Dayglo,
Very interesting post, thanks.
I have the same experience with scores as well. The brain hears more when it knows what to listen for.
I remember how much more I heard in a Bach Fugue that I played once I finished the course in 18th century counterpint.
It makes perfect sense to me that the microphones became more distinguishable after time.
This phenomena could shed light on the potential limitations of blind testing if it's the only criteria used to evaluate differences in components.
BTW where did you study music? Did you study conducting? Just curious if that what the score reading was from.
My degree is in Clasical guitar
Tom
tomjtx,
I studied classical privately with a concert violinist for many years during my teens, then studied in college in Quebec ( it's called CEGEP there). The courses were full immersion, we studied music theory, composition, 1st and secondary instruments ( mine was classical guitar, and piano ), I also took a jazz workshop. We had some other interesting classes, music kinesiology, music history. The class where we did" the listen with scores "thing was called music appreciation. It was very cool. They had a great program there, the atmosphere was very cool. During that time I got to see a lot of concerts, we had a great auditorium there that had concerts all the time.
Yeah, the Bach stuff is very involved. He always has a lot of counterpoint going on. The Bach
Inventions are really cool to listen to, and have a lot of counterpoint going on.
There is a lot more to the phenomenon of break in than the properties of wires. It's got a lot to do with human perception. That's what I try to suggest to people. It doesn't mean some people are incapable of hearing it. It's just once your exposed to it properly, then you identify it more easily, and more consistently. When I first started recording many years ago, I couldn't hear differences in certain things. I don't think I could hear the subtle differences in microphones today as well as I could when I lived and breathed recording and performing. Your example of sight singing is a great one.
I believe what you mention regarding the inconsistencies in DBT, or ABX is very true. I think there are limitations due to human error for any number of reasons. I don't see it being worth anyones while to do an exhaustive study, so I think the debate will always exist.
There are a lot of electrical engineer types who have posted data on the inductance, capacitance and resistance figures which vary wildly from cable to cable. So scientifically and measurably there are differences. But then people say they don't make a sonic difference. To me, it doesn't add up. Then all amplifiers should sound the same, all drivers should sound the same. All microphones should sound the same, blah, blah, blah....
This whole topic for me is just one of general curiosity, I don't obsess about it. I have simple OFC speaker cables, nothing esoteric. I have some new IC's on a trial period, I will for the sake of argument, let them run for a few weeks in my system and compare them to my old ones, as well as a pair of well known IC's that a buddy has. I will choose what I like, then that's it. I might try some speaker cable stuff, but will not go crazy with it either.
I will be auditioning a bunch of amps in the near future and see if there is something that I might like a lot better than what I have now. I'm hoping that it won't be something that will require me to endlessly experiment with tube rolling and all that stuff. If I find something that's 9/10's of such a system but is solid state, and/or is just plug in and play, that's what I'll go with. I couldn't be bothered to endlessly pursue that last 1/10th.
Room treatment for me is going to be an area that I will spend a considerable amount of time and effort on. That is where I have found the largest gains to be found in sound reproduction quality.
Cheers
