we can transplant the recording venue into our own
> listening venue.
It's just very difficult to do, especially for more than one listener. The sound
patterns present in the concert hall cannot be sampled completely, and it would
take so many channels and speakers that it would be possible only in a
laboratory situation.
Wow. A print that is the same size as the negative? That's a good argument
AGAINST accuracy. Realism would demand that the print become life size. No
matter what.
There actually is a direct audio analogy. I'm not sure I want to go into it, but
the traditional notion of "accuracy" means the direct sound as measured a few
feet in front of the speakers has the same waveform as the raw recorded signal.
This is about as relevant as your statement about making the print the same size
as the negative. There is no attempt to compare the reproduction to reality.
> There is no need to change our goals, and you are right, we *will*
> never have complete realism in audio presentation, but then, as human
> beings we'll never be perfect either. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't
> continue to strive for either goal, however; now, does it?
I didn't say we can't have audio realism. I said we can't expect to achieve the
goal of transporting the listener to the concert hall. But if we change the goal
to one of realism, it may be possible to transport the sound source to the
listening room.
Gary Eickmeier
Richard D Pierce
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <8ql7qk$k64$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, Gary Eickmeier
><geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> It might be useful to use a visual analogy here. We are talking
>> about a reproduction. In photography, for example, we are never
>> concerned that looking at a photograph does not transport us to the
>> original scene. Perhaps our expectations for audio are a little too
>> grandiose.
>
>> subject. To increase realism, we might shoot a panorama, even a full
>> 360 degrees. But we still wouldn't confuse that with the real
>> scene, would we? In audio, we record surround sound as an
>> enhancement to stereo, but it still doesn't really fool us
>> completely.
>Photography is an art form, high-fidelity is a means of capturing
>and reproducing reality, hopefully without re-defining it. In
>photography, even technical photography, the skill of the
>photographer and the quality of his equipment defines the image.
Once again the analogy that Gary selects is HEAVILY and fatally
flawed. There are basically two types of photography: there is
documentary photography: one that is intended to capture as much
of the original scene and reproduce it with as little change as
possible. And then there is fine-art or interpretive
photography. In the former category, you find fields like
forensic, scientific, and similar forms used to "document"
something. In the latter you have the works of Ansel Adams,
Henri Cartier-Bresson, and many others.
In that latter category, the representation as presented to the
viewer is a SUBSTANTIAL departure from the original scene
because it was the choice of the photographer NOT to capture the
scene, but TO INTERPRET the scene. In that way, the analogy
between a fine photograph (such as Adams' "Clearing Winter
Storm") and a fine recording couldn't possibly be more badly
chosen.
>Hi-Fi we are merely capturing a performance by other human beings
>with the goal of making that performance and the experience
>associated with it transportable. They are two different things.
Vastly different.
>Take for example, Paul Weston's famous pictures of bell peppers.
>These black and white images of a common vegetable are valued
>because of the play of light and shadow with which Weston imbued
>them. By themselves, the peppers are of little value except perhaps
>as a component for a good spaghetti sauce. IOW, Weston has
>re-defined the reality of the bell peppers in terms of his own
>artistic vision.
And created an image that is a very POOR "reproduction" of
peppers, despite it being a substantive example of interpretive
photography and art in its own right.
>A recording of Pablo Casals playing the cello, OTOH,
>Is a not subject to being re-defined either as it is captured or as
>it is reproduced. We only honor the intent of the artist (Casals, in
>this case) by attempting to recreate, as closely as possible, every
>delicate nuance of his performance.The fact that we cannot perfectly
>do so, does not, in my opinion, in any way abrogate our collective
>responsibility to at least TRY to do so.
What becomes "art" in a musical recording is the engineer's VERY
careful selection among a list of flaws to more closely convey,
IN HIS VIEW, the emotion evocated by the original experienc. And
those choice can NEVER be properly made without a huge amount of
nowledge of the specific flawsd and capabilities of the various
media that engineer chooses to use.
>> We can enlarge a photograph until it is life size. We can increase
>> the size of the room and the audio presentation. Then there is
>> dynamic range. The photo could be brighter in the highlights and
>> darker in the shadows, but it probably still wouldn't match real
>> life.
And, guess what? If you read and UNDERSTAND Ansel Adam's
writings on the Zone system, it is a DELIBERATE and INFORMED
manipulation of the highlights and shadows and everything in
between that he uses to INTERPRET the scene, and the result is a
work of art THAT IS NOT A REPRODUCTION OF REAL LIFE, no more
than a Van Gogh is an accurate representation of the French
landscape of the late 19th century.
>> I think where we get into trouble in both photography and audio is
>> trying to reproduce both the primary subject and the entire
>> background. We have the greatest success in audio in the live vs
>> recorded arena by recording anechoically and using the playback
>> room's acoustics as the background for both the live and the
>> recorded sound.
Actually, this is a perfectly dreadful idea. It leads to such
silliness as recording Mahler's Symphony #9 (so-called "symphony
of a thousand) and playing it back in the acoustics of a living
room. How anyone could consider that "better" is beyond this
person (and probably quite a few others as well).
>Actually, a better way would be to record in a real space (say a
>concert hall) using multiple channels, and play back in an anechoic
>room. That way we can transplant the recording venue into our own
>listening venue.
Or, make sure the directional characteristics of the speakers
are sufficiently well behaved so that the confounding effects of
the room are minimized. I realize that this is the the
antithesis of Gary's stated premise, but that premise alog with
his ideal "solution" as stated above is, frankly, ludicrous.
How, for example, does he hope to reproduce the large direct vs
revebrerent delays and reverberation times given his scheme
(and, despite the advertising hooey of a certain
Framingham-based company that lives on The Mountain,
diret/reflected ratio is NOT the same and NEVER will be as
direct/reverberent ratio).
>> This might compare to taking a close-up of a person, blowing it up
>> to a life size cutout, and then displaying it in whatever room you
>> choose. At first glance, it is very real looking. Nowhere did
>> anyone ever say that we could reproduce an entire scene in
>> photography in a way that could fool you into thinking you were
>> there.
Those of us that understand photography as an art form a NEVER
fooled in such a way, because we could NEVER be "there" in an
interpretation. However, if I buy a REPRODUCTION of an Adams
photograph, that's a VERY different story.
>> And curiously, it is only since the stereo era that we began
>> to think we could reproduce the instruments and the entire
>> acoustical space surrounding them.
And LONG BEFORE the stereo era, the experts in the field had
ALREADY demonstrated it could never reach this goal.
>Your analogy is flawed, I believe, because you assume that the goals
>of these two disparate "recording technologies" are similar. I say
>that they are not. No one expects a photograph to be real any more
>than they expect a Van Gogh painting to be an accurate representation
>of the painted scene.
It's funny, George, I had not read this until this moment, and
you and I managed to come up with precisely the same example as
an obvious counter to Gary's silly, quite flawed analogy. Hmmmm,
are you and I ACTUALLY agreeing? :-)
>> There are steps we can take to get closer, but unless we change our goals
>> a little, we will never have complete realism in an audio presentation, in
>> the way that most of us think of it.
>
>There is no need to change our goals, and you are right, we *will*
>never have complete realism in audio presentation, but then, as human
>beings we'll never be perfect either. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't
>continue to strive for either goal, however; now, does it?
And what we should do is finally get it through our often thick,
slow collective heads that STEREO can NEVER get there,
especially if you buy into the heavily flawed and commercially
self0serving premises that involve making the reproduction SO
heavily room dependent that the listening room characteristics
so completely swamp the desired venue acoustic clues.
But recording in an anechoic chamber and playing it back in your
living room is a DUMB idea.
Richard D Pierce
BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote:
>So, what is your solution? How can the acquisition of sound information
>for recording/reproduction be improved?
Solution for what? I'm talking about a very specific, very
narrowly defined and rather useless experiment: recording music
under VERY specific conditions so that one can conduct a
so-called "live vs recorded" test.
Properly recording material for playback in people's home is
something entirely different, and a subject of exhaustive
research and experimentation, though very, very little of it in
the high-end world, where the majority of thenindustry has its
head very firmly buried in paradigms that were known to be
inherently flawed a half century and more ago. One might
investigate the multi-channel playback efforts by several as
expounded in the professional journals. Some of the late work of
the erstwhile JJ comes to mind, for example.
One other solution to that is to expose the head-in-sand
attitude in the hopes of embarrasing the proponents of it into
taking up something more suited to their skills, like carnival
work, while at the same time educating the buying public that
there is a much bigger workld out there then the story they get
from the mags and the manufacturers.
So far, it's proven to be a tough row to hoe, vested interests
being what they are.
Richard D Pierce
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>This echos my experiences as well. Perfectly flat and or centered LPs
>are quite rare, and are probably responsible for MOST of the wow and
>most good turntable platters sort of eliminates them as a source of
Wanna bet? Off the top of my head, I don't remember exactly what
turntable it was, but I remember someone bringing in a "well-
regarded" turntable that, in fact, had a fair amount of audible
flutter to it. Had to jump through hoops to find out why, but
finally installed a small mirror underneath the platter and was
amazed to see that the belt itself was vibrating like a guitar
string. The way the turntable was "designed," the free, un-
supported portions of the belt had a natural frequency that
corresponded precisely to the cogging on the multi-pole
synchrounous motor, and the belt woiuld vibrate at a horrific
amplitude, on the order of 1/4". Changing to a different
thickness belt solved the problem.
>Newton's third law of motion just about rules it out.
Well, that's the law of conservation of linear momentum. How
does that apply here?
Mkuller
>Dragon Series, I believe. Never saw it, or a review of it, anywher
Robert Greene bought one and reviewed it in TAS some years back. He is
extremely sensitive to pitch variations and loved what it did.
Regards,
Mike
Gary Eickmeier
> Once again the analogy that Gary selects is HEAVILY and fatally
> flawed. There are basically two types of photography: there is
> documentary photography: one that is intended to capture as much
> of the original scene and reproduce it with as little change as
> possible. And then there is fine-art or interpretive
> photography. In the former category, you find fields like
> forensic, scientific, and similar forms used to "document"
> something. In the latter you have the works of Ansel Adams,
> Henri Cartier-Bresson, and many others.
>
> In that latter category, the representation as presented to the
> viewer is a SUBSTANTIAL departure from the original scene
> because it was the choice of the photographer NOT to capture the
> scene, but TO INTERPRET the scene. In that way, the analogy
> between a fine photograph (such as Adams' "Clearing Winter
> Storm") and a fine recording couldn't possibly be more badly
> chosen.
I chose no such analogy.
> >Hi-Fi we are merely capturing a performance by other human beings
> >with the goal of making that performance and the experience
> >associated with it transportable. They are two different things.
>
> Vastly different.
How so?
> >Take for example, Paul Weston's famous pictures of bell peppers.
> >These black and white images of a common vegetable are valued
> >because of the play of light and shadow with which Weston imbued
> >them. By themselves, the peppers are of little value except perhaps
> >as a component for a good spaghetti sauce. IOW, Weston has
> >re-defined the reality of the bell peppers in terms of his own
> >artistic vision.
>
> And created an image that is a very POOR "reproduction" of
> peppers, despite it being a substantive example of interpretive
> photography and art in its own right.
I wasn't talking about bell peppers or interpretive anything. Where did all this
come from?
> And, guess what? If you read and UNDERSTAND Ansel Adam's
> writings on the Zone system, it is a DELIBERATE and INFORMED
> manipulation of the highlights and shadows and everything in
> between that he uses to INTERPRET the scene, and the result is a
> work of art THAT IS NOT A REPRODUCTION OF REAL LIFE, no more
> than a Van Gogh is an accurate representation of the French
> landscape of the late 19th century.
The zone system is employed to capture the complete tonal range of the original
within the constraints of the dynamic range of paper and chemicals. This is an
attempt to accurately capture the image in front of him. I never thought that
Adams' photographs weren't realistic looking - except for not being in color.
But I wouldn't mistake them for Yosemite Park.
> >> I think where we get into trouble in both photography and audio is
> >> trying to reproduce both the primary subject and the entire
> >> background. We have the greatest success in audio in the live vs
> >> recorded arena by recording anechoically and using the playback
> >> room's acoustics as the background for both the live and the
> >> recorded sound.
>
> Actually, this is a perfectly dreadful idea. It leads to such
> silliness as recording Mahler's Symphony #9 (so-called "symphony
> of a thousand) and playing it back in the acoustics of a living
> room. How anyone could consider that "better" is beyond this
> person (and probably quite a few others as well).
Let's look at it this way:
It's fairly easy to contrive a demonstration that puts
significant constraints on what the reproducing system has to
do. For example, recording soloist in an anechoic chamber, then
reproducing the anechoic recording next to the soloist in a live
vs recorded scenario means that both the soloist and the
speakers have a chance to exite the acoustical soundfield in the
same basic ways. The sound system has been totally relieved of
trying to reproduce the soundfield in the recording because
THERE IS NO SOUNDFIELD in anechoic recordings.
However, the sort of information that JJ and myself describe as
being lost is imagine now that same soloist performing in a
live, suitable venue, such as a piano being played in a large
drawing room, for example. There is a HUGE amount of information
about the acoustic space in which the piano is being played.
There is the sound pressure at many points, for example, along
with the information about where the soundis coming from that
caused that sound pressure. Imagine an ideal "minimalist"
recording of such a venue: two extremely high-quality
microphones placed "ideally". The sample the sound pressure at
their respective diaphragms. But that's ALL the sample: the
signal coming down the wire has NO information WHATSOEVER about
where the sound came from. Even if the microphones are highly
directional, the signal only contains the magnitude of the sound
pressure at that point.
And reproducing this signal over two speakers basically assumes
that ALL of the soundfield originates from two points in space.
It decidely DOES NOT.
No one has tried the experiment of recording a large ensemble or
instrument in a large venue (such as BSO in Boston's Symphony
Hall or the Schnitger Organ in the Laurenskirk in Alkmaar) and
compared it to a recording, for several reasons. First, it's
utterly impractical to stuff the BSO or a pipe organ in an
anechoic chamber. Secondly, and most importantly, the soundfield
information is SO complex that the resulting comparison be an
utter failure. SO much of the sound arrives from somewhere other
than in front, with varying delays and reverberation, no
two-channel system could ever encode that information.
And 5.1 was NEVER intended to do this.
> >Actually, a better way would be to record in a real space (say a
> >concert hall) using multiple channels, and play back in an anechoic
> >room. That way we can transplant the recording venue into our own
> >listening venue.
>
> Or, make sure the directional characteristics of the speakers
> are sufficiently well behaved so that the confounding effects of
> the room are minimized. I realize that this is the the
> antithesis of Gary's stated premise, but that premise alog with
> his ideal "solution" as stated above is, frankly, ludicrous.
What solution? Stated above where?
> Those of us that understand photography as an art form a NEVER
> fooled in such a way, because we could NEVER be "there" in an
> interpretation. However, if I buy a REPRODUCTION of an Adams
> photograph, that's a VERY different story.
Yes! Now we agree!
> >> And curiously, it is only since the stereo era that we began
> >> to think we could reproduce the instruments and the entire
> >> acoustical space surrounding them.
>
> And LONG BEFORE the stereo era, the experts in the field had
> ALREADY demonstrated it could never reach this goal.
Thank you.
> >Your analogy is flawed, I believe, because you assume that the goals
> >of these two disparate "recording technologies" are similar. I say
> >that they are not. No one expects a photograph to be real any more
> >than they expect a Van Gogh painting to be an accurate representation
> >of the painted scene.
>
> It's funny, George, I had not read this until this moment, and
> you and I managed to come up with precisely the same example as
> an obvious counter to Gary's silly, quite flawed analogy. Hmmmm,
> are you and I ACTUALLY agreeing? :-)
All right, let's review: No one expects a photograph to fool you into thinking
you are there, and no one expects an audio recording to fool you into thinking
you are there. But the analogy is fatally flawed. All right, you can jump in
here, because I missed it.
> And what we should do is finally get it through our often thick,
> slow collective heads that STEREO can NEVER get there,
> especially if you buy into the heavily flawed and commercially
> self0serving premises that involve making the reproduction SO
> heavily room dependent that the listening room characteristics
> so completely swamp the desired venue acoustic clues.
>
> But recording in an anechoic chamber and playing it back in your
> living room is a DUMB idea.
I think maybe you are taking my example of the live vs recorded demo and
thinking that is my recommendation for all audio recording from now on. I'm not
sure why you thought that, because you used the same example in a previous post.
But I didn't ascribe it to you as a really DUMB idea. It is simply an example
for the furtherance of discussion of the central problem, that the expectations
of audio are more than the system is designed to be able to do. I would enjoy
talking intelligently about this most interesting subject, without taking
potshots at strawmen or making assumptions along the way.
Gary Eickmeier
Fred Whitlock
> careful selection among a list of flaws to more closely convey,
> IN HIS VIEW, the emotion evocated by the original experienc.
Could we call it a craft? Recording engineers don't create music,
they process recorded music to improve the listening experience. As a
musician I view playing music as a craft and not an art despite the
significant amount of interpretation involved. I view composition or
other forms of music creation to be art. I don't view recording
engineering as art.
And
> those choice can NEVER be properly made without a huge amount of
> nowledge of the specific flawsd and capabilities of the various
> media that engineer chooses to use.
No one argues the need for a high level of skill in recording
engineering. I've done a little of it and it isn't easy.
>
> And, guess what? If you read and UNDERSTAND Ansel Adam's
> writings on the Zone system, it is a DELIBERATE and INFORMED
> manipulation of the highlights and shadows and everything in
> between that he uses to INTERPRET the scene, and the result is a
> work of art THAT IS NOT A REPRODUCTION OF REAL LIFE, no more
> than a Van Gogh is an accurate representation of the French
> landscape of the late 19th century.
Well, the zone system is actually a manipulation of exposure and film
development designed to include or exclude highlights and/or shadows
in the resultant negative. I actually studied with Ansel Adams. I
view his incredible darkroom work as a craft as well and I'll grant
you that there are certainly parallels between what Ansel did in the
darkroom and what a recording engineer does at the console.
Incidentally, he viewed it as a craft not an art even though his
photographs are sold as art work and legitimately so.
>
> Actually, this is a perfectly dreadful idea. It leads to such
> silliness as recording Mahler's Symphony #9 (so-called "symphony
> of a thousand) and playing it back in the acoustics of a living
> room. How anyone could consider that "better" is beyond this
> person (and probably quite a few others as well).
Depends on the venue, of course. Our local auditorium has poor
acoustics and the electronics used to enhance the acoustics doesn't do
any better job than a good recording made in a better venue heard in
my home. We have a fairly adept local symphony orchestra but they
really don't have an adept place to play. I sometimes prefer the way
they sound during summer concerts in the park.
>
>
> Those of us that understand photography as an art form a NEVER
> fooled in such a way, because we could NEVER be "there" in an
> interpretation. However, if I buy a REPRODUCTION of an Adams
> photograph, that's a VERY different story.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I think you need to judge
any art for what it is not whence it came. I don't think "being
there," if that means being in the artst's shoes, means much. How it
affected the artist doesn't mean much either. What matters is how you
react to it.
>
>
> And LONG BEFORE the stereo era, the experts in the field had
> ALREADY demonstrated it could never reach this goal.
True of any art or craft form, no?
>
> And what we should do is finally get it through our often thick,
> slow collective heads that STEREO can NEVER get there,
> especially if you buy into the heavily flawed and commercially
> self0serving premises that involve making the reproduction SO
> heavily room dependent that the listening room characteristics
> so completely swamp the desired venue acoustic clues.
And 5.1 or 300.56 channels could get there or anything other than the
original could get there? Why not? Depends on where "there" is.
The purpose of music is entertainment? A "movement of the soul?" An
appeal to personal esthetics? Why does it have to be true to an
original venue. Why can't you just judge it for what it is? Seems to
me you were arguing against this point above.
>
> But recording in an anechoic chamber and playing it back in your
> living room is a DUMB idea.
I think so too but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work for some folks.
Many audiophiles, after all, are mostly concerned with the
reproduction of the music moreso than with the music itself. Some
might like an anechoic recording that would rivet attention to the
sound of the instrument as opposed to what the instrument was playing.
I've heard some audiophile setups that sound like anechoic chambers.
Didn't sound good to me but they apparently appealed to the
audiophiles who owned them and set them up.
Fred
AudioNow!
http://www.audionow.com
Richard D Pierce
Fred Whitlock <a...@skyenet.net> wrote:
>> What becomes "art" in a musical recording is the engineer's VERY
>> careful selection among a list of flaws to more closely convey,
>> IN HIS VIEW, the emotion evocated by the original experienc.
>
>they process recorded music to improve the listening experience. As a
>musician I view playing music as a craft and not an art despite the
>significant amount of interpretation involved. I view composition or
>other forms of music creation to be art. I don't view recording
>engineering as art.
I would accept "craft" as an operating term in this context, and
that the engineer is certainly a "craftsman,", though craftsman
are not immune to creating art, good, bad or otherwise.
George Graves
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Ah, but again, people at the cutting edge of photographic research
and product development *do* keep trying, now don't they? Better
lenses, better film, paper, and chemistries. The fact that the goal
is unreachable shouldn't keep it from being an IDEALIZED goal.
> There may in the future be laboratory type situations where we could
> have life size, three dimensional, motion and sound holographic
> images that are as bright as sunlight, but that goes beyond the
> analogy. We may also have a lab situation in audio where, with
> enough channels and speakers, and for a single listener in an
> anechoic environment, we might be able to simulate the real thing.
> But as I said before, that goes beyond the analogy of comparing a
> stereo playback to a photograph.
>
> My bottom line statement is that if your goal is transporting the
> listener to the concert hall that has been recorded, the so-called
> "accuracy" goal, then you will never quite get there. If, on the
> other hand, you change the goal slightly to "realism", it may be
> quite possible to transport the musical source to your listening
> environment. This is similar to the live-vs-recorded demos
> discussed in the last post.
The goal is NOT (as far as I've ever heard) to transport the listener
to the concert hall, but rather to transport the concert hall to the
listener.
> > Photography is an art form, high-fidelity is a means of capturing
> > and reproducing reality, hopefully without re-defining it. In
> > photography, even technical photography, the skill of the
> > photographer and the quality of his equipment defines the image. In
> > Hi-Fi we are merely capturing a performance by other human beings
> > with the goal of making that performance and the experience
> > associated with it transportable. They are two different things.
> > Take for example, Paul Weston's famous pictures of bell peppers.
> > These black and white images of a common vegetable are valued
> > because of the play of light and shadow with which Weston imbued
> > them. By themselves, the peppers are of little value except perhaps
> > as a component for a good spaghetti sauce. IOW, Weston has
> > re-defined the reality of the bell peppers in terms of his own
> > artistic vision. A recording of Pablo Casals playing the cello, OTOH,
> > Is a not subject to being re-defined either as it is captured or as
> > it is reproduced. We only honor the intent of the artist (Casals, in
> > this case) by attempting to recreate, as closely as possible, every
> > delicate nuance of his performance.The fact that we cannot perfectly
> > do so, does not, in my opinion, in any way abrogate our collective
> > responsibility to at least TRY to do so.
>
> Again, not responsive to my analogy. The recording, like the
> photograph, becomes a NEW art form, accountable to its creator for
> its degree of excellence.
I disagree. Photography like painting, *can* be an interpretive
artform. Audio recording and playback *should* not be.
> > Actually, a better way would be to record in a real space (say a
> > concert hall) using multiple channels, and play back in an anechoic
> > room. That way we can transplant the recording venue into our own
> > listening venue.
>
> It's just very difficult to do, especially for more than one
> listener. The sound patterns present in the concert hall cannot be
> sampled completely, and it would take so many channels and speakers
> that it would be possible only in a laboratory situation.
I was speaking ideally, of course.
Depends on your point of view and your definition of reality. The
closeset that one can get to the photographed image is to view a
slide of that image 1 to 1. Any enlargement introduces grain (noise),
and amplifies lens aberations (distortion).
> There actually is a direct audio analogy. I'm not sure I want to go
> into it, but the traditional notion of "accuracy" means the direct
> sound as measured a few feet in front of the speakers has the same
> waveform as the raw recorded signal. This is about as relevant as
> your statement about making the print the same size as the
> negative. There is no attempt to compare the reproduction to
> reality.
>
> > There is no need to change our goals, and you are right, we *will*
> > never have complete realism in audio presentation, but then, as human
> > beings we'll never be perfect either. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't
> > continue to strive for either goal, however; now, does it?
>
> I didn't say we can't have audio realism. I said we can't expect to
> achieve the goal of transporting the listener to the concert hall.
> But if we change the goal to one of realism, it may be possible to
> transport the sound source to the listening room.
As I said earlier, transporting the listener to the concert hall is
not the goal of high-fidelity anyway, and there is a big difference
between transporting the listener to the concert hall and
transporting the concert hall to the listener.
--
George Graves
Gary Eickmeier
> Ah, but again, people at the cutting edge of photographic research
> and product development *do* keep trying, now don't they? Better
> lenses, better film, paper, and chemistries. The fact that the goal
> is unreachable shouldn't keep it from being an IDEALIZED goal.
Man, you guys are stretching and fighting me on this simple analogy. Lenses?
Film? Paper? Then what - all of a sudden something will go POP and we will be at
the scene of the photograph?
> I disagree. Photography like painting, *can* be an interpretive
> artform. Audio recording and playback *should* not be.
But certainly can be and is. Some recordings attempt to capture the moment, but
many more become the art in and of themselves. Multitrack mixes, signal
processing, overdubs, fixing errors, and even balances within and among the
instruments are examples of the recording becoming a new work of art as
distinguished from just a record of a performance.
> Depends on your point of view and your definition of reality. The
> closeset that one can get to the photographed image is to view a
> slide of that image 1 to 1. Any enlargement introduces grain (noise),
> and amplifies lens aberations (distortion).
It isn't this difficult, really. You compare the reproduction to the real thing,
and ask about all of the characteristics, how they match. Physical size is the
most obvious, followed by dynamic range, then perhaps freedom from distortion
(such as grain and aberrations), and spatial characteristics - whether it is two
or three dimensions. Not too different from audio, is it?
> As I said earlier, transporting the listener to the concert hall is
> not the goal of high-fidelity anyway, and there is a big difference
> between transporting the listener to the concert hall and
> transporting the concert hall to the listener.
Come on, George. You're getting silly here. There is no difference between
transporting the listener to the concert hall or the other way around. How
about, bringing the listener and the concert hall together? The point is that
the one goal is to reproduce not only the instruments but also the complete
acoustical surroundings of the original concert hall.
As Mr. Pierce has agreed, this is a much more difficult task than just
reproducing the sound of the instruments in your acoustic space.
Gary Eickmeier
Rob Gold
>>> What becomes "art" in a musical recording is the engineer's VERY
>>> careful selection among a list of flaws to more closely convey,
>>> IN HIS VIEW, the emotion evocated by the original experienc.
>>
>>Could we call it a craft? Recording engineers don't create music,
>>they process recorded music to improve the listening experience. As a
>>musician I view playing music as a craft and not an art despite the
>>significant amount of interpretation involved. I view composition or
>>other forms of music creation to be art. I don't view recording
>>engineering as art.
>
An elderly Maurice Ravel -- having already written Daphnis et Chloe,
La Valse, Le Tombeau de Couperin and Ma Mere L'Oye -- was asked if
he had achieved all he wanted as an artist. He replied, "Do not ask
me about art. I am still working on my craft."
Rob Gold
George Graves
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > Ah, but again, people at the cutting edge of photographic research
> > and product development *do* keep trying, now don't they? Better
> > lenses, better film, paper, and chemistries. The fact that the goal
> > is unreachable shouldn't keep it from being an IDEALIZED goal.
>
> Man, you guys are stretching and fighting me on this simple
> analogy. Lenses? Film? Paper? Then what - all of a sudden something
> will go POP and we will be at the scene of the photograph?
>
> > I disagree. Photography like painting, *can* be an interpretive
> > artform. Audio recording and playback *should* not be.
>
> But certainly can be and is. Some recordings attempt to capture the
> moment, but many more become the art in and of themselves.
> Multitrack mixes, signal processing, overdubs, fixing errors, and
> even balances within and among the instruments are examples of the
> recording becoming a new work of art as distinguished from just a
> record of a performance.
But that's not strictly recording. That's production. Different
thing. Many pop recordings don't really exist in real-time. The
singer can't really sing, and his voice must be EQ'd to give it some
bottom, run through a flanger, to give it some quality and then
de-essed to get it on tape. The guitars must be processed and EQ'd,
and multitrack mixes allow the vocal to be laid-down in NY and the
backup in LA. Some might call it an artform, but its mostly because
the production is required to get out the product. But nobody is
trying to "realistically reproduce" this stuff because there is
nothing real about it. Many people might like it, and that's fine but
it has as much to do with the goal of high-fidelity as Piccasso's
"Gurenaca" has to do with that real town. Recording is laying down
for posterity a real musical event (in this case) as accurately as it
can be done, adding nothing and taking nothing away. The musician
and his/her instrument produce all the sound necessary, and all the
recordist has to do is pick those sounds up and accurately direct
them to some storage medium.
--
George Graves
Fred Whitlock
right then there is nothing artistic about music at all. I'm afraid I
have to disagree with him with all due respect to his brilliance and
experience as a composer. He was indeed an artist and a great one. I
gues it is pretty hard to define the line between art and craft and
probably impossible to define it the same for everyone. I'll give it
all some thought. Good listening.
Fred
AudioNow!
Gary Eickmeier
> But that's not strictly recording. That's production. Different
> thing. Many pop recordings don't really exist in real-time. The
> singer can't really sing, and his voice must be EQ'd to give it some
> bottom, run through a flanger, to give it some quality and then
> de-essed to get it on tape. The guitars must be processed and EQ'd,
> and multitrack mixes allow the vocal to be laid-down in NY and the
> backup in LA. Some might call it an artform, but its mostly because
> the production is required to get out the product. But nobody is
> trying to "realistically reproduce" this stuff because there is
> nothing real about it. Many people might like it, and that's fine but
> it has as much to do with the goal of high-fidelity as Piccasso's
> "Gurenaca" has to do with that real town. Recording is laying down
> for posterity a real musical event (in this case) as accurately as it
> can be done, adding nothing and taking nothing away. The musician
> and his/her instrument produce all the sound necessary, and all the
> recordist has to do is pick those sounds up and accurately direct
> them to some storage medium.
This is really getting off the point of my (seemingly simple) analogy, but let's
talk about it. Let's take a recording, any recording. I don't care if it's an
attempt at documenting the moment or a crazed concoction by a rock producer. The
recording is now a new work of art, intended for playback on your soundstage. It
will have a certain range of frequencies, it will have instrumental or syth
sounds, and all of the various sounds will image SOMEWHERE - hopefully where the
producer intended, but somewhere. So you've got yourself a performance.
Some audio systems will reproduce this performance better than others. Certainly
a home big system will do better than a car radio or a boombox. There can be
enjoyment to it, from the performance as well as the sound quality - the
bitchin' bass, the swirling effects, the tinkling highs, the space, whatever.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question or the analogy between
whether photos or audio recordings can have "realism", but the point is that
this recording is just as valid a recording as one that does attempt to mimic
some real performance. You can't say that it is not audio, or is not a
recording.
I would also point out that a documentary recording and the highly produced
recording are both a new piece of art, an audio recording. Playing it back
becomes a new performance - sometimes based solely on an original performance,
sometimes created in the studio, but a new performance, intended and engineered
for one purpose: playback on your audio system.
Gary Eickmeier
krom...@my-deja.com
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <8qrutb$f12$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, Gary Eickmeier
> <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, but again, people at the cutting edge of photographic research
> > > and product development *do* keep trying, now don't they? Better
> > > lenses, better film, paper, and chemistries. The fact that the goal
> > > is unreachable shouldn't keep it from being an IDEALIZED goal.
> >
> > Man, you guys are stretching and fighting me on this simple
> > analogy. Lenses? Film? Paper? Then what - all of a sudden something
> > will go POP and we will be at the scene of the photograph?
> >
> > > I disagree. Photography like painting, *can* be an interpretive
> > > artform. Audio recording and playback *should* not be.
> >
> > But certainly can be and is. Some recordings attempt to capture the
> > moment, but many more become the art in and of themselves.
> > Multitrack mixes, signal processing, overdubs, fixing errors, and
> > even balances within and among the instruments are examples of the
> > recording becoming a new work of art as distinguished from just a
> > record of a performance.
>
> thing.
Not in the context of this discussion. The term 'Recording' is being
used to encompass the whole process between the artists playing the
music, and the listener hearing it.
> Many pop recordings don't really exist in real-time. The
> singer can't really sing, and his voice must be EQ'd to give it some
> bottom, run through a flanger, to give it some quality and then
> de-essed to get it on tape. The guitars must be processed and EQ'd,
> and multitrack mixes allow the vocal to be laid-down in NY and the
> backup in LA. Some might call it an artform, but its mostly because
> the production is required to get out the product.
Wow, such a narrow view of music. Do you really believe this? Do you
really believe that production is used solely to 'cover up flaws'? I
would strongly disagree with this. Production encompasses so many
other things. Rearranging, Overdubbing, Remixing, not to mention
using artificially created sounds can and are all used for artistic
effect, not just to mask or hide imperfections in the natural
recording.
> But nobody is
> trying to "realistically reproduce" this stuff because there is
> nothing real about it. Many people might like it, and that's fine but
> it has as much to do with the goal of high-fidelity as Piccasso's
> "Gurenaca" has to do with that real town.
Again, I strongly disagree with this. Are you saying that music that
has had any degree of post-processing is no longer high-fidelity, and
may as well be played back on a boombox?
> Recording is laying down
> for posterity a real musical event (in this case) as accurately as it
> can be done, adding nothing and taking nothing away. The musician
> and his/her instrument produce all the sound necessary, and all the
> recordist has to do is pick those sounds up and accurately direct
> them to some storage medium.
So your definition of a musician is someone who plays an instrument
that plays sound into open air only?
Andy K.
> --
> George Graves
George Graves
<a...@skyenet.net> wrote:
No, that's NOT what he meant at all. Any artform is comprised of two
parts, craft and creativity. Before one can become a composer, one
has to learn composition, harmony, counterpoint, etc. That's the
craft, I.E. the tools with which to compose, just as a painter has to
learn color, how to mix paints, what brush to use, how to stretch
canvas over a frame, and then many must learn human anatomy, how to
do perspective, shadow and light, etc. This is the "craft." The art
part is what the artist is able to do creatively with his learned
tools and techniques. Ravel meant that he was still learning
technical things about music, which is the craft for his art.
--
George Graves
George Graves
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > But that's not strictly recording. That's production. Different
> > thing. Many pop recordings don't really exist in real-time. The
> > singer can't really sing, and his voice must be EQ'd to give it some
> > bottom, run through a flanger, to give it some quality and then
> > de-essed to get it on tape. The guitars must be processed and EQ'd,
> > and multitrack mixes allow the vocal to be laid-down in NY and the
> > backup in LA. Some might call it an artform, but its mostly because
> > the production is required to get out the product. But nobody is
> > trying to "realistically reproduce" this stuff because there is
> > nothing real about it. Many people might like it, and that's fine but
> > it has as much to do with the goal of high-fidelity as Piccasso's
> > "Gurenaca" has to do with that real town. Recording is laying down
> > for posterity a real musical event (in this case) as accurately as it
> > can be done, adding nothing and taking nothing away. The musician
> > and his/her instrument produce all the sound necessary, and all the
> > recordist has to do is pick those sounds up and accurately direct
> > them to some storage medium.
>
As a recording engineer, I disagree that a recording is art. To make
a good recording requires skill and good tools, to be sure, but the
art is in the performance not in the recording of it.
--
George Graves
R.J. Salvi
news:8r0cqf$blo$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
<snip>
> I would also point out that a documentary recording and the highly produced
> recording are both a new piece of art, an audio recording. Playing it back
> becomes a new performance - sometimes based solely on an original performance,
> sometimes created in the studio, but a new performance, intended and engineered
> for one purpose: playback on your audio system.
Ahhhhhhhh.................now we're getting somewhere Gary. So
logically looking at this, it would mean that a suitable "playback
system" would be one that reproduces this "new performance" as
"intended and engineered." I tend to agree with this logic too.
--
Robert J. Salvi, Ambiance Acoustics
http://www.calcube.com
San Diego, CA USA
(858) 485-7514
R.J. Salvi
> As a recording engineer, I disagree that a recording is art. To make
> a good recording requires skill and good tools, to be sure, but the
> art is in the performance not in the recording of it.
Sorry George, but I vehemently disagree with this. Everything from
microphone selection and placement to final mastering is as much an
art as it is skill. More than that, certain engineer/producers have
all but trademarked their signature sound with certain artists: e.g.
Swedien/Jackson, Lange/Def Leppard, Gehman/Mellencamp, just to name a
few.
Thomas Nulla
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <8qvpb...@news1.newsguy.com>, "Fred Whitlock"
><a...@skyenet.net> wrote:
>
>> Wow! Mr. Ravel viewed composition as a craft and not an art. If he's
>> right then there is nothing artistic about music at all. I'm afraid I
>> have to disagree with him with all due respect to his brilliance and
>> experience as a composer. He was indeed an artist and a great one. I
>> gues it is pretty hard to define the line between art and craft and
>> probably impossible to define it the same for everyone. I'll give it
>> all some thought. Good listening.
>>
>> Fred
>> AudioNow!
>
>No, that's NOT what he meant at all. Any artform is comprised of two
>parts, craft and creativity. Before one can become a composer, one
>has to learn composition, harmony, counterpoint, etc. That's the
>craft, I.E. the tools with which to compose, just as a painter has to
>learn color, how to mix paints, what brush to use, how to stretch
>canvas over a frame, and then many must learn human anatomy, how to
>do perspective, shadow and light, etc. This is the "craft." The art
>part is what the artist is able to do creatively with his learned
>tools and techniques. Ravel meant that he was still learning
>technical things about music, which is the craft for his art.
This is an excellent point! There are who-knows-how-many people walking
around with wonderful artistic, musical, etc., conceptions inside their
heads...but who will never be able to convey them to the rest of us,
because they lack the skills and knowledge with which to express them.
IMO a hallmark of truly fine art is that it possesses both a great
artistic vision, and a skill in executing that vision that
*communicates* it to a large number of people.
Thomas <now playing: silence>
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
"I respect faith, but doubt is what gives you an education."
krom...@my-deja.com
"Fred Whitlock" <a...@skyenet.net> wrote:
> > What becomes "art" in a musical recording is the engineer's VERY
> > careful selection among a list of flaws to more closely convey,
> > IN HIS VIEW, the emotion evocated by the original experienc.
>
> they process recorded music to improve the listening experience. As a
> musician I view playing music as a craft and not an art despite the
> significant amount of interpretation involved. I view composition or
> other forms of music creation to be art. I don't view recording
> engineering as art.
I disagree. I believe the process of composing -> playing -> recording
is an iterative one, and collectively produces art. Sometimes one or
more of these steps is missing:
Example #1: If a group of people is 'jamming', you could argue that the
composing step is missing because the art is coming forth directly from
the playing.
Example #2: A recorded live performance (the form usually discussed
here) removes the recording step from the process. However, IMO the
recording step is often part of the process that creates the art.
Example #3: An artist that composes music on a computer could be said
to have removed the playing step from the creation of that art.
(Arguable)
To say anything less is to produce a very narrow definition of what
Music is, IMO.
If fact, the more I think about it, 'Music' in this newsgroup is
usually narrowly-defined to only include Example #2. Why is this?
Andy K.
Chris Malcolm
>In article <8qpp7o$jgh$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, Gary Eickmeier
><geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> I think you either don't understand the analogy, or don't agree with
>> it. My point was not that the task is going to be so difficult we
>> might as well give up. The point is, the goal is not realizable in
>> the way that most of us think of it. The analogy in photography is
>> that no matter how good lenses get, no matter how bright the
>> projectors or the paper, no matter how accurate the color, a
>> picture will never be mistaken for the real thing because it is just
>> a two dimensional reproduction.
>Ah, but again, people at the cutting edge of photographic research
>and product development *do* keep trying, now don't they? Better
>lenses, better film, paper, and chemistries. The fact that the goal
>is unreachable shouldn't keep it from being an IDEALIZED goal.
There is an interesting analogy in the photographic image, which has
nothing to do with the kind of fidelity provided by lenses, paper,
chemistry, etc.. It has to do with how the eye/brain sees an
image. The eye/brain tries to "see" not the colours of the visual
spectrum as reflected by the objects as they happen to be lit, but to
"see" the "real" colours of the objects, i.e., what they *would* look
like if the lighting was really good. So if the room happens to be lit
by a yellow tungsten lamp the eye/brain automatically compensates and
shows you its best guess at the "real" colours.
Suppose you take a photograph of the scene, take it your friend's
house, and show him. The camera, because it was a faithful recorder of
the actual colours that impinged on the film, shows you a picture of
the objects lit by a yellow tungsten lamp. But you view this picture
in a room with its own ambient lighting, to which your eyes have
carefully adjusted. The picture simply looks horribly yellow. That's
how the visible radiation at the time was. But it was not what a human
eye/brain there at the time would see.
In order to make the image colours look more like what you orignally
saw, the picture has to be taken through a filter which does the sme
kind of compensation as your eye/brain. The result is an unrealistic
representation of the pattern of visible radiation, but the image you
see when viewing it later elsewhere is more like your experience at
the time. The distorted image (in physical terms) is more realistic
(in visual terms). It's a question of what one might call overall
colour ambience and its effect on perception.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics
Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/] DoD #205
Gary Eickmeier
> There is an interesting analogy in the photographic image, which has
> nothing to do with the kind of fidelity provided by lenses, paper,
> chemistry, etc.. It has to do with how the eye/brain sees an
> image. The eye/brain tries to "see" not the colours of the visual
> spectrum as reflected by the objects as they happen to be lit, but to
> "see" the "real" colours of the objects, i.e., what they *would* look
> like if the lighting was really good. So if the room happens to be lit
> by a yellow tungsten lamp the eye/brain automatically compensates and
> shows you its best guess at the "real" colours.
>
> Suppose you take a photograph of the scene, take it your friend's
> house, and show him. The camera, because it was a faithful recorder of
> the actual colours that impinged on the film, shows you a picture of
> the objects lit by a yellow tungsten lamp. But you view this picture
> in a room with its own ambient lighting, to which your eyes have
> carefully adjusted. The picture simply looks horribly yellow. That's
> how the visible radiation at the time was. But it was not what a human
> eye/brain there at the time would see.
Yes - in fact, I think the analogy to photographic images is a classic, familiar
paradigm. That is where we get the term "coloration"!
Gary Eickmeier
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>There is an interesting analogy in the photographic image, which has
>nothing to do with the kind of fidelity provided by lenses, paper,
>chemistry, etc.. It has to do with how the eye/brain sees an
>image. The eye/brain tries to "see" not the colours of the visual
>spectrum as reflected by the objects as they happen to be lit, but to
>"see" the "real" colours of the objects, i.e., what they *would* look
>like if the lighting was really good. So if the room happens to be lit
>by a yellow tungsten lamp the eye/brain automatically compensates and
>shows you its best guess at the "real" colours.
This is somewhat analgous to the human being hearing the difference
between the frequency shaping of the first wavefront and the
frequency shaping of the hall reverb, eh?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
David Pearlman
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Pioneer or maybe a Marantz?) had some cockamamamey scheme for
> automatically centering a record while it was playing based on arm
> oscillation while the cartridge tracked the record. The table kept
> moving the spindle via a small off-center motor drive in the middle of
> the platter until the back-and-forth arm oscillation was nulled out. I
> only saw one once at a CES. I remember it was frightfully expensive.
> Anybody else remember this puppy? Can you shed any more light on it?
It was Nakamichi, and it was far from cockamamey. Nakamichi actually
made two self-centering turntables: The Nakamichi Dragon CT, and the
TX-1000. It was Nakamichi's bad fortune to come out with these
engineering marvels at the dawn of the CD age. Both tables were
available for only a short time, roughly 1982-84. Both were quite
expensive and sold relatively poorly.
Both performed self-centering by placing a stylus in the run-off
groove to measure the variance from true center, and then adjusting
the position of the turntable platter BEFORE play began. There
was no continual adjustment as the record played. That WOULD
be cockamamey. No, instead, the adjustment was made at the user's
request when the record was placed on the platter. Once the adjustment
was made, the adjustment mechanism was completely disengaged.
Dragon CT: Original price around $1800 including an arm.
Adjustment made by physically pushing the platter (which has
adjustment made possible through using a spindle hole that is
larger than the actual spindle). The turntable computes in
which direction the platter needs to be pushed to effect
centering of the record, the platter is rotated the
appropriate number of degrees, then a small metal plunger
which is mounted at the circumference of the platter comes out
and pushes the table the necessary distance. Typically from
1-3 iterations are required to get it spot-on. But it works fine.
Hard-to-find and collectable (read: expensive).
TX-1000: Original price around $8000 WITHOUT an arm.
Adjustment was made through a series of gears underneath the
platter. Much more elegant than the Dragon CT, and significantly
faster. Also provided digital adjustment of the (quartz locked)
platter speed, with +-10% adjustment available at both 33 1/3
and 45. Massive base. Off-body power supply. Facilities for
two independent tonearms. Total weight
about 100 pounds. Terrific styling, too. Even impresses people
today. Sold VERY poorly. Supposedly fewer than 100 were ever
sold/distributed in the US. Not so surprising when one considers
that $8000 in 1983 was the price of a decent Honda-grade car...
If you are sensitive to pitch variations, these tables are absolute
godsends. The TX-1000 gets the nod for its more elegant (and faster)
approach and great styling. Good luck finding one, though. The
Dragon CT wins on convenience (auto tonearm set-down and pick-up,
matched tonarm included, dust cover included).
dap
KenO
> No one has tried the experiment of recording a large ensemble or
> instrument in a large venue (such as BSO in Boston's Symphony
> Hall or the Schnitger Organ in the Laurenskirk in Alkmaar) and
> compared it to a recording, for several reasons. First, it's
> utterly impractical to stuff the BSO or a pipe organ in an
> anechoic chamber.
Well, what about a fairly close miked recording done in a suitable
outdoor location or maybe one of those big enclosed stadiums you have in
the US. Much more practical and pretty much the same result surely?
KenO
> As a recording engineer,
Did you ever do any direct-to-disc for the Umbrella label in Toronto?
> a good recording requires skill and good tools, to be sure, but the
> art is in the performance not in the recording of it.
Very true, to continue the photographic analogy, a blurred badly
exposed and faded snapshot can have overwhelming emotional impact
while the most perfectly reproduced image remains some dead
vegetables.
Gary Eickmeier
When you say Gary Eickmeier wrote, those are actually Dick Pierce's words. I
quoted him in my post to prove a point, that we were both saying the same thing.
Yes, a close-miked recording would be pretty close to anechoic. It would have
mostly instrumental sound, and very little room sound. I would imagine, though,
that it would be difficult to close-mike some instruments, such as a pipe organ.
And there are plenty of close miked recordings done, aren't there? Maybe they
pump in a little artificial reverb during the mix, but to me this says it may be
"OK" to think of the process as being a combination of the recorded acoustic and
the playback room's acoustic.
Gary Eickmeier
Rob Gold
>George Graves wrote:
>> As a recording engineer, I disagree that a recording is art. To make
>> a good recording requires skill and good tools, to be sure, but the
>> art is in the performance not in the recording of it.
>
>Sorry George, but I vehemently disagree with this. Everything from
>microphone selection and placement to final mastering is as much an
>art as it is skill. More than that, certain engineer/producers have
>all but trademarked their signature sound with certain artists: e.g.
>Swedien/Jackson, Lange/Def Leppard, Gehman/Mellencamp, just to
>name a few.
>
I have to agree with Salvi here, but with a nod to Graves. Perhaps it
would be better to view recording as an interpretive art, rather than a
creative one. In the selection of microphones, their positioning relative
to both the performers and their ambient space, etc., the recording
engineer makes the same aesthetic choices and compromises that a
conductor makes in crafting an orchestral performance from its
component instrumental parts. Balance, clarity, density and texture
all come into play.
Studio recordings go further, cross the interpretive line to become a
creative process central to the musical whole; seeking to craft new
sounds from a clean slate rather than "simply" (ha!) capturing an
existing acoustical environment and event.
Rob Gold
Richard D Pierce
Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>KenO wrote:
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>> > No one has tried the experiment of recording a large ensemble or
>> > instrument in a large venue (such as BSO in Boston's Symphony
>> > Hall or the Schnitger Organ in the Laurenskirk in Alkmaar) and
>> > compared it to a recording, for several reasons. First, it's
>> > utterly impractical to stuff the BSO or a pipe organ in an
>> > anechoic chamber.
>>
>> Well, what about a fairly close miked recording done in a suitable
>> outdoor location or maybe one of those big enclosed stadiums you have in
>> the US. Much more practical and pretty much the same result surely?
>
>anechoic. It would have mostly instrumental sound, and very
>little room sound. I would imagine, though, that it would be
>difficult to close-mike some instruments, such as a pipe organ.
Well, it would actually be nigh-on impossible. One contraint of
"close", one valid for the purpose, is that the distance from
the microphone to the instrument must be large compared to the
size of the instrument itself. You might get away with close
miking a violin at a distance of, say, a meter or even less, but
put a microphone 1 meter away from the front of reasonably sized
organ, and it will be MANY meters away from significant
sound-producing portions of the instrument. IN the example I
gace above, place it 1 meter in front of the center pipe of the
ruckpositiv (which sits on the railing of the loft), and it will
be about 4 meters away from the brustwerk, maybe 6-8 meters from
the hauptwerk, as much as 10 meters aqway from the oberwerk and
pedal pipes. You CAN'T close mic an organ.
And you'd never want to: it's physical extent is an integral
part of it's sound. It's extent in both the vertical and
horizontal dimension is a purposeful design element in the
production of sound from what is, in fact, four separate
instruments occupying four different places in space controlled
from 4 keyboards by one performer. It's an excellent exambple
why two channel stereo in rooms is a lousy means of reproducing
a sound field.
It's also an excellent example why current commercial
implementations of multi-channel are equally lousy and
incompetent means of reproducing it.
cat
bear...@coollink.net wrote:
> So, what is your solution? How can the acquisition of sound
> information for recording/reproduction be improved?
How about 10-20 discreet tracks, as many speaker/amp chanels,
controlled in the time and frequency domains with dsp, in a
relatively anechoic room? Recordings with the 'room' included could
be played back as is, the dsp could be used to simulate most any room
on 'dry' versions. Mabe...
Wayne
Saxon Liw
news:stgt07b...@corp.supernews.com...
> Well, it would actually be nigh-on impossible. One contraint of
> "close", one valid for the purpose, is that the distance from
> the microphone to the instrument must be large compared to the
> size of the instrument itself. You might get away with close
> miking a violin at a distance of, say, a meter or even less, but
> put a microphone 1 meter away from the front of reasonably sized
> organ, and it will be MANY meters away from significant
> sound-producing portions of the instrument. IN the example I
> gace above, place it 1 meter in front of the center pipe of the
> ruckpositiv (which sits on the railing of the loft), and it will
> be about 4 meters away from the brustwerk, maybe 6-8 meters from
> the hauptwerk, as much as 10 meters aqway from the oberwerk and
> pedal pipes. You CAN'T close mic an organ.
Hmm... Now how about close miking each group of pipes and then mix them
up carefully panning each group so that they are positionally correct in
the stereo mix? ;)
> And you'd never want to: it's physical extent is an integral
> part of it's sound. It's extent in both the vertical and
> horizontal dimension is a purposeful design element in the
> production of sound from what is, in fact, four separate
> instruments occupying four different places in space controlled
> from 4 keyboards by one performer. It's an excellent exambple
> why two channel stereo in rooms is a lousy means of reproducing
> a sound field.
True to a certain extent, but there would be a certain sweet spot where
the sound field can still be reasonably well produced (albeit accurate)
to the listener, isn't it?
> It's also an excellent example why current commercial
> implementations of multi-channel are equally lousy and
> incompetent means of reproducing it.
It is also interesting to note that Dolby Pro-Logic material can fairly
well reproduce the 'rear' channels over just a pair of carefully placed
loudspeakers with the listener in the sweet spot. And I think this
should be fairly sufficient for most listeners, wouldn't it?
</x-charset>
Richard D Pierce
Saxon Liw <engp...@nus.edu.sg> wrote:
><x-charset gb2312>"Richard D Pierce" <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
>news:stgt07b...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Well, it would actually be nigh-on impossible. One contraint of
>> "close", one valid for the purpose, is that the distance from
>> the microphone to the instrument must be large compared to the
>> size of the instrument itself. You might get away with close
>> miking a violin at a distance of, say, a meter or even less, but
>> put a microphone 1 meter away from the front of reasonably sized
>> organ, and it will be MANY meters away from significant
>> sound-producing portions of the instrument. IN the example I
>> gace above, place it 1 meter in front of the center pipe of the
>> ruckpositiv (which sits on the railing of the loft), and it will
>> be about 4 meters away from the brustwerk, maybe 6-8 meters from
>> the hauptwerk, as much as 10 meters aqway from the oberwerk and
>> pedal pipes. You CAN'T close mic an organ.
>
>Hmm... Now how about close miking each group of pipes and then mix them
>up carefully panning each group so that they are positionally correct in
>the stereo mix? ;)
Because that eliminates each divisions interaction in space with
other division and with the acoustic space. When I sit down to
listen to the Schnitger Organ in St. Laurenskirke in Alkmaar, I
DO NOT want to hear the Schintger organ in my living room. I
want to hear the Schnitger organ in the Laurenskirke. Close
miking eliminates that altogether.
Further, the job you describe is FAR more complex as you explore
it. Your method captures on the grossest of positional queues.
Remember when I talked about the ruckpositiv on the rail of the
loft versus the oberwerke on the top of the organ. They are not
only separated by severla tens of meters in space, they are also
separated, from the listener, in time. The listener on the
chruch floor, being substantially closer to ruckpositiv division
than to the oberwerke, hears it with a VERY different mix of
direct/reverberent energy than the oberwerke. The ruckpositiv
sounds much closer, more intimate, and both the composers of
music and the players know that and exploit it in the
performance. Imagine, for example, a short (2 measure) musical
phrase, played first on the ruckpositive then repreated on the
oberwerke. The effect is stunning: a statement and its echo.
Composers such as Sweelink (organizt at the Oudekirke in
Amsterdam in the late 16th and early 17th century) exploited
this effect quite explicitly.
Consider alos the placement of individual pipes. In a somewhat
extreme, but not at all unusual case, look ay how the pipes are
arranged in the side pedal division towers, which occupy the
extreme left and right positions in the instrument:
Bb F# D C E G# A F C# Eb G B
It might at first seem random, until you observe that the
chromatic sequence of pipes is being alternated back and forth
from left to right side. C on the left, C# on the right, D on
the left outside, Eb on the right outside, E on the left inside,
F on the right inside, and so on. Playing a chromatic run on the
pedal alternates the notes left and right, yet within that
extreme, there are large variations still (the instrument is
some 8-10 meters wide, and the pipe spacing in each tower is on
the order 1/4-1/2 meter). The "stereo effect" actually listening
to the instrument in situ is quite stunning and obvious. The
sense of true depth (due to large differences in reverberation
ratio) and height are clearly audible.
You multi-miking technique would loose ALL of this information.
>> And you'd never want to: it's physical extent is an integral
>> part of it's sound. It's extent in both the vertical and
>> horizontal dimension is a purposeful design element in the
>> production of sound from what is, in fact, four separate
>> instruments occupying four different places in space controlled
>> from 4 keyboards by one performer. It's an excellent exambple
>> why two channel stereo in rooms is a lousy means of reproducing
>> a sound field.
>
>True to a certain extent, but there would be a certain sweet spot where
>the sound field can still be reasonably well produced (albeit accurate)
>to the listener, isn't it?
That's not the issue: current stereo recording simply LOOSES ALL
of the informartion that you'd want to try to stuiff into the
sweet spot. In otherwords, there CAN'T be a sweet spot because
all the information needed is long gone.
>> It's also an excellent example why current commercial
>> implementations of multi-channel are equally lousy and
>> incompetent means of reproducing it.
>
>It is also interesting to note that Dolby Pro-Logic material can fairly
>well reproduce the 'rear' channels over just a pair of carefully placed
>loudspeakers with the listener in the sweet spot. And I think this
>should be fairly sufficient for most listeners, wouldn't it?
Well, you might have noticed that in the above, I may not be
interested in "most listeners." :-)
Philip Ganderton
> >Hmm... Now how about close miking each group of pipes and then mix them
> >up carefully panning each group so that they are positionally correct in
> >the stereo mix? ;)
>
> Because that eliminates each divisions interaction in space with
> other division and with the acoustic space. When I sit down to
> listen to the Schnitger Organ in St. Laurenskirke in Alkmaar, I
> DO NOT want to hear the Schintger organ in my living room. I
> want to hear the Schnitger organ in the Laurenskirke. Close
> miking eliminates that altogether.
>
Which reminds me of my early days climbing the (rather steep) curve
of audiophilia. I once mentioned to an audio buddy that on his
system it sounded like the musicians were *in his listening room*.
Then, as systems progressed, it became more like we were sitting in
the *same room as the musicians*. Since then I have realized the
great significance of that rather subtle syntax. And like Mr Pierce,
I don't want the music to sound as if it were being played in my
listening space--quite the contrary, I want my space to be
essentially transparent, but allowing me to hear the space in which
the recording was made (studio, concert hall, church, etc.) Of
course this has no meaning for all that techno, electronic music pulp
I sometimes listen to, but my expectations are different when I
listen to US3!
cheers,
philip
--
Philip T. Ganderton, Ph.D.
Economics Dept, UNM
George Graves
<d...@vpharm.com> wrote:
> In article <ssp4vqa...@corp.supernews.com>,
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Pioneer or maybe a Marantz?) had some cockamamamey scheme for
> > automatically centering a record while it was playing based on arm
> > oscillation while the cartridge tracked the record. The table kept
> > moving the spindle via a small off-center motor drive in the middle of
> > the platter until the back-and-forth arm oscillation was nulled out. I
> > only saw one once at a CES. I remember it was frightfully expensive.
> > Anybody else remember this puppy? Can you shed any more light on it?
>
> It was Nakamichi, and it was far from cockamamey. Nakamichi actually
> made two self-centering turntables: The Nakamichi Dragon CT, and the
> TX-1000. It was Nakamichi's bad fortune to come out with these
> engineering marvels at the dawn of the CD age. Both tables were
> available for only a short time, roughly 1982-84. Both were quite
> expensive and sold relatively poorly.
Didn't the CD come out in the summer of 1985? In those days, it was
still records as CDs were hard to come-by. I remember having to drive
almost 30 miles here in Silicon Valley to buy CDs in those early
days. Tower Records was STILL selling mostly records until about
1988.
--
George Graves
ROBERT C. LANG
> Didn't the CD come out in the summer of 1985? In those days, it was
> still records as CDs were hard to come-by. I remember having to drive
> almost 30 miles here in Silicon Valley to buy CDs in those early
> days. Tower Records was STILL selling mostly records until about
> 1988.
The world wide release of CD was in the fall of 1982. I was
able to get hold of some Denon releases in 1982. CD made
its debut in the US in the spring of 1983. Mostly classical
labels were available and it was that way for a couple of
years. CDs were indeed hard to find in the early years
in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Robert C. Lang