Sheep
Audioholic Warlord
Oh.... I'm not changing my length, and I don't think any man wouldI was referring to editing for length, not typos.
SheepStar
"Let our rigorous testing and reviews be your guidelines to A/V equipment – not marketing slogans"
SheepStar
J
Joe Schmoe
Audioholic Ninja
Glad to know that someone besides me sees the light.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
No, placebo effect is a human thing. We are all susceptible to it. I've found, over the years that I'm better at discerning audible differences or the lack of them than I was before I started blind testing, but I can be fooled just like anybody else. The difference is that, when I'm fooled, I understand that I am fooled and why I'm fooled. The religious audiophiles refuse to deal with the fact that they are fooled. "The difference is obvious. I heard it with my own ears!" I used to say the same thing. I still do when it is an objective test.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
On a side note. My wife and I have a 15 year old 27" Sony TV set in the bedroom and a DirecTV receiver to feed it. I was at a Target store today and found a DVD player that would fit in the furniture right next to the DirecTV receiver. So I bought it on a whim. $34.95. You can spend that much on a DVD. Hope it works.
J
jostenmeat
Audioholic Spartan
fmw, I understand the strong beliefs here along with their salient underpinnings. Without arguing whether my resultant beliefs were purely derived from placebo effects (which I would easily bet my life against, whatever, impossible to argue, right?), I would say that I would have returned or traded the unit if the case was otherwise. There are a lot of other things I would love to try in my system with that money spent. Lets see, hdmi HT pre/pro, BD player, Velodyne SMS-1, tubed 2-ch pre-pro with HT bypass.... However, I feel that this purchase gives me the most improvement for my needs: 2-ch music listening. (But, hey, I enjoy HT like the next guy...).
I never looked for them before, but I was curious what the Audioholics reviewers thought of cdp's. There are two of them and they both run for $700. Curiously, did anyone blast them for:
-not having graphs
-that the differences were only "in their head"
-that their writings were not "concrete", and failed to explicitly say so
-"better" sound quality is not a trait of a pricier player
-were surely suffering from placebo effects
-that they would only hear differences because they might crazy enough to spend $700 on a player
*feel free to continue list*
E.Sound E3 CD Player Review by Arvind Kohli
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/cd-players/east-sound-e3
Sony SCD-CE775 SACD Audience Mod by Gene DellaSala
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/cd-players/audience-sacd-mod
Surely you might forgive me as a first year audio neophyte. Can you forgive these long standing persons of repute who search for the "truth" with zero tolerance for "bullpoop"? Maybe people would indeed blast them if only if it was not for fear of being banned? One could suppose its possible. Cheers. Educational as always.
J
Joe Schmoe
Audioholic Ninja
No, I cannot. As if claiming that some CDPs sound better were not ridiculous enough, they are even claiming that modifications (the purest form of snake oil) can make a difference.
Of course, reviewers have to hear "obvious" differences, or they would have nothing to write about. This makes them even more susceptible than most to placebo effect.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Josten, I've been there. I've read high end audio reviews since before Stereophile and TAS existed. I used to write vacuum tube reviews for an audio magazine. All I can tell you is that, if you haven't experienced objective listening tests for yourself, you can't understand how powerful and pervasive placebo effect is. Don't bet your life on how reliable your ears are or someone like me will come along and prove you wrong.
Let me give you an example. Take two CD players. Test them objectively. Play one just 1 db louder than the other. You or I or anyone else will prefer the slightly louder one. If I conducted a blind test I would expect 80% or more of respondents to prefer the slightly louder one. Then reverse things and play the other one 1 db louder. You or I will instantly change our mind and prefer it over the first one. This will occur almost every single time you do it. A test like this isn't even testing to see which one "sounds" better. It is just pointing out how having our ears attached to our brains affects our preferences.
Don't misunderstand. I have no problem with people being guided by their preferences. I don't care if people think they can "hear" digital cables. Nor do I think people like me can't and shouldn't buy nice equipment. All I'm saying is that your ears, because they are connected to your brain which does the audio processing, are not a reliable indicator of audible differences. They are a great indicator of preferences but not audible differences.
Go do it. Hook up with a friend. Learn how properly to conduct an objective blind ABX test. Gather up some gear and dig in. You will need a sound pressure meter to match gain for the components under test. You can get one at Radio Shack or on Ebay inexpensively. That's all the extra equipment that is required. Then come back and tell us what you think.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Two more notes, Josten.
1. The SPL meter is also useful for balancing channels in a multichannel surround system so it isn't a wasted purchase.
2. Nowhere did I say that all CD players sound alike. What I said was that, when our group tested a bunch of CD players, they couldn't tell the difference between my two players which varied in price by a factor of more than 10. It is possible and even likely that one could find two CD players that would have audible differences in a properly conducted blind test.
1. The SPL meter is also useful for balancing channels in a multichannel surround system so it isn't a wasted purchase.
2. Nowhere did I say that all CD players sound alike. What I said was that, when our group tested a bunch of CD players, they couldn't tell the difference between my two players which varied in price by a factor of more than 10. It is possible and even likely that one could find two CD players that would have audible differences in a properly conducted blind test.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Sorry, Josten, I reread my post and noticed that I didn't respond to your comment about the Audioholics reviews. I don't read many reviews any longer.
I read the portion called "listening tests and conclusions" of the first review. I assume the author didn't reach these conclusions with objective tests. If he did, then he didn't write as though he did. I would say he was very much in the throws of placebo effect and, personally, I would ignore all of those comparative comments. They make good reading but not very good science or truth. What they represent is opinion and preference. So you would need to read them in that light. That's what I did. It is possible the audible differences described were real but I wasn't convinced of it by reading the review.
Other portions of the review were well done and valuable, I think. I wouldn't put any stock in the "listening tests and conclusions" section personally. You can if you like.
I assume these kinds of preference statements are necessary for the audience. Most people want to know how it sounds. So do I. I just don't want an opinion of how it sounds. I would rather have an objective test. Hope that helps you understand my perspective, at least.
I read the portion called "listening tests and conclusions" of the first review. I assume the author didn't reach these conclusions with objective tests. If he did, then he didn't write as though he did. I would say he was very much in the throws of placebo effect and, personally, I would ignore all of those comparative comments. They make good reading but not very good science or truth. What they represent is opinion and preference. So you would need to read them in that light. That's what I did. It is possible the audible differences described were real but I wasn't convinced of it by reading the review.
Other portions of the review were well done and valuable, I think. I wouldn't put any stock in the "listening tests and conclusions" section personally. You can if you like.
I assume these kinds of preference statements are necessary for the audience. Most people want to know how it sounds. So do I. I just don't want an opinion of how it sounds. I would rather have an objective test. Hope that helps you understand my perspective, at least.
Seth=L
Audioholic Overlord
Someone mentioned me?
I think I have a few bits of input to add to this very long thread.
Concerning the Sony PS1 used as a stand alone CD player. It sucks, plain and simple. I have A/B'd CD players and DVD players that all sound essentially the same to me. The PS1 and a few other cheapies like portables and the Integrated CD player in the Teac CR-H220 sound different than the others. Not because they are better, but because they have certain performance flaws. Interference plays a big part in the PS1 as well as in the integrated CD player in the Teac.
When I A/B/C'd the Toshiba SD-9000 (DVD player), Pioneer Elite PD-65 (15 pound CD player from 96'), and the Magnavox CDB-650/560 (circa 86-87' Disc spinners) and you know what I found? Well the Magnavox may have exhibited a tad more hiss (noise) the sonics where not varried much if at all. When I bought the PD-65 I really wanted it to sound great, I wanted it to just blow me away. I had gotten what I viewed to be a great deal on it and I enjoyed using it, but it never made me feel like I was getting more than before. In all honesty the Toshiba SD-9000 is more than enough CDP for me.
That isn't to say that expensive CDPs don't have their place. As fmw already stated. I prefer to use Rolls~Royce or Bentley for my comparison. They are beautiful cars to look at, they are luxurious, they have excellent warranties, and aren't prone to having major mechanical problems. A properly maintained Bentley can last a lifetime. High-end CDPs are just like that. They are built like tanks, have great warranties, and they look great sitting on the audio rack. There are also CDPs that have Class A tube stages instead of transistor to change the sound.
Back to the PS1. It sucks, it is a piece of crap for everything other than what it was intended for. Playing games. I sent a PM to Clint and Gene inquiring if they where interested in bench testing and measuring the PS1 SCPH1001's performance, or lacking there of, and I guess it didn't interest them. I would do it myself, but I don't have the tools or know how to carry out such a process.
Concerning it being stupid to spend more than $1000 on speakers. Who said that ever? I spend tons on speakers if I had the money. Problem is that many of us that are into audio can't really afford to put down $5000 on a stereo rig. Receivers are a very nice alternative for their flexibility and conveniance. There are high end receivers out their that you could consider to be audiophile grade like Arcam, but unless I see one on sale they can keep it.
I think I have a few bits of input to add to this very long thread.
Concerning the Sony PS1 used as a stand alone CD player. It sucks, plain and simple. I have A/B'd CD players and DVD players that all sound essentially the same to me. The PS1 and a few other cheapies like portables and the Integrated CD player in the Teac CR-H220 sound different than the others. Not because they are better, but because they have certain performance flaws. Interference plays a big part in the PS1 as well as in the integrated CD player in the Teac.
When I A/B/C'd the Toshiba SD-9000 (DVD player), Pioneer Elite PD-65 (15 pound CD player from 96'), and the Magnavox CDB-650/560 (circa 86-87' Disc spinners) and you know what I found? Well the Magnavox may have exhibited a tad more hiss (noise) the sonics where not varried much if at all. When I bought the PD-65 I really wanted it to sound great, I wanted it to just blow me away. I had gotten what I viewed to be a great deal on it and I enjoyed using it, but it never made me feel like I was getting more than before. In all honesty the Toshiba SD-9000 is more than enough CDP for me.
That isn't to say that expensive CDPs don't have their place. As fmw already stated. I prefer to use Rolls~Royce or Bentley for my comparison. They are beautiful cars to look at, they are luxurious, they have excellent warranties, and aren't prone to having major mechanical problems. A properly maintained Bentley can last a lifetime. High-end CDPs are just like that. They are built like tanks, have great warranties, and they look great sitting on the audio rack. There are also CDPs that have Class A tube stages instead of transistor to change the sound.
Back to the PS1. It sucks, it is a piece of crap for everything other than what it was intended for. Playing games. I sent a PM to Clint and Gene inquiring if they where interested in bench testing and measuring the PS1 SCPH1001's performance, or lacking there of, and I guess it didn't interest them. I would do it myself, but I don't have the tools or know how to carry out such a process.
Concerning it being stupid to spend more than $1000 on speakers. Who said that ever? I spend tons on speakers if I had the money. Problem is that many of us that are into audio can't really afford to put down $5000 on a stereo rig. Receivers are a very nice alternative for their flexibility and conveniance. There are high end receivers out their that you could consider to be audiophile grade like Arcam, but unless I see one on sale they can keep it.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Seth, I did a blind test two nights ago. I A/B tested my PS1 against my Harman-Kardon 7525 CD player (a player made at around the same time as the PS1 - maybe a little earlier.) I didn't haul out the signal generator, I just played some CD's. The results are very simple. The PS1 has a high noise floor. It has a weak output from the analog stage and requires a lot more amplifier gain to get to my 50db testing level than the HK. When you do so, it transmits audible noise. The noise level caused both me and my wife to score 100% in the listening tests. We were able to to pick out the PS1 blind every time. That doesn't say that the PS1 "sounds" better or worse than the HK. It just says there is a clear audible difference between the two players because of the high noise floor on my PS1. For that matter, another PS1 might be less noisy. Obviously, I only have one so I don't know.
I didn't bother to measure the noise floor. With the 100% score, I was't worried about what the measurements would show and, truthfully, I don't care what it is.
I didn't bother to measure the noise floor. With the 100% score, I was't worried about what the measurements would show and, truthfully, I don't care what it is.
Seth=L
Audioholic Overlord
I thought it sounded vailed, top end rolled off and the soundstage didn't seem as wide either. That may have been due to the output problem however. Does the PS1 you have have fixed audio outputs or just the adapter? (not that it makes a difference, but the audiophiles are praising the PS1 unit with RCA jacks, so they can make their connections with super high end cables.
)
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Mine has fixed cables. If there are different models, they could certainly perform differently. I don't have a clue.
If you didn't level match the two units you tested, then all bets are off. You would prefer the louder one every time.
If you didn't level match the two units you tested, then all bets are off. You would prefer the louder one every time.
J
jostenmeat
Audioholic Spartan
fmw, I appreciate the discussion. There is no doubt that you have a ton more experience in this field than I do. I wasn't betting that my ears were always reliable; I would bet my life that my cdp sounds much better with multiple facets than my dvd player. (Some people were bashing me for thinking its all "in my head", or that better sound cannot possibly be a trait of a pricier player...).
I appreciate this point, and you are prudent to cover it.
I like your last sentence here. My preferences were the audible differences, and the two greatest preferences happened to be the enormous reduction in sibilance and separation of the midrange.
It does sound fun. I would do it in a heartbeat, but Im not sure which friend to ask (I don't think any of them would have the patience for my test!). But, thanks to your encouragment, I think I will "save" this favor for a future purchase perhaps, namely for 2-ch pre/pro, probably to be purchased a half-year from now. Still, they might not want to agree, and this does include my professional musician friends.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, I do wonder about the variable of the testers themselves as well as the actual recordings. Let's face it, some people just hear better than others, and some recordings have much more "music" in them. Also, the familarity of any such recording. We all recommend bringing familiar cd's for speaker-auditioning for obvious reasons. The recording I spoke of earlier, a six-voiced Josquin mass, has vocalists singing "against" each other, while creating opposite dynamic phrases (Can't ever recall a single rock song that exhibited that. Then again most rock songs are more severely compressed as well). Without even speaking of "separation", "dynamics", "noise floor", if any of the recordings have vocalists, particularly of the female, just the great difference in sibilance will be a dead give-away already. Hence, recordings chosen will effect the ease of comparison.
Things to my advantage in such test: Extraordinarily transparent speakers in my Martin Logan Summits. Better-than-average ears with my intense musical background (I taught music in Europe for 2 years, performed in 5 countries, participated in and/or judged international competitions). Im not saying its genetic; Im saying that listening as intently as I possibly could was the main goal of my better years, simply put: experience.
I never really have read reviews either. I have never once bought an audio magazine. Never. The original motivation to see what the reviewers here said was in case they might think like some of you. It would help explain such strong opinions for something that in my case has been clearly the opposite, in my limited experience. I have only been going by my own ears during the collection of my gear.
How exactly are the AH "tests" different from your PS1 test? Please explain. BTW, they were comparing "good-quality" cdp's. My "comparison" is between, imo, a value-rich, albeit pricier, cdp with an entry-level universal DVD player.
Parting shot: I do appreciate these discussions. I have one, single, main worry. Sometimes when I listen to music now, I find sometimes I am no longer listening to the music. That instead, I am listening for elements of "audiophilia". I hope that this does not become a serious trend, because then the whole point of this hobby would be ruined, imo. Cheers.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Bashing would be inappropriate. However, all listening is in your head. It is the brain that processes the waveforms your ears detect. A better way to put it would be that the pricier player may or may not sound better but the only way to find out for sure is with objective testing. Subjective testing isn't good enough or, better, isn't definitive enough.
I wonder if you have gone through a hearing test. It is accomplished by playing various tones at different frequencies and at different sound pressure levels. The hearing is scored based on the number and details of the tones heard. In my case, age has taken away my ability to hear much over 14Khz so I've lost some high end hearing. Other people need a higher SPL than others to hear the tones. Yes some people hear better than other people but it is possible to setup listening tests for people of any hearing ability. As an example we deal with partial deafness by turning up the gain.
Using reference recordings is probably the best way to judge how something sounds. As a former drummer, I have a tendency to listen to snare drum attacks and cymbal tones on CD's with which I am familiar. The cymbals will often sound quite different during an ABX test. I think everybody uses reference recordings to get the job done.
Yes, indeed.
Yes, but you still fall prey to placebo like anybody else. I'm also a musician of about 30 years experience (piano and keyboards) and I understand what you are saying. But your humanity will trump all of your experience. Same with me or anybody else.
I assume some think like I do and some do not. It would be pretty hard to write a magazine based on objective testing because the content would be boring to most people and magazines have to deliver entertainment to stay in business. I think it is a lot like cable news channels. For the most part they are comprised of opinion and gossip. If it were all hard, objective news, they would probably lose the ratings game.
I don't know. I assume they explain their testing procedure somewhere on the site. I've never looked for it. I had no problem with audible differences in the PS1 test. Both my wife and I scored 100%. No question that the CD players sounded different. But the fact that they sounded different wasn't an opinion, it was a test result. Therein lies the difference.
Therein lies the most negative aspect of audiophilia. Listening to music is far more entertaining for me than listening to equipment. I rather envy my piano coach. He could care less how much fidelity is delivered. He is fascinated by the performer's technique and the way he deals with a given element in the music. It's fun to watch him listen to a recorded pianist and comment on the performance. It has nothing to do with audio fidelity. It has everything to do with piano playing. I sometimes break out in a sweat when I hear Oscar Peterson playing jazz piano. It just seems impossible that someone can play jazz like that. Yes he was classically trained at Julliard and turned to jazz when he couldn't get concert dates because of his race. What a treat that was for the jazz world and for him as well. He was in his prime in the late 40's and early 50's. The recordings aren't so hot but the performances are amazing.
The problem is that, since the ears are connected to the brain, the audiophile experiences inconsistencies in his reaction to audio equipment. What he liked one day, he dislikes another because of mood changes and who knows what else might be going on inside his head. There is alway another glittering piece of gear for him buy to replace something that no longer satisfies. I could buy a decent house with the money I've spent over the years trading audio equipment. I too have owned state-of-the-art Stereophile recommended, high end, super expensive gear. I liked it a lot. But I realize now it didn't have much more to do with enjoying music than what I use now. It had more to do with enjoying equipment.
With that, I'll end the rant. Take care.
J
jostenmeat
Audioholic Spartan
Its been a couple of decades since. I aced it then, but don't know the results. I don't see how hearing "only" up to 14khz is any big deal. No big deal at all. Assuming that 20khz is the ceiling, that 6khz difference is only barely over a "perfect fifth". You are still able to hear the lower 9 and 1/2 octaves. Good enough. I would say, at least with the fundamental tones, that none of my music ever breaks 3khz. With my collection of baroque and renaissance music, I doubt that there is a single note that is even over 1.5khz. So, 14khz will cover all that along with plenty of, if not all, the audible accompanying harmonics.
I, explicitly or not, have already conceded the point you are making. But, to take it to an extreme and unfair analogy, I usually know when I am talking to a female or male even with my eyes closed. Do I need someone to blind-test me? Depending on the recording, my two players offered tremendous differences in audio, in my subjective opinion
. As I said before, the differences were not subtle!! Placebo!!! IIRC, Gene had his wife swap players while he was "blind". They had identical recordings cued up in sync, I believe. He was surprised that he kept preferring the player under review, IIRC, when told by wife. He then proceeded to swap them back and forth for himself.
Although I don't own any Oscar Peterson recordings, I'll never forget the first time I heard a recording of his. He has a very impressive right hand. (Methinks his favorite classical stuff might have been Chopin
). I wish he used his left-hand more often for increased complexity of counterpoint. (My own bias, I think contrapuntal music is the greatest thing ever created! Even better than sliced bread!). I know one decently well-known composer was telling me that he thinks that Gould is the only pianist ever to have a left-hand as adept as his/her right hand. I dunno. Argerich could be a candidate, but then again, she plays a ton of Chopin too... Sometimes I find audio to be similar to searching for a good instrument. Firstly, there is always compromise, period. That being said, some are more clear, some have more pleasant coloration, some have wider dynamic range, some play soft stuff very well, some play loud stuff very well, some have better separation, some are easier to play, some have better balance, etc, etc, etc. I think a lot of those adjectives can be applied both ways. Better instruments and better speakers can do a number of things well, at the same time. However, rarely or never all traits. What's great about speakers/audio is that all you have to do is put on a disc! So much easier....
Anyways, for the enjoyable tangent of music performance, one thing that a pianist does not have to concern himself with is "fingerings", not as in which finger to use, but where to play the note. (Another is that simply lifting the key will "stop" the note). Any one note can be played on only one key. This is unlike stringed and wind instruments. Im not saying piano isn't freaking the most difficult thing ever because it is, but it does point to some "music fidelity" issues that are not dealt with by pianist. If I were to play two contrapuntal lines simultaneously, say, on a guitar, depending on how one "fingers" it, some musical intention can be lost, or something seriously simple as clarity/separation. Then, certain instruments offer less clarity than others in "higher positions", leaving options even more limited. Not that these instruments are worse or better, only that this is not a particular strength (even happens with top-notch +$20k instruments). Then choices are re-made once again for live performance vs recording. I do truly love piano, both classical and jazz. I have one decently sized cd book that is dedicated to solo piano recordings only. (Chamber stuff, concertos, are all categorized elsewhere).
You know, I almost dropped the uber-expensive audio rig purchase for a near impossible to obtain instrument purchase. (We get one per year in the US, specifically here in CA, and price is double here at about 30k, plus purchase must be made years in advance before even getting to audition it). Seller was asking 10k for it (he and his wife were staying at my place during his California portion of a recent US tour). It accidentally dropped and broke in 5 places, all of which were cleated by original luthier. To get a new one (if the luthier even makes them anymore), you must be world-famous, and bring the sum in cash. The luthier then does not count the money. He uses a caliper. He told the original seller that 3 bills were missing. He was right! I have a soft place in my heart for formerly damaged instruments. My violin is over 200 y.o., but it was affordable to me since it had a major reparation in 1991. It was also affordable because its not Italian!
I also have a guitar that was the luthier's personal instrument before he committed suicide. He beat the living hell out of it. You too.
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
You're right. There is only one place on the keyboard to play each note and that's certainly not true of a lot of instruments. I think what makes the piano difficult is the polyphony. The guitar is polyphonic too and difficult for the same reason.
I studied classical guitar for a couple of years and just couldn't seem to make much progress with it. I was never able to leave my fingernails alone either and they need to be strong and long. It's pretty foreign instrument for a keyboard player. I still have my Yamaha student guitar. I keep it tuned but rarely play it. I have a lot of respect for people who have mastered the guitar. It isn't easy.
I heard Oscar Peterson live three times. Once in Portland, OR, once in Denver, CO and once in Chicago at the famous London House. In Chicago, when the trio took a break at one point, Oscar stayed at the piano and played Bach for about 20 minutes. He may be a fan of Chopin. I don't know. But he is certainly a Bach fan and he plays it well. His left had was just fine, thank you.
I'll tell you an interesting story. I played drums in a jazz trio in Colorado many, many, many years ago. The pianist was a good jazz man, perhaps the best in Colorado at the time.
His dream was to study with Oscar Peterson and he applied. Oscar invited him up to his home in Toronto to talk about it. When he arrived, Oscar talked to him a little and suggested that he go back to his hotel and practice "Satin Doll." My friend said he played Satin Doll all the time and would happy to jump into it right now. Oscar smiled and told him no. Go to the hotel and practice and we'll meet in the morning. In the morning, my friend showed up and Oscar showed him to his Baldwin. He said. Let's do Satin Doll, key of B. Ready, go.
My friend said. It's written in B flat. Nobody plays it in B. Oscar said. Well, but you should be able to handle it in B, shouldn't you? When you think you can play it in B come on back up and visit. My friend returned to Colorado feeling pretty down and out. He was a fine pianist but not yet good enough to study with Oscar Peterson. That was in 1966. I haven't heard from that piano player since I left Colorado.
I studied classical guitar for a couple of years and just couldn't seem to make much progress with it. I was never able to leave my fingernails alone either and they need to be strong and long. It's pretty foreign instrument for a keyboard player. I still have my Yamaha student guitar. I keep it tuned but rarely play it. I have a lot of respect for people who have mastered the guitar. It isn't easy.
I heard Oscar Peterson live three times. Once in Portland, OR, once in Denver, CO and once in Chicago at the famous London House. In Chicago, when the trio took a break at one point, Oscar stayed at the piano and played Bach for about 20 minutes. He may be a fan of Chopin. I don't know. But he is certainly a Bach fan and he plays it well. His left had was just fine, thank you.
I'll tell you an interesting story. I played drums in a jazz trio in Colorado many, many, many years ago. The pianist was a good jazz man, perhaps the best in Colorado at the time.
His dream was to study with Oscar Peterson and he applied. Oscar invited him up to his home in Toronto to talk about it. When he arrived, Oscar talked to him a little and suggested that he go back to his hotel and practice "Satin Doll." My friend said he played Satin Doll all the time and would happy to jump into it right now. Oscar smiled and told him no. Go to the hotel and practice and we'll meet in the morning. In the morning, my friend showed up and Oscar showed him to his Baldwin. He said. Let's do Satin Doll, key of B. Ready, go.
My friend said. It's written in B flat. Nobody plays it in B. Oscar said. Well, but you should be able to handle it in B, shouldn't you? When you think you can play it in B come on back up and visit. My friend returned to Colorado feeling pretty down and out. He was a fine pianist but not yet good enough to study with Oscar Peterson. That was in 1966. I haven't heard from that piano player since I left Colorado.
Sheep
Audioholic Warlord
Who's long winded now?
SheepStar
SheepStar
J
Joe Schmoe
Audioholic Ninja
Seriously! Geez.Who's long winded now?
SheepStar
F
fmw
Audioholic Ninja
Sorry, I was having a conversation with someone. I'll know better than to do it again here.
Sitemap
Site Information
Site Information
HTML
