[ktm]

This is why I don't normally get into these discussions.
There can be  overlap in sound, but for the most part tubes and SS are different designs.
And the difference in how they do their job are audible.
Both my SS and tube amp sound good, but what they sound best with differs.
I had 7 sets of speakers in the house at one time, and I tried all sorts of combos until I had
what I thought was the best sound. I finally got down to a couple sets of speakers, then lost my 2 channel room
due to my youngest son moving back home. Good thing I had some good headphones.
I've got an exstata hybrid and a srm-1mkII. They don't sound the same, either.
I don't consider either to be better, Unfortunately it means I couldn't bear to sell either one.
Throwing money at gear doesn't always make for improvement. But I certainly hear differences between amps.
And even more so with preamps, The most expensive preamp I tried was a Halcro.. Hated it. Kept a
preamp that was a fraction of the price. The owner of the Halcro sold it on ebay for many times the price
I could of had it for. I fully understand why many here don't believe in pricey gear. Too much hype, too much money.

 

[mike1127]

I am confident that any person who learns to play Mozart well, in particular differentiating rhythmic qualities of different phrases, will become interested in how accurately microphones and speakers (as well as recording acoustics, etc.) reproduce their thoughtful and artistically mature understanding of what makes Mozart's rhythm delightful.

 

[bigshot]

What you're calling rhythm is better referred to as dynamics. Dynamics are adjusted in the mix using compression. Digital audio has incredibly accurate and broad dynamics.

Frequency response balance in the range of bass drums and snare drums can also affect the way rhythm is reproduced. That's what gives drum hits punch.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

What you're calling rhythm is better referred to as dynamics. Dynamics are adjusted in the mix using compression. Digital audio has incredibly accurate and broad dynamics.
Frequency response balance in the range of bass drums and snare drums can also affect the way rhythm is reproduced. That's what gives drum hits punch.

I am confident that if you learned to perform the nuances of both rhythm and dynamics in, say, a piano sonata of Mozart's, you would agree that quality of rhythm is important (the word "quality" refers to a things we mainly don't have words for) and that refinement of dynamics are important too, and that these are distinct concepts. Forget digital versus analog. We are talking about speakers and microphones and acoustics. I am confident you would discover the wonder of clearly communicating small shades of dynamic change, as well as the way that both a whisper and a thunderclap can have expressive power.

 

[bigshot]

I'm telling you the aspects of sound reproduction that are responsible for creating the effect you describe. It's three things... The performance of the musician, the compression of the soundmixer, and the frequency response of your stereo system.

 

[mikeaj]

I've heard plenty of different rhythms—in say, a Mozard piano sonata or something else—between different performances, different parts of the same performance, different performers in the same performance that are supposed to be playing together yet aren't really, etc.
 
but never from different audio playback gear.
 
Sure, there can be small differences in timing, some smearing of some sounds, maybe some ringing artifacts created by the playback mechanism, and so on, but for that to affect something on as long as a time scale as musical rhythm...?  I mean, a 32nd note at 180 bpm (assuming quarter note beat, so 1/8th of a really fast beat of 1/3 of a second) is 41.67 ms long.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

I'm telling you the aspects of sound reproduction that are responsible for creating the effect you describe. It's three things... The performance of the musician, the compression of the soundmixer, and the frequency response of your stereo system.

"Performance of the musician" is not part of the system we are evaluating. It's the input to the system. We need to get this clear. You need to distinguish between the system and the input.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

I've heard plenty of different rhythms—in say, a Mozard piano sonata or something else—between different performances, different parts of the same performance, different performers in the same performance that are supposed to be playing together yet aren't really, etc.
 
but never from different audio playback gear.
 
Sure, there can be small differences in timing, some smearing of some sounds, maybe some ringing artifacts created by the playback mechanism, and so on, but for that to affect something on as long as a time scale as musical rhythm...?  I mean, a 32nd note at 180 bpm (assuming quarter note beat, so 1/8th of a really fast beat of 1/3 of a second) is 41.67 ms long.

It sounds like you are talking about "tempo" and/or the markings on the page (the pattern of quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc.). I'm talking about the quality of the rhythm, the feel of it. This is something not in the sheet music. As a composer I am vividly aware of that.

 

[mikeaj]

Quote:

It sounds like you are talking about "tempo" and/or the markings on the page (the pattern of quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc.). I'm talking about the quality of the rhythm, the feel of it. This is something not in the sheet music. As a composer I am vividly aware of that.

 
Rhythm has to do with relative timing, which I addressed.  To relate relative timing to fixed time units like seconds, you need to know the tempo, which is why I gave a pretty fast one as an example.
 
If by "rhythm" you mean something more like "quality of the rhythm [meaning...?]" or "feel [perception of?]", then be more specific about it.  Sure, perceptions of whatever can be influenced by aspects not really relating to the rhythm itself.  If you're going to include details of articulation and dynamiics, timbre shifts, or whatever else is making an effect, then mention those things.
 
Or are you implying that different playback gear can have significant enough differences as to impact the timing of when notes start (by any non-trivial amount), or something along those lines?

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 

 
Or are you implying that different playback gear can have significant enough differences as to impact the timing of when notes start (by any non-trivial amount), or something along those lines?

 
Not implying that. It might be part of the feel of the rhythm in some cases, and not others.
 
Quote:

 
 
If by "rhythm" you mean something more like "quality of the rhythm [meaning...?]" or "feel [perception of?]", then be more specific about it.  Sure, perceptions of whatever can be influenced by aspects not really relating to the rhythm itself.  If you're going to include details of articulation and dynamiics, timbre shifts, or whatever else is making an effect, then mention those things.
 

 
 
I am confident that if you spent thousands of hours learning to conduct an orchestra, you would become intrigued by the difference in feel between the rhythm of Dudamel and the rhythm of Esa-Pekka Salonen, and that you would begin to appreciate just how far beyond words these differences are, yet how vital they are to getting the music to sound right to you. I am willing to bet you would discover that the feel is something perceived holistically rather than as separate components.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

 
I am confident that if you spent thousands of hours learning to conduct an orchestra, you would become intrigued by the difference in feel between the rhythm of Dudamel and the rhythm of Esa-Pekka Salonen, and that you would begin to appreciate just how far beyond words these differences are, yet how vital they are to getting the music to sound right to you. I am willing to bet you would discover that the feel is something perceived holistically rather than as separate components.

Listening since the mid 1950's, hanging with serious Jazz musicians for some years now and attending countless live performances, yes I have a pretty good feel and appreciation of the subtleties of music, its performance and its playback.
 
Since everything you are discussing is evident in a low rez mp3 of a 1930's orchestra, what is your point? These qualities would require terrible recording and playback to be masked from the listener. Fidelity in any normally encountered sense is not an issue here. Even terrible mike placement would recede or advance the loudness of a musician and his instrument, but it could not mask the aspects of the performance you are alluding to.
 
This is like PRaT. Those aspects of music are fully embedded in the simplest recordings. Fidelity is about detail of frequency response, lack of noise and distortion, and freedom from time based errors. None of which affect expression as performed by musicians re: feel, as you put it. That is frankly why Ethan thought you did not understand the process of audio. PRaT, expression and feel have nothing to do with audio reproduction unless is so botched as to be almost unintelligible.
 
Try heavy Jazz. You could have recorded Coltrane or Bill Evans through a wall and from under a bushel basket, and a listener would know in three notes who it was. Stop talking to us like we just fell off a truck full of turnips.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
Since everything you are discussing is evident in a low rez mp3 of a 1930's orchestra, what is your point?
 

And you know this how?

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

And you know this how?

Because if all I can get of a performance is a 96mp3 from the 1930's, that is what I listen to. It's called experience, and you are not the only one on this website that has it in abundance.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Because if all I can get of a performance is a 96mp3 from the 1930's, that is what I listen to.

This is not a contest about who has more experience, but certainly people have different experience. You appear to have different experience than me. You have different tastes than me, no doubt. You have probably spent your time listening to different patterns than I have.
 
[EDIT: I can see that by putting "thousands of hours" I made it seem like it's about having *more* experience, but I am sure most people on this website have thousands of hours experience with music. What's more relevant is the specific thing I was mentioning .. so for example, performing a Mozart sonata with emphasis on differentiating rhythmic quality. And the essential point is that different people have different experience so they hear different patterns.]
 
You didn't answer my question. Let's start with the first half of your statement. You referred to "all the aspects I am discussing." Why don't you define "all the aspects I am discussing" so we can see if we are on the same page.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Look. I have to go to bed so I can get up for work. I'm not going to discuss anything now. But, to answer, read your own recent posts, as I have. You have been going on about stuff like this:
 
Quote:

I am confident that if you spent thousands of hours learning to conduct an orchestra, you would become intrigued by the difference in feel between the rhythm of Dudamel and the rhythm of Esa-Pekka Salonen, and that you would begin to appreciate just how far beyond words these differences are, yet how vital they are to getting the music to sound right to you. I am willing to bet you would discover that the feel is something perceived holistically rather than as separate components.

It seems to escape you that many, many long time listeners of music know exactly what you are talking about. What you have been doing is assuming that when someone does not agree with your take on these matters and their importance or lack of it in this thread topic, that they do not understand what you are trying to tell them. This is not the case as far as I can see with most who have responded to you. They just don't agree at all with your ideas. I don't either and have said so. I have read everything you have posted here and I really don't think YOU understand how this all works. I have stated why I feel that way, and I am probably not going to respond much to you beating what is now a dead horse. I have said my peace, and you can continue on without me. Frankly, you are starting to come off as arrogant and condescending. Changing your tone may win you more converts here than continually assuming they don't understand you. Nothing personal.