Audiology Department

[Quarky]

Yes, but what, or who exactly IS the "average" listener? One with 7 recordings of the Symphony in C or with 2? And with so many platforms for listening to Radio 3 Concerts...?

"Too much Talk"...? Well, no, more a footnote in parentheses; a necessary reminder. Just to take one example of significant differences, the dynamic range on FM is far narrower than the digital platforms such as HDs or Freeview, which themselves aren't always identical. This can affect perception of textural clarity as well as the conductor's fidelity (or lack of it) to dynamic markings.

Simply: "let us therefore mention the fact, for it seems to us worthy of record"....

What is the average listener? Well this one is pretty average.

Having listened again in a darkened room from a (much despised) Dell laptop with headphone output to a logitech amplification system, I feel the mythical average listener must have absolute clarity of reproduction, because, rather like tracing individual tiles of an intricate mosaic, he needs to hear and evaluate each note. Hopping from one note to the next, the music becomes alive. No need to bother with overall architecture.

My audio system was i felt a little weak in bringing out the colour or texture of each note, but it wasn't bad. But at least now I know what those fortunate people experience that "see" colours while listening.

[Hornspieler]

Yes, but what, or who exactly IS the "average" listener? One with 7 recordings of the Symphony in C or with 2? And with so many platforms for listening to Radio 3 Concerts...?

No, it is probably someone who is hearing the work for the first time.

"Too much Talk"...? Well, no, more a footnote in parentheses; a necessary reminder. Just to take one example of significant differences, the dynamic range on FM is far narrower than the digital platforms such as HDs or Freeview, which themselves aren't always identical. This can affect perception of textural clarity as well as the conductor's fidelity (or lack of it) to dynamic markings.

Simply: "let us therefore mention the fact, for it seems to us worthy of record"....

The "Average" listener is that music lover who listens to Radio 3 on a car stereo, an elderly FM or DAB receiver , a portable wireless in the kitchen, a pair of wireless headphones or similar everyday means of accessing the radio signals available.

Probably in excess of 90% of classical music fans, who do not spend vast sums of money on sophisticated (ie over-expensive) technical equipment.

Those whose musical appreciation is heightened by gazing rapturously at their peak performance meters and dials and measure their enjoyment in kilohertz are very much in a minority.

If there were no "average listeners" to Radio 3's output, there would be no Radio 3.

HS

I used to think that kilo bytes were wot you got from a cobra; until I discovered .....

[edashtav]

Are we not gullty of confusing that mythical beast, the "average listener", with his / her "average listening system"?

Averages (or medians, for that matter) are unhelpful.

As hs has indicated, he's talking about a probable majority who "do not spend vast sums of money on sophisticated (i.e. over-expensive) technical equipment.".

Listeners are a mongrel, inclusive breed that lassos together those who respond to rhythms and tunes through Virgil Thomson's concertgoer who like 'nice things, nicely done' to Hindemith's constructive listener who...

"while listening to the musical structure, as it unfolds before his ears, is mentally constructing parallel to it and simultaneously with it a mirrored image. Registering the composition's components as they reach him he tries to match them with their corresponding parts of his mental consruction. Or he merely surmises the composition's presumable course, and compares it with the image of a musical structure which he has stored away in his memory..." [ A Composer's World]

Attempts to create an average listener are likely to be as successful as synthesising an average games player from a set that includes those who play "Snap" and others who are Grand Chess Masters.

[Ariosto]

No, it is probably someone who is hearing the work for the first time.



The "Average" listener is that music lover who listens to Radio 3 on a car stereo, an elderly FM or DAB receiver , a portable wireless in the kitchen, a pair of wireless headphones or similar everyday means of accessing the radio signals available.

Probably in excess of 90% of classical music fans, who do not spend vast sums of money on sophisticated (ie over-expensive) technical equipment.


HS

True enough. And a lot of equipment is over-hyped and overly expensive. It's one thing to have some decent gear for recording live music etc through mics, but another to spend £10,000 on a couple of speakers plus £4,000 on an amp and £2,000 on the CD player.

I used to think that kilo bytes were wot you got from a cobra; until I discovered .....

You get kilo bites from conductors as well, and they can be poisonous as well as requiring immediate hospital treatment and a reading of the scores (in disbelief!) - just to return one to sanity ...

[Ariosto]

I would also add that there is unfortunately a lot of B/S when it comes to audio reproduction.

I've just been listening to the very, very great Ella Fitzgerald in recordings (compilation) made from the 1930's to the 1950's. There was not a single bit in sight in those days as far as recordings were concerned, and yet the sound, the clarity and balance were incredible, as was the total artistry of this extraordinary singer. We need to be reminded how fantastically good these performers and recording techniques were in those far off days. Satchmo joined her too, in a duet, and what more can I say. All I can say is, just leave out the pseudo intellectual clap trap about FM, digital bandwidth, technical B/S etc., etc.

[jayne lee wilson]

No, it is probably someone who is hearing the work for the first time.



The "Average" listener is that music lover who listens to Radio 3 on a car stereo, an elderly FM or DAB receiver , a portable wireless in the kitchen, a pair of wireless headphones or similar everyday means of accessing the radio signals available.

Probably in excess of 90% of classical music fans, who do not spend vast sums of money on sophisticated (ie over-expensive) technical equipment.

Those whose musical appreciation is heightened by gazing rapturously at their peak performance meters and dials and measure their enjoyment in kilohertz are very much in a minority.

If there were no "average listeners" to Radio 3's output, there would be no Radio 3.

HS

I used to think that kilo bytes were wot you got from a cobra; until I discovered .....

Well, it didn't take long, did it HS? I could ask you to define your terms ("over-expensive"?), but really, there's no point if you fall back on trying to mock my posts by making jokes about them.

For the record, I don't own any audio measurement equipment or software suites. I use my ears informed by (doubtless imperfect) technical awareness.
I would ask you and Ariosto how any classical recordings would have been made if there were not intelligent, musicloving men and women who used ears, technical knowledge and large amounts of lovingly-modified, high quality recording and monitoring equipment (some of which, yes, resides in this room...). Do you think they would have made fun of a listener who took these things seriously?

Whether you listen to FM, DAB, MP3, FLAC, WAV, webstreams, CD, SACD or LP, never forget: the medium is the message.

You and Ariosto are probably both sexists under the skin, but I can forgive you that.
At this point I might have "flounced out" and disappeared for a few weeks.
But don't relax yet. I think it might be more fun to stick around and annoy you with more machine-gun bursts of "irrelevant" technical data....that data without which listening at home would be impossible.

(But they'll still probably be found as a footnote, in parenthesis...)

[Thropplenoggin]

Well, it didn't take long, did it HS? I could ask you to define your terms ("over-expensive"?), but really, there's no point if you fall back on trying to mock my posts by making jokes about them.

For the record, I don't own any audio measurement equipment or software suites. I use my ears informed by (doubtless imperfect) technical awareness.
I would ask you and Ariosto how any classical recordings would have been made if there were not intelligent, musicloving men and women who used ears, technical knowledge and large amounts of lovingly-modified, high quality recording and monitoring equipment (some of which, yes, resides in this room...). Do you think they would have made fun of a listener who took these things seriously?

Whether you listen to FM, DAB, MP3, FLAC, WAV, webstreams, CD, SACD or LP, never forget: the medium is the message.

You and Ariosto are probably both sexists under the skin, but I can forgive you that.
At this point I might have "flounced out" and disappeared for a few weeks.
But don't relax yet. I think it might be more fun to stick around and annoy you with more machine-gun bursts of "irrelevant" technical data....that data without which listening at home would be impossible.

(But they'll still probably be found as a footnote, in parenthesis...)

As someone who looks forward to Jayne's posts here, whether musicological or hi-fi related, I hope she sticks around and continues to stick it to The Man (Men?) Surely, in 2014, we can desist from lazy misogyny/gender stereotypes/sexism when making our points, can't we? There are far too few women here without loyal members being driven away!

Festina lente.

[Ariosto]

"Whether you listen to FM, DAB, MP3, FLAC, WAV, webstreams, CD, SACD or LP, never forget: the medium is the message."

That's where you are in my opinion totally wrong. The medium is not the message.

In any case, accusing people of being sexist is just an easy get out. If you cannot answer points made with which you disagree then perhaps you should admit this.

But I waste time even bothering to answer you. But I think you enjoy being an "intellectual." It may impress some people on the forum, but not me I'm afraid. I don't often agree with HS, but I certainly think he is right about this.

[edashtav]

That's where you [Jayne]are in my opinion totally wrong. The medium is not the message.

I'm sorry to disagree, Ariosto, whilst I may not go all the way, the medium can enhance, or deny the mesage.

[Ariosto]

As someone who looks forward to Jayne's posts here, whether musicological or hi-fi related, I hope she sticks around and continues to stick it to The Man (Men?) Surely, in 2014, we can desist from lazy misogyny/gender stereotypes/sexism when making our points, can't we? There are far too few women here without loyal members being driven away!

Festina lente.

I don't expect you are but I would respectfully suggest that some of these remarks about gender/sexism should be directed towards Jayne. This is not a gender war, but rather a discussion about authoritative statements made about technology and Hi-Fi equipment, as well as what some may see as an over confident point of view about music and performance technique.

[Ariosto]

Audiology Department

I'm sorry to disagree, Ariosto, whilst I may not go all the way, the medium can enhance, or deny the mesage.

I respect your view, and agree it can enhance, but I would never say that it would deny the message (unless it was a case of disastrously extreme interference).

[teamsaint]

We need to cool this debate. As we age the quality of our hearing diminishes. [/I]

[/B]

Hopefully , if it must happen, in inverse proportion to the quality of our listening.


To pick up on another point, life can and does sometimes 'get in the way' of listening, hearing, getting that new system, or writing on this forum as we'll we would like to.
Or so it seems at the time.

[Ariosto]

As we age the quality of our hearing diminishes. There are parts of instrumental ranges that I, sadly, no longer hear. My organist has built a marvellous 4 -manual digital organ. When he plays the top notes of some solo ranks I can hardly hear them and, in some cases, hear nothing. I think a concern for what we used to call "hi-fi" diminishes with advancing age, too, for all too obvious reasons to the objective observer. It's important that we "diminished" hearers recognise that other may hear a far wider and brighter spectrum of sound. A time there was when I loved pieces which "showcased" orchestras, now I major in structure and content. MY LOSS!

I'm sorry if you are in this situation but I am not, and I have in recent years auditioned speakers which have shown noticeable variations in brightness and wider spectrum of sound. I also hear CD's etc that demonstrate this as well. I recently auditioned some quite expensive mics which came from various manufacturers and had different frequency responses as well as sound fields. At this time I also recorded live to test pre-amps and mics. I was able to make decisions and choices. Had I not found differences I would have bought the cheapest on offer, or maybe not bothered to make a purchase at all.

A lot of Hi-Fi equipment is sold due to the sales person putting an idea of the sound into a person's head. I usually find that particularly when purchasing speakers you need some CD's which you know very well and which will demonstrate how you want them to sound. Often very bright speakers are suggested, and then if purchased you have to live with this. (It could also be speakers with a pronounced bass response of course).

[edashtav]

I respect your view, and agree it can enhance, but I would never say that it would deny the message (unless it was a case of disastrously extreme interference).

It doesn't have to be extreme to deny the message, Ariosto.

Let me take a real example from my own experience over the last 3 weeks. My adult Choir ( a good ensemble but including voices of differing competence) performed in two small rural churches, once for a Deanery Evensong, and later for a Good Friday "Meditation". Some of our music performed in A were later repeated in B.

Church A was a Geogian shoebox with wonderful acoustics, singers could hear themselves, other voices and our small portable keyboard. Two items sounded wonderful, were completely in tune and I, the conductor, felt completely in charg,e being able to mould attack, phrasing, tempo and dynamics, at will. The audience / congregation were impressed.

Church B is not unsympathetic but singers in the back pews can't easily hear those in front and vice-versa. The organ is away being rebuilt and we rely, once again, on a small keyboard. The poor organist can see, but not hear us. And those two pieces? They fell flat (literally).
This is the report that I wrote for the Choir on Friday Evening:
Some folk are relying too much on being led / corrected by the organ. Active listening to other parts is a necessity, plus self-criticism (Can I, should "bend" the note that I'm singing so that it's more in alignment with others on my part and other voices who are singing?) With less of a lead coming from the small keyboard, these voices departed from the script and, oh dear, took a few prisoners with them as they went native in the bush.

The singers were identical, there had been two more rehearsals before the music was repeated in Church B. But, the performances In B were a lot worse despite great efforts by individuals and much semaphore from their conductor.

I do feel that the different acoustics [ medium ] denied amateur singers the opportunity to produce a second set of outstanding performances. Professionals, possibly, would not have been affected but my Choir was.
[/I]

Similarly, the range of receiving apparatus used by R.3 listeners is vast. I expect that you accept that listening to a percussion concerto on a tinny tranny is unlikely to be a wholesome experience, Ariosto.

[Ariosto]

It doesn't have to be extreme to deny the message, Ariosto.

Let me take a real example from my own experience over the last 3 weeks. My adult Choir ( a good ensemble but including voices of differing competence) performed in two small rural churches, once for a Deanery Evensong, and later for a Good Friday "Meditation". Some of our music performed in A were later repeated in B.

Church A was a Geogian shoebox with wonderful acoustics, singers could hear themselves, other voices and our small portable keyboard. Two items sounded wonderful, were completely in tune and I, the conductor, felt completely in charg,e being able to mould attack, phrasing, tempo and dynamics, at will. The audience / congregation were impressed.

Church B is not unsympathetic but singers in the back pews can't easily hear those in front and vice-versa. The organ is away being rebuilt and we rely, once again, on a small keyboard. The poor organist can see, but not hear us. And those two pieces? They fell flat (literally).
This is the report that I wrote for the Choir on Friday Evening:
Some folk are relying too much on being led / corrected by the organ. Active listening to other parts is a necessity, plus self-criticism (Can I, should "bend" the note that I'm singing so that it's more in alignment with others on my part and other voices who are singing?) With less of a lead coming from the small keyboard, these voices departed from the script and, oh dear, took a few prisoners with them as they went native in the bush.

The singers were identical, there had been two more rehearsals before the music was repeated in Church B. But, the performances In B were a lot worse despite great efforts by individuals and much semaphore from their conductor.

I do feel that the different acoustics [ medium ] denied amateur singers the opportunity to produce a second set of outstanding performances. Professionals, possibly, would not have been affected but my Choir was.
[/I]

Similarly, the range of receiving apparatus used by R.3 listeners is vast. I expect that you accept that listening to a percussion concerto on a tinny tranny is unlikely to be a wholesome experience, Ariosto.

This actually makes my point.

Professional recording producers/engineers have long since said that to make a good recording there are several factors involved. In order of importance -

1. A good work/musical piece
2. A good performer
3. A good accoustic (Hall or whatever)
4. Mic placement
5. Mics used
6. Pre-amp used

They go on to say that the first four items are all very important, but number 5 and 6 have very much less effect on the result.

So yes, I would agree that a good accoustic is important for the performance as are the music and the performer. Poor music and performance will never be improved by the other factors.

Also, I did not recommend listening to music on a tinny transister radio, but rather passable equipment that can deliver some sort of fidelity. Having said that some things sound pretty good on my DAB radio which cost £30. Great perfomers still sound good on most things. You don't need to spend the crazy prices on fancy gear that some people have thought was necessary, even essential, to appreciate recorded or broadcast music. But bringing sexism into the discussion is just not very intellgent, and to continue the argument to an even more vitriolic level on another unrelated thread makes me worried about self control.