Dialog about perception

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Let's look at some examples in recent posts (my newsreader is not
letting me respond to these posts, so I'll quote them here). For the
definition of the terms I used, see my post on the language of
perception:

===

Jenn wrote:

> This is where we differ, I guess. My stance is that I'm not
> listening for either THD or rolled off top octave. My approach is
> from the other direction, if you will. My first though is, for
> example, this trumpet doesn't sound like a trumpet. Then I listed
> to another recording. If that trumpet ALSO sounds unlike a trumpet,
> I have ask why. THEN I listen for what might be causing this
> effect. Are, for example, the overtones of the 4th partial above
> the fundamental less in volume than in real live, as heard on
> several recordings? If so, it can be assumed that the upper
> mid-range of the equipment is less than satisfactory, and I would
> therefore not enjoy listening to this equipment in my home. The
> first thought is the music, then comes diagnosis; both of which are
> informed by what do in my job.

What Jenn is clearly expressing here is the distinction between sonic
and musical percepts. She's listening for musical percepts first and
primarily; and sonic percepts secondarily. Note also that she refers
to a trumpet on a recording sounding unlike a real trumpet; I would
say this is both a "mature" and an "abstract" percept, by which I mean
that she has a large amount of experience with trumpet sounds so that
she has a highly developed taste for them, and has developed an
abstracted concept of the trumpet sound.

===

Chung wrote:

> Just some simple questions then: you think live music in a dry
> recording studio sounds the same as live music in a full-house
> concert hall? And how do you really know what has been recorded on
> the medium, i.e., the room acoustics, the equalization applied, the
> particular voice of the instruments (a Steinway sounds very
> different than a Yamaha, for instance), etc.? Not to mention the way
> your system's frequency response can affect the sound you hear from
> your home?

Jenn replied:

> Fair question. Obviously my opinion would be based on a variety of
> recordings, including ones where I know where and how they were
> recorded. If I play 5 recodings, and in each of them, they string
> sound is poor, when I've heard the string sound be good on a variety
> of other equipment, including equipment in the store where I'm
> auditioning gear (so the acoustic environment is the same), it can
> deduced that the device in question isn't reproducing string sound
> well.

Here, Chung is focusing exclusive on "instance" percepts, while Jenn
is talking about abstracted percepts. I've noticed that Bob and Chung
generally deny the relevance of abstracted percepts.

===

Stewart wrote:

> You're missing the point. We don't want an opinion about *musical*
> subtleties, we want an opinion about live vs recorded, or in this
> particular thread, CD vs LP. In that regard, and with all respect
> due to your stipulated musical skills, your opinion is no more valid
> thatn that of any other regular concert-goer, and certainly less
> valid than that of a classical recording engineer, who really *is*
> trained to hear differences which are relevant to the hi-fi
> community.

Here, Stewart does what is typical for the objectivists, which is to
outright deny the relevance of musical percepts. From his language in
general, it seems that the "differences which are relevant to the
hi-fi community," according to him, are largely about sonic, local,
static, instance, and conrete percepts. Well guess what---a lot of us
hi-fi enthusiasts care more about musical, diffuse, dynamic, abstract,
and holistic percepts.

===

Stewart again:

> We don't believe that a conductor is concentrating on the same
> things that we are. But a recording engineer certainly is.

Speak for yourself; I care about expressive music, and a conductor is
more familiar with the workings of that than is a recording engineer.

===

Mark DeBellis asked:

>I just don't understand how you can separate the two. Is it in fact
>possible to determine what "sounds as close as possible" to what,
>absent a sense of the musical quality?

Stewart:

> Yes, certainly. As a prime example, it's *much* easier to tell
> differences among audio components by using clicks and pink noise,
> than by listening to music.

Of course, clicks and pink noise are purely sonic percepts; not a whit
of music in them.


Mark BeBellis has a reply more to the point:

> That will tell you which gear transmits a signal more accurately.
> But it does not tell you what kind of reproduction of music (as
> opposed to clicks or pink noise) sounds subjectively as close as
> possible to the original. It's not obvious to me that the latter
> judgment is separable from the cognitive/emotional act of
> understanding the music, and that is something Jenn excels at. So
> there is good reason not to dismiss her perspective as being
> irrelevant or unimportant for the goals of audio.

Exactly; one of the subtle assumptions of the objectivist is that
reproduction of music can be separated from the understanding the
music, an assumption for which they have no evidence.

Helen Schmidt