The Tyranny of Pop Music

[jean]

I...really have better things to do than to pick over the bits where Natty says he doesn't need to know anything about acoustics, compression, the broadcast process, phase etc etc...

I'm not going to look for them again either, but I do think it's possible for a listener to have an idea of what they want to hear without being fully ionformed about how it might be achieved, and leave it to the technician to come up with the solutions.

(And I'd still like to know what you mean by really. You know why I'm asking, don't you?)

[jean]

It clearly isn't the right word
But I don't think he agrees with you...

We don't know - he hasn't said

(nor do the folks that Bryn linked to)

Presumably not, since they used it in the first place. However, that doesn't mean they've chosen the best word for what they want to say.

If they read this discusstion, they might change their minds.

What do you think of their choice of word in that context?

[MrGongGong]

I'm not going to look for them again either, but I do think it's possible for a listenter to have an idea of what they want to hear without being fully ionformed about how it might be achieved, and leave it to the technician to come up with the silotions.

Yes, but being wilfully ignorant of things that would enable one to have clarity seems a bit churlish to me.

(And I'd still like to know what you mean by really. You know why I'm asking, don't you?)

More micro-textual analysis?
What I meant was I don't think an informed discussion about volume (including important aspects like compression, spatial illusion etc etc) isn't going to happen here.

I've been listening to this today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adUkYPkPhRg

Alvin knows shad loads about this stuff.

[MrGongGong]

What do you think of their choice of word in that context?

I think they are confused (not that I am the person who knows all this stuff, hence my links to those who DO)
BUT probably make wonderful recordings that I would enjoy.
So, maybe we can benefit from their confusion?

[NatBalance]

We don't know - he hasn't said

Well, 'natural' might not be the best word, but I can't think of another at the moment.

[doversoul1]

No. I am reiterating what I said earlier, that 'natural isn't the right word for what we are or might be talking about.'

Thank you

And it is quite possible (paradoxical as it may seem) to have an ordinary everyday understanding of realism and realistic without bothering too much about what reality may be.

Of course it is possible but an ordinary everyday understanding of such matter is infinitely different from individual to individual. That is why we need to say what we mean if we want to discuss the matter, and to do that, knowing that there are many different ways of thinking and saying it does help.

You do appear to me to be telling Nat that he is not qualified to have this sort of understanding unless he's boned up on the philosophy

I am saying Nat will be much better qualified to discuss the subject he is so keen on talking about if he becomes aware of different ways of looking at the matter rather than being stuck in his own thinking. And I expect it will help to boarden his ordinary everyday understanding, too.

As for the use of Natural in Bryn’s link, it’s a marketing piece and not a technical article. Obviously they picked the best sounding word.

NatBalance

Well, 'natural' might not be the best word, but I can't think of another at the moment.

If you can’t find another word, why don’t you try to explain what you mean by ‘natural’?

[NatBalance]

If you can’t find another word, why don’t you try to explain what you mean by ‘natural’?

I thought I had. It's natural for an orchestra (at forte) to be louder than a little acoustic folk group or string quartet (at forte). It is natural for an orchestra at full volume to be louder than the spoken word. In other words, that's the way it is.

I know you didn't want me to answer your post #589 about the model analogy but …. tough ….. you're getting a summarised answer. I just feel I must point out that I think you were getting mixed up with scientific models. Scientific and experimental models are different in that they consentrate on a certain aspect. Also I would just like to state that when I listen to an orchestra I am not really listening to it as a whole, I am to a certain extent, but I am mainly listening to it as a collection of instruments. That is why I want to hear the violin just as clearly when it is part of an orchestra as when it is part of a string quartet. On the other hand I would not expect to hear an oboe, for instance, the same when part of an orchestra as when giving a solo performance because the oboe is not front stage when part of an orchestra. The violin is front stage in both string quartet, folk group, and orchestra (normally).

[MrGongGong]

I thought I had. It's natural for an orchestra (at forte) to be louder than a little acoustic folk group or string quartet (at forte). It is natural for an orchestra at full volume to be louder than the spoken word. In other words, that's the way it is.
.

Reading this kind of stuff is exactly what makes me suggest you learn a bit more about acoustics and sound.
If I explained what was misunderstood in what you say here you would simply dismiss it.
It isn't "the way it is" at all.

[doversoul1]

NatBalance
Re: ‘natural’
I meant what you meant by the word ‘natural’, and not what you thought was natural.

Re: my post #589.
If you were going to say something about it, the least you could have done was to look at the title of the article even if you couldn’t bother to read it.

As for an orchestra, I don’t care in the least how you listen to it. I was pointing out that, unlike a train, music is not a measurable physical entity.

[NatBalance]

As for an orchestra, I don’t care in the least how you listen to it. I was pointing out that, unlike a train, music is not a measurable physical entity.

I think this is going into too much detail. For a model railway it is best that you take measurements and not rely just on your eyes but as you point out, taking measurements of audio can be misleading. I'm not advocating taking measurements in order to get volumes at a more natural balance on the radio / TV and recordings. I didn't need to measure the decibels at Thursday night's performance to know that the spoken word was over reinforced relative to the music.

[MrGongGong]

I think this is going into too much detail..

How can you be sure that YOUR ears (and BRAIN) are the ones to trust?

How do we know that you didn't play in an orchestra in the 1970's sitting in front of the trumpets so have very little high end hearing left?

What do you know about how db measurements work?

and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[NatBalance]

How can you be sure that YOUR ears (and BRAIN) are the ones to trust?

Well, if I do have a hearing problem I've had it all my life. And what about the measurements Bryn took of the difference in volume between Clemency's spoken words and the Frank Martin choral piece at full volume? The choir attained an increase of 4.5 - 7.5dB at their loudest. I'm not sure what that means really. Does not sound very much at all compared to the difference between the real things. Isn't it a bit like saying 2 million people smoke in the UK? Don't you really need a percentage figure or ratio?

[jean]

Reading this kind of stuff is exactly what makes me suggest you learn a bit more about acoustics and sound.
If I explained what was misunderstood in what you say here you would simply dismiss it.

Why don't you try, then?

Even if just thinking about volume in itself isn't all that's required to make meaningful distinctions between an orchestra and an acoustic folk group or string quartet, wouldn't it be most people's observaton that the orchestra was the loudest?

...Also I would just like to state that when I listen to an orchestra...I am mainly listening to it as a collection of instruments. That is why I want to hear the violin just as clearly when it is part of an orchestra as when it is part of a string quartet. On the other hand I would not expect to hear an oboe, for instance, the same when part of an orchestra as when giving a solo performance because the oboe is not front stage when part of an orchestra. The violin is front stage in both string quartet, folk group, and orchestra (normally).

The oboe's sound is more penetrating, which is why it's positioned behind the strings in an orchestra. You think you're hearing less volume from it but that's only because you've seen it and you know where it is.

That's a guess, and probably quite wrong. But if the people who really know could trouble themselves to explain these things clearly instead of waving loftily in the direction of some expert somewhere else, it might help understanding.

.

[jean]

...I was pointing out that, unlike a train, music is not a measurable physical entity.

I should think a physicist could measure it, couldn't they?

Though I'd agree that it isn't a tangible object (unless it's a sound sculpture).

[ahinton]

the difference in volume between Clemency's spoken words

...probably always too high for me, "natural" or otherwise"...