And so the next major audiophile engineering challenge is, err, well what?

[Hozepipe]

Turn it off then.

You know you can download the OED and implement it into the OS core dictionary.

I didn't, thanks Filterlab. Doing it now...

s

[Marco]

Hi Tim,

When you get a chance I'd appreciate your thoughts on post #80 of mine here:

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=1122&page=8

- particularly the first question I ask. I think you must have accidentally missed it. Cheers!

Marco.

[Hozepipe]

By "electric" I guess you mean something like an electric guitar - it has no acoustic resonator, but depends on an electromagnetic pickup to pass its vibrations to an electronic amplifier, and thence to loudspeakers; and by "electronic" you mean something like a Clavinona or a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theremin where there are no mechanical or acoustic vibrations at all and the oscillations begin in the electronic domain.

Why do you ask? It makes no difference. Neither type of instrument has a usable acoustic output that can have a musical use apart from a loudspeaker or a pair of headphones.

Hammond Electric Organs generated their tones by revolving disks close to pickup coils that could be moved closer or further away from the mechanical source of the wave - modern electronic organs can mimic the sound and the control mechanisms of such draw bar organs. But, for the purposes of this discussion it makes no difference - nether instrument makes music without a loudspeaker; and both are, in effect, electronic, because an electronic amplifier is needed.

Modern digital organs are fabulous instruments and can mimic a fine pipe organ with remarkable accuracy - it is always the loudspeakers that let them down -moving air accurately in a large space is incredibly difficult.

I was worried your were going to say that

According to your logic an amplified guitar is some how sonically lesser than a violin. Sorry Brian but its elitist nonsense. Just say you don't like 'electric' music.

But it's just plain wrong to say that an electric guitar (or organ) is not an accoustic instrument. The guitar AND amp constitute, as a whole, an accoustic sound source (unless you DI into a desk). You have to mic the thing to record it! Just like an orchestra.

BTW I often play my electric guitar un-amplified. So you're really talking out of your hat. No musical acoustic output my arse!

Sound is just sound. No matter what makes it. You can like it or dislike it, but there is no intrinsic fundamental difference. A violin is very harmonically rich, but so is a distorted guitar. Moreover when you're recording a sound source AND the reverberation of a natural accoustic environment (such as a drum kit in a live room, or a guitar amp (close micing of an anp is often combined with a distant mic to pickup the ambience)) then you get a very, very complex set of acoustic information.

Most important of all, music is music, no matter what you use to make it. It's the quality of the musician/composer that counts. You might not LIKE the music, but there is no grounds for any kind of objective assertion about the fitness of one sound source over another for creating music.

But lets look at this further. Unless you're recording an orchestra using a dummy head and a single set of stereo mics (binaural recording) just what on earth is this realism you're after? Most orchestral recordings (to my knowledge) are recorded using multiple mics often spaced much MUCH wider than the width of your head.

How 'real' is that?

Just some thoughts
s

[Labarum]

I pick up some of your points, Hozepipe.

"According to your logic an amplified guitar is some how sonically lesser than a violin. Sorry Brian but its elitist nonsense. Just say you don't like 'electric' music."

You jump to the conclusion. I nether said that nor implied it. They are different.

"But it's just plain wrong to say that an electric guitar (or organ) is not an accoustic instrument. The guitar AND amp constitute, as a whole, an accoustic sound source (unless you DI into a desk). You have to mic the thing to record it! Just like an orchestra."

Precisely. That is my main point. The fact there are two loudspeaker systems when an electric or electronic instrument is finally heard at the end of the project places those instruments in a different class to straightforward acoustic instruments (whether violin or drum kit)

"BTW I often play my electric guitar un-amplified. So you're really talking out of your hat. No musical acoustic output my arse!!

Read what I said: "Neither type of instrument has a usable acoustic output that can have a musical use apart from a loudspeaker or a pair of headphones." I am aware that an electric guitar will make a small sound by itself, but it is not, as I said, usable in any performance situation. Did I really need to use more words to make my meaning clear?

"Most important of all, music is music, no matter what you use to make it. It's the quality of the musician/composer that counts. You might not LIKE the music, but there is no grounds for any kind of objective assertion about the fitness of one sound source over another for creating music."

Show me me what words I used to make that claim. I neither said that nor implied it.

"But lets look at this further. Unless you're recording an orchestra using a dummy head and a single set of stereo mics (binaural recording) just what on earth is this realism you're after? Most orchestral recordings (to my knowledge) are recorded using multiple mics often spaced much MUCH wider than the width of your head."

This touches on the point made earlier: should the aim be to achieve "the closest approach to the original sound" or "the closest approach to the original recording"? I would say the former, but of course that brings in microphone technology and the skill of the recording engineer, as well as the quality of the replay chain.

This is where the discussion needs further development - for example, how does the accuracy of the monitor loudspeakers at the mixing desk affect the project?

And Hozepipe

"Sorry Brian but its elitist nonsense. Just say you don't like 'electric' music."

is an unworthy contribution to what I hope could be an adult conversion. You have guessed where my musical tastes lie, but that is irrelevant to the discussion. I have a Clavinova in the house, and just down the road I am custodian of a incredible electronic instrument

http://www.makinorgans.co.uk/wm.cgi

listen to the downloads. (Mp3, I think) of what these machines will do: they are absolutely amazing. The speakers are not even particularly "HiFi", but the instrument was "voiced" to the building by plugging in a laptop. The whole effect is totally convincing. I don't know if the recordings were made with a microphone (I suspect so), or by direct feed.

I have no problem with the electronic generation of music, I just say it is a different process; and because of that fidelity to the original means something different.

[tfarney]

Hi Tim,

When you get a chance I'd appreciate your thoughts on post #80 of mine here:

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=1122&page=8

- particularly the first question I ask. I think you must have accidentally missed it. Cheers!

Marco.

I had missed that post, Marco. Thanks. I think in that post, and a few others, we're still having two different conversations. You're continuing need to understand and have a high opinion of the test listeners' hifi expertise, and desire for the time and relaxed environment for proper evaluation makes it clear that you still think I'm talking about subjective quality judgments. I'm not. I'm talking about the simple ability to identify the presence of a change, its mere audibility in the system: "Here's A. Here's B. Here's X. Is X A or B...or neither? Which brings us to this...

Tim,

So you'll concede then that your earlier statement of:

Quote:
the simple truth is that if a given tweak/component/difference cannot be heard often enough by a sufficiently large set of humans with normal hearing to exceed a margin for error (statistical sample), yet you still think you hear it, your ears are not to be trusted.
is in fact not the "simple truth" but merely your own opinion - the same as my opposite opinion is also merely that and not a fact?

Well, I suppose everything can be considered an opinion. There are people who do not believe in evolution in spite of mounds of physical evidence and decades of scientific confirmation. But if a random sample of people large enough to reduce the margin for error to statistically insignificant say the rock is orange and you still see red, the logical conclusion is that the one is color blind, not that the many are unable to properly discern the subtleties of true color.

Yet this is often the kind of conclusion audiophiles reach. It is a very comforting and flattering conclusion, to be sure. But that is the opinion. The scientifically tested and verified conclusion is what we generally refer to, in the modern human endeavor, as fact. Mind you, I'm not talking about holding measurement or stats above listening. I'm talking about nothing but listening: The manufacturer has measured it. Can we hear it? There is a proven methodology for taking the possibility of psychological bias out of the equation and finding out if, indeed, it can be heard. And for some strange reason the audiophile hobby avoids it, discredits it, refuses it and finally simply concludes, against all logic, that their ears, with all psychological bias intact, are superior to it.

It is curious.

Tim

[Neil McCauley]

Girls GIRLS ! Play nicely - or you'll ......... well I don't know what!

---//---

[tfarney]

Thanks, Howard. I think Marco and I can disagree without being disagreeable, but we may be very close to that point where it would be best to simply agree to disagree and let it drop. It is, sadly, a moot point anyway. Manufacturers are not going to start doing objective listening tests anytime soon, and neither are audiophile publications. Trust your ears, Marco. They're what you've got.

Tim

[Marco]

LOL!

Tim,

Howard was referring to the dialogue between Brian and Simon, not ours

I'll get to your latest points when I've finished my lunch.

Guys,

We love robust debating here but keep it strictly to the hi-fi issues and don't make it personal in ANY way.

Brian, you need to learn how to use the quote facility!

Marco.

[Hozepipe]

I pick up some of your points, Hozepipe.

"According to your logic an amplified guitar is some how sonically lesser than a violin. Sorry Brian but its elitist nonsense. Just say you don't like 'electric' music."

You jump to the conclusion. I nether said that nor implied it. They are different.

"But it's just plain wrong to say that an electric guitar (or organ) is not an accoustic instrument. The guitar AND amp constitute, as a whole, an accoustic sound source (unless you DI into a desk). You have to mic the thing to record it! Just like an orchestra."

Precisely. That is my main point. The fact there are two loudspeaker systems when an electric of electronic instrument is finally heard at the end of the project places those instruments in a different class to straightforward acoustic instruments (whether violin or drum kit)

You're going to have to explain what you mean by 'class' now. I'm sure you think you're being obvious and clear, forgive me but that does suggest some kind of an intrinsic 'quality' hierarchy, and maybe a bit of snootiness - sorry if that's not what you mean but it does come across that way to me. If you mean they sound different, I agree with that. Arbitrarily deciding that because an electric instrument contains a loudspeaker that it is taxonomically different is fine, but what is your point, if it is not merely taxonomic? What about the class of female vs male instrumentalists. Does that matter? What about actual distance between mic and Orchestra? Or any other categorization. What does it have to do with 'getting closer to the original sound'? Its nonsense.

Look, as a musician its is your response to your immediate musical environment that matters, not some arbitrary marketing BS about where 'the sound' originates. If I play an amplified guitar the musicianship, the feeling whatever comes, mainly I'd argue, from an interaction between what I hear in my head, and what I hear through my ears. In this case it's the sound coming out of a loudspeaker - that's what's recorded and, if you insist on the phrase (which I don't) then I'd argue that is the 'original sound'. If I play unamplified then it is the sounds of the strings. The 'original sound' is that which the musician is referencing at the time. An amp is just as original as a violin.

But there's plenty of music where this is not the case anyway or where there's no interaction, deliberately. I just wouldn't use that kind of simplistic statement that there's an original sound, it just sounds like marketing nonsense. There's sound and it's recorded. You enjoy it, or you don't. Classification doesn't really help.

"BTW I often play my electric guitar un-amplified. So you're really talking out of your hat. No musical acoustic output my arse!!

Read what I said: "Neither type of instrument has a usable acoustic output that can have a musical use apart from a loudspeaker or a pair of headphones." I am aware that an electric guitar will make a small sound by itself, but it is not, as I said, usable in any performance situation. Did I really need to use more words to make my meaning clear?

I take you're point but it wasn't clear that you were restricting what you said to a narrow set of circumstances. You didn't mention performance, so I took what you meant at its face value.

But I'll take back the crudeness.

"Most important of all, music is music, no matter what you use to make it. It's the quality of the musician/composer that counts. You might not LIKE the music, but there is no grounds for any kind of objective assertion about the fitness of one sound source over another for creating music."

Show me me what words I used to make that claim. I neither said that nor implied it.

OK. Just be clear what you mean so I don't have to guess.

This touches on the point made earlier: should the aim be to achieve "the closest approach to the original sound" or "the closest approach to the original recording"? I would say the former, but of course that brings in microphone technology and the skill of the recording engineer, as well as the quality of the replay chain.

This is where the discussion needs further development - for example, how does the accuracy of the monitor loudspeakers at the mixing desk affect the project?

You can do sod all about it so probably not worth worrying over.

simon

[Hozepipe]

LOL!

Tim,

Howard was referring to the dialogue between Brian and Simon, not ours

Nah, it was definitely you two

I'll get to your latest points when I've finished my lunch.

Guys,

We love robust debating here but keep it strictly to the hi-fi issues and don't make it personal in ANY way.

Will do. Don't want to come across insulting, and I retracted my crudeness, but I can get a little animated in discussion - just the cut and thrust of debate.

No offence Brian I hope??

s