Depends on the definition. By one measure, i.e. being able to identify twenty random notes with a two second gap between each one, the analogy that bear makes to lightning calculators is a good one. By another, the ability to name a single note played or be able to sing a specified note, it's something that many people can be trained to do. I can keep 440A in my head and reference a note against it to identify it- is that trained "perfect pitch"?
No.
You can't tell me if the A is sharp or flat.
That isn't even really relative pitch.
_-_-bear
You can't tell me if the A is sharp or flat.
That isn't even really relative pitch.
_-_-bear
Sure I can. Try me.
With a reference note in one's head, an ability to do relative pitch (which is trainable for most people) then allows any other note to be determined. I forget the "official" musical term for that, but I think it's "solfege."
With a reference note in one's head, an ability to do relative pitch (which is trainable for most people) then allows any other note to be determined. I forget the "official" musical term for that, but I think it's "solfege."
bear said:
I got that from reading some articles by Mark Orbert-Thorne who does a lot of transfers from 78's which are all over the place in speed. Like any discipline there are academics that sweat the most trivial details. Apparently it is important to some of them to study by any means and debate what the probable tuning was. Mark prescans the matierial and maps a speed vs. time to get a best fit. Early mechanical governors, even on mastering systems, varied comsiderably from start to finish. There is a thread on historical recordings over in the music forum, many of them were done by Mark.
Scott, that's fine, an educated guess is fine... it is often wrong, but the more knowledge one has about what happened in the past the better the guesstimation... but as Count Basie said: "...if it sounds good, it is good..."
Edit: this fellow is assuming that A=440. A weak assumption at best. Although I am sure that after cleaning up, this represents an improvement over some other playback means...
SY, no point in belaboring the issue. If you can accurately find me a Bb an octave below or above that A you say you know, then you've got substantial skill in relative pitch.
My supposition is that you won't know if the next note you hear is slightly sharp or flattened...
A person with perfect pitch does not need the initial note to remember and knows instantly if the next note is "off" or not.
Edit: this fellow is assuming that A=440. A weak assumption at best. Although I am sure that after cleaning up, this represents an improvement over some other playback means...
SY, no point in belaboring the issue. If you can accurately find me a Bb an octave below or above that A you say you know, then you've got substantial skill in relative pitch.
My supposition is that you won't know if the next note you hear is slightly sharp or flattened...
A person with perfect pitch does not need the initial note to remember and knows instantly if the next note is "off" or not.
Yes, that's the difference between the innate and the trained- the innate are quicker and often more accurate.
But the B-flat below A? No problem.
But the B-flat below A? No problem.
Johnloudb said:
You might be very surprised to find out how little difference is considered a positive result. You also might be surprised at the effectiveness of placebos.
Changing Standard
A=440 has not always been true. This is from Wikipedia:
"By an international treaty signed in 1939, modern pitch is standardized at A-440. However, tuning has varied over time, geographical region, or instrument maker. In seventeenth-century Europe, tunings ranged from about A-374 to A-403, approximately two to three half-steps below A-440. Historical examples exist of instruments, tuning forks, or standards ranging from A-309 to A-455.3, a difference of almost six half-steps. Although the official standard today is A-440, some orchestral groups and chamber groups prefer to tune a little higher, at A-442 or even A-444. Baroque pitch is usually cited as A-415, which is a half-step lower than modern pitch."
Lindsay
A=440 has not always been true. This is from Wikipedia:
"By an international treaty signed in 1939, modern pitch is standardized at A-440. However, tuning has varied over time, geographical region, or instrument maker. In seventeenth-century Europe, tunings ranged from about A-374 to A-403, approximately two to three half-steps below A-440. Historical examples exist of instruments, tuning forks, or standards ranging from A-309 to A-455.3, a difference of almost six half-steps. Although the official standard today is A-440, some orchestral groups and chamber groups prefer to tune a little higher, at A-442 or even A-444. Baroque pitch is usually cited as A-415, which is a half-step lower than modern pitch."
Lindsay
SY said:
an octave below... how about after you hear a number of other notes... how about detecting the one that is on pitch when I present 20 that are off by 1/2 step or less?
C'mon, you may be able to mentally go down a scale and find the note, or even do it quickly, but that is still not perfect pitch.
Congrats on the skill level you have achieved.
-------------
As far as the fellow restoring the recordings... good thing that people can adjust the playback rate and speed using editing software in a computer, eh?
Thanks for the wikipedia reference...
_-_-bear
Well...........................
...the great thing about the Blowtorch preamplifier is that when it is presented with these sorts of signals, it produces only perfect golden tones completely harmonious and celestial.
This is due to the JFET action - John's Fabulous Effervescent Technology - entirely.
Take that!
...the great thing about the Blowtorch preamplifier is that when it is presented with these sorts of signals, it produces only perfect golden tones completely harmonious and celestial.
This is due to the JFET action - John's Fabulous Effervescent Technology - entirely.
Take that!
I'm not a musician. I would call perfect pitch, "here, tune this oscillator to exactly 400Hz; OK, now tune it to exactly 850 Hz (by ear of course)". The was a gimmick in a spy movie once, the villains safe had only an oscillator tuning knob, and of course our hero also had perfect pitch. Sorry if this is silly.
Steve Dunlap said:
The tinnitus group given placebos made some progress but weren't able to maintain it. Where as the group using TRT were able to maintain their progress. And it doesn't surprise me ... I mean why do placebos work anyway? Beliefs that it will help and good thoughts. There was study done on Parkinson's Disease where the patients were given Placebo's and told that it would help (i.e. Giving them good thoughts) and it showed that they then produced more dopamine, the chemical there body was deficient in.
When I first started TRT I couldn't walk more than 20 feet, touch my teeth, much less handle any significant sound level, I was wearing ear protection constantly. I didn't just decide to quit doing things. I had tried and hurt myself and would end up in bed with migraine headaches, dizziness, nausea, ringing ears, heat racing down my back .... . I'd then find I could do even less. After learning about TRT and understood the mechanism I was dealing with (i.e. a positive feedback loop). And, I understood that all my symptoms were not a threat and not a result of brain damage. I was able to slowly do more and make progress.
After five years I could walk two miles in a loud crowded mall with no ear protection. This is the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. While I have had some setbacks with some things I'm overall making progress.
Local doctors offered me nothing in the way of help. They just said Hyperacusis and Tinnitus are permanent. More doctors now know about TRT but it's not covered by insurance, and most doctors aren't trained in it. So mostly just
I've had periods when sound would enter my left ear and I could feel the sound travel across the top of head and only hear the sound in my left ear. I knew this was nothing to worry about, and it would go away. I'd just keep listening more to sounds day to day when I felt up to it. And each sound is different - the actual sound level of each sound has little to with how long I can listen to it. It's all about past experience with the sound. In a loud environment I can handle quiet sounds that I have aversion to for a longer period of time, however.
I understand that most people look at things from there own personal experience. But for myself, I have very good reason to agree with the Jastreboff Model for hearing. I basically had/have no choice.
Bear, the BLOWTORCH does seem to pass whatever comes into it better than most 'straight wire' bypasses, with the convenience of switching and input-output buffering, with gain, but it is not magic. Just a pleasant surprise.
I might say that one of the factors that seems to make my BLOWTORCH 'magic' is BEAR'S super silver wire, that has been broken in and polarized in the right direction.
This is to me a 'fact' but I cannot explain why.
Bear's wire is ultra clear, without the softening of copper, but it is difficult to get right. Bob Crump knew how to make it work. I am not sure if I could ever truly duplicate his effort.
It is a bit like the 'old winemaker' died, leaving his vineyard and equipment behind, yet nobody knows exactly how to make the same quality wine with it.
This is one reason the BLOWTORCH was discontinued.
Now I realize that many who like to criticize here will be inflamed by my statements, yet they are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Why people can't just accept this, is beyond my understanding.
When Bear and I talk personally about these matters, we have no problem understanding each other. It is the same when I speak privately with Jam, or Charles Hansen, and several others, as well. We can go on for hours about this stuff and I do with many, who sometimes contribute here.
I sure wish that I could just present my conclusions here without a lot a back talk. I think that it would be more productive, than this constant heckling and denial of hi end audio by some.
This is to me a 'fact' but I cannot explain why.
Bear's wire is ultra clear, without the softening of copper, but it is difficult to get right. Bob Crump knew how to make it work. I am not sure if I could ever truly duplicate his effort.
It is a bit like the 'old winemaker' died, leaving his vineyard and equipment behind, yet nobody knows exactly how to make the same quality wine with it.
This is one reason the BLOWTORCH was discontinued.
Now I realize that many who like to criticize here will be inflamed by my statements, yet they are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Why people can't just accept this, is beyond my understanding.
When Bear and I talk personally about these matters, we have no problem understanding each other. It is the same when I speak privately with Jam, or Charles Hansen, and several others, as well. We can go on for hours about this stuff and I do with many, who sometimes contribute here.
I sure wish that I could just present my conclusions here without a lot a back talk. I think that it would be more productive, than this constant heckling and denial of hi end audio by some.
😎
Nice wire & wine story statement.
I bet they look great, as well. Doing duty BOTH for your ears and your sight, Mr Curl.
I will not argue.
As you say, why can we not accept that somebody thinks this or that.
What does it hurt my self, our selves?
Anybody, as far as I know, is perfectly intitled to his own free thoughts and sayings
Freedom of speech, I think they call it, the english.
If speaking and writing, which makes noticable imprints on our environment is free,
how much more free will not my and others thoughts/thinkings be?
After all, it is not easy to hurt or kill some audio friend just by thinking.
The only case is if we really believe VOO-DOO works.
But if Voo-Doo magic did have an intended effect,
we would see people drop dead here .. every day ..
😉
Nice wire & wine story statement.
I bet they look great, as well. Doing duty BOTH for your ears and your sight, Mr Curl.
I will not argue.
As you say, why can we not accept that somebody thinks this or that.
What does it hurt my self, our selves?
Anybody, as far as I know, is perfectly intitled to his own free thoughts and sayings
Freedom of speech, I think they call it, the english.
If speaking and writing, which makes noticable imprints on our environment is free,
how much more free will not my and others thoughts/thinkings be?
After all, it is not easy to hurt or kill some audio friend just by thinking.
The only case is if we really believe VOO-DOO works.
But if Voo-Doo magic did have an intended effect,
we would see people drop dead here .. every day ..
😉
John,
I've been following this thread for quite a while and of course the BT is the main subject, but many other aspects regarding good design have been discussed. However this is a DIY audio forum for those who practise electronics and audio as a hobby.
If the succes of the BT heavily depends on a piece of wire which is treated in a special (enigmatic) way, than that's of no use for any of us here. Neither is a design which uses absolete transistors. The BT was a commercial design and is not build anymore. I understand you work your magic with special low noise (J)Fet components, but what if your inventory runs dry?
For DIY purposes readily available quality components make more sense. Can you work your magic with current available components too? Given your standards, I guess the answer will be no.
It would have been nice if the schematics and concepts posted in this thread would have led to a pre-amp design for interested DIY-ers to build. The BT is only owned by a happy few with lots of cash. Ultimately it boils down to how a preamp or power-amp sounds. Here we try to build quality diy projects which make sense to us and help us to understand some basic or advanced design principles better.
We could go on in endless discussions where everthing you're opposed to is brushed aside, or help the DIY community in creating a design based on present or improved ideas presented here with readily available components. And maybe it would be better to start a new thread on that, where the combined knowledge about open loop design is used in gradually developing a preamp that can be build and enjoyed by many diyers around the world.
Just my 2 cents.
I've been following this thread for quite a while and of course the BT is the main subject, but many other aspects regarding good design have been discussed. However this is a DIY audio forum for those who practise electronics and audio as a hobby.
If the succes of the BT heavily depends on a piece of wire which is treated in a special (enigmatic) way, than that's of no use for any of us here. Neither is a design which uses absolete transistors. The BT was a commercial design and is not build anymore. I understand you work your magic with special low noise (J)Fet components, but what if your inventory runs dry?
For DIY purposes readily available quality components make more sense. Can you work your magic with current available components too? Given your standards, I guess the answer will be no.
It would have been nice if the schematics and concepts posted in this thread would have led to a pre-amp design for interested DIY-ers to build. The BT is only owned by a happy few with lots of cash. Ultimately it boils down to how a preamp or power-amp sounds. Here we try to build quality diy projects which make sense to us and help us to understand some basic or advanced design principles better.
We could go on in endless discussions where everthing you're opposed to is brushed aside, or help the DIY community in creating a design based on present or improved ideas presented here with readily available components. And maybe it would be better to start a new thread on that, where the combined knowledge about open loop design is used in gradually developing a preamp that can be build and enjoyed by many diyers around the world.
Just my 2 cents.
john curl said:
Note to any young would be engineers out there. Save this stuff for after the interview.
It boggles my mind that this stuff can be repeated with a straight face.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.