Klarinet Archive - Posting 000219.txt from 2002/11

From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:33:38 -0500

The problem is that she was an international concert-goer, not an
audiophile. She would have had no way to discern which of the recording
companies produced what kind of sound. Of course, I could, familiar with the
miking of EMI engineers vs. say the multi-miking crazies at DG.

I suppose the same folks who listened to the CDs you mention wouldn't be
able to tell the difference between Tony Pay and Harold Wright.

I wonder why the trained ear is accorded so little respect. Can one imagine
Hugh Johnson, who wrote the World Atlas of Wine, being unable to taste the
difference between a first growth 1961 Margaux and a bottle of Gallo plonk?

In some of those tests you speak of, one or two listeners were able to
correctly identify differences in almost all examples, although the group at
large came out with statistically insignificant results.

Julian Hirsch was of the notion that if equipment specifications were the
same, they had to sound alike. But they didn't. Tubes didn't sound like
transistors; planar speakers sound quite different than their box
counterparts.
What they didn't consider were issues of higher order frequency cancellation
and phase alignment.

Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for every phenomenon, but because
one doesn't have one doesn't diminish the capability of the human brain to
discern. For example, the eye can detect what is level to l/16th of an inch
at 20 feet.

I can discern Mozart generally within the first three measures. Some tunes I
know I can discern from the first chord.

Ears therefore can hear differences before scientific equipment can measure
them.The discerning eye can tell the difference between a real Vermeer and a
digitized counterpart. The human hear can tell the difference between the
digitized CD and its analogue counterpart primarily because of the CD's low
sampling rate, distortions, and other problems that simply resulted in
homogenizing the complex harmonics of massed strings.

That's no longer as true, but if Julian Hirsch had his way, we'd still be
listening to double-stacked Advents driven and Phase Linear transistor amps.

I do agree that the brain can be tricked. Pour some bourbon in a Scotch
bottle, and you might even fool the Scotch. But exceptions do not disprove
the rule, which seems to be the basis for much of the discussion here.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hausmann" <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)

> At 11:58 AM 11/4/2002 -0700, William Semple wrote:
> >Measurable. You sound like Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review. Can't measure
the
> >difference between a Strad and a violin bought off of the shelf! What
> >difference could varnish possibly make?
> >
> >The human ear is capable of astounding degrees of differentiation that go
> >beyond the capabilities of our finest electronic instruments. That's why,
as
> >an audio reviewer, I could long detect the differences between CDs and
vinyl
> >recordings. That's why they still haven't been able to build a robot that
> >can drive a car; or a microphone that responds the same way as the ear
drum.
>
> I used to be an avid Stereo Review reader. I remember when they used to
> conduct double-blind tests on speaker cables and CD players and so forth
> and, without fail, the listeners were UNABLE to detect the differences to
a
> statistically significant degree (indicating something beyond pure
> guessing). As I believe you pointed out in a previous post, you noticed a
> blown tweeter in a speaker system you were reviewing while a room full of
> others apparently heard only the LABEL on the speakers and swooned over
> their beautiful sound. Yes, the ear is capable of astounding degrees of
> differentiation, but it is also extremely sensitive to bias from any
number
> of outside sources. I can hear differences between LP's and CD's, too,
> mostly how much quieter and free from distortion (and therefore vastly
> superior) the CD's are.
>
>
> > I had a friend who had an astounding ear.
> >Once, I twirled six recordings (blind) of the Brahms 1: Chicago/Solti;
> >Berlin/Von Karajan; London/Boult; Pittsburgh/Steinberg; Vienna/can't
> >remember; Cleveland/Ormandy.
> >
> >SHE GOT EVERY ONE OF THEM.
> >
> >Now, what were the clues? Probably the ten things that you mention. The
> >sound of mass violins; the phrasing on various notes section by section;
the
> >sound of the oboe; the coherence of the brass section; the intonation of
the
> >entire orchestra; the intonation of the woodwind section; the
interpretation
> >by the conductor.
>
> Notice that virtually all of these possible differences, excluding the
> conductor's interpretation, can be manipulated at will by the recording
> engineers. She may actually have been identifying the different recording
> companies! This may also explain most of the difference you hear between
> vinyl and CD -- the different ears, monitor speakers, etc., used by the
> person doing the remastering will naturally alter the overall result.
>
>
> Bill Hausmann
>
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------