From: quaglia@seas.smu.edu (Bruce Quaglia)
Subject: Re: *My* clueless opinion!
Organization: SMU School Of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:33:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.173634.1810@bvc.edu> bowers@bvc.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug4.135408.22707@access.digex.com> jamie@access.digex.com (James Treworgy) writes:
>
>
>>>>Why is that any different than basing your opinion on actual shows which
>>>>you attended? In my experience I have found that the band's performance on
>>>>tapes of shows is very similar to the performance at the actual show it was
>>>>a tape of.  Uncanny, huh?
>
>> 
>> I agree that the show is different from the tape.  But the *music* is the
>> same.  Indisputably the show is going to be different, but this has to do
>> with such factors as: your mood, the weather, the energy of the crowd,
>> and the current state of your neurons.  So while I might have an incredible
>> time at an average show I still think its perfectly fair to base an opinion
>> of the performance on a good-quality tape.  It's a little easier to be
>> objective than when you are raging at a show.
>> -- 
>> James A. Treworgy
>> jamie@digex.com
>
>ACtually, the music may be the same, but the sound is not.  Microphones and 
>ears hear sound in quite different ways, plus the fact that your ears (
>hopefully) are connected directly to your brain which interprets and 
>filters what it hears quite unconsciously.  Example: compare your 
>experience of listening to someone over a telephone versus listening to a 
>tape of that same conversation.  The words are the same....the dialogue is 
>the same...but the sound quality is radically different. When you listen to 
>a phone your brain will supply frequencies that are not really present in 
>the transmission, based upon what it knows about the characterisitcs of 
>human speech. But in the taped version, you'll notice how "tinny" the phone 
>voice sounds....not at all what you remebered hearing.
>
It really doesn't have much to do with the characteristics of human speech.
The human ear has the amazing ability to resupply missing information such
as the fundamental tones and lower partials based upon the upper partials
which are the only one that the telephone's transducer can transmit.
We recognize speech due to the characteristic formants involved in the
different phonemes but that doesn't really have much to do with telephones.

>
<bunch of stuff about microphones vs ears deleted>

>Hence, there is quite a large difference between recorded experience and in
>-the-flesh experience.  Generally, I have found that in a live setting, the 
>tremendous amount of reflected sound tends to soften or blend the ensemble 
>in ways that direct recording cannot without a lot of mixing.  Some of this 
>blending can be captured by mics in the audience, but not in quite the same 
>mix that your ears (and brain) will percieve.
>
   All of what you say is basically true, but other things such as where
   you stand at a show etc. also effects the sound. However, none of this
   really impacts upon the music, just on the sound. If you feel one
   way about the music AT the show, and another when you listen to the
   tape, then it's just a matter of your subjective experience at the
   show <ie. were you having a good time>, and doesn`t really have anything
   to do with the music as such. <Unless you mislabeled your tape and are
   not listening to the same show>. The music isn't any different, and as
   far as the sound quality goes, if your an audio-phile you're gonna
   care how well the tape is made, but you're never gonna think it sounds
   better than the live sound that it came from <unless a: you had bad
   seats with a poor acoustic profile and your tape was made from where
   it should have been; or b: you cut out the tunes you really don't care
   for>.
   Anyway....
>The question "Is it live or is it Memorex" (which is after all what we've 
>be debating here) is probably not the right question.  Reality is, after 
>all, largely a matter of interpretation and the means of interpreting (or 
>remembering, or experiencing) each have their own limitations and advantages.
>Each is relaible in it's own way, but neither is truly infallible or 
>"objective".  
>
Yep.

Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead