Sonic Nirvana..............
Celebratory dinner parties in the formal dining room, good company, great food, a few Snapps and my mother playing any tune anybody could think of on her violin - sonic bliss way better than any replay system.
Guys, if you have not heard a beautiful violin played well in intimate surroundings like this, you have not quite lived yet.
Eric. / - Can still hear that violin in my head.
Yes, memories.john curl said:
Celebratory dinner parties in the formal dining room, good company, great food, a few Snapps and my mother playing any tune anybody could think of on her violin - sonic bliss way better than any replay system.
Guys, if you have not heard a beautiful violin played well in intimate surroundings like this, you have not quite lived yet.
Eric. / - Can still hear that violin in my head.
Originally posted by RHosch
So you have perfect pitch Eric? Do you presume that to be a prerequisite for someone to be able to hear these obvious differences? Just curious, as I've seen someone with perfect pitch fail a blind test just like the rest of us (and he was also an experienced and talented musician and audiophile).
Yes, according to some on line tests that I have done.
And no... I don't have perfect pitch.
I am not sure that PP is a pre-requisite, but maybe it helps.
Also, I think you still fail to understand Christer's and Steve's arguments. I'm not sure why... they have been very clear in what they are saying.
What is to there to understand except whenever anybody brings up points about sonic differences that SE and lately Christer, carry on about listeners deluding themselves and their belief that blind testing is the only arbiter - despite being shown that blind tests typically are hopelessly flawed.
Add to this crap like photos in freezers, this gets really repetetive and really boring - this has been done to death over and over and over.
I think the results of the wire directionality test will be interesting. Hopefully we can all learn something of value from it.
Yes hopefully the blind testing adherents will learn something mostly.
Eric.
So you have perfect pitch Eric? Do you presume that to be a prerequisite for someone to be able to hear these obvious differences? Just curious, as I've seen someone with perfect pitch fail a blind test just like the rest of us (and he was also an experienced and talented musician and audiophile).
Yes, according to some on line tests that I have done.
And no... I don't have perfect pitch.
I am not sure that PP is a pre-requisite, but maybe it helps.
Also, I think you still fail to understand Christer's and Steve's arguments. I'm not sure why... they have been very clear in what they are saying.
What is to there to understand except whenever anybody brings up points about sonic differences that SE and lately Christer, carry on about listeners deluding themselves and their belief that blind testing is the only arbiter - despite being shown that blind tests typically are hopelessly flawed.
Add to this crap like photos in freezers, this gets really repetetive and really boring - this has been done to death over and over and over.
I think the results of the wire directionality test will be interesting. Hopefully we can all learn something of value from it.
Yes hopefully the blind testing adherents will learn something mostly.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Blind testing is the only arbiter if you expect to establish objective proof of actual audibility. Sighted listening leaves too many ambiguities due to known, well-established psychologically-based phenomena.
What exactly have I been shown? All I can recall is your simply saying over and over again that blind tests are hopelessly flawed. What, do you think if you say it enough times that that will somehow substantiate this claim any more than the first time you said it?
Of course successful propaganda campaigns have shown that if you say something enough times people will begin to believe it's true. But that doesn't make it true.
se
john curl said:
I quite agree with you. I really enjoy the sound of a great
violin in the hands of a good violinist and for this it doesn't
matter att all why it sounds the way it does. Still, since the
Strads are still considered by most to be the best sounding ones
an nobody has been able to match their sound in the three
or four hundred years that have passed, it would be interesting
to know why this is so. It also does have a practical purpose.
Although violins seem not to have much problem with ageing
if handled properly, they do occasionally break or get lost
and the supply of them is quite limited. Being able to make
violins of the same class as a Strad could thus be useful to
make sure that also future generations will be able to enjoy
great violin sound, and it could also make first-rate violins
available also to others than only the very best world-class
musicians. On the other hand, I do agree it would take some
of the magic out of it if there were suddenly cheap Strad clones
available.
Just a sidenote on understanding people
This seems not worth starting a new thread about and since
we have been discussing the problems of understanding each
other in this thread, I'll post it here, since I think it is an
interesting illustration.
I just saw on the morning news on TV that Donald Rumsfeld
had been awarded a "prize" for worst use of english language.
This was followed by a cut from a speach he made where he
was saying things like "there are knowns that we know that
we know and there unknowns that we know that we don't
know" etc., and I assume this was intended as an example
of why he was awarded this prize. While I can understand
that most people probably do find this speach difficult to
understand and even consider it BS, I found no problem
at all understanding what he said. This probably has much
to do with my professional background, having tought logic
to university students, having studied epistemic logic which
is used to model and reason about knowledge and lack thereof.
So, I am clearly biased by my professional training, but the point
is that except from a somewhat sloppy language from a logical
point of view, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what
he said, and I cannot see how he could have said it in a more
understandable way (to non-logicians, at least) than he did
without altering the meaning of the message. So, is it bad
language to say what one means instead of saying something
which is simpler to understand but isn't what one means????
This seems not worth starting a new thread about and since
we have been discussing the problems of understanding each
other in this thread, I'll post it here, since I think it is an
interesting illustration.
I just saw on the morning news on TV that Donald Rumsfeld
had been awarded a "prize" for worst use of english language.
This was followed by a cut from a speach he made where he
was saying things like "there are knowns that we know that
we know and there unknowns that we know that we don't
know" etc., and I assume this was intended as an example
of why he was awarded this prize. While I can understand
that most people probably do find this speach difficult to
understand and even consider it BS, I found no problem
at all understanding what he said. This probably has much
to do with my professional background, having tought logic
to university students, having studied epistemic logic which
is used to model and reason about knowledge and lack thereof.
So, I am clearly biased by my professional training, but the point
is that except from a somewhat sloppy language from a logical
point of view, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what
he said, and I cannot see how he could have said it in a more
understandable way (to non-logicians, at least) than he did
without altering the meaning of the message. So, is it bad
language to say what one means instead of saying something
which is simpler to understand but isn't what one means????
BTW Eric, not that I doubt your claim to have perfect pitch, but it seems very odd that you had to take online tests to find out. From my experience as a lifelong musician, those who have perfect pitch have known since they were children, as well as practically everyone else who has spent much time with them, and there is absolutely no doubt.
It would be akin to taking an online test to see if one can read. I suppose it could be done, and the result would certainly identify if you could read or not, but why would someone ever have the need to take such a test??
It would be akin to taking an online test to see if one can read. I suppose it could be done, and the result would certainly identify if you could read or not, but why would someone ever have the need to take such a test??
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.