A comment from the peanut gallery about Tom's statement that our ordinary
listening experiences are 'totally subjective.' An analogy to the total
subjectivity argument would be that what Tom sees as blue I see as green.
(Leaving aside the question of how we would know that.) This is not a good
argument. There must some common elements.
Let us take it as given that no recording can sound exactly the same as the
sound as heard on site. This implies there is a means for comparison. If we
have a sense of what makes a recording sound realistic or more or less
real, it follows that we have a standard by which recordings fall short. I
don't believe this must be subjective, though it is aural. However, this is
the crux of my argument, the realistic qualities foremost for Tom may not
be the same as those for me. For me attack and pitch stability in a piano
are very important signals that what I am hearing is real or live. Tom
knows what these things are, but because of his experience in the studio
may see ambiance and bass extension as the primary clues to the
presentation of live music. All these qualities are real in the sense that
they are present in live music. If Tom & I were to sit down together and
listen I suspect our reactions would be very similar.
In any event, Tom, I value your evaluations of the sound quality of various
recordings and look forward to more of them.
L. H. Kevil
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> This gets right at the heart of why "reviews" of audio gear in the
> "high-end" mags are so useless. All they amount to are one person's
> subjective impressions of what he's hearing, in his listening room, with
> his choice of other components. So, it's pretty much useless to you as far
> as know if it will sound good to you. I do think it's more helpful to have
> measurements of the gear, with uniform methods used for similar pieces, as
> is done in Stereophile mag. But that's not really helpful in answering
> "will I like the sound of that component or will I prefer it to what I have
> already?" I'm also pretty sure many of the currently accepted standard
> measurements don't tell you very much about overall sound quality or
> "personality." Indeed, something that measures grossly out of the norm may
> not sound "bad," just "different."
>
> I assume all of us are careful listeners, but I bet all of us have a
> different idea of what sounds "good." It's totally subjective, based on our
> own tastes, experiences and physical/psychological hearing capabilities.
> I've long been convinced that "good" or "bad" sound has nothing to do with
> the popularity of a recording, it's always the musical effect. Music taste
> seems to be subjective but perhaps with some universal parameters, and some
> artists know how to check off enough boxes with enough people to create
> popular music.
>
> Peter also hits on a very profound point -- no recording sounds like a
> live performance, not even recordings of live performances.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mew, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:03 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?
>
>
> Hi Don
> So what you really mean is
> "the sound that I prefer" (Subjective)
> Rather than
> "The sound most like the original" (Objective)
> And what has hearing live music got to do with it, recorded music, even
> of live performances, rarely captures the sound as heard when played.
> I was a recording engineer for more than 20 years before moving to
> mastering some 25 years ago, so I have some experience of these matters
>
> Cheers
> -pm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]**GOV <[log in to unmask]>] On
> Behalf Of Don Cox
> Sent: Wed 13 Feb 2013 14:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?
>
> On 13/02/2013, Mew, Peter wrote:
>
> Hi
>> I think you should define "better" in this context. Surely the "best"
>> copy should be the one that most accurately represents the source,
>> however that sounds.
>>
>> Realistically, unless you were yourself the recording engineer, "better"
> means "nearer to how I imagine the source sounded, based on my
> experience of hearing live music".
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I had an early player on which, if you ripped a CD to a CD-ROM, the
>>>> copy sounded better than the original.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As a rule, almost any CD-R sounds better than the original -- although
>>>
>>
>> certainly this has to be a function of the player. Which means that
>>> all (most) players have a design shortfall.
>>>
>>> I think they do.
>>
>> The effect is in my experience absent if you use a separate D->A
>> converter.
>>
>>>
>>>> I think this was because the copy disc was lighter. The designer
>>>> underestimated how much power was needed to spin the discs. The
>>>> result was a drop in voltage supply to the audio output circuit. (In
>>>>
>>>
> my
>>>> opinion.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That may well be as well.
>>>
>>> clark
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> --
>>>> Don Cox
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>> --
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Music from EMI
>>
>> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
>> legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the
>>
>
> sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your
>> system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of
>> this email is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please
>> contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.
>>
>> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group Limited.
>>
>> Registered Office: 364-366 Kensington High Street, London W14 8NS
>>
>> Registered in England No 229231.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>
>
>
>
> Music from EMI
>
> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the sender
> immediately by return email and then delete it from your system. The
> unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email is
> strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20
> 7795 7000.
>
> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group Limited.
>
> Registered Office: 364-366 Kensington High Street, London W14 8NS
>
> Registered in England No 229231.
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>
|