The blind test, done first, would presumably introduce humility and, to those not threatened by it, an open mind.
The next test is with the blinders off.
Then the first test again. Do the scores improve?
Add test sequences until it's clear the lesson has been learned.
Ditch the unhumbled and send them to a school where they are marked by how accurate the meters are rather than what the ear receives. You are wasting your time with them.
For disc acoustics, use fiirst an outside horn machine. Select one where, paired with a good demo record, the resonances can be heard. Then an inside horn one which shows control of listening room volume with doors or shutters. For late acoustical 78s, use a Victor Othophonic that shows the extra bass and how it interferes with the lower range balance. Then, using the same machine, play a Victor electrical recordsd 1926-1928, where the bass is a big improvement.
Top end will be worn off on almost all 78s not in newish condition. Show the use of a fresh needle for each side and the results when the same one is reused.
Show the variations in record equalization, depending on manufacturer and time, both on players of the time and on a good modern turntable with preamp with adjustible eq settings.
For transfer work, play over-under with needle sizes and shapes to demo the importance of stylus size and configuration. Working with vertcal tracking angle, issues of tracking weight, etc. is for advanced training.
Dub to tape to show how little loss there is when the engineer is not frightened by surface noise. Do same, recording to digital through the same front end. Compare.
Then start processing. Show loss of room tone and how to avoid doing same. Use word lengths of 16 and 24 bits.
When processing, work for good AM sound, opening up the bass once this balance is achieved. Adjust further to taste. Compare with original.
I'm sure there are other steps and devices that haven't occured to me in my early Sunday morning funk, but I think you get the idea.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine Audio and the Milllennials . . .
Hi Marcos:
Why blind? The point I'm trying to make is to TRAIN would-be archival/transfer/remastering engineers to hear what the different pre-digital sound like, what distortions and limitations are inherent, how they differ, and how different resolutions and methods of digital sound different.
I'm not interested in some sort of "what sounds best" or "analog vs. digital" fight. Leave that to the audiophile mags. What I thought we were discussing is training people what to listen for and how to properly do audio archiving.
By the way, the blind test would be interesting with the different resolutions of digital because from what I read, would-be critical listeners don't seem able to describe consistently the differences between formats and resolutions.
Also, maybe the blind testing would be very useful at the end of a critical-listening seminar -- see how many people can correctly name the analog and/or digital medium correctly.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcos Sueiro Bal" <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine Audio and the Milllennials . . .
I like this idea, although I fear it may be more complicated than it seems at first.
I would also vote for a BLIND version of this. Even though it hurts sometimes, I always find those useful.
I used to be part of a group that would do blind wine tastings in Chicago; invariably the amateurs would trump the professionals. Would the same thing happen at ARSC...? Are we afraid?
Mischievously yours,
marcos
Tom Fine wrote:If someone can provide me with CD or transfer audio of a source, I'd be happy to make files showing the effects of various tape media.
I agree that this would be a great ARSC seminar.
Perhaps also useful would be the following:
1. a similar comparison with some pure sine and square waves, showing what distortions are inherent to each type of media. Including, by the way, brickwall frequency limiting in the CD format.
2. a similar comparison with a very high-fidelity source, preferably a high-resolution digital original source made in a good acoustic space with minimal mic'ing and little if any sonic "production" after the fact. In this case, I would start with the high-resolution source file, then perhaps a digitally-downsampled CD, then perhaps a CD made from an excellent D-A/A-D chain to show what if any differences there are in the two techniques. The compare to various analog media, starting with late-era tape 1/2" 30IPS master and going down from there. This might be a costly bunch of demo media to cook up, but it sure would be an interesting comparison.
By the way, any comparison like I'm describing is somewhat controversial because conclusions are highly subjective. But I think it's very informative and at least provides some reference for people new to the field. Playback would be through as uniform and transparent a system as possible and I would suggest that both sound and an oscilloscope image be the type of demonstration (ie sound and image).
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: <Dnjchi@xxxxxxx> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine Audio and the Milllennials . . .
In a message dated 12/7/2007 6:00:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Play back the electronic sources through a decent but doesn't have to be
great system, but don't
change the amplifier and speakers, and see if you can keep the overall
volume about equal. The
differences should be pretty clear and it would be interesting to see how
the younger folks describe
them. This might diverge too far away from the history of music, but one
could argue that the
technology used to record and reproduce the music is integral to how it was
perceived and absorbed
by listeners.
-- Tom Fine
Again, this would be an interesting seminar at an ARSC meeting, especially
for novice archivists.
Don Chichester
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1178 - Release Date: 12/8/2007 11:59 AM