Ummm because its more likely I know what an oboe should sound like on a very good recording more than a bass head that listens to EDM only.
Given that extreme, then very probably. However there’s two obvious points: Firstly, who is more likely to know what an oboe on a particular recording should sound like; you or another audiophile, a rock drummer, a professional sitar player or, the engineer who recorded it (or another engineer who works in the orchestral field), a conductor, a classical composer, a classical producer, an oboe maker, an orchestral venue acoustician, etc.? Even given your specific example of an oboe, then the “
pro acoustic musicians” and “
audiophiles with live acoustic music experience” are not a “
good idea” or at least not as good as others would be.
Secondly, using your same examples but flipping the question around, who is more likely to know what a non-acoustic bass “
should sound like” or notice features of a non-acoustic bass, you or the bass head who listens to EDM? Not all music is acoustic and features an oboe, if fact the opposite, the vast majority of consumed music recordings are not of purely acoustic ensembles featuring an oboe, the vast majority features a non-acoustic bass!
I am not interested in suppressing the opinions of others per se, however, I believe the sub sets I have identified are likely to yield results closer to what my perceptions are than a wad.
How is a suggested testing methodology that eliminates/ignores certain other demographic groups not effectively “
suppressing the opinions of others”? And, the Harmon curve is a test based on the preference of humans, not a test of your personal perceptions. It would not be a “good idea” to base a test on your personal perceptions or to bias a test so it “
yields results closer to what your perceptions are” except for you personally and why would anyone apart from you fund a test/study specific to your personal perceptions?
[1] Trying to suck me into a straw man argument..... [2] I posit that different self identified sub groups would end up with different results. [3] I would place more trust in the ones I specified, but, I would still verify by ear the accuracy of the settings.
1. I did not employ a strawman argument, I used your argument just taken to it’s logical conclusion.
2. And yet they don’t! The scientific evidence indicates age, gender and to a limited extent trained listening are the differentiators, not the sub groups you posit, with the latter more in terms of consistency rather than preferences.
3. You can place trust in whatever you want but in this subforum we obviously place trust in the scientific evidence or at least more trust than in what an audiophile posits, especially when their own example contradicts what they’ve posited!
The Hall is the same (basically), of course the players and composer are different.
The hall is the same but the sound is not, it varies very significantly depending on the location within that same hall. So, that’s none of the determining variables that “experience of live acoustic music” will tell you!
Still a higher level of accuracy than Led Zeppelin in sports arena.
And who said “accuracy” when creating a recording is the goal or was ever the goal? Maybe that’s what you’re looking for but that would be “a fool’s errand” as it’s virtually never the goal of those creating the recordings.
The subject of music, recordings, and playback has not been specified, so that's an open question.
Exactly, because the Harman curve is designed as a general listening preference of humans irrespective of the music or recording/mixing. And certain recordings may still need adjustments because not all recordings are perfectly balanced. However, you did specify the music and recordings because the BSO in a concert hall implies orchestral music and a specific (orchestral) style of recording and mixing. But even on the basis of you closing the question hugely, to this particular genre and recording style, still your assertion is incorrect, as I explained above.
While it is a good example of 'modern' recording of pop music - it’s not live, it is amplified. Not my reference. I'd be looking at 3 ribbon mike recordings of acoustic music played in a good hall with minimal post processing as being more accurate.
So your reference is a handful of recordings (out of countless millions of commercial releases) from half a century and more ago, which were already outdated even in their own time and have hardly ever been used since the early/mid 1970’s? Your reference excludes almost all recordings and almost everyone!
Have not read it. Age is a factor obviously.
Why would you argue and/or make counter “posits” in a science discussion forum without reading/knowing the science?
It’s not either/or. It’s a preference measurement - that appears to work for many. In the forms I have sampled it. I do not accept the results as acceptable as is.
You haven’t read the results but nevertheless you “
do not accept the results as acceptable”?
G
