> Robert Wright wrote: Is there any way to tell this sort of thing, other than by ear?
I understand exactly what you are describing. Kudos to you for having reproducers, record quality and above all, the listening skills to be able to detect it and grab hold! Most folks have been conditioned/trained to listen to sound level and relative frequency response, and most are sensitive to harmonic distortion content. Most really have no interest beyond that, and that is fine. 99% of humanity falls into that classification. Enter the audiophile mindset: The sorts of acoustic phenomena that you are describing involve more advanced listening skills: namely, the brain's profound interest in discerning and VERBOSELY analyzing phase components associated within a given complex sound, in addition to level, frequency response, etc. The ears, though they are organic, are unbelievably gifted at hearing sound. But hearing and listening are two different things. The brain is the most superb machine for analyzing the sound that each ear, as well as both ears combined, perceive. Because it is highly subjective, describing that analysis to someone else is often very difficult, if not impossible. Nevertheless, you might find that a Fourier analysis of your recordings might help your eyes see what your ears are perceiving. Even so, Fourier analysis, despite the sophisticated trigonometry, integral calculus, and numerical integration employed, will but give you a snapshot. I promise it won't show you everything that your ears hear, but it will graphically show something of the complexity of sound in a time domain that you can visualize. If you want more input on the subject I would be happy to send it along to you directly because I know that subjects like this one and the depth involved get very boring to most folks in an open forum. Walt p.s. Are you in near proximity to MIT? I thought you were - I could be wrong. Robert Wright wrote: > I wonder how different each master sounded from a session where a bank of machines were recording a given performance simultaneously. Judging from the Chalmers cylinder I've mentioned, it was from the horn directly in front of Chalmers' face (great presence, very little ambiance), while the Romain cylinder sounds like the horn farthest from the singer (very little directness, much horn resonance and ambient information). Is there any way to tell this sort of thing, other than by ear? > > > Best, > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.29/2024 - Release Date: 03/26/09 07:12:00 >
