Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (
More info?)
"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:431c2f6b.4187194@news.iprimus.com.au...
> On 4 Sep 2005 18:53:40 -0700, elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:
>
>>
>>Paul Packer says: (Sept4)
>>"I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here",
>>
>> Yes, indeed. I find it interesting that of all controversies
>>it is the questioning of evidence for ABX that sends not a few into
>>spluttering, red-eyed, inarticulate, foaming-at-the-mouth,rage, where
>>nothing but obscenities will do.* Their fury intimidates new audio
>>amateurs from asking questions or discussing improvement
>>
>> Not a few of the most vocal have little acquaintance with
>>(and interest in) the sound of original instruments of the orchestra.
>>For those whose "music' consists of what they can hear on their
>>home or car" hi-fi system" the little ABX box with a switch is a
>>godsend. Its limitations confirm "scientifically" that there is
>>nothing more to hear out there then they manage to; wire is wire and
>>amps are amps - and those who hear more are snobs or self-deluded, or
>>swindlers trying to put one over the honest folks. ABX allows them to
>>transform their resentment and suspicion of inferiority into a triumph.
>>There is something very personal about the fervour with which pursue
>>those who want to get closer to the original instruments' sound.
>>After all no one forces them to listen to chamber music.
>
> Good point about being familiar with the sound of live instruments.
> One wonders how many on Usenet flutter on about audio without ever
> familiarising themselves with live sound.
>
Most are familiar AFAICT. Many have some competence as musicians.
> Not of course that most recordings resemble live sound in any way.
>
>> The simplistic minds, bereft of any original thought, have
>>limited ability to profit from education. They believe that the
>>textbooks they managed to memorise contain the ultimate truth. They now
>>own Science with a capital S. But if one learns one thing in medicine
>>it is that science is a living process. Yesterday's "100%
>>incurable" disease one day yields to penicillin and yesterday's
>>certainties go into the textbooks of history of medicine.
>> Like in every generalization there are exceptions. Two that occur
>>to me are first Arny Krueger , the inventor of ABX. He would be
>>superhuman if he did not have emotional capital invested in his brain
>>child.
>
> Indeed. Arnie may deny it but if so he'd have to deny being human.
> Another point: what was Arnie's philosophy when he first came up with
> ABX? Was it a totally open-minded project, or was he trying to confirm
> a pre-existing idea?
>
The original idea was to prove that things did sound different as most
seemed to believe, that the results turned out to be otherwise, is evidence
of being able to deal with the truth.
>> The other are the musicians. Very few are interested in high-end.
>>It is a shame from the consumer point of view- because if they were
>>they would not allow some of the monstrosities perpetrated in their
>>name by eg. DG and Melodiya. The explanation may be that they listen
>>for and hear something completely different from the audience out in
>>their seats. Perhaps they *expect* the reproduction to be a caricature
>>and a little better or a little worse makes no difference to them.
>>Ludovic Mirabel
>
> One has to question what happens between performance and recording.
> Why is there such a variation in recordings? Is it due purely to the
> sound of the hall, the variations in mics etc, or are engineers
> interfering too much in the process? It's interesting that some of the
> most admired recording are the most simply miked, like the old Mercury
> productions.
>
> P.S. I really like your name.
Facebook
Twitter