Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features


They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00


--
General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

I've no idea. The website doesn't seem to want to say anything about that.
What an absolutely crap website it is! Mind you it is from Ch5.

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features


They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable
pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between
the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00


So, Could they?

David.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article ,
N_Cook wrote:
Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and
then played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different
pairs of speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live
performer again, for 3 way comparison. What did the human ears detect,
so readily, to distinguish the live performance?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...ction=Features

Doesn't seem to say anything about the actual test.

I've been involved in several of these sort of tests over the years, and
the the standard for the closest approach to the original happened with
equipment made in the '50s. The microphone was a BBC design - the PGS,
made by STC as the 4038, and the speaker a Quad ESL. We used a male voice
recorded digitally, and played back to the speaker which was behind a
gauze along with the chap whose voice we used. The lighting was arranged
so you couldn't see through the gauze. It fooled the majority of the
listening panel - made up of allsorts, not just sound pros or Hi-Fi types.
No moving coil speaker that we tried got close to fooling anyone.

It's much more difficult to do with two sources together like guitar and
vocal as the ear will tend to position them - so stereo would be needed
and impossible to do with more than one listener at a time. We also used
solo sax with much the same results - but solo piano was guessed right by
the majority.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote in message
...
In article ,
N_Cook wrote:
Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and
then played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different
pairs of speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live
performer again, for 3 way comparison. What did the human ears detect,
so readily, to distinguish the live performance?


http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

Doesn't seem to say anything about the actual test.

I've been involved in several of these sort of tests over the years, and
the the standard for the closest approach to the original happened with
equipment made in the '50s. The microphone was a BBC design - the PGS,
made by STC as the 4038, and the speaker a Quad ESL. We used a male voice
recorded digitally, and played back to the speaker which was behind a
gauze along with the chap whose voice we used. The lighting was arranged
so you couldn't see through the gauze. It fooled the majority of the
listening panel - made up of allsorts, not just sound pros or Hi-Fi types.
No moving coil speaker that we tried got close to fooling anyone.

It's much more difficult to do with two sources together like guitar and
vocal as the ear will tend to position them - so stereo would be needed
and impossible to do with more than one listener at a time. We also used
solo sax with much the same results - but solo piano was guessed right by
the majority.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


I've no idea if its still there but that was the set-up at BBC / Kingswood
Warren research labs, Surrey for blind testing/comparison of audio. In the
situation I was aware of determining what the minimum sampling rate for
audio ADC / DAC was that a human could tell as degraded.

The ch5 test was quite well done I thought. I did notice the Suzi one had
the headband of the blindfold over her ears though. A large theatre stage
set-up so no close-field effects, and pairs of speakers for stereo imaging.
It would have been nice , having gone to all that bother, to get a few more
people off the street to give their opinions also.



--
General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
Interesting idea , acoustic guitar+singer recorded professionally and then
played back in front of a couple of pairs of ears via 2 different pairs of
speakers , in turn, driven from the same amp and also the live performer
again, for 3 way comparison.
What did the human ears detect, so readily, to distinguish the live
performance?

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/jsp/5gsmai...6&pageid=1287&
show=s8e9&section=Features

I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to
play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his
mouth and the clarinet solo continued.

In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to
recorded performance, even though we could see after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous
applause.

Iain



They also ... pit some high end Kef speakers against a more affordable
pair:
will Suzi and Jason, blindfolded, be able to tell the difference between
the
speakers and a live performance?

Tim Daniel, performer

KEF Reference Model 207/2 £11999.00

Mordaunt-Short Mezzo 2 £382.00

So what was the result?

Iain

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to play.
After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his mouth and
the clarinet solo continued. In this case, no one perceived audibly
the seque from live to recorded performance, even though we could see
after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous applause.

The clarinet is one of the worst examples of a sound that is unique
when acoustic. It's bland, very middle register and contains few
distinguishing features. A drum kit or as said by one poster a piano
are much more distinctive when acoustic and un-recorded - you need
complex overtones and subtle harmonics as well as some percussive
element to show attack.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to
play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his
mouth and the clarinet solo continued.

In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to
recorded performance, even though we could see after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous
applause.

Presumably by a naive audience. The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test. A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to
play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his
mouth and the clarinet solo continued.

In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to
recorded performance, even though we could see after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous
applause.

Presumably by a naive audience. The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test. A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


And a claque or two in the audience , no doubt.

--
General electronic repairs, most things repaired, other than TVs and PCs
http://www.divdev.fsnet.co.uk/repairs.htm

Diverse Devices, Southampton, England

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I went to a very interesting demo some years ago, organised by
loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers and Wilkins (now B+W)
John Bowers came onto the stage with a clarinet and began to
play. After perhaps two minutes, he took the instrument from his
mouth and the clarinet solo continued.

In this case, no one perceived audibly the seque from live to
recorded performance, even though we could see after a
few seconds what had happened. There was spontaneous
applause.

Presumably by a naive audience.

AES European convention. Amsterdam IIRC.
You can't get less naive than that.

The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test.

Get away!You don't say! Do you think
John Bowers didn't know that? :-)

But this interesting personal interlude made a very
good introduction to an impressive demonstration
of some very good loudspeakers.

A much more severe test
would be if he'd simply been talking. But then that wouldn't have sold his
product...

Yes a speech test with music studio monitors would have been
novel to say the least. There would probably have been a rush
for the canteen - for the last remaining slices of Dutch apple cake.

Since the 1980s. B+W monitors have been the loudspeaker
of choice of major classical labels. John Bowers certainly
knew what he was doing.


Iain

Gadget Show audio test (on UK TV last night)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Presumably by a naive audience.

AES European convention. Amsterdam IIRC.
You can't get less naive than that.

The clarinet is pretty well the least
demanding instrument of all for this sort of test.

Get away!You don't say! Do you think
John Bowers didn't know that? :-)

So as I said the audience was naive if they gave him a round of applause
rather than a wry chuckle. Of course I forgot you only move in 'polite'
circles. ;-)

But this interesting personal interlude made a very
good introduction to an impressive demonstration
of some very good loudspeakers.

Not denying they make good speakers. But a demonstration using something
more taxing have been even more impressive.

A much more severe test would be if he'd simply been talking. But then
that wouldn't have sold his product...

Yes a speech test with music studio monitors would have been
novel to say the least. There would probably have been a rush
for the canteen - for the last remaining slices of Dutch apple cake.

I take it by your reference to 'studio monitors' that you think speech
reproduction unimportant? And a solo clarinet hardly is a test of any of
the other parameters you'd need for those anyway.

Since the 1980s. B+W monitors have been the loudspeaker
of choice of major classical labels. John Bowers certainly
knew what he was doing.

I think you're exaggerating again.

--
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.