Quote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105762127

I haven't bought the book yet, but Wes Phillips told me that the author includes a mention of my June 2003 "As We See It" on p.256 - www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/851 - where I describe how my enjoyment of an acoustic bluegrass band was destroyed by over-amplification:

"In an article in Stereophile in 2003, John Atkinson described his experience of seeing the Weary Boys play bluegrass at the annual SXSW convention. He left after a few songs, when he realized he wasn't enjoying it. The mostly acoustic instruments, as heard through the PA sounded 'relentlessly loud, compressed, clipped and distorted to the point where any light and shade in the music had been obliterated. Walking through the crowd toward the exit, it struck him that nobody else seemed bothered by the sound. Maybe, he wrote, 'they were all so accustomed to it--this is what music is _supposed_ to sound like--that their expectations had been diminished.'"

For the benefit of Krabapple and others, no double-blind tests were employed for me to reach my conclusion on the sound of the Weary Boys in Austin's Continental Club, nor did I have reference to their sound without amplification. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

The book sounds like a must read. I can't wait to get my hands on a copy.

I've actually been reading this book all week, after seeing a review of it in Time Out NY of all places; it's absolutely fascinating to read how early, and how repeatedly, audio split into two camps, from the first 'acoustic vs electric' debates, evolving all the way to the 'Great Debate'. (And what a borderline case Edison could be!)

I'm not halfway done yet, but yes, the index shows you're in there, JA, a couple hundred pages in -- though Fremer is featured in the *first chapter*!

The author occasionally slips into woozy theorizing -- and doesn't appear to mind being 'led' to a dubious conclusion of 'fact' by an audiophile 'expert', ahem -- but the story he tells is good enough to make that a quibble.

What a wonderful book.

Milner tells some familiar stories - and a lot that weren't, at least to me - as he keeps turning over our obsession with recorded sound and music. He's chasing the big questions - what is perfect sound? Why are the fights over it (acoustic vs. electric, 33 1/3 vs. 45, analog vs. digial) such matters of life and death? What does all this obsessing connect up to in the larger world?

I don't know that I agree with every last word, but that's not the point - the point is he's refreshed the debate.

Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY

Just want to bump this thread. Fantastic book on the subject of recorded music from its beginnings. Indeed, it will make you think differently about recordings.

It is always good to remember that existence itself, is very specifically controlled and stabilized -patterned oscillation.

A story of interest that few likely know is that one specific note in the scale that was changed in frequential pitch due to it being able to excite the endocrine system of the human body to a high degree. As in 447 or 445hz actually being changed to 440hz to avoid people using music to reach elevated mental states through excitation of the pineal gland. The pineal commonly being referred to in alternative literature as the seat of the mind or the 'third eye', ie, the doorway to higher mental states.

See the works of Michael Persinger, concerning the use and repeatable results when using his device, 'The God Helmet'. I personally knew and spent over two years with someone who underwent some experimentation with Persinger and the God Helmet at Laurentian College in Sudbury. He said the back row of seats in the classroom was usually occupied by military and civilian observers from many various countries during Persinger's lectures.

This makes me recall the article from way back near the beginnings of the Omni Magazine, where the reported research was done on Rhesus monkeys strapped into a highchair and metal wire coil was run around their heads at a spaced distance and differing frequencies and thus electromagnetic fields (the fields interfering with and integrating with their brain matter and function) could cause differing repeatable effects in the psychological condition of the monkeys, ie high enough repeatability in their behaviour patterns with repeated frequencies to escape the bounds of necessary scientific rigor in testing, to become a fact in point by the same scientific test standards.

then there is the current 'hot group' (ie, new and in the current 2000's decade of music groups) drummer that using a click track -which is common these days- is called 'the Human Metronome' for his unparalleled capacity to come down on the beat with a error level of less than 100,000th of a second. A person might, without knowing the depth of the issue, think that using a click track would make such a thing possible -but it does not. The human body is not thought to be in any way shape or form, capable of such accuracy in timing. This, through about 50 years of prior testing.

Then we head to the claim of Jazz musicians, when confronted with Midi, which is at 32,000 possible timing placements of a note per second..being decried by the given Jazz musicians as being incapable of capturing the essence of great jazz, which has subtle timing cues that exceed the capacity of the midi system.

This then leads to the quandary of Jitter vs sampling rate as being a key component of the modern aspect of the heart of music being turned into a puddle of festering shit via with the introduction of the ubiquitous 44khz/16 bit PCM CD standard. Fixing jitter helps tremendously but not that many people (general public, not audiophiles) seem to realize how the music has been destroyed. After all, it all there, right? The scientists with their calculators told us it is so, so it must be right..right?

So the essence of the core of human function, with respect to the idea of enjoyment and celebration of life itself...that reflection of the face of eternity and existence itself..called Music...was damaged/diverted/sidelined/whatever to a high degree by the introduction of convenience over quality..by the CD.

I could go on and on here, but that is one doorway to begin peeking through for some illumination on the human condition.

I've known all (in one form or another) this since the early 90's-where the heck were the rest of you?

Just remember the points about Persinger and the Omni article, combined with the rest... the next time you go to use wireless, Bluetooth, a cordless phone, or a cell phone. Combine all of that with the point that the body is more sensitive to subtle signals, not just gross ones..and you have a recipe for a total disaster when it comes to trying to maintain a stable working human function in the given exposed individual.

Just read this, about an hour ago:

DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.

Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the "amazing" ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA's chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.

Even so, the research published in ACS' Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals.

In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The "telepathic" effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists.

"Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA," said the authors Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues.

This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues.

And through that doorway, 'spooky action at a distance', pokes it's little self out at you and says, "Hi! We're universal truths, and we're here to poke you right in the eye. Pay attention!". "Ow!", yer monkey says. Exactly as the Us Offices of Naval research said when one of their studies was released showing that the human body appeared to be superconductive and outside of time when the DNA and specifically the cells of the body communicated with one another.

This is all the very tip of the iceberg. The supportive literature and research list is miles long and goes logically and perfectly into areas that would scare the living bejesus of the average person who thinks that reality ends with pronouncements from popular media with regards to the real state of scientific research into the true state of reality and the human condition.

To paraphrase, like the beginning of my little life film, 'Dirty God'..I'm lying up against the wall looking up as the universal guy levels that big long barreled 42 magnum at me, and says, "well Monkey, did he shoot five, or did he shoot six?". I groan in confusion...and says, "I gots to know!" .

And if you do ask hard enough and long enough, you will find out.

"And through that doorway, 'spooky action at a distance', pokes it's little self out at you and says, "Hi! We're universal truths, and we're here to poke you right in the eye. Pay attention!". "Ow!", yer monkey says. Exactly as the Us Offices of Naval research said when one of their studies was released showing that the human body appeared to be superconductive and outside of time when the DNA and specifically the cells of the body communicated with one another."

Spooky Action at a Distance is celebrating it's 75th anniversary, IIRC, with the Einstein et al paper. In all of this time, there has been precious little evidence - one way or the other - that action at a distance is real. With the, uh, exception of the one-meter teleportation of something or another earlier this year. But It's not all that difficult to prove that spooky action at a distance is real. One need look no further than the Tele-tweak, the "photos in the freezer" or the Clever Little Clock. But it'll be quite some time before the mainstream guys catch up, assuming they can. A case of Wookin' pa Nub in all the Wrong Pwaces.

I'm looking forward to reading this book. Sounds fascinating.

While I have not read the particular As We See It from Mr. A, the idea that an acoustic band, presumably playing in a club, needs amplification is a perfect example of what drives some of us nuts. I want to hear the music, not a P.A. system.

Quote:
I'm looking forward to reading this book. Sounds fascinating.

While I have not read the particular As We See It from Mr. A, the idea that an acoustic band, presumably playing in a club, needs amplification is a perfect example of what drives some of us nuts. I want to hear the music, not a P.A. system.

You know, I agree entirely with you.

What's kind of sad is that this thread has been poluted (by others) with nonsense about "action at a distance" that is not really 'action at a distance' any more than a radio wave is.

I think I'll ask the author what defines "perfect", that is, if a reading doesn't show that he points out that the idea of "perfect" isn't so well taken.

It's the same subject taken a bit further down the road, jj. The world does not end - at the personally decided limit of a given person's perception.

If one plays with loudspeaker design long enough (with a certain level of awareness and learned sensitivity) they will even come to easily note the differences of dynamic expression of two (differently sourced) drivers in a given design integration.

If one gets to working deeper and deeper into such things, then they can move on the a larger data set in various areas..and find that as usual, everything effects everything.

I once spent a few weeks training myself analyze the basic rudiments of human vision..and came to be capable of constantly seeing the blind spot in the eye due to the optic nerve. That sort of thing can really drive home (in the given mind) the idea of the mechanics of the human system as one that is buried in the unconscious and autonomous level of existence. Thus begging the question, 'Can more be realized? Can more be consciously understood?' The answer is yes.

The lack of such thought and extrapolation in people can be brought the table as a candidate for blame, most times, when it comes to issues of the human condition and the relational issues that may exist.

It is a "how far do you want to go today?" kinda question and answer.

What it appears to be is that you are ready to give people a hard time for an answer or topic relation that is outside of what you personally want to see. Which is the problem I'm addressing. Part and parcel, dude.

I read the book and enjoyed it. I was particularly struck by all of the marketing events in which listeners could not tell whether there was a loudpspeaker or live musicians behind a curtain--all the way back to the early 1900's!

Which is sort of my point. Evolution is a rolling thing, always changing. Unless one becomes sedentary in their views. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

Over time, like the family dog, we eventually stop running around the room and barking at the non-existent thing or sound hanging in the air. In the realm of Goebbellian Manipulation of The Masses, the game is to change the canvas, palette, and drawing of societal, relational, and cultural aspects at a rate that is just below that of the mass threshold of recognition, in order to keep the flow of change going in the desired direction. One that feels natural and not externally driven.....thus the dog can always be kept running around the room and barking at the unseen forces and sounds.

As our senses and mind change from one level to the next, our personal backdrops change as well. We need a fix that is new and in the direction we desire to grow in. Hopefully. It could be termed an addiction, yes, but I don't think it is a bad idea to be addicted to growth, if that is the real shape of it.

Hence I line I throw at people sometimes, which is along the lines of: " Judgment...is a fools game. The greater the act of judgment, or 'knowing', the greater the act of one anchoring themselves in the self lies of their own past."

Or, you did not know something, now you do..and the next step is that there will be something you do not know - again.

Judgment is an emotional anchor, and does not belong at the table of proper science. Too bad that most mistake scientific literature and theory as an act of judgement. The proof of that is the insanity of calling scientific theories 'laws'. That is such a screwed up and negative anti-science mental message to throw at the world that there is no real capacity to describe how evil it is.

Another example, is that with visual acuity, when one consumes the materiel known as 'E', the eye dilates and the effect of seeing the contrast limit of the human eye comes to the fore. Contrary to popular belief and knowledge of such it is possible to be constantly aware of the eye's contrast limits during normal everyday life. Knowing the signs is the difficult part, consciously realizing them and being able to separate them is the trick. That takes dedication and the aspect or understanding the subtleties of the system.

The same can be done with the ear. Most of us can do that to some degree, and we do it when we like or don't like the given sonic presentation. For example, in the realm of mis-matched dynamics of the given devices in a given system that may be hooked up together. We may find almost no media of any kind that sounds correct on that given system, besides any distortions that may arise that are outside of pure dynamics. Pure dynamic issues is a bit of a misnomer, as the individual issues are all tied together to create the whole.

This is the kind of place where the honest, observant, and thinking expert in audio gear comes in handy: The reviewer.

We compare our experiences with the given reviewer, over time, and then we are given enough of a data set to work with in order to gauge how we ourselves might react to the given piece of gear.

The mistake some make is that the audio magazine and associated reviews are not there to tell you what to do..but to provide the backdrop for you to make an educated decision. The education part is up to you, the reader. The materiel to do that is presented as honestly as is possible, in the case of the best magazines.

it is interesting to note, then..that the least expensive component of assembling a great audio system is the literature - review magazines. Yet, in the end, they prove to be the most valuable, outside that of the actual room to hear it in-ie, the hopefully knowledgeable 'Brick & Mortar'* Audio Dealer.

(*:Long Suffering)

"...with nonsense about "action at a distance" that is not really 'action at a distance' any more than a radio wave is."

The objective, of course, in this sort of endeavor is to get the quantum states of two objects that are separated by distance to become correlated - "quantumly entangled," as it were. That is the definition of "action at a distance." In the case of the Tele-tweak, the use of the telephone system/radio waves suits my purposes to a T. As it were.

Quote:
I read the book and enjoyed it. I was particularly struck by all of the marketing events in which listeners could not tell whether there was a loudpspeaker or live musicians behind a curtain--all the way back to the early 1900's!

I have heard about this a few times but only now thought about it in detail, what was the conclusion on this in the books?

I am curious because how did they manage to ensure the dynamic range/transients were closely matched between the live acoustic and electronic loudspeaker, I just cannot see how this could ever be level matched or even that close.
Did they wait like a day or two switching between the speaker and performers (just kidding but I am wondering what it is that caused no difference to be noticed).

In theory a speaker will never be able to replicate the sound of an instrument exactly, and while it will come close there will be characteristic differences, especially when two speakers are replicating multiple instruments played on a stage.

A good example is what I found to be an interesting article by Art Dudley in the current issue of Stereophile; bringing the musician to the house for a personal performance.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
"...with nonsense about "action at a distance" that is not really 'action at a distance' any more than a radio wave is."

The objective, of course, in this sort of endeavor is to get the quantum states of two objects that are separated by distance to become correlated - "quantumly entangled," as it were. That is the definition of "action at a distance." In the case of the Tele-tweak, the use of the telephone system/radio waves suits my purposes to a T. As it were.

How about two cans and a string?

"How about two cans and a string?"

Now you're talking string theory. Afraid I'm all thumbs.

The question is relevant as it pertains to the point mentioned by the poster above, as I had not read the book/s and it seems it touches on the live event/speakers could not be identified unless I am misunderstanding the comment about marketing and that scenario which was raised.

So if it is in the book, what did they mention with regards to:

Quote:
I read the book and enjoyed it. I was particularly struck by all of the marketing events in which listeners could not tell whether there was a loudpspeaker or live musicians behind a curtain--all the way back to the early 1900's!

If the context of the poster's quote I was asking about isnt mentioned/commented anywhere, apologies (reading what looks like quantum entanglement theory (and created I think 1st in practice by IBM research/MIT awhile ago due to an accident) may cause anyone to have mind altering affects, but it was not me who raised that; just saying as the response is to me but quote to Geoff).
Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:
I read the book and enjoyed it. I was particularly struck by all of the marketing events in which listeners could not tell whether there was a loudpspeaker or live musicians behind a curtain--all the way back to the early 1900's!

I have heard about this a few times but only now thought about it in detail, what was the conclusion on this in the books?

I am curious because how did they manage to ensure the dynamic range/transients were closely matched between the live acoustic and electronic loudspeaker, I just cannot see how this could ever be level matched or even that close.

I think the point is that the culture in which these tests took place was a very different one from the one we are in now. They didn't carefully match anything. They played a record, then had someone sing, and no one could tell the difference. We would rather easily be able to tell now because we have experienced both, hundreds of times, throughout our live. We spend our lives learning to hear reproduced sound. They hadn't.

Thanks for the clarification, definitaly an interesting point and perspective that is rarely discussed.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
Thanks for the clarification, definitaly an interesting point and perspective that is rarely discussed.

Cheers
Orb

I tend to discuss it all the time, as a reflection of the needed self-awareness and the conscious directed 'intent to learn' that needs be present in the individual to make it to a place where such things are discernible by the individual through trail, error, empirical evidence, and whatnot.

The initial lack of exposure (of any kind, either as a thought or physical actuality) of the idea of an audio 'reproduction system' would leave people in a situation where they had no comparative basis for evaluation of the reproduction over that of the original.

Until their senses become attuned to the idea of needing to discern some given level of nuance to finally be able to discern differences--to them....until then..there will be no differences.

Audiophiles have learned, over time and personal experience, to have a internal catalog of all the cues that they themselves may have learned and ascertained, in order to use the self directed point of the human capacity for 'discerning' differences.

Each and every person decides within themselves what level and type that particular skill set may include or be centered around.

Thus differing tastes and levels of discernment among various audiophiles.

Among those who exude or have a life centered around self awareness, there tends to be a larger set or capacity to dig further into more and more of the minutiae of discernment. The reflection of one's life or gathered persona and avatar/presentation tends to indicate the capacity for the other- the capacity for discernment. Empathy tends to play heavily into this. Empathy is a key point, it is critical to human evolution and is sorely lacking in many people. One of the reasons for that is that it is a painful subject, to identify with the world's pain or the situations of others, as it forces self-observation and reflection in order to arrive at conclusions that correct the actions of the self.

Thus you can see the militant aspects of more self centered, or, one might say, 'lesser evolved aspects of personality' playing out in the idea of some people deciding within themselves and thus projecting outward that: such fine levels of discernment and or capacity in the individual are impossible.

For their self-created reflection (of themselves) at that time (and possibly for the rest of their lives), may not have the level of personal evolution to make a fully informed, or more informed decision within the self that is required to be open on the subject--instead of closed. The closure of the self comes about as a protective mechanism of the psyche as played out though the influence of the baser components of the body/mind duality with respects to 'cognitive dissonance'. Cognitive Dissonance is used throughout advertising, politics, war mongering, etc, as a weapon against the general population in order to maintain a modicum of control over man - by appealing to the beast within. Thus the reflection of society, in general, is one of not needing discernment --the use of blunt force and ignorance being contrived as the reflection of man amongst his peers (so the individual can feel comfortable in his place in the world)-- instead. The lesser evolved individual can be fooled though the lack of capacity for discernment - and usually are fooled, in the vast majority of cases.

Discernment is key to understanding and displacing one's self from such insanities. The deck is purposely stacked against the individual in manifold ways by the artifice of modern 'contrived' society.

Whatever the overall case, it is possible to say that it is 'generally acknowledged' that major components of the capacity for discernment are a combination of genetics and opportunity for the 'sparking' of such -as presented earlier in life- as formation of the fundamentals of the given individual mental organization come into play here. It should be obvious at this point that the 'herd' instinct is possibly a very bad idea to follow through on, for the given individual. Comfort does not necessarily lead to intelligence of any sort - rather the opposite. It has been said that the point in which a given individual (in their childhood) arrives at the understanding that they are a distinct individual and on their own - is the sparking point where intelligence - begins.

Thus it becomes apparent that to create intelligence in our children, we much teach them empathy and discernment at a young age, so as to cue the system for growth as opposed to mental stagnation-a stagnation which most of western society seems to be centered around. The projection of ignorance into our children as the basis of life's formation, in most cases -is a horrific reality that the more aware individuals are forced to bear. Our children are born naturally curious and open, for the greater part, and our so-called 'intelligent' adults tend to strip that openness from children in their desire to maintain their own self erected ignorance. A case of the blind fucking up the future of man. A self perpetuating nightmare - for those of us who can see it.

To understand everything, you must be open to everything.

Simple, really, but the emotional cost of such a position is high enough that the vast majority of people shun such thinking and acts of being.

'Turn the corner-face the change', is one way of saying it. Actualizing that within the self is another matter altogether.

To return to the topic of how all this fits into audio and audio reproduction..and the realization of such minutiae in man, or 'audiophiles as listeners', I will quote from a review of the Yamaha NS-1000 speakers by JGH in 1979.

It appears, though, that Yamaha may have a tough job of selling their 1000 speakers to buyers, for everyone knows that metal cones sound metallic, and since the speakers are sold without grille cloth covers