Klarinet Archive - Posting 000239.txt from 2002/11

From: "William Semple" <wsemple@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Why Bb? (was: reverse Mozart)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:16:57 -0500

Hear hear, Bill (so to speak). A corollary is that many musicians are
satisfied wit moderate stereo systems because their experience, memory, and
ear fill in the sound. I remember listening to Heifetz on an old Zenith tube
radio once. It sounded magical. (which goes to your relevant remark about
how the brain influences all of our sensory perceptions).

I began to lose interest in writing for The Absolute Sound when the price of
the equipment got out of hand. I figured I could buy season tickets to the
Opera, Symphony, Washington Performance Arts Series, the Kennedy Center
Chamber Music Series, The Washington Bach Consort, and the Smithsonian Jazz
Series, take a few trips to Carnegie Hall and the Lincoln Center, and not
cumulatively spend as much -- for years and years. (OK, I stay with my
brother Bob when I am in NYC).

TAS does go to great pains to recommend "moderately" priced systems. These
days, my very modest system (with very good Boston Acoustic speakers that
are supposed to be the back pair in a surround-sound system, but serve as my
main speaker) is just fine. I listen to my system for very specific
reasons -- mostly to study the phrasing and sound of other clarinetists, or
as has been my habit, to throw on a Mahler or Brahms symphony on Sunday
morning.

I also agree about your comments regarding vinyl. The inherent advantage to
the CD is self-evident. Even TAS has adopted the digital format.

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

> At 09:47 PM 11/4/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >In the case of the CD at that time, the analog converters were the same.
So
> >I would expect there wouldn't be a discernible difference between a $150
CD
> >player and a $500 CD player. They all sounded lousy.
>
> Actually, I made a typo. I meant $5000 players, which I KNOW had
different
> D/A converters.
>
>
> >The fact that there are measurable differences that are transparent to
the
> >listener does not negate the proposition that there are non-measurable
> >differences the listener CAN hear, nor the proposition that there are
> >measurable differences the listener can hear.
>
> OK, we just have not figured out HOW to measure some things yet.
>
>
> >If measurement is important, then what's at issue from a sonic point of
view
> >is what is being measured. Some distortion is consonant with music, some
is
> >not.
>
> Precisely. Which is why some folks continue to tout vinyl, which has
> distortions that are relatively pleasing to the ear. Remove those
> distortions and the music sounds "harsher" or more "metallic" by
> comparison. What it REALLY is is more accurate. Still, the BEST part
about
> CD's is that they do not WEAR with repeated listenings. The most annoying
> distortions in vinyl recordings occur later in their life.
>
>
>
> >Tube equipment, for example, can register greater distortion on the
> >oscilloscope, but still sound more truthful to the music than transistor
> >designs because tubes do not distort harmonic content in the same way
> >transistor designs used to.
> >
> >Recent advances in solid state design and the CD have ameliorated many of
> >the problems I experienced when I was listening seriously, I found the CD
> >intolerable on everything but chamber music. All my equipment used tubes,
> >including the phono stage.
>
> Tubes have a very pleasant distortion signature, and clip VERY softly, but
> are by nature VERY distorting, and the distortion constantly changes over
> the tubes' lifetime. And I should think that chamber music would be the
> most distortion-revealing type of ALL with all those close-mic setups!
>
>
> >The Absolute Sound, we relied (and they continue to rely) on our ears. We
> >tested nothing. It is amazing the extraordinary advances in design that
> >ensued because of this philosophy. Kinda the same approach as we use to
pick
> >out a new clarinet, huh? We don't hook one of them up to some gadget
> >(although I admit I take my tuner).
> >
> >Now I listen to CDs on two Boston Acoustic Speakers, driven by a Radio
Shack
> >RCA receiver driven and a Denon CD player, and I am happy. Whether it is
> >"absolute" doesn't concern me anymore. But I do remember the days I had
my
> >Maggies cranking powered by 500 watts of well-designed equipment, and
> >nothing has compared since, except of course, live music, which is what I
am
> >into now.
>
> Of course, if it pleases YOUR ears, you need look no further. The tiny
> improvements you could achieve by throwing another few thousand dollars at
> the system would not be worthwhile.
>
>
> Bill Hausmann
>
> If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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