neutrality vs. realism

61, isn't that a compromise between recording the performance somewhat "as heard" by the audience, but as well with a higher s/n ratio than would be possible if the mics were lower? Also, in MANY halls the first balcony yields a better natural "mix" than the orchestra.
Also the mics CANNOT deal with the Haas Effect (re primary vs secondary arrivals. Even in a small room (mine) I had to get my Earthworks omnis right on my Steinway's strings in order to remove the room sufficiently to actually BETTER the sound than what is heard from my playing position. Sure, the piano is too wide, but spectrally and dynamically its HYPER-real! (There's one for ya, Asa.)

I honestly don't know why the mic placement issue works the way it does, I only know it usually doesn't sound right if you try it otherwise. BTW, what preamp are you using with the Earthworks? Have you heard their speaker?

You see, this how a thread can be reasonable and mature between two groups who just see things from different angles. Because you rely upon science and its accuracies in the first instance, but default ultimately to the product of your accuracies, the result of your science (namely, listening), does not make you an over-bearing materialist; similarly, if you believe scientific measurements are an important tool, but not determitive to the end result of the experiement and that an over-reliance on their veracity can itself be a limitation towards improvement, does not mean you are a regressive New Age romantic idealist. This dialogue, absent egos which identify with ideas as who they are, can occur.

Paulp, interestingly we come down slightly on different sides of the line in ideas on how to get there - not very far apart I would think if we could talk face to face - but still seem inseparable on what "musicality" we are searching for, and which is, I would submit, the dermining factor in why we are here; our love of the beauty of Music transcends our views on how to achieve it.

The difference between us in not in listening, but, again, in the varibles used to get there, our main difference being, again, the assumptions we make, or do not make. Science operates by comparative reductionism; that is the empiricism within its method. In other words, an assumption has developed in science that if you divide something far enough you will disclose all its truth, even though science has not, as yet, conducted this experiment (which is then, by definition of science's own rules, an unscientific assumption). When you say that all sound can be described by scientific terms of further reductionism, even though this has not ocuured with sound (much less music), you commit this fallacy. Perhaps one day science will reach that Grail, or sufficiently so to sufficiently catalyze the mind, but that day has not arrived; scientific measurements can not describe spatio-temporal nuance to a sufficient degree to enable adjustment of the component in that regard strictly based upon those measurements. Even ignoring a Zeno paradox-like problem inherent in such a position (you can divide 1 infinitely, ergo, you can divide sound-pieces infinitely, so you never approach the definitive Truth through that reduction because there is always a remainder), there is no rational basis to conclude that such a reduction will reveal the essense of Truth/Beauty/Music.

My position is that you will always have to listen to hear that beauty in its deepest symmetries (and the experiment of science over the last three hundred years confirms this continual regressing truth into the infinite, i.e. Popper's observation of method that science always disproves the truth which they just "proved" was the Truth). I don't think the "what is" that is suseptible to the imposition of measurement wants you to only use your measurements - or believe that they will eventually be sufficient in and of themselves - to hear the deepest beauty.

As I said, however, the true paradox is that regardless of assumptions in our thinking - and, because we don't need to impose our ideas on each other but share them regardless of their differing content and orientation - we still meet in the middle on what we are here for: to find the beauty in Music.

At its finest, science and its measurements are an integral part of that/the Search.

People who are attached to either pole, namely, of romanticism (denial or reduction of science as a means towards that search), or of materialism (denial of Truth beyond material manipulation) are really the same; in their denials of the truth that each holds forth like a weapon towards the other, their claim of false exclusivity to the Truth, they deny themselves, and ensure their stagnation. They are not searchers, but egos with ideas that they seek to use against others. Regardless of our differing ideas, we are both Searchers, and in that, we transcend our differences - which turn out not to be SUFFICIENT differences at all. This is how we go forwards, together.

I look for Searchers.

What a nice man.

Actually, Asa, I am usually of two minds about just about everything, so on any given day, we might not have any differences at all.

As far as science goes, (this is a gross oversimplification of the systems approach) some try to analyze a leaf by cutting it up and looking at it under a microscope. I look at the tree.

I have a couple of email acquaintances who are always at odds with each other. One a pure subjectivist with no scientific or engineering training who really does not know how sound is recorded, stored and transmitted. The other a well-known math professor who really does know a lot about the science and engineering of audio reproduction. Both of them arrived at the same speakers (Harbeth Monitor 40's - I have smaller Harbeths) as The Truth. Most of the time, I agree with the professor that everything we can hear can be explained by things we already know.

Perhaps it would be instructional for us to look at Buckminster Fuller's theories and constructs which stem from his foundational principals of the inherent "duality" of nature. He has derived an entire "science" which revolves around the basic assumptions of his philosophies.

As it seems, we have arrived at a premise here, which requires "inclusivity" of two superficially opposing points-of-view, which inherently must both be included together in some way, if a "universal truth" is to be derived from this study/discussion. Since both ends use empirical data, albeit with different methodologies, a link may be available.

The superficial "duality"is a dilemma, and the obvious "goal" would be to find an underlying "tie", which would link both approaches with a "unified theory" of sorts.

We must find a way to swim through the ether, that appears to separate these ideas, but ultimately binds them together in an shadowy interconnected-ness, that is not easily seen by superficial inspection.

A question would then arise, do we start from one end and work toward the other, or do we start from an intermediate point and pull both ends toward each other at the same time?
Or it is even possible to bring them together? Would there be a "quantum break", in which closing in on one observation would cause it's counterpart to be less observable, such as is the case with sub-atomic particle speeds and locations? Are we dealing with a Von Schroedinger dilemma, where all probabilities exist simultaneously on a wave-function until observation occurs? Can we quantify the probability curves of these occurences, to make some useful data?

Or do we simply accept this duality as "yin & yang", with both being equally required for equilibrium, never meeting but never apart? With a philosophical satisfaction that the twain shall never meet, and that they are just roads to journey on the way toward enlightenment?

Just a few thoughts to ponder on this subject.