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

"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.

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.

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

"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

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.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
...
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.


Quite a few years ago I went to an "Evening with Quad" in a church hall
somewhere. The fairly elderly presenter gave an interesting and instructive
talk, and at one point went into the wings and returned with a tenor sax on
which he played some very good jazz. After a minute or so a couple of stage
hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an ESL63, which they
slowly raised in front of him until he and the sax were isolated from the
audience. They then slowly took it away; the presenter stopped playing
after another minute or so, acknowledged the applause and explained that the
object of the exercise was to demonstrate that the film was absolutely
acoustically transparent, which was why there was no difference whatsoever
in the sound. Cue oohs and aahs from the audience, and more applause.
Well, most of them, anyway. I and a few others sat looking puzzled. To me,
it was as if he had been playing in a room, and someone had shut the door
then opened it again. OK, that's an exaggeration, but to me there was a
very noticeable difference. When I got home I took the film covers off my
own ESL63s (the metal protection covers had already been removed once my
daughter was old enough to be trusted not to poke sharp metal objects
through the cloth, and that made a huge difference) and on a variety of
sources confirmed to my own satisfaction that I preferred the sound
"without".

I did try going the whole hog by removing the "socks" - very little audible
difference, but (a) they looked hideous in a listening room which doubled as
a living room and (b) every fly in Surrey immediately developed Kamikaze
tendencies. Anyone remember those strange frightening blue devices that
butchers used to hang on their walls to attract then zap bluebottles...?

The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from DC
to light, and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub, but
the examples he gave were frankly ridiculous and bore no relation to my own
experience - but that's a whole 'nuther story. I concluded that he was a
"Quaddie", the anditote to the "Linnies" who were just becoming famous.

Geoff MacK

"Geoff Mackenzie"


Quite a few years ago I went to an "Evening with Quad" in a church hall
somewhere. The fairly elderly presenter gave an interesting and
instructive talk, and at one point went into the wings and returned with a
tenor sax on which he played some very good jazz. After a minute or so a
couple of stage hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an
ESL63,


** The ESL63 dust cover is not " cling film " - it is actually the same
extremely thin, Mylar film the diaphrgnms are made from.


which they slowly raised in front of him until he and the sax were
isolated from the audience. They then slowly took it away; the presenter
stopped playing after another minute or so, acknowledged the applause and
explained that the object of the exercise was to demonstrate that the film
was absolutely acoustically transparent, which was why there was no
difference whatsoever in the sound. Cue oohs and aahs from the audience,
and more applause. Well, most of them, anyway. I and a few others sat
looking puzzled. To me, it was as if he had been playing in a room, and
someone had shut the door then opened it again. OK, that's an
exaggeration, but to me there was a very noticeable difference.


** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of over
those with weak minds.


When I got home I took the film covers off my own ESL63s (the metal
protection covers had already been removed once my daughter was old enough
to be trusted not to poke sharp metal objects through the cloth, and that
made a huge difference) and on a variety of sources confirmed to my own
satisfaction that I preferred the sound "without".


** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the illusion
of " more detial ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".


The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from
DC to light,

** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bull**** are your stock in trade -
Mr. Mackenzie.


and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub,


** Yawn...

Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

Wot a ******......


...... Phil

hands came on carrying the cling-film dust cover from an
ESL63,


** The ESL63 dust cover is not " cling film " - it is actually the same
extremely thin, Mylar film the diaphrgnms are made from.

***Accepted. Couldn't at the time remember the correct name, but "cling
film" was a fair approximation of the product which most people understood.


** Demonstrates the power of suggestion the eyes have over the ears of
over those with weak minds.

***The power of suggestion is of course extremely well known and documented.
It certainly does not apply only to those of "weak minds" - how do you
define that, by the way?




When I got home I took the film covers off my own ESL63s (the metal
protection covers had already been removed once my daughter was old
enough to be trusted not to poke sharp metal objects through the cloth,
and that made a huge difference) and on a variety of sources confirmed to
my own satisfaction that I preferred the sound "without".


** Removing the grille and/or the sock increases the level of frequencies
above 10kHz - so the sound gets a tad brighter - which gives the illusion
of " more detial ".

Fools nearly everyone into thinking it is therefore " better ".

***Personally I like to hear all the information available, so if the
protective covers mask anything over 10kHz then off they come.




The presenter also talked about the huge range of the Quad speakers, from
DC to light,

** OK, so gross exaggeration and total bull**** are your stock in
trade - Mr. Mackenzie.

***Quite possibly. Earnt me quite a decent living over the years, though.
Less offensive than personal abuse too.

and why there was absolutely no need to use any form of sub,


** Yawn...

***Meaning?

Did he produce his army IQ test for you to pour scorn on too ?

***Totally different thread; anyway, I was stating facts, not pouring
scorn.

Wot a ******......

***Thought you'd revert to type eventually!

Geoff MacK

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.