From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:201708031035198165-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > Because some people claim they can tell the difference between one from   
   > another.  Some people claim they can hear the difference in sound between   
   > two sources due to those sources using different technology the produce   
   > exactly the same results.   
      
   There's a much easier and quicker way - a simple A-B test...it was a common   
   way for evaluating speakers, and anything else audio for that matter.   
   A rather profound experience for me was when I was able to attend a NAMM   
   show at Chicago's McCormick Place many years ago...and an Elka X-50   
   clonewheel B3 with its built-in, what my have very well been the best Leslie   
   simulator around at the time, was played A-B comparison style against a Real   
   Hammond B3 running through a Real Leslie 122.   
   There was a discernable difference in the  sound...BUT...the ONLY way to   
   detect it was to A-B compare them, meaning that essentially, Elka had   
   'nailed' the sound...of Both the B3 AND the Leslie!   
      
   > A pie baked in an electic oven tastes different from one baked in a gas   
   > oven.   
      
   > Some house paint stirred by hand looks better than that same can shaken on   
   > an electric paint mixer.   
      
   > tube amps sound better ( more real )  than modelers .....   
      
   > A recording of an organ sounds better than a recording of organ .......   
      
   > It's all fine to say. In the real world, paint is paint, sound is sound,   
   > and no one, no one can tell from looking at a painted wall what color the   
   > stir stick used to mix that paint was .... or listening to a record,   
   > whether the guitar was played thru a real amp or a line 6 pod.   
      
   Just A-B them...nice and simple.   
      
   > Or whether you used a real B3 or the one in my macbook.   
      
   Now that should be interesting.   
      
   > Live, if you want to see all that gear, by all means, lug one around. But   
   > sound wise .... that argument was settled a long time ago.   
      
   Accurate sound is what I'm after.   
      
   > maintance is a cost.   
      
   Of course, but that's a part of keeping equipment in proper working order.   
      
   > computers do fail. but, seriously, if I had an old tube amp, would it be   
   > any more reliable ?   Doubt it.   
      
   If it was robustly designed and built, particularly long ago in better days   
   when there was still this thing called INTEGRITY on the  part of   
   manufacturers, it'll be reliable and then some...and the same *could* also   
   be said for computers *if* they too, were robustly designed and   
   manufactured...which tragically, is usually not the case.   
      
   > One reason it doesn't matter if computers fail is that the technology is   
   > progressing so fast that it's actually better to replace a 5 year old   
   > system than to fix it.   
      
   Yeah, as in "Ending is better than mending", from BRAVE NEW WORLD!!!   
      
   NO THANKS!!!   
      
   > Fix it and you have a working old system. Replace it and you have a far   
   > better, more capable system.   
      
   But how do you actually know that?   
      
   > Unless what you do is so easy that better tools don't matter.  Surf the   
   > web, read email.   
      
   That's one aspect of it all...just how necessary it is to actually justify   
   complicating things.   
      
   > What I do with these, better is better.  Better software, faster song   
   > setups, far better all around. And that comes at a cost.  That's how the   
   > world works.   
      
   Like a cost in reliability?   
      
   > It can. Easy.   
      
   If it passes an A-B test, then no problem.   
      
   > I can't.   
      
   If the sound is that accurately simulated, then that's all that matters.   
      
   > Actually, here's a thought. You know this stuff.  How would you go about   
   > telling the difference ?    Seriously, how would you do it. If I gave you   
   > a twin, or a princton, and  a POD, or Logic running in a mac, and said,   
   > can you tell which is which.   
      
   I'd A-B compare them through critical listening.   
      
   > The POD has to be connected to a sound system. They aren't amplifiers.   
   > They are made to connect to recording consoles or to line out to a pa   
   > system.  So do you mic the amp, line in the POD and then see if you can   
   > tell which is which in a blind test ?   
      
   Just so long as the  test would maintain consistency throughout the   
   comparison in such a way as to provide an identical environment for each   
   device being evaluated, which would effectively limit any variables to only   
   the devices specifically being tested.   
      
   > Or record them both, try to hear some difference ?   
      
   If that would ensure consistency, yes.   
      
   > I wasn't trying to throw out snob names.   
      
   No, I wasn't referring to that, but rather to the use of 'fancy' words and   
   terms to Hype a product...another sleazy advertising ploy ;)   
      
   > I'm fascinated that you seem to believe you can hear something that is   
   > incapable of being captured by modern recording technology.   
      
   It's based on a very simple principle...a living person will ultimately be   
   listening to whatever it is that is being considered, not some nonliving   
   device, so while all those devices, equipment, apparatus, etc. have their   
   place, the evaluation Must in the Final Analysis, be a critical listening   
   evaluation by a Real Live Person.   
      
   > I have a friend who thinks he can hear the differences between various   
   > high end mics.  That fascinates me.  He hears things that just - simply -   
   > aren't - there. It's amazing. What he " hears "  is the name on the unit   
   > and the price he paid. Nothing more, nothing less.   
      
   Those are destructive factors and I NEVER consider them when I'm performing   
   a critical listening test evaluation, because the psychology of sensation is   
   often very easily influenced by such things, resulting in Inaccurate results   
   due to the introduction of BIAS.   
   That's what I meant previously when I mentioned that I'm not impressed with   
   names, prices, or fancy jargon hype.   
      
   > I have a cousin who golfs. He often says a bad golfer can buy the best   
   > clubs out there, but he'll still be a hack.   
      
   Absolutely! Same with shooting...when the target isn't being consistently   
   hit as it should be, the number 3 problem is that it could be a bad gun, the   
   number 2 problem is that it could be bad ammo, and the number 1 problem is   
   almost always that it IS a bad shooter!   
      
   > They say that when your life is nearing its end, you often regret time   
   > wasted.   I dunno.  How much time wasted is too much, or too little to   
   > matter ?   
      
   ANY wasted time is TOO MUCH!!!   
      
   > Hey, I'm going biking.  It's a nice day, and they should be tearing down   
   > the last of my old school.  Or maybe I'll find a garage sale :-)   
      
   Jim   
      
   That's what I should do...biking, maybe tomorrow ;)   
      
   Ouisie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)