Klarinet Archive - Posting 000221.txt from 2002/11

From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:59:10 -0500

I meant the "Scottish." "Scotch," to the discerning, is an insult to the
inhabitants of my family's native land.

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subject: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)

> 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>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:50 PM
> 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!
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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