In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:
If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like,
how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto
for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards
upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin
live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory
recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument,
the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, and changing the tuning of a piano or the strings of a violin alters
the sound. Just as changing venue will, or even playing further from the
bridge with more force.

But if you sit at home and can't tell the difference between a concert from
the RAH and one from the RFH and convincingly recognise the same sound as
being there, you aren't getting anything like 'fidelity'.

People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that nothing
can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and debaters use it.
But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound as similar as possible
to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do need to have some idea what
that actually sounds like. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 15/11/2017 09:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:
If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like,
how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto
for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards
upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin
live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory
recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument,
the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, and changing the tuning of a piano or the strings of a violin alters
the sound. Just as changing venue will, or even playing further from the
bridge with more force.

But if you sit at home and can't tell the difference between a concert from
the RAH and one from the RFH and convincingly recognise the same sound as
being there, you aren't getting anything like 'fidelity'.


I'd pretty much agree that you should be able to appreciate a difference.

People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that nothing
can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and debaters use it.
But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound as similar as possible
to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do need to have some idea what
that actually sounds like. :-)


I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is
asking for perfection. Just a rendition of audio that gives a decent
approximation of what might be expected.

That expectation can be derived from a live performance, or sleeve
notes, or simply what you might imagine.


--
Cheers, Rob

In article , RJH
wrote:
People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that
nothing can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and
debaters use it. But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound
as similar as possible to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do
need to have some idea what that actually sounds like. :-)


I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is
asking for perfection.

Actually, I think 'perfection' *is* implicitly what Bob is taking for
granted in his arguments to the effect that it is irrelevant to become
familiar with the sound in a venue and trying to use that as a reference
when assessing how convincingly your home hifi plays material from there.
Note his total failure (thus far) to accept that doing such a comparison
could ever have any usefulness.

The process isn't perfect. But it can be very useful *if* what you want to
hear at home is a result convincingly similar to 'being there'. *And* if
the recording/broadcast was made with this aim in mind - which will be
the case for examples like R3 concerts, etc.

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound
just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

A poor sound system will degrade everything. Likewise, a good one will get
the best from everything.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that
were laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will
sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

I'm using 'music box' more generally to mean a system which plays music in
a way that suits the user from info that is abstracted from the effects of
being performed live in a real acoustic venue. i.e. the parallel in my mind
is with old mechanical music boxes, not 'music centers'. So I'm using
the term with what you describe included. However it hinges also on just
what 'best' means in the minds of those creating recordings, etc. They
don't all use the same meaning or want the same results.

The point here is that for some listeners and types of music, the optimum
is whatever the user finds 'nicer' without any need to consider a 'real'
source event's sound. As distinct from wanting to hear, warts and all, what
a live performance of something like a Prom would have sounded like if
you'd been standing or sitting in a suitable point in the RAH.

Similarly, some popular music creators want a result that 'sells' by
whatever means. From EQ to compression to soupy added reverb. Whatever
they think the target audience will want to buy. A R3 engineer might
have something else in mind, etc...

I'm not saying there is anything wrong about the 'music box' approach. Just
that it means the user has a different requirement to someone who wants to
'be at the hall'. Hence for them, the sound of a hall won't directly
matter, but for others, it will.

A poor sound system will degrade everything. Likewise, a good one will
get the best from everything.

Agreed. But one effect of a poor system can be to blur distinctions.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 17/11/2017 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound
just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

AIUI sometimes they are mixed to sound the best they can _on_ _poor_
_equipment_ which compromises the reproduction on something good.

snip

Andy

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/11/2017 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for
the very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they
will sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

AIUI sometimes they are mixed to sound the best they can _on_ _poor_
_equipment_ which compromises the reproduction on something good.

Same applies to many classical recordings and broadcasts. If nothing else
the dynamic range is usually reduced.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

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

In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

--
Mike Fleming

In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different
experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.
--
Graeme

On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote:
In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here.Â* I think two different
experiences are being discussed.Â* Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true?Â* Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it.


In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.