Can we trust our ears?

[digicidal]

It doesn't imply that the system that reproduces recorded sound should be different for different people.

Thankfully... can you imagine the confusion that would cause?

"I'm looking for the London Philharmonic Orchestra performing Mozart's "Requiem", conducted by Franz Welser-Most - but with all the instruments tuned to Bob's ears (preferably the "post-earwax-removal" version). As an alternate I'd begrudgingly accept the Janet-after-morning-coffee tuning."

 

[watchnerd]

Thankfully... can you imagine the confusion that would cause?

"I'm looking for the London Philharmonic Orchestra performing Mozart's "Requiem", conducted by Franz Welser-Most - but with all the instruments tuned to Bob's ears (preferably the "post-earwax-removal" version). As an alternate I'd begrudgingly accept the Janet-after-morning-coffee tuning."

Will be a non-issue once we get direct to brain auditory feeds.

 

[anmpr1]

Will be a non-issue once we get direct to brain auditory feeds.

And when that happens you won't have to worry about WAF, since you won't need one of those, either. Just direct inject your favorite image into your visual cotex. Not sure how your sandwiches will get made, though.

 

[j_j]

Whoa, there. No, most textbooks won't have to be rewritten. You're talking about higher-level issues here, not basics like critical bandwidths, masking thresholds, and loudness.

The claimed "amazing" discovery simply isn't amazing. This is why things like listening tests use "listener training" in the first place. Certainly, any elementary view of human perception talks about CNS filtering and attention direction.

That is ***all*** you're talking about here. Sorry.

I've covered this in several place, including here: https://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/pnwrecaps/2013/apr_jj/ Oddly, it seems like the ppt deck is missing. I'll go ask.

I found it. It's at https://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/heyser.pptx

Please note the discussion around slide 14.

Thank you!

 

[watchnerd]

And when that happens you won't have to worry about WAF, since you won't need one of those, either. Just direct inject your favorite image into your visual cotex. Not sure how your sandwiches will get made, though.

Now you made it cringey....

 

[Kuma]

Can we trust our ears?

No.

 

[j_j]

Can we trust our ears?

No.

short, sweet, to the point. Perception is like that, and is very, very plastic.

 

[tuga]

Thankfully... can you imagine the confusion that would cause?

"I'm looking for the London Philharmonic Orchestra performing Mozart's "Requiem", conducted by Franz Welser-Most - but with all the instruments tuned to Bob's ears (preferably the "post-earwax-removal" version). As an alternate I'd begrudgingly accept the Janet-after-morning-coffee tuning."

Shouldn't you be asking if the orchestra was multi-mic'ed or minimally mic'ed with 2-main + 2-ambience?

If all mics were identical or different mics with different FR were used for different instrument groups, soloists etc.?

Were the mics calibrated and/or EQ'ed?

Armed with that information will you choose Franz Welser-Möst's recording multi-mic'ed with far from flat Neumann M50s (speculating) or some other recording which a more minimalist approach using flatter mics which will portray a more credible illusion of the soundscape as listened from the audience?

Will you use narrow-directivity speakers or your room's side-walls as waveguides for that nice wide soundstage effect?

2 channel stereo or upmixed, multi-channel or DSP'ed 3D sound?

2 sugars or three?

 

[pma]

Talking about Requiem, my favourite recording is Decca 433688-2, Wiener Philharmoniker, directed by Georg Solti, recorded in St Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna. This piece is extremely difficult to transform into sound can.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Talking about Requiem, my favourite recording is Decca 433688-2, Wiener Philharmoniker, directed by Georg Solti, recorded in St Spehen's Cathedral, Vienna. This piece is extremely difficult to transform into sound can.

Interesting, I hadn't heard it - thanks Do you know much about this recording? Mic technique, etc.

 

[digicidal]

Armed with that information will you choose Franz Welser-Möst's recording multi-mic'ed with far from flat Neumann M50s (speculating) or some other recording which a more minimalist approach using flatter mics which will portray a more credible illusion of the soundscape as listened from the audience?

Of course, as a connoisseur of metal, I tend to get excited when a very nominal amount of effort was made in even making the instruments sound like a bad analog of the actual thing. I've long ago given up on getting any truly great recordings of most of my favorite pieces. As long as it doesn't sound like I have a cardboard box on my head... it's an exceptional recording already.

 

[pma]

Interesting, I hadn't heard it - thanks Do you know much about this recording? Mic technique, etc.

Not so much, unfortunately. Just the info from inlay

 

[digicidal]

Not so much, unfortunately. Just the info from inlay

View attachment 108125

I have at least six different recordings of Requiem (which should say something in a collection which contains fewer than 50 albums in the genre). I don't have this one however, so I guess I'll add a 7th and see how it compares. Thanks for the info... although "monitored on B&W Loudspeakers" doesn't particularly fill me with confidence on the production side of things.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I have at least six different recordings of Requiem (which should say something in a collection which contains fewer than 50 albums in the genre). I don't have this one however, so I guess I'll add a 7th and see how it compares. Thanks for the info... although "monitored on B&W Loudspeakers" doesn't particularly fill me with confidence on the production side of things.

Haha. I noticed that too. Not too unusual for a classical recording, though, and the B&Ws of that era were not bad speakers.

 

[pma]

Haha. I noticed that too. Not too unusual for a classical recording, though, and the B&Ws of that era were not bad speakers.

Agreed. And let’s not overestimate contemporary fashion trends .

 

[Katji]

"Can we trust our ears?"

Referring to ears instead of hearing is not a good way to start.

It's sort of like referring to the front part of a microphone, and microphones are much simpler than hearing.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Thanks for the info... although "monitored on B&W Loudspeakers" doesn't particularly fill me with confidence on the production side of things.

I had a similar reaction to the identification of the recording site. The acoustics of St. Stephen's Cathedral present a challenge for performances and recordings, imho.

 

[pma]

I heard rehearsals to Requiem at Salzburg Kollegienkirche. Great impression which home Hi-Fi will never bring.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I heard rehearsals to Requiem at Salzburg Kollegienkirche.

I have not been there and I am not commenting on cathedrals, in general.

Great impression which home Hi-Fi will never bring.

Agreed but I suspect that you, as most, are basing that on home Hi-Fi in only 2 channels .

 

[pma]

2 or 6, makes not so much difference, in such case like cathedral sound, especially cathedral organ. Or a philharmonic orchestra. Live music and reproduced music are just 2 different disciplines. I think everyone familiar with both would agree. The reconstruction of the cathedral or hall sound field is physically impossible in home or studio conditions.